Not long ago I posted (here and here) about an unsavory episode of anti-semitism at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA). Rachel Beyda, a Jewish sophomore student who was a candidate for the student council’s judicial board, was interrogated and initially rejected by fellow students solely because she was a member of Jewish organizations—something that supposedly gave her a “lack of objectivity” as well as “divided loyalties.” After a faculty advisor admonished the council for their foolish “conflict of interest” objection, she was then voted in.
The students who voted against her tendered a notapology, and Gene Block, the UCLA chancellor, offered lukewarm sympathies, praising the tepid apologies of the “no-voting” students and avoiding a mention of the religious discrimination. Block also called the incident a “teaching moment,” a phrase I don’t think he would have used had Beyda been black, gay, or Muslim.
To wind up this tale, Steve Lubet, a law professor at Northwestern here in Chicago, did some further digging, and found that Beyda’s initial rejection was part of a wider pattern of anti-Jewish discrimination at UCLA. This is part of what Lubet posted at The Faculty Lounge (I’ve bolded a bit that shows the hypocrisy of students singling out Beyda for her religion):
The votes against Beyda were not cast in a vacuum. Rather, they were the predictable upshot of a political situation at UCLA that has become increasingly hostile for many Jewish students.
For the past year, there has been a concerted effort at UCLA to rid the student government of anyone who might be insufficiently antagonistic toward Israel, which was seen as necessary to the passage of a BDS (boycott, divestment, sanctions) resolution. And as it turns out, at least three of the four anti-Beyda voters have been closely connected to that campaign. It is often said that the BDS movement is aimed only at Israel and not at Jews, but this incident shows just how easily anti-Zionism can give rise to what might be called Judeophobia – the assumption that Jews are politically suspect until proven otherwise.
In April 2014, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) brought a Judicial Board complaint against two USAC representatives, seeking to disqualify their votes on a divestment resolution because they had taken sponsored trips to Israel. According to the SJP complaint, such travel to Israel constituted an improper “conflict of interest” that should have prohibited the two representatives from voting on a divestment resolution (which had failed to pass). The Judicial Board, however, voted to reject the SJP petition, referring to it as “dangerously volatile” and holding, without dissent, that trips to Israel did not evidence a conflict of interest and that the two representatives’ votes against divestment had thus been “valid and legitimate.”
Notwithstanding that rebuff by the Judicial Board, SJP demanded that candidates in the next election to the USAC sign a pledge that they would not accept sponsored trips to Israel. At least two of the anti-Beyda voters signed that pledge, which also accused several Jewish organizations of Islamophobia and efforts to “marginalize multiple communities on campus.”
Moreover, three of the four USAC representatives who voted against Beyda had run for office on the “Let’s Act” slate, which was endorsed in full by SJP. Following their election, two of them sponsored an ultimately successful BDS resolution that was supported by an array of ethnic and religious student organizations. Yet it was only when Beyda sought a position on the Judicial Council that “conflicts of interest” due solely to group membership suddenly became a burning issue.
. . .The conflation of Beyda’s Jewishness with “divided loyalty” is especially appalling, given that at least three of the four no-voters had campaigned for office on the basis of their own affiliations with religious or ethnic organizations. (I could not find campaign materials for the fourth.) Two of them produced a joint campaign video in which they touted their leadership in the Muslim Students Association and the Iranian Student Group. Another of the objectors circulated a flyer identifying himself as the president of the Sikh Students Association. All of this would be unexceptional – indeed, quite admirable – if the same three students had not expressed such deep concern about Rachael Beyda’s membership in Hillel and a Jewish sorority. In the world of the SJP endorsees, there is no impediment to campus office-holding by a Muslim, Iranian, or Sikh activist (nor should there ever be, of course), but the nomination of a self-identified Jewish student rang very loud alarm bells. What is the difference?
This Judeophobia has apparently arrived here, too. I wasn’t that surprised to learn, from an article in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, that anti-semitism is around on my own campus—the University of Chicago. There are highly touted pro-Palestinian lectures, anti-Israel slogans scribbled on the sidewalk in chalk, and repeated letters in the student newspaper about “hate speech”, all referring to criticisms of Islam. As Haaretz reports:
What began with a post about Northwestern University passing a Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions motion against Israel turned into a discussion about Palestinian death tolls and those who “support slaughter of innocents on the basis that the killers have the same race/religion.” It wasn’t long before jabs were made at individual Jewish students. A social media intifada had erupted.
The assaults spilled into posts on the moderated, anonymous UChicago Secrets Facebook page: “As a person of Palestinian descent, I don’t think it is unreasonable for me to hate Jews;” ”People are hypocrites. This is Fact. One example? The Jews at UChicago. Why? They all have grandparents who survived the Holocaust. This doesn’t stop them from denying the Holocaust in Palestine right now;” and “There is no more backwards and conservative community at UChicago than the genocide apologists in hillel and other jewish organizations.”
It is shocking that students at one of the top universities in America – where liberal values are enshrined and Plato is a rite of passage – could hold such parochial views and express them behind the cowardly mask of anonymous social media. I wonder if the timing of these attacks – just a week after the BDS motion passed at Northwestern and days before “Israeli Apartheid Week”– had anything to do with the assaults.
Here are some of those posts. Now I don’t claim that anti-semitism is rampant here, but the presence of these posts (and they may all be by one person, though I doubt it), suggests a hidden Judeophobia among at least some students.
Finally, Breitbart reports that Ayaan Hirsi Ali gave a sold-out talk in Boston while promoting the film Crossing the Line 2: The New Face of Anti-Semitism on Campus (I’ve put it up before, but you can see the whole thing on YouTube here). Hirsi denounced the current wave of anti-semitism on campuses and the BDS movement. From her talk:
It is appalling that only seventy years from the Holocaust, crowds in Europe chant, “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” It is even more appalling that 10,000 soldiers in Paris are needed to protect Jewish sites. That is the continent that promised never again. The men and women who were in the concentration camps, who are tattooed, some are still here. And it is happening again.
. . . I have a different acronym for BDS. They call themselves Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. I call them Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage. Bully, Deceive, and Sabotage the only society that is free in the Middle East. BDS. On campus, if you care about issues like justice and injustice, we really need to show it. You need to do it. Where is the BDS movement against the Islamic State? Where on campuses is the BDS movement against Saudi Arabia? The Iranian regime, who for decades have promised to wipe Israel off the map, who are developing a bomb. And there’s no BDS movement against them on campus. Why? Last year in Nigeria, 200 girls were kidnapped. They were sold into slavery. There was no BDS movement against Boko Haram.
Sadly, Hirsi Ali, who is surely the best candidate to replace Hitchens as one of the “Four Horsemen” (which would then be called “The Four Horsepersons”) has been repeatedly attacked by the “social justice warrior” faction of atheism because she works for a conservative think tank (the only people who would hire her!) and because she’s made some rather extreme statements about Islam. Perhaps those statements can be understood in light of her horrible oppression, forced marriage, and genital mutilation at the hands of, and in the name of, Islam.
Regardless, Hirsi Ali also been a tireless activist for women’s rights and the perfidies of Islam. She’s written two wonderful books, Infidel and Nomad, recounting her dysfunctional upbringing, her rise to renown (and infamy) through her own diligence, and her subsequent hounding and threats by Muslims. For that she has been so demonized by Muslims that she requires round-the-clock bodyguards. And now she’s demonized by atheists as well: she was named one of the “Five most awful atheists” (along with Sam Harris and others) by Ian Murphy at Alternet. (Hemant Mehta, to his credit, disagrees.)
Appalling.
Is it just me, or does the term “Israeli Apartheid” demonstrate that the user misunderstands both a historical and a current event? I fail to see how those two events are at all congruous.
If I could record myself saying that I’ve never defended or endorsed the political leadership of Israel or the tactics of the IDF, that I support a two-state solution and that I feel sympathy for the people of Plaestine because of the violence, I just can;t agree with the sentiment that Israel is the colonial western oppressor and Palestine it’s innocent hapless victim because that statement just isn’t true, and then loop it, it would save me a lot of time.
The ignorance displayed by many of those who are anti-Israel frustrates me too. There is so much they just don’t know. They look at death tolls and assume Palestine good, Israel bad.
However, I’m hoping Netanyahu loses the election – imo he’s made the situation worse with his intransigence. Herzog may be able to get people to take a closer look at Hamas, and admit how much of the problem they cause. Their Charter could have been written by Nazis – it even refers to the long debunked Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
Not sure what I put the “however” in for!
I agree, particularly about Netanyahu. I do feel as though his regime has made the situation worse. And I’m even less enamored of him after his speech before congress.
Unfortunately, it appears that we will still have Bibi to kick around.
Yes, it would appear so. I awoke this morning at 6am and turned on BBC world news and the very first headline was Likud wins. I should probably apologize to my neighbors for yelling crap(!) really, really loudly.
Yes it drives me crazy too and there is often no reasoning with them.
When you’re a Jew with a non Jewish sounding last name (like me), you quickly learn how anti Semitic many people are. And the Left is notoriously anti Semitic for different but equally appalling reasons the Right is. For the Left, we cannot be forgiven for becoming powerful and fighting back. We rejected perpetual victim hood and by taking power over our destiny are no longer in need of the Lefts parochial and ineffectual sympathy and “protection”. The Rights anti Semitism is more rooted in eschatological and race/culture bigotry. That’s the reality. I hear it every freaking day.
That’s interesting, particularly with respect to the Right’s (at least in the US) now fervent pro-Israel stance in effort to support the evangelical desire for the hastening of the Temple of Israel’s rebuilding (and of course the rapture = not so great for jews afterall), while the Left views Israel with disdain whilst denying the menace of extremist, truly militant Islam.
I guess it could be pretty dicey, and often unwise, but have you ever had the urge to inform the people you’ve just heard being anti-Semitic that you are in fact a Jew?
I’m glad that I’m learning more about this situation, and that’s in no small part due to the posts I’ve read here at WEIT (thanks!). I have to say I’ve been quite ignorant of this new wave of anti-semitism until recently. I wonder if similar feelings permeate the Canadian university culture? Certainly, BDS movements are common, but such explicit anti-semitism like that observed at UCLA? I wouldn’t be surprised if it exists, but I would like to find out more.
There are serious studies of anti-Semitism in Canada but I think that Ryan Bellerose, a Metis from Canada, can give a taste of it. Here are just two links (he wrote more on the subject):
http://www.israellycool.com/2014/08/06/of-skullcaps-and-asshats/
http://www.israellycool.com/2015/01/27/none-is-too-many/
Thank you! 🙂
As a graduate of UC Berkeley, I am appalled at the doings at our sister campus in Los Angeles. Considering that the Los Angeles area has the second largest number of Jews of any city in the US, this is particularly ghastly.
I work at a Canadian campus and when I read about this stuff on WEIT I started keeping my eyes open to it.
One day I saw some students had a table that was to “save Palestine”. They had all the incorrect information you normally see there. I started thinking the bias had permeated here too.
However, the next day, in the same location, was a Jewish group with their table. I don’t know what they were about because they just had an Israeli flag behind them.
When I was a student (+20 yrs ago), I saw none of this. It could be I was just studying and didn’t notice but I think, as an atheist, I would remember if I had.
When I was a student, 45 years ago, there were plenty of flags. Most of them were North Vietnamese. Those were the days. You kids….
That war that we were gonna learn so much from…
sub
As a U of C alumna, this makes me so sad, and so sick. And as a mother, whose Jewish daughter will step onto a campus in about a decade, it makes my stomach turn. I have no idea where the world or Israel will be then, I have no idea how my daughter will feel about being Jewish, or how she’ll express it. But I’d like her to have the freedom to figure those things out without pressure to hide her identity.
I find all this so foreign. I never saw any of it when I was at school. As an atheist, I jsut find in peculiar to dislike someone for their religion, which sounds ironic, but it’s usually the religious people that dislike me for being an atheist.
I think part of the reaction to Ms. Hirsi Ali also has to do with who she’s married to, the conservative hackademic Niall Ferguson. She’s a courageous woman to be sure though, and a strong advocate of reality regarding Islam.
Yes, yes, that has to be brought up in any conversation about her, doesn’t it? We know. I do not see how that has affected her philosophy, politics, or message one bit.
Ok. You may well be correct. People with widely different viewpoints can be married that’s for sure. Just pointing out why some may have questions about her. Seems to me though atheism is closely allied to skepticism, which is something I find hard to turn off sometimes.
It seems that when men marry bimbos it’s not necessarily held against them, but when smart women marry questionable men…
😉 Yeah, and think of all the male politicians and government appointees who employed illegal nannies & such but never got called on it.
But I digress…
+1
Oh, I couldn’t agree more. And I’ve seen plenty of evidence that her marriage makes many quite skeptical.
Sounding like a broken record, I’ll say once more that it was only through reading her books that I overcame my own skepticism. (Which had nothing to do with Ferguson, whom I was unaware of back then. I’m just skeptical about any new sensation…)
Niall Ferguson made me go “wot” when he posited, in a documentary, that “the West” surpassed the East because of the Protestant work ethic. That Eastern Europeans, Asians, and southern Europeans all fell behind because Catholicism, Islam and any other religion that isn’t Protestant was somehow opposed to hard work.
Yes, I had a look at his Wikipedia entry, which comprised a lot of what’s been presented here now & then (even though the subject of the conversation was never originally him). There seemed to be much that was questionable.
Still, the subject is Hirsi Ali. It may or may not be unfortunate that she ended up with the employer and/or the husband she did. But when I read her or listen to her speak I do not pick up any “taint” as it were from her associates.
She is such a fascinating person, having essentially reasoned her own way to Enlightenment values through her singular efforts and self-education despite a childhood of extreme oppression and often outright violence, not to mention religious fundamentalism. My impression is that she now tends to start with an open mind about everything, and is not beholden to any traditional political definitions (though of course she self-identifies as a strong liberal). She may still be a work in progress when it comes to some subjects. She’s a very quick study, though.
Infidel is one of the most encouraging and inspiring books* one will ever read, and I can’t recommend it enough.
*Not to mention, readable. It’s a real page-turner.
I shall put Infidel on my to read list.
I just had to complain about Ferguson! 😛
Sadly Hirsi Ali does not pass the shibboleth test for left wing purity.
Instead she thinks for herself without concern for labels. Oh the humanity!!)
I hear what you’re saying…But when I think AEI I think Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Dinesh D’Souza, Jonah Goldberg, Bill Kristol, Charles Murray…and I just can’t get past that.
You would not have had to “get past that” if any left-wing think tanks had had the cojones to hire her.
For the record, Ms. Hirsi-Ali is one of my personal heroes, and her book Infidel is one of the most meaningful books I’ve ever read.
Could not agree more.
Also, thanks for spelling cojones right. 😉
I take it you’ve not read her books, then.
No I haven’t. I’ve only seen several of her her debates on youtube, which I find very impressive, as well as her personal story. Sorry if it appears I do not put people on pedestals though, because I don’t. I agree that if left-leaning think tanks excluded her that’s unfortunate and not to their credit. But it does make me wonder why a successful writer and speaker who is no doubt personally wealthy and widely sought after for her personal viewpoints needs to join a think tank.
Since you don’t seem able to construct an reasonable answer for yourself, leaving you to wonder, let me suggest one for you.
Hirsi Ali was being driven out of her adopted homeland by threats. She needed a place of refuge and wanted to live in the US. She needed a job. Brookings, and other “left leaning think tanks” were approached and declined. AEI offered and she accepted.
How that can leave you wondering about HER motivations instead of those at Brookings, etc., is beyond me.
And what is the question I was supposed to come up with a reasonable answer for? I recall only one question which I answered. Seems you’re more concerned about people agreeing completely with you.
A nearly complete quote is your question.
Why would “a successful writer and speaker who is no doubt personally wealthy and widely sought after for her personal viewpoints needs to join a think tank”?
“I wonder” means what follows is a question.
“But it does make me wonder why a successful writer and speaker who is no doubt personally wealthy and widely sought after…”
If she’s now personally wealthy, I’d suspect it’s more from her AEI salary than her books and appearances. Most authors who aren’t Stephen King or John Grisham make relatively little from their books, and while Infidel is a fantastic read, it’s also one that people think (wrongly) would only interest a niche audience. Nor do the sorts of speaking engagements she’s invited to pay royally. Then there are all the precautions she has to take to protect herself and her family…
Conservative think-tanks do way more than just “think” (for themselves or otherwise).
And have you read Hirsi Ali’s books?
A “senior fellow” at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Bill Frezza, holds words-to-the-effect that American corporations have no duty or obligation to concern themselves with the general significant problems of the U.S. with which a U.S. President must concern himself. Corporations only obligation is to “maximize shareholder value,” eh?
I think that’s pretty much inevitable, no? Which only makes the case for governmental oversight and regulation. Which, of course, has been tossed out the window, at least in the US.
For a corporation to be altruistic is maladaptive. I think we’re desperately in need of an international union movement, of which there have already been some hints, here and there. Unionizing is never pretty, though.
Concur with your sentiments regarding unions.
“For a corporation to be altruistic is maladaptive.”
Just to congenially explore – by “maladaptive” do you mean that altruism does not maximize profits/shareholder value? Shocked, shocked.
Corporations are run by flesh-and-blood human beings. To the extent that any such moral obligation or duty to be altruistic exists, they are no less obligated to consider other humans in their decision-making. Jest mah opinion.
Ninety or so years ago, IIRC, the Dodge brothers, investors in Henry Ford’s company, sued Ford because he was paying his employees a wage a few cents per hour greater than the competition was paying. Ford did this because he was trying to reduce turnover, and to reduce hiring costs associated with such high turnover. The noble, altruistic Dodge brothers didn’t see it that way, and the result was that it effectively became the law of the land that corporations had a fiduciary duty to maximize shareholder return. How nice for corporations today; they can always throw up their hands and say, “Hey, this is what the law requires.”
In the hard-copy NY Times yesterday is an article about U.S. corporations violating the (military) Servicemembers Civil Relief Act with their bloody mandatory arbitration clauses. Of course, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has no problem with arbitration.
To the extent that U.S. corporations presume that their “values” are “American Values,” does corporation opposition to and violation of this act constitute one of those “American Values” that the flower of our youth preserve, protect and defend by joining the military and going in harm’s way to possibly be killed or maimed for life?
I do enjoy your writing, especially your sublime use of irony.
“Just to congenially explore – by “maladaptive” do you mean that altruism does not maximize profits/shareholder value? Shocked, shocked.”
Yep, that pretty much captures it. Also, theoretically, it’s competition between corporations that leads to greater ingenuity, sleeker operation, and ultimately benefits the consumer. (Ha!)
I say “theoretically” because of the tendency to collude (which is ostensibly illegal) or to become monopolies. Despite the latter, though, we still have a handful of oil companies, a scattering of pharmaceutical firms, etc., so there is competition, so capitalism is supposed to take over and make everything hunky dory.
So there is no incentive and plenty of disincentive for corporations to act altruistically, unless they can do so without cost. Because the other corporations are going to be keen to take advantage of the self-induced burdens of altruism of the first one to try it.
Of course in the real world corporations do commit some acts of altruism, because it’s very good PR. I always wonder why consumers should be impressed, though, because all the funding for such gestures ultimately comes from them.
“Corporations are run by flesh-and-blood human beings. ”
Hey, not only that, now they’re actually people themselves! 😉
“To the extent that U.S. corporations presume that their “values” are “American Values,” does corporation opposition to and violation of this act constitute one of those “American Values” that the flower of our youth preserve, protect and defend by joining the military and going in harm’s way to possibly be killed or maimed for life?”
Brilliantly put.
One does need to remember that the most powerful corporations are all international, which makes regulation that much harder and blurs their association with the “values” of any one country.
The questions about where the BDS movements are for Iran, ISIS, etc. are strike me as odd. Neither ISIS nor Boko Haram receives any significant Western investment or business dealings, nor do they have a government to which we could apply sanctions, so a BDS movement wouldn’t make any sense. Iran doesn’t need a BDS movement, since by law businesses and other organizations are heavily restricted in their dealings with Iran and sanctions have already been imposed.
The question about Saudi Arabia does make sense. I would venture to guess that a significant part of it is due to the fact that Saudi Arabia does a good job of keeping information about its human rights violations generalized and under wraps, so they don’t inspire popular outrage. (The few specific cases that became known did inspire it, but they are too few and far between. Journalists might be justifiably too afraid to go there to report more specifics, plus I suppose journalists largely want to talk about what other people are talking about.)
Whereas you can read about specific Israeli abuses several times per week if you want to, so it keeps the topic in people’s minds, and the Palestinians are a visible and identifiable underdog. I’m not aware of any similar situations elsewhere in the world right now.
China and Tibet comes to mind, as does Russia invading Ukraine.
I think people see tha Palestinians as the little guys being picked on. It’s easy to see it that way if you don’t look below the surface.
Also, I find Muslims support Palestine simply because they are Muslim. They don’t need any other reason. And, I have to wonder if they support Palestine also because of long standing Muslim hatred of Jews.
I think Hirsi Ali’s whataboutism was nicely addressed by this person here:
https://youtu.be/HD9UycYavi4?t=21m53s
The clip is worth watching in full because so many excuses for apartheid have stayed the same.
Whew (sigh, sub)
Have these people no understanding of the ugly, twisted history of the expression “divided loyalties” — used against German-Americans (including US citizens) during War-1, against Japanese Americans (including Nisei, born in this country, for Chrissake) to toss them into internment camps during War-2, and against the Jews, pretty much always and everywhere? It has been used countless other times, and never to good end. You would think that, among supposedly educated people, it would be the collocation that dare not speak its name.
Atlantic article on the rise of anti semitism in Europe:
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/03/is-it-time-for-the-jews-to-leave-europe/386279/
sub