Activists at CUNY Refuse to Cooperate with Independent Probe into Rampant Anti-Semitism

Activists at CUNY Refuse to Cooperate with Independent Probe into Rampant Anti-Semitism

Edited by: Fern Sidman

A recent investigation into rampant anti-Semitism at the City University of New York (CUNY) has been hampered by the refusal of anti-Israel activists to cooperate, according to a comprehensive report overseen by Jonathan Lippman, the retired Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. A New York Post report indicated that the probe, which was initiated by the state to address mounting concerns over anti-Semitism on CUNY campuses, encountered resistance from key groups critical of Israel, who feared the investigation could infringe upon their free-speech rights and potentially label them as anti-Semitic.

Independent Review Concludes CUNY Needs to Do More to Combat Anti-Semitism on Campus https://t.co/hfKyaEnEtK pic.twitter.com/KffDXu8i7t

— Janie Johnson – America is Exceptional (@jjauthor) September 26, 2024

The investigation, which aimed to assess both the presence and handling of anti-Semitism at CUNY, was met with reluctance from individuals and organizations that vocally oppose Israel. These activists chose not to engage with Lippman’s team, citing fears that their views might be misinterpreted or that their participation could lead to accusations of anti-Semitism. According to the report in The New York Post, Lippman noted that “there are people who thought the deck was stacked against them. They hurt their own cause.”

Lippman acknowledged that distrust permeated the environment surrounding the investigation, making it difficult to gather a wide range of perspectives. The activists’ refusal to participate undermined the integrity of the probe, particularly in the effort to include diverse viewpoints on the volatile Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the broader issue of anti-Semitism on campus.

Independent Review Concludes CUNY Needs to Do More to Combat Anti-Semitism on Campushttps://t.co/JiED78mjue

— HotAir.com (@hotairblog) September 25, 2024

 Those who declined to cooperate with the probe raised concerns over the potential consequences of their participation. According to The New York Post, many feared that their critiques of Israeli policies would be conflated with anti-Semitism, a longstanding and complex issue in discussions surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lippman, however, strongly refuted these concerns, arguing that his team sought a balanced investigation.

“During the course of the review, we became aware that certain students, faculty, and organizations were advising people not to speak with us. I understand that some of those individuals were concerned that my team was trying to ‘target’ individuals who may have engaged in anti-Semitism or spoken out against Israel,” Lippman said in his report, as cited by The New York Post. He called such charges “flatly wrong and wholly misguided,” emphasizing that the investigation was designed to provide a comprehensive and impartial review of all aspects of the issue.

Fighting Campus Anti-Semitism Requires More Help from the Biden Administration https://t.co/eajJXm2jKN There’s a limit to what third-party reviews, like the CUNY investigation, can yield without waking the administration from its self-imposed slumber.

— Seth Mandel (@SethAMandel) September 25, 2024

Lippman’s goal was to create a report that included the perspectives of all stakeholders involved in these contentious issues. In doing so, his team from the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP aimed to interview individuals with varying viewpoints on anti-Semitism, Israel, and discrimination more broadly, as per the information provided in The New York Post report. As Lippman stated in his report: “We wanted to hear from not only those who believed they were victims of anti-Semitism but also from those who believed they were victims of false claims of anti-Semitism as well as other forms of discrimination.”

This balanced approach was central to the investigation, which sought to explore not just the incidents of anti-Semitism reported by Jewish students and faculty, but also to examine claims of bias and discrimination from individuals who may have felt unfairly labeled as anti-Semitic for their political views, as per the The New York Post report. The refusal of key activists to participate, therefore, presented a significant roadblock to gathering a comprehensive understanding of the issues at play.

The atmosphere of distrust surrounding the investigation is reflective of the broader tensions that exist on many university campuses regarding Israel and Jewish identity. In the case of CUNY, the clash between pro-Hamas activists and those who defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state has created a charged environment where discussions of anti-Semitism and free speech often collide.

Many anti-Israel activists at CUNY believe that their critiques of Israeli policies, particularly those related to the treatment of Palestinians, are legitimate political expressions that should be protected under free speech. However, The New York Post report explained that Jewish students and organizations have made the argument that these critiques often cross the line into anti-Semitic rhetoric, creating a hostile and discriminatory environment for Jewish students.

New York @GovKathyHochul has directed CUNY to use the IHRA antisemitism definition to assess bias claims after more than 10 months of investigation into the school’s antisemitism and anti-discrimination policies.https://t.co/VMBA69E4nT

— Jewish News Syndicate (@JNS_org) September 25, 2024

Lippman acknowledged these tensions but reiterated that the investigation was not intended to target any group unfairly. His team sought to uncover the root causes of campus anti-Semitism while respecting the rights of all individuals to express their political views, even those that were critical of Israel, according to The New York Post report. However, the absence of testimony from key individuals hindered the investigation’s ability to provide a full and fair assessment of the situation at CUNY.

The investigation was initiated in response to a growing number of reports from Jewish students and faculty at CUNY, who have described incidents of hate speech, harassment, and a general atmosphere of hostility. According to The Post, Jewish students at several CUNY campuses have reported being targeted for their religious and cultural identities, often in connection with their support for Israel.

In recent years, CUNY has been the site of numerous protests and events that have sparked concerns among Jewish students. Many of these events have focused on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with heated rhetoric often targeting Israel and, by extension, Jewish students who support the country. This has led to an increasing number of complaints to CUNY’s administration, with many Jewish students and organizations calling for stronger protections against hate speech and discrimination.

Given the sensitive nature of the issue, Lippman’s investigation was intended to serve as a critical step in addressing anti-Semitism at CUNY. By refusing to participate, the activists who declined interviews limited the report’s ability to fully represent all viewpoints on the conflict and its impact on Jewish students. Lippman expressed regret that the investigation was unable to gain the participation of these individuals, but he stood by the integrity of the review and its findings.

After Tablet magazine calls out Kathy Hochul for not releasing Judge Jonathan Lippman’s detailed report on anti-semitism at CUNY, she does so, and requests that CUNY adopt all 13 of the Judge’s recommendations. https://t.co/wVa6COXOdc

— Emily Benedek (@EmilyBenedek1) September 25, 2024

 “While I recognize the atmosphere of distrust that surrounds these issues, any such charges of targeting are flatly wrong and wholly misguided,” Lippman emphasized, according to The New York Post. His hope was that the investigation would spark necessary changes within CUNY’s administration and help foster a more inclusive environment where free speech is protected, but hate speech and discrimination are not tolerated.

Lippman said that the review was not about assigning blame or identifying individual wrongdoers. “My review was in no way aimed at uncovering perpetrators of improper behavior at CUNY or assigning blame,” he said, according to The New York Post.

Rather, the goal was to assess the environment at CUNY and determine whether the university’s policies were adequate in addressing discrimination claims, particularly those involving Jewish students. The New York Post reported that Lippman’s team sought to speak with individuals who had been subjected to any form of hate, including those who felt that their rights to free speech had been infringed upon—an issue that has become increasingly contentious at CUNY in recent years, especially surrounding debates about Israel.

The investigation culminated in several key recommendations, one of which was to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti-Semitism. This definition, which has been embraced by governments and institutions worldwide, includes various manifestations of anti-Semitism, some of which are tied to criticism of Israel.

This recommendation was warmly welcomed by Jewish civil-rights advocates. Kenneth Marcus, founder and chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, praised Lippman’s recommendation, calling it a significant moment for Jewish students and faculty at CUNY. “Judge Lippman’s recommendation that CUNY accept that IHRA is the law of the land and act accordingly is a milestone for Jewish students, faculty, and staff whose pleas for help have fallen, if not on deaf ears, then on misunderstanding ones which couldn’t hear how anti-Semitic conduct often masquerades as ‘merely’ anti-Israel political advocacy,” Marcus said, according to The New York Post.

The adoption of the IHRA definition is seen by many as a crucial step in addressing anti-Semitism on college campuses, where debates over Israel often intersect with Jewish identity and discrimination. The definition outlines various forms of anti-Semitic behavior, including certain criticisms of Israel that go beyond political discourse and target Jewish people as a group.

For Jewish students and faculty at CUNY, this is a long-awaited move. Many have reported feeling marginalized and unsafe due to what they describe as an increasingly hostile environment where anti-Israel rhetoric often crosses the line into anti-Semitism, The New York Post report said. The IHRA definition provides a framework for the university to assess whether political speech about Israel is, in fact, veiling hate speech or genuine political critique.

However, the recommendation to adopt the IHRA definition has also sparked controversy, particularly among pro-Hamas activists and those who fear it could be used to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies. Many activists argue that criticism of Israel’s actions, particularly regarding the Palestinian territories, is a form of protected political speech and should not be conflated with anti-Semitism.

CUNY now faces the challenge of implementing Lippman’s recommendations while fostering a campus environment where all students feel safe and respected, regardless of their religious or political views. The university’s adoption of the IHRA definition will be a key step in this process, providing clearer guidelines for assessing discrimination claims and helping to prevent anti-Semitic incidents from being dismissed as mere political disagreements.

However, The New York Post report indicated that CUNY will also need to ensure that free speech is protected. The university must create a space where students can engage in political discourse, including criticism of Israel, without fear of reprisal—so long as such discourse does not devolve into hate speech targeting Jewish individuals or communities.

As The New York Post reported, Kenneth Marcus and other Jewish civil-rights activists see this as a turning point for CUNY, one that could finally provide Jewish students and faculty with the support and protection they have been seeking for years. But it will require ongoing vigilance from the administration to ensure that these recommendations are effectively implemented and that all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism, are taken seriously.