When a U.C. Santa Cruz student leader is instructed to abstain from a BDS vote due to his allegiance to a “Jewish agenda,” the proper response from the Jewish community is very simple: Such activities are anti-Semitic and do not belong on diverse, pluralistic campuses.
This is only the latest case of anti-Semitism that has hit California campuses this year. Daniel Bernstein’s now well-publicized story of pre-BDS vote harassment because of his involvement in a “Jewish agenda” demonstrates a hateful, naive and ineffective form of lobbying. Put simply, Bernstein was targeted for intimidation before the boycott, divestment and sanctions vote because he is a student leader of Jewish background; such a charge is, by definition, anti-Semitic.
Needless to say, had a Jewish or pro-Israel student texted a Students for Justice in Palestine member and senate seat holder, with an instruction to abstain, the uproar would have been enormous — more so if that student was a Muslim and had been accused of answering to an “Islamic agenda.” Faith-based harassment for political purposes is wrong when directed at any religious group, and all such groups need equal access to free speech.
However, completely dismissing the idea that Jewish and pro-Israel students have identified the importance of campus activism and begun operating with some form of “Jewish agenda” denies an increasingly visible trend.
The images conjured up by a supposed “Jewish agenda” bring us back to the days of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” wherein media control and political deceit were alleged to be a part of a Jewish plot for world domination. Still, Jewish students do tend to be on the front lines of the BDS fight, which in itself isn’t an inherently Jewish issue. Sometimes this takes the form of lobbying, and sometimes anti-BDS activists will seek office, in part to be a first responder to BDS activity at the student government level.
Meanwhile, such U.C. students as Bernstein and Rachel Beyda (initially denied a UCLA student government post) are attacked solely on the basis of their faith, while Jewish frat houses are spray-painted with swastikas and verbal harassment has become commonplace.
Jewish student activists working against BDS, anti-Semitism and general hate on campus may — wisely — take to the campus government to work on improving student well-being and establishing a climate of understanding, tolerance and acceptance. But in a less noble scenario, some students might seek office solely to serve as a lookout against BDS and work from the inside to fight anti-Israel rhetoric. These students, while doing nothing wrong, are probably not the best choices to represent constituencies with a spectrum of views.
When these students are aided by a plethora of largely Jewish organizations whose stated aim is to limit BDS activity, it becomes hard to argue that no such agenda exists — especially when those organizations are caught bankrolling pro-Israel student government candidates.
This leaves Jewish students in a predicament in which activists identify a need to lead mass organizing efforts against hate and Israel-bashing. However, unifying in the open to do so invites scrutiny and rhetoric that is even more hateful. We cannot pretend a Jewish agenda doesn’t exist, nor can we publicly admit that it does.
There’s no conflict of interest in organizing, advocating and legislating on issues that are specific to a community. If Jewish students lead a movement to refocus campus debates on issues like affordability, accessibility and diversity, and less on foreign politics, then this so-called Jewish agenda is actually quite admirable.
A real Jewish Agenda™ (better name pending) should insist that the campus be a safe space for all students and focus student government activities on issues that actually affect students. A campus slate at UCLA that was focused only on issues related to campus (and less on a certain Middle Eastern conflict) swept into office last spring.
However, with this power comes the responsibility to take a mature approach to all campus instances of intolerance and limits on speech. For obvious reasons, a real Jewish Agenda is generally supportive of policies that, like the U.S. State Department, classify anti-Israel activity as anti-Semitism. This is probably the most troubling stance of the otherwise noble Jewish Agenda: the inability to separate principle from emotion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
If a pro-Israel peace rally is permissible on campus, then we must extend the same courtesy to students advocating for justice in Palestine. The Jewish Agenda cannot play favorites with the First Amendment. However, when rhetoric evolves from anti-Israel to anti-Jewish, then the Jewish Agenda needs to mobilize, call foul and demand a hate-free campus.
The difficulties lie ahead. The Regents of the University of California system are currently debating the merits of adopting the State Department definition of anti-Semitism.
But what policy can clearly define anti-Semitism and make campus a safe place without limiting free speech? Or are we looking at a Potter Stewart approach that will inevitably lead to labeling every anti-settlement pamphlet as an attack on the Jewish people, launching a perpetual battle of how to label free speech vs. hate speech?
When we find an answer to these questions, we might actually find a way to fix the Jewish campus experience.
Zev Hurwitz is a recent graduate of U.C. San Diego and former editor of the campus newspaper, the UCSD Guardian. He lives and works in Los Angeles. This piece originally appeared in New Voices, a national Jewish student magazine.