June 19, 2020

A petition demanding that accounting professor Gordon Klein be fired from his position at UCLA’s Anderson School of Business, where he has been teaching for nearly four decades, has garnered more than 21,000 signatures since it began circulating earlier this month. In the meantime, the university has suspended him until June 24, as death threats against him and his family multiply.

Klein’s transgression? Rejecting a request by students—self-described as “non-Black allies” of their African-American peers—that he extend the Black people under his tutelage extra leniency on their final exams.

The stated reason for the plea was the trauma that Black students are suffering in the wake of George Floyd’s killing on May 25 by a Minneapolis police officer and in the face of ensuing civil unrest throughout America.

Klein responded to the June 2 e-mail asking that he forego normal standards and procedure by invoking Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream” speech.

“Thanks for your suggestion … that I give Black students special treatment, given the tragedy in Minnesota,” he wrote. “Do you know the names of the classmates that are Black? How can I identify them since we’ve been having online classes only? Are there any students that may be of mixed parentage, such as half Black-half Asian? What do you suggest I do with respect to them? A full concession or just half? Also, do you have any idea if any students are from Minneapolis? I assume that they probably are especially devastated as well. I am thinking that a white student from there might be possibly even more devastated by this, especially because some might think that they’re racist even if they are not … One last thing strikes me: Remember that MLK famously said that people should not be evaluated based on the ‘color of their skin.’ Do you think that your request would run afoul of MLK’s admonition?”

Rather than appreciating their professor’s aversion to discrimination, the students in question called Klein’s decision “extremely insensitive, dismissive and woefully racist.”

Such charges are so ridiculous that they barely warrant a rebuttal. Another of their accusations, however—that he was being “tone deaf”—is worth taking seriously. For what it reveals is that MLK’s legacy is out of fashion, if not obsolete.

Though obfuscated by the noise of the Black Lives Matter movement, King’s lifelong dream—that his children “one day [will] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”—has become his successors’ nightmare.

Though obfuscated by the noise of the Black Lives Matter movement, King’s lifelong dream—that his children “one day [will] live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character”—has become his successors’ nightmare.

Yes, the sad fact is that BLM members and supporters now scoff at such a notion, even while paying lip service to King as a paragon. Indeed, if they weren’t in the process of renouncing his philosophy, Professor Klein would be hailed for his moral stance, not persecuted and placed on leave.

Nor is the aspiration to an America that puts character over color the only aspect of King’s ideology that the current climate has eradicated. His views on Israel, too, are ignored or denied by BLM anti-Zionists and their Jewish fellow travelers.

In a letter to Jewish Labor Committee national chairman Adolph Held on Sept. 29, 1967, less than four months after the Six-Day War, King denounced an anti-Israel resolution introduced at the Chicago Conference of New Politics.

“If I had been at the conference during the discussion of the resolution,” he wrote, “I would have made it crystal clear that I could not have supported any resolution calling for Black separatism or calling for a condemnation of Israel and an unqualified endorsement of the policy of the Arab powers.”

He went on to say, “Israel’s right to exist as a state of security is incontestable,” adding, “It is not only that anti-Semitism is immoral—though that alone is enough. It is used to divide Negro and Jew, who effectively collaborated in the struggle for justice. It injures Negroes because it upholds the doctrine of racism which they have the greatest stake in destroying.”

How King would have reacted to the way in which Black and Jewish radicals are distorting the spirit of the joint effort that he had championed is anyone’s guess. Though their endeavor does involve “struggle,” it bears no resemblance to “justice,” certainly not where color-blindness and Israel are concerned.

Three years after its establishment in 2013, BLM and an alliance of more than 60 affiliated groups issued a policy platform labeling Israel an “apartheid state” that perpetrates “genocide” against Palestinians, and therefore should be subjected to a complete academic, cultural and economic boycott.

Experiencing pangs of unrequited love, liberal Jews were miffed. After all their efforts to equate racism and anti-Semitism, viewing their battle against blanket hatred as being shared by their black counterparts, they were (foolishly) surprised at the vitriol.

Left-wing Jewish ideologues, on the other hand, had no problem with the platform, as it jibed sufficiently with their politics.

This explains the attitude of the latter to today’s protests, riots and looting spurred by and in the name of BLM.

Take the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), for example. In a June 12 statement titled “Black Lives Matter is a Jewish value,” URJ announced, in part: “Throughout the past 400 years, Black people in America have been enslaved, subjugated, disenfranchised, murdered and discriminated against. From generation to generation, white Americans, including white Jews, have failed to own and end the systemic racial injustices on which the nation was founded, and instead have actively or passively perpetuated these injustices …

“To affirm that Black Lives Matter is to commit to a human and civil rights movement, working to end systemic racism against Black people and white supremacy …

“To affirm that Black Lives Matter is to accept discomfort, knowing that actions or inaction of white Jews have contributed to ongoing racial injustice…

“To affirm that Black Lives Matter is to acknowledge that Black people risk their personal comfort and safety every day in white dominated institutions, and that white Jews must commit to risking their personal comfort and even safety in the struggle for racial justice …

“To affirm that Black Lives Matter is for white Jews to reflect on their own thoughts and behavior, to build meaningful relationships with Jews of Color and People of Color generally, and to work for reforms that will achieve real, lived freedom for Black people.”

MLK was gunned down in 1968 by a confirmed racist. Today, his legacy is being assassinated by racists in denial.

Stuck in the middle of the peculiar declaration is the following: “To affirm that Black Lives Matter is to recognize the imperative to live with complexity and know that we can be steadfast in our love of and support for Israel while working side by side with those who hold differing views and express them respectfully.” As though BLM’s dim view of the Jewish state is merely a “differing” one.

Perhaps the URJ believes that its mea culpa manifesto will grant it immunity from the movement’s anti-Semitic elements. It won’t, of course, but a far more significant point about the document is that it goes against everything that Martin Luther King Jr. stood and fought for throughout his career.

MLK was gunned down in 1968 by a confirmed racist. Today, his legacy is being assassinated by racists in denial.

Ruthie Blum is an Israel-based journalist and author of “To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the ‘Arab Spring.’ ”

In the weeks since the brutal and unjustified killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer, America has been undergoing what The New York Times approvingly called a “reckoning” that marks a fundamental shift in attitudes about race.

But the onset of this surge of public soul-searching and consciousness-raising about race has brought with it a trend that is deeply troubling. The heightened sensitivity about racism has led not merely to an epidemic of insincere virtue signaling about racism. It’s also brought about a flood of accusations against alleged offenders that have more to do with politics, and out-of-control illiberal and intolerant social-media mobs, than making the country a better place. The widespread “canceling” of people who are deemed racists is becoming a serious problem.

The question is, if it’s so easy to cancel someone for not going along with the prevailing orthodoxy about what constitutes racism, why does engaging in anti-Semitism not bring about the same moral opprobrium from the media and the cultural forces taking down people for dissenting from the Black Lives Matter catechism?

Why does engaging in anti-Semitism not bring about the same moral opprobrium from the media and the cultural forces taking down people for dissenting from the Black Lives Matter catechism?

Examples abound of instances in which people’s careers and lives are being ruined because of their refusal to bend the knee—literally or metaphorically—to a Black Lives Matter movement that is determined to condemn anyone who dissents from their ideology or even question it.

One involves Gordon Klein, a professor at UCLA’s School of Management who was placed on leave and had his classes taken away from him after refusing to grant African-American students exemptions from taking final exams because of their collective state of mind after the death of Floyd. The university took that action after angry students accused him of racism and because he had paraphrased Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous statement about judging people by the content of their character, rather than the color of their skin. Klein, who had taught at the school for 39 years, was doxxed by the students (they made public his email and home addresses) and is now under police protection because of death threats.

He isn’t alone.

Tiffany Riley, a Vermont school principal, was placed on administrative leave for a Facebook post that said that while she agreed that black lives matter, she didn’t support coercive measures to advance that cause or the demonization of police.

Harald Uhlig, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, was fired from a consulting job at the Federal Reserve for saying that Black Lives Matter had “torpedoed itself” by aligning the movement with calls for defunding the police. A mob of outraged economists and journalists led by The New York Times’ Paul Krugman wanted Uhlig’s head on a spike for this offense. Though Uhlig had issued a groveling apology for his heresy, the Fed acceded to their demand, saying there was no room at the institution for “racism,” even though the economist’s statement could not credibly be described as such a thing.

There are many other examples of similar incidents of people being canceled over dubious accusations of racism. But what is also interesting about what’s going on is that far more egregious examples of anti-Semitic hate aren’t producing the same results.

There are many other examples of similar incidents of people being canceled over dubious accusations of racism. But what is also interesting about what’s going on is that far more egregious examples of anti-Semitic hate aren’t producing the same results.

One prominent example was that of popular comedian and television star Chelsea Handler, who approvingly posted a video of National of Islam hatemonger Louis Farrakhan on her Instagram page this past weekend.

Handler said a Farrakhan statement on racism from an old clip from “The Phil Donahue Show” was “powerful.” Farrakhan is a purveyor of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and vituperation against Jews. But according to Handler, his comments about the evils of racism directed at blacks deserved to “stand alone.”

When a commenter asked her if she would single for praise out some out-of-context statement of Adolf Hitler, she argued that Farrakhan’s hate was different because “he is just responsible for his own promotion of anti-Semitic beliefs. They are very different.”

In other words, anti-Semitism is just another opinion an otherwise laudable person might hold, not evidence of murderous hate.

In the current moral panic about racism, one might have expected a surge of anger directed towards Handler by her colleagues in the entertainment industry, in addition to announcements that indicated that both individuals and companies wouldn’t work with her in the future. That didn’t happen. Instead, several celebrities even more famous, such as Jennifer Anniston, Jennifer Garner and Michelle Pfeiffer, voiced support for Handler.

Handler’s ability to survive this incident with her career intact shows that myths about Hollywood being controlled by the Jews are nonsense. It’s also likely that most Jews in the entertainment industry are either so cowed by the Black Lives Matter movement that they wouldn’t dare to act against her or actually agree that anti-Semitism shouldn’t disqualify Farrakhan from being considered a respected voice. But the pass for anti-Semitism doesn’t just exist in the arts.

Handler’s ability to survive this incident with her career intact shows that myths about Hollywood being controlled by the Jews are nonsense.

In early 2019, newly elected Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) made a splash by engaging in anti-Semitic incitement against Jews and Israel with accusations about AIPAC buying congressional support for Israel with “the Benjamins,” coupled with charges that supporters of the Jewish state were guilty of dual loyalty.

While many on both sides of the aisle condemned her remarks, when push came to shove, congressional Democrats refused to censor her. While at the same time Republicans were punishing Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for remarks that seemed an endorsement of white nationalism, Omar was rewarded with a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee, where she could pursue her vendetta against Israel and support for the anti-Semitic BDS movement.

More than that, she got a pass from the same cultural forces that are canceling dissenters from the BLM mantra by being treated as an honored celebrity. Nor has that changed, since during the past two weeks she has made the rounds of the Sunday-morning talk shows, where hosts like CNN’s Jake Tapper fawn on her.

The practice of shaming, shunning and silencing those with unpopular or even offensive views is antithetical to democracy and the free exchange of ideas. That is especially true when it involves actions or statements that are not actually racist.

At the same time, it says something truly ominous about our society and culture that questioning the BLM movement—even while avowing that, of course, black lives matter—can destroy a career, while endorsing anti-Semites and even engaging in Jew-hatred is not considered a big deal. We already know that the consequences of giving anti-Semites a pass can lead to horror. Apparently, those who pose as the supposedly enlightened guardians of our culture have either forgotten that or no longer care about it.

Jonathan S. Tobin is editor in chief of JNS—Jewish News Syndicate. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.