Jewish students from antisemitic harassment on College Campuses. Good morning. The District Committee will come to order. Wouldnt we welcome everyone to the hearing on examining antisemitism on College Campuses. Before i give my opening statement, and before mr. Connors gives his, im going to yield to him to say a word about the tragedy that occurred in texas over the weekend. Good morning. I thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome all nine witnesses. The distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Simpson. Let me just say briefly, that before discussing the important topic of todays hearing, i want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency. On sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 churchgoers sutherland springs, texas. We now know that information concerning his courtmartial for Domestic Abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the National Instant criminal background check system. He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the brady background check system. Yesterday, before this information came to light, i wrote to you, mr. Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our members tomorrow afternoon by atf on the issue of bump stocks be expanded to include the fbi to discuss the background check issues related to sutherland springs. And that the briefing be conducted as a formal hearing open to the public. Now that we have even more information that theres been a breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, i ask respectfully that we include relevant officials from the department of defense and the air force. And i believe as i think you do too, that we should proceed quickly to learn what happened and the public deserves to hear answers directly. Therefore, sir, i renew my request and expand it concerning tomorrows briefing. And i thank you for this opportunity. I hope the gentleman will yield. With pleasure. I thank you for your comments and i share his concern about having an effective nics system. And that data about the Domestic Violence go into that system, including data that may be developed as part of our military tribunal system. Therefore, we will look into a briefing on that subject. Whether it can be accommodated quickly enough to be done tomorrow or not, well have to see. But my plan is to proceed with the briefing by the atf. If we cant incorporate the other into that briefing, we will do it another time and certainly take under advisement your request there be a public hearing. I think its important we get as much information to be informed as possible. Thats where we stand right now. I thank you for that. I thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. I was the one who was insistent in putting the instant check system in the brady bill, passed and signed by president clinton in 1993. And at the time the legislation was drafted, i made the point that the National Instant check system would only be as good as the data that was put into it. And it took about five years to appropriately automate and input records, not only for felony convictions, mental incompetency adjudications, as well as Domestic Violence legal action, and we found that one state kept all of these records a s in boxn 3 x 5 cards located in every county courthouse. That took a while to automate that. So i dont think we can blame the law for the failure of these transaction of the shooter to be identified and sale being denied. I dont think we can blame the system, which we set up almost 25 years ago, because the system has worked in hundreds of you tos of cases. I think we have to blame the air force for not doing what was necessary to let the system be able to identify this gentleman when he came and purchased the firearm, that he ended up using a truly horrific killing, as people were in church trying to express their freedom of religion and worship god by their own consciousness. So we have to identify why this failure was. And its not just the air force. It could be any clerk of court anywhere in the country that could have done that. And i think this has got to be a lesson that when youve got something that is disqualifying that has been adjudicated by a court, get it into the system and get it into the system right away. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank you. I want to return to focus on the important matter thats before us today, but we will proceed with the briefing tomorrow. And we will add Additional Information or a separate briefing depending on what time allows. Thank you. I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement. Racism and antisemitism are abhornet whenever they clear. While our civil rights laws have long addressed discrimination based on race, sex, ande et ethnicity, a debate is ongoing there is widespread bipartisan condemnation of antisemitism, which is abhornrentabhorrent. Im also concerned about the socalled bds movement, an effort that, through boycott, divestment and sanctions, seeks to End International support for israel. It took just 11 minutes for the United States to recognize israel after it declared independence in 1948. Ever since then, the United States and israel have had a strong relationship based on shared Democratic Values and Common Security interests. I will do everything i can to ensure that relationship remains strong. There are those who disagree in various ways, of course, including student, faculty and administrators on College Campuses. I will do everything i can to ensure their right to speak is protected under the First Amendment of the United States constitution, and free speech generally. Its in that spirit in welcoming all perspectives ive convened this hearing today. When do speakers or student protesters that are harshly critical of israel constitute antisemitism . What is the nature of antisemitism on College Campuses today . Has the department of education in the past or today adequately examined it on College Campuses . How does existing law address harassment based on anty semitism . And what precedence would they set, good or bad . Those are just some of the questions i like forward to discussing with todays witnesses. Its now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I welcome the witnesses. I wanted to mention that todays hearing on examining antisemitism on College Campuses is a part of a continuing discuss that our Judiciary Committee has had on the confluence on our twin interest. Protecting equality of opportunity and freedom of speech, and institutions of higher education. Our particular focus today is on antisemitism, one of the most ancient forms of prejudice that, unfortuna unfortunately, not only continues to exist, but in some places, has even seen resurgence in recent years. As we hear from our distinguished pam of witnesses, i would like for us to keep several points in context. To begin with, antisemitism on college and university campuses, like other forms of discrimination against students, remains a very real concern. According to the antidefamation league, as of september 30th, antisemitic incidents increased by 67 in 2017, compared to the same period last year. And there was a significant surge in these incidents after White Supremacists marched in charlottesville last august, which some of them shouted jews will not replace us. Additionally, the league reported a disturbingly high number of antisemitic, bullying, and vandalism incidents in k12 schools and College Campuses across the United States. In recent years, other reported incidents included the vandalism of Campus Property with swastikas and the passing out or posting of leaflets with white supremacist and antisemitic content on campuses. In light of the foregoing, i whole heartedly support the department of educations 2010 guidance interpreting title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so as to protect jewish students and other religious students from discrimination. This guidance rightly clarified that while titles six, which prohibits discrimination on the base else of race, color, or National Origin in programs that receive federal funding, does not include religion as a protected characteristic. It does prohibit discrimination against members of religious minorities if it is based on an actual or perceived, shared ancestry or ethnicity. Although this guidance dates from the obama administration, the Trump Administration so far seems inclined not to change this interpretation. And i would encourage the Current Administration to continue to keep it in effect. Finally, while we must ensure a campus learning environment free from discrimination, we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate and even offensive political debate on controversial topics. The vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a fundamental hallmark of a democracy and academic freedom. Indeed, other than in the context of speech that amounts to objectively severe or pervasive harassment, and a few other limited circumstances, the remedy for bad speech is more speech. Equality and free speech are not and must not be pitted against each other as if they were opposing values. Both values are central to our democracy, and to ensuring a free society. In closing, i thank the chairman for holding this important hearing, and i look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Conyers. We welcome our distinguished witnesses. If you would all please rise, ill begin by swearing all of you in. [ oath given ] let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. This a wonderfully distinguished panel. All of you have excellent professional and academic credentials. You might not be surprised to learn, im not going to give all of those details about you. So these introductions are on the brief side. Our first witness is rabbi andrew baker, director of International Jewish affairs. Our second witness is pamela nedal, director of Jewish Studies Program at american university. Our third witness is rabbi abraham cooper, associate dean and director of the Global Social action. Our fourth witness is barry tractenberg, the michael r. Of chair of jew wish history at wake forest. Our fifth witness is paul clement, a. Sandra hagee parker. Our seventh witness is jonathan greenblatt, National Director of the antidefamation league. Our eighth witness is suzanne nossell, executive director of pen america. And our ninth witness is ken stern, the executive director of the justice and Karen Rosenberg foundation. Welcome to all of you. Your written statements will be entered into the record. And we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes to help you stay within that time, theres a timing light on your table. When the light turns red, time is up. And it signals your five minutes have expired. Rabbi baker, you can begin. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member conyers. In my work at ajc and the osce, i have focused on europe and the problem of antisemitism there. While the number of incidents and their severity are much greater than here in america, there are important parallels that have bearing on addressing antisemitism in this country, in particular with the situation on our College Campuses. This has much to do with the essential first step of understanding the nature of antisemitism, and the importance of defining it. 15 years ago, we saw a surge in incidents. We also saw a new form of antisemitism, whereby the state of israel was demonized, where its basic existence was being challenged. This affected the lives of European Jews themselves. They were conflated with israel, and subjected to attacks as a result. Merely given voice to their own pro israel views could subject them to social intimidation and personal harassment. In 2004, the European Monitoring Center conducted its own survey on antisemitism, collecting and evaluating data and conducting personal interviews with jewish leaders. At the time, few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone specify those submitted. A majority of the own monitors did not have a definition of antisemitism to guide them. The personal interviews in the study reveal the level of anxiety and uncertainty that had not been seen in decades. They acknowledged the need for to help governments in understanding and responding to the problem and to make sense of the predictions of the jewish leaders survey. In the fall of 2004, the eumc director invited me to present her with a definition of antisemitism. We began with the contributions of academic experts in the field. They were shared with other scholars and practitioners around the world, until a final draft document achieved consensus. So in march 2005, it issued what has come to be known as a working definition of antisemitism. A core paragraph with examples. Let us also be clear, the purpose of this definition and of the eumc itself was not just to assist monitors in filing reports, but to make a difference in the daytoday safety and security of jews and of all europeans. To increase understanding to raise awareness, yes, to be used by Civil Society and government monitors, but also by law enforcement, by justice officials, and educators. References to antisemitism with regard to the state of israel were both the most important and the most controversial in this definition. Antiisrael animus was behind many of the attacks on jewish targets, even as government authorities dismissed them as political acts. The extreme verbal attacks had their own corrosive impact on Jewish Community security. The examples were designed to bring charity to this new form of antisemitism. For those who feared it could inhib it critical debate, the definition stated one should take into account the overall context, and also that criticism of israel, similar to that level against other countries, cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Over a decade has passed since this definition was issued, and we can see why using it has become valuable. Then administrati demonstrations in europe started as antiisrael and become antisemitic. So the definition is part of Police Training in the uk and included in a newly published guideline on Jewish Community security. In a synagogue in germany, it was determined not to be antisemitic because of the religious affiliation of the attacker. In austria, a call to kill jews was deemed not antisemitic for the same reason. Thus, the austrian and german ministers of justice include the definition in Training Police and prosecutors and judges. In may 2016, i adopted the definition. Its since been adopted by the governments of the uk, germany, bulgaria. Earlier it was recommended for use by the European Parliament and the osce parliamentary assembly. The u. S. Government has its own record of use. The global antisemitism review act of 2004 called on the state department to appoint a special envoy and stated that antisemitism has, at times, taken the form of vilify case of zionism, the Jewish National movement. And incitement against israel. It called on state to report on acts of antisemitism around the world. And that report and subsequent one, the working definition was employed. Im an advocate for using it, if were to be successful and combatting antisemitism, we must first understand it, and define it. Some said it would be used to stifle criticism of israel. But theres ample evidence in europe that public criticism of israel is even more vocal than a decade ago. But theres also a recognition of the very real problem of antisemitism as it relates to israel and the dangers it poses to the Jewish Community. This ought to be instructive when addressing antisemitism as it appears on College Campuses. Finally, in the osce, im often joined by colleagues. Some people said adopting a definition of antisemitism would lead to demands of other definitions. But that has not happened. Those problems are no less serious than antisemitism, and the need for governments to address them is every bit as critical. Rabbi baker, your time has expir expired. If you could sum up. My last sentence, even though representatives of vulnerable groups are not saying they need a definition, unlike antisemitism, those other forms of prejudice are easy to recognize. Its sadder still that they are so prevalent. Dr. Nedal, am i pronouncing that correctly . Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member and distinguished members of this committee for inviting me today. As a scholar of American Jewish history, and also its president of the association for jewish studies for scholars in my field, i know our countrys encounters with antisemitism began in 1654 when 23 jews landed in New Amsterdam and the governor tried to expel what he called this deceitful race of hateful enemies and blasphemers. If he succeeded, perhaps he would not be here this morning. But he failed and since then jewish immigrants have come to america from around the world and called our nation home. As citizens, American Jews enjoy the same right to freedom of speech that allows others to voice their contempt for the jewish people and the jewish religion. Antisemitism has waxed and waned across the land scape of american history. The political moment, economic dislocations, social forcing, movies in their heyday, and social media in ours, set its volume control. We are, by all accounts, sadly of one of those moments where the volume on antisemitism in america is turned way up. When protesters chant jews will not replace us, American Jews are rightly fearful. The hard evidence about the rising numbers of antisemitic incidents is indisputable. But todays hearing is about the climate of antisemitism on campus, triggered by the colleges and universities as hot spots of antisemitism and antiisrael bias. Our campuses really hot beds of antisemitism or places where jews, one minority among many, meet from time to time . Stupidity and sensitivity and prejudice, is antisemitism so pervasive on the campus, its created a hostile climate for jews . Social scientists find when jewish students are handed a list of antisemitic statements, nearly three quarters confess that they were exposed to at least one of those statements in the past year. But the same students do not characterize their campuses as antisemitic. Instead, they report that they feel safe there. When they do experience discomfort as jews, they trace it to tboth sides of the pal t e palesti palestineisrael debate. Students say antisemitic expression comes mostly from their peers, not from professors or the discrimination. One study recognizes that we have more noise than Accurate Information about what is really happening on campus around antisemitism. The students surveyed are smart. They recognize that antisemitism is a significant problem in american society. But they dont characterize their campuses as antisemitic. Their Research Confirms my own impressions, and also what i hear from my association for jewish studies colleagues, teaching around the country. Unquestionably, there are explosive incidents. Death to israel and all jews posted on a facebook page. But deplorable incidents do not prove that the cam tpus is rifef antisemitism. When such revolting racist incidents occur, the response from the University Leaders is forceful and swift. We hold town halls, we issue statements of condemnation, we offer counseling and opportunities for healing, we launch investigations. Perhaps there are campuses where administrators respond differently to such events, but i believe them to be the exception . Are antisemites targeting campuses . Unfortunately, yes. Is antisemitism at the epicenter of campus intolerance as one report claims . Has it created a climate of fear that impinges upon jewish students ability to hearn and experience college life to the fullest . My experience, an unequivocal no. Thank you. Thank you. Rabbi cooper, welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Conyers, good to see you. Distinguished members. In the past several years, jewish students on certain College Campuses, not all, but a large number, have been subjected to unprecedented levels of antijewish sentiment, leading many to feel uncomfortable participating in jewish campus life or other campus activities, whose participants are particularly hostile to jewish students. Jewish students cant bring speakers to school like every other group can, because the speakers will be heckled into silence. Theyre off reluctant to run for Student Government at some schools because theyve seen the numerous times in just the past few years that jewish students have been called out, because they are jews. And often excluded from Student Government expressly due to their involvement in jewish life on campus. These incidents of hate and intimidation are widespread and impacts on campuses with large and small constituencies. They impact on jewish support group groups. This led to an act to be created to ensure individual students that can report these incidents immediately and they are not allow. Mr. Chairman, were se are here seeking the committees health. Too often schools have been allowing intimidation of jewish students that they would never allow happening to other groups, because until now, they know there are no consequences. The department of education does not protect jewish students the way it protects other groups. The failure of schools to protect jewish students on campus is one of the most pressing issues for the american Jewish Community. That is why every main stream credible Jewish Organization in the nation, some of whom are here today, came together last year to demand equal protection under the law for jewish students. As you know, that is why the Senate Passed the bill unanimously. Mr. Chairman, i brought a few recent illustrations. This one posted by a professor at rutgers university. Others from university of houston, university of california berkeley, ill submit them later. That show us in realtime whats going on, on the campuses. While this is a distressing national phenomena, permit me to delve into the events in my own state of california. I will instead of giving the examples that are already quoted, let me just say that the few antisemitic incidents, some of them that are reported at the university of california, jewish students on many campuses from coast to coast, report severe, persistent and pervasive harm at the hands of antiisrael activists. That often includes physical and verbal assault, destruction of property, denigration, discrimination, and suppression of speech. It often takes place regardless of the victims personal feelings on israel. Jewish students report fearing displaying their jewish stars or even walking to synagogue for dinner. The university of california, then president mark udoff, commissioned a Fact Finding Team to interview jewish students on seven uc campuses in order to objectively assess the Campus Climate for them. According to the teams report, jewish students were indeed confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus which focused on israel, its right to exist, and its treatment of palestinians. The team found on every uc campus they visited, jewish students described an environment which they felt isolated and many times harassed and intimidated by student, faculty, and outsiders. Despite the undeniable hostile environment that many jewish students experienced at uc california, complaints filed under title six of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, on behalf of jewish students on three campuses were unceremoniously dismissed on the same day in august of 2013. Mr. Chairman, usually members of the clergy go on very, very long and look for a dispensation from the good lord from the clock. I will instead just cut to the chase in the last two paragraphs. Had ocr officials used the state departments definition in identifying the basis of the harassment that targeted jewish students, they would have recognized the antisemitism at the heart of it. Instead, ocrs lack of an adequate understanding of antisemitism has effectively denied jewish students equal protection under the law and left them vulnerable among our peers. Thats why we ask you and your colleagues to support our request and to move this legislation forward. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Thank you, rabbi. Thank you, mr. Chairman, and members of this committee. Its an honor to be here today to testify. Im grateful that youre soliciting a wide range of voices on this important subject, because the right of students and faculty to express diversity is what is at stake in the current attempts to limit campus speech. Its common to hear reports of a new antisemitism threatens to engender students on a scale not seen since the second world war. Studies from sounded the alarm that this is a clear and present danger, and commentators have argued that another war on the jews is upon us. However, theyre motivated less by an actual threat than they are part of a Persistent Campaign to thwart debate and political activism critical in the state of israel. The truth is, the old antisemitism, such as we saw in charlottesville this summer, its still alive in the United States and requires vigilant and persistent resistance. Legislation such as antisemitism awareness act is not a genuine attempt to contend with antisemitism but to quell somewhat are protected acts of speech and to the functions of democratic societies. A study by researchers at Stanford Report that while depictions of antisemitism are widely reported in the press, they dont represent the actual experiences of jewish students at the campus level. In general, students reported feeling comfortable on their campuses and feeling comfortable as jews on their campuses. Much of the testimony youll hear today is likely to argue that antisemitism is at a crisis levels. I urge you to be skeptical of these claims. Second, many studies are based on a definition that defines criticism of israel as inherently antisemitic. Students who engage in speech critical of israeli policy are motivated by palestinian rights. It is profoundly difficult to create a definition of antisemitism for legislative purposes. Throughout the last thousand years of european history, jews were characterized as an exceptionalist element who sought to under mine the political and economic order. In each of those moments, jews were imagined as a united group that possessed power and authority far beyond their actual numbers. In 1948, when the founding of israel, the situation changed. A significant number of jews gained actual and not imaginary power. Today, the state of israel has board es, police, courts, a nuclear arsenal, political parties, and a somewhat democratic system of government. Like all other states, actions must be permitted to be a matter of public debate and discourse within the Jewish Community and outside of it. Yet speech thats critical of israel strikes many as antisemitic. The problem is we are still learning how to talk about israels actual political power in ways that do not echo imaginary jewish power. This is because as we see in a legislative initiative, to characterize any speech critical of israel has been a highly effective tool and seek to stigmatize all critics. To insist that israel cannot be objected to, to main date that collective that jewish power can no be debated or conclude that jews, because they were once victims of humanitys greatest crimes, reinforces the antisemitic belief that jews are a fundamentally different people. Most dangerously of all, attempts to broaden the definition of antisemitism, can only make it more difficult to recognize, isolate, and oppose actual antisemitic behavior when it does appear. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its a pleasure to be here. Its a particular privilege to be here representing the adl, and the jewish federations of north america. There are at least three kinds of issues floating around the room this morning. One is the extent of the problem. Two is the policy wisdom of addressing it with a clarifying definition of antisemitism. And the third is whether providing that definition raises problems under the First Amendment. The others on the panel are much better situated to address the first two issues. Ill direct my remarks to the third issue and to say that providing a definition along the lines that the antisemitism awareness act would do does not raise First Amendment problems for thee basic reasons. One, is that this act is not a speech code but simply provides a definition that will allow the Education Department to use potentially speech, but only for evidentiary purposes evaluating whether or not harassment is motivated by antise mettism. One way or another, government officials will be looking into this question, and it serves First Amendment values to have a definition that guides their mission. And third, i think frankly least importantly, the fact that the act has a savings clause. So on the first of these points that its not a speech code, i think its very important to understand that this act does not take any speech and make it illegal or impermissible. So Somebody Just like they could do today, could engage on campus in the most abhorrent antisemitic speech and the Education Department would not take action just for that. But if they couple that with a physical attack on a jewish student, then this act, and the constitution, allow the use of that antisemitic speech to demonstrate the motive of the person engaged in harassment. And the First Amendment clearly prohibits that or permits that rather. Which is to say this isnt even controversial in the sense that when speech is not prohibited, but only is used for evidentiary purposes, the First Amendment is not offended. The Supreme Court laid down that rule in wisconsin against mitchell, a unanimous decision. There werent that many things that chief rehnquist and Justice Blackman agreed on, but this was one of them. This allows them to decide whether or not something is antisemitic. The second major reason i dont think theres a First Amendment problem here is we have a clarifying definition. Providing a definition to government officials who one way or another are going to be looking at speech, providing a definition serves First Amendment values. The First Amendment generally abhors government officials looking at speech with unfettered discretion. But thats essentially the status quo. Whatever congress does here, if congress does nothing, its still going to be the Education Departments position that title six forbids harassment motivated by antisemitism. So the question boils down to whether the Education Department officials are going to make that judgment without a definition or with a definition. And i certainly think it serves First Amendment values to guide that discretion. I think the one area of the First Amendment for a while that government officials had no guidance was, was the obscenity area, where the Supreme Court, at least for a while, famously had the we know it when we see it test. I dont think anybody thinks that was the finest chapter in the Supreme Courts First Amendment jurisprudence. And really right now, the status quo is antisemitism, well, the Education Department officials will know it when they see it. Or at least we hope they will, because they have no guidance, no definition guiding their work. Thats what this law could change. Mr. Conyers, you made the point about being concerned about First Amendment values in this area, and i share that concern. I do think, though, that the First Amendment issue in this area, is largely what is the standard for harassment. If that is a hair trigger and anything that offends anyone is harassment, then i do think there will be First Amendment problems. But i take the current law to be that the harassment standard is the same standard the Supreme Court laid down in the title nine context in davis versus monroe. So if you want to make that more demanding to protect First Amendment values, you could do that. If you wanted to make it slightly less demanding, you could do that. But this takes the existing standard and provides a definition. Just two last thoughts. One is, i know the chairman has raised the question of why a definition here, when you dont have a definition in other contexts. I do think if there were a real definition of what constituted racist speech or there was some argument people used to cover racist speech, we would want a definition. Uniquely in this context, somebody can Say Something antisemitic, and somebody can say, dont worry, it was just anta ant antizionist. We also have a savings clause here. But thats the hooes important reason why theres not a First Amendment problem. Ms. Parker, welcome. [ inaudible ] we represent 3. 8 millions, whose sole purpose is to stand united on behalf of the jewish state and arm them with the truth. Because the Lessons Learned in classrooms today become the policies in the Public Square tomorrow. Within these classrooms, intellectual discourse, academic freedom, and the freedom of speech are sack row sank in understandingdy very gent groups. Despite this, with increasing regularity, jewish students and groups and those who support them, find themselves having these sacred rights abridged. This past summer, a group of students from San Francisco State University filed a lawsuit alleging the school knowingly fostered antisemitic discrimination, marked by violent threats to jewish safety. Student jacob men dell experienced hostile behavior, ignored by the university. He stated i felt scared to be a jew on campus. I felt as if the university did not want me there, because i was jewish. And as if we werent allowed the same rights as other organizations on campus. I felt like a second class citizen because i was jewish. Brian landry wrote the following this past week in the california newspaper as a jewish student, i have seen my fair share of antisemitic actions on campus. Ive had foul and intolerable words yelled at me while im studying because i had a sticker of israel on my laptop. Antisemitic students shouted death to jews at my friends and me. What i havent seen is an open statement by the school about any of these events. Due to the lack of exposure and punishment for these acts, other students dont know what happened. We cannot change what we are not willing to confront. Infiltration of this behavior without confrontation has led to its normalization. So much so that those who experienced this discrimination often feel reporting it is a waste of time, due to the regularity which it occurs, and complicity with which it is encountered. So pervasive is this harassing behavior, it spills over to nonjewish individuals. Many of our students have personally experienced that mere standing with jews or the jewish state has resulted in the same hostility. For instance, at the university of new mexico, a cfi student had rocks thrown at them and they were spit upon. At george mason, a cfi student wearing a cfi tshirt was confronted, cursed and yelled at in front of several hundred students and told she was disgusting and a baby killer. Hs 2. 5 hours
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.