Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective
Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law
Nonprofit organization From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Remove ads
The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) is a 501(c)(3)[4] nonprofit organization founded by Kenneth L. Marcus in 2012 with the stated purpose of advancing the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promoting justice for all peoples.[5] LDB is active on American campuses, where it says it combats antisemitism and anti-Zionism.[6][7]
 |
LDB was named after Louis D. Brandeis, a Jewish American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States active in the Zionist movement.[8] LDB has no relation to Brandeis University or to Louis D. Brandeis himself.[9][better source needed]
Remove ads
Leadership and organization
Summarize
Perspective
LDB was founded in early 2012 by Kenneth L. Marcus, a former Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights[10][11] who served as the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights from June 2018 to July 2020.
Center for Legal Innovation (CLI)
The Center for Legal Innovation (CLI) is a public interest legal organization established by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LBD) to address legal claims related to antisemitism. The center provides legal representation for individuals facing discrimination in various sectors, including employment, housing, healthcare, academia, and corporate settings.[12]
The advisory board of the CLI includes former U.S. Attorney General William Barr; Paul, Weiss Chairman Brad Karp; former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement; and Alan Levine, president of the Legal Aid Society of New York. Additionally, the board features prominent attorneys from leading corporate law firms, such as Thomas McCarthy, managing partner at Consovoy McCarthy PLLC; Jonathan Polkes, former co-chair of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP’s global litigation department; and partners from Holtzman Vogel and Schaerr Jaffe LLP. The advisory board also includes government officials and legal scholars.[13]
One of CLI’s initial cases involves representing a Jewish father and his five-year-old son, who were allegedly removed from a café in Oakland, California, for wearing a Star of David hat.[14][15]
LDB Law student chapters
In 2013, LDB established law student chapters at several law schools in the US. The purpose of these chapters is to foster "a new generation of leaders who share LDB's mission" which includes combating antisemitism and anti-Israelism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in particular.[16][17] BDS is a Palestinian-led movement that calls for comprehensive international boycotts of Israel similar to those that was imposed on South Africa.[18] According to LDB lawyer Danit Sibovits, the chapters seek to "engage law students in civil rights work and engage them in public advocacy" and provide "an opportunity for law students to gain practical legal experience while they are still in school." Speakers may address topics such as Jewish civil rights advocacy, campus antisemitism, international human rights law, Israel legal advocacy, counter-terrorism legal policy.[16]
LDB law students investigate antisemitic incidents, provide pro-bono legal research and advocacy services to victims of discrimination, file legal complaints, and work with university administrators or policies to protect Jewish students.[19]
The current list of law student chapters is:[20] Brandeis University Law School, Waltham, Massachusetts; Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, New York; Columbia Law School, New York City; DePaul Law School, Chicago, Illinois; Georgetown Law Center, Washington, D.C.; NYU Law School, New York City.
JIGSAW Fellows
The Jigsaw Initiative is a program run by LDB that trains a specialized group of law students in using legal tools and skills to combat antisemitism and BDS on college campuses.[21][22] JIGSAW stands for Justice Initiative Guiding Student Activists Worldwide and the JIGSAW Fellows are taught to fight against antisemitic incidents on campus by utilizing university policies, and federal and state law. They are trained to act as mentors to undergraduate students in helping them confront antisemitism on campus and to and understand international law related to BDS.[23]
Remove ads
Antisemitism
Summarize
Perspective
LDB definition of antisemitism follows that of the European Monitoring Centre (EUMC) Working Definition of Antisemitism: "Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."[24][25]
LDB considers adopting a definition of antisemitism to be crucial for universities and government to make clear the boundaries between hateful actions and legitimate behavior. The US State Department provides a definition of antisemitism, but it only is applied for international monitoring.[26] LDB is working with universities and domestic government bodies to adopt a definition of antisemitism. In March 2016, the University of California Board of Regents adopted a Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, which included a contextual statement declaring that, "antisemitism and antisemitic forms of anti-Zionism are forms of discrimination and will not be tolerated at the University of California."[27] LDB had previously issued a letter to the Board of Regents, highlighting incidents at UCLA, Santa Barbara, Davis, Berkeley, and Irvine.[28]
Remove ads
Anti-Israelism
Summarize
Perspective
 | This section may contain excessive or inappropriate references to self-published sources. (December 2022) |
The Boycott, Sanctions, Divestment (BDS) movement against Israel has gained significant momentum in recent years, particularly on college campuses. A report by the Anti-Defamation League alleged that "the strategies used in many BDS campaigns [are] anti-Semitic".[29] It is in the Brandeis Center's view that the BDS campaign is antisemitic because some of its proponents act out of conscious hostility to the Jewish people; others act from unconscious or tacit disdain for Jews; and still others operate out of a climate of opinion that contains elements that are hostile to Jews and serve as the conduits through whom anti-Jewish tropes and memes are communicated; while all of them work to sustain a movement that attacks the commitment to Israel that is central to the identity of the overwhelming majority of Jewish people. With the rise of the BDS movement, the Brandeis Center has increasingly sought to deal with the antisemitism associated with the movement.[30]
LDB has been involved in numerous lawsuits involving the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and campus life. Its critics claim that the organization engages in lawfare on Israel's behalf—lawsuits and threats of lawsuits intended to silence criticism of Israel.[31][32]
Legal Action
Summarize
Perspective
Since its founding, LDB has advocated against antisemitism and the BDS movement.[33]
Higher Education
UC Berkeley School of Law lawsuit (2023-2025)
LDB filed a lawsuit against the UC Berkeley School of Law in 2023 over organizations, including but not limited to the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, Queer Caucus, and Women of Berkeley Law, adopting anti-Zionist bylaws.[34] LDB claimed that the anti-Zionist bylaws were antisemitic. A motion to dismiss the case is currently pending before the Northern District of California.[35]
On March 28, 2025, a hearing was held regarding the motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Subsequently, on April 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Donato ruled that the lawsuit could proceed. The judge allowed claims alleging violations of equal protection, free exercise of religion, and civil rights to move forward against university officials, including University of California President Michael Drake and former UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that Jewish students and faculty were treated differently and that the university was deliberately indifferent to on-campus harassment and a hostile environment.[36]
The lawsuit, filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, centers on policies adopted by at least 23 student groups at Berkeley Law. These policies exclude speakers who identify as Zionists, which the plaintiffs argue effectively bars many Jewish students from full participation in campus life.[37][38]
University officials have defended the student groups' rights under the First Amendment, stating that while the policies may be offensive to some, they constitute protected speech. Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky emphasized that the university cannot compel student groups to invite speakers with opposing viewpoints.[39][36]
Harvard lawsuit (2024)
On May 22, 2024, the Brandeis Center sued Harvard for inadequately addressing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination on campus.[40] The lawsuit declares that Harvard “ignores and tolerates” anti-Semitic conduct, which runs contrary to “its aggressive enforcement of the same anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies to protect other minorities.”[41] LDB asserts that some Harvard students and faculty have called for violence against Jews and celebrated Hamas’ October 7 attacks.[42] The lawsuit also references an incident where a Jewish student was captured on video being assaulted by a group of protestors. The university has yet to take action against the alleged assailants.[43]
In November 2024, Harvard University filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. US District Judge Richard Stearns rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss the case, affirming the claim that the university was “deliberately indifferent” to a hostile environment for Jewish students. This decision cleared the way for the case to proceed to the discovery phase, where further evidence will be gathered to prove the allegations.[44]
The lawsuit highlights a range of incidents, including physical assaults, threats, and verbal harassment targeting Jewish students. It also includes university actions that were perceived as forbearing towards those accused of anti-Semitic behavior. The Brandeis Center asserts that Harvard’s response to anti-Semitism contrasts with its enforcement of anti-discrimination policies for other groups. This ruling was commended by the Brandeis Center as a step toward holding Harvard accountable for its alleged inaction in addressing anti-Jewish hostility.[45][46][47]
In January 2025, the lawsuit concluded with a settlement between Harvard University and the Brandeis Center. As part of the agreement, Harvard adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in its policies and pledged to enhance its procedures for handling discrimination complaints. The settlement also included mandatory training on antisemitism for faculty and staff and the creation of a new office focused on religious discrimination.[48]
The New York Times reported that the settlement was prompted by increasing pressure on Harvard to address systemic issues of anti-Semitism. The Wall Street Journal highlighted the significance of this settlement as a major victory for the Brandeis Center, with Kenneth L. Marcus describing it as a “model for other universities nationwide.” Harvard’s president expressed the institution's commitment to fostering an inclusive environment while addressing concerns raised by Jewish students and advocacy groups.[49][50]
UCLA Encampments (2024)
In June 2024, three Jewish students at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) filed a federal lawsuit against the university, alleging that anti-Israel protesters established encampments that effectively excluded Jewish students from parts of the campus. The lawsuit claimed that the university failed to protect Jewish students' access to campus facilities. A federal judge ruled that UCLA must ensure Jewish students' access to all parts of the campus and cannot allow protesters to block entry to buildings, classes, or services.[51][52][53]
Columbia University- Hamiliton Hall (2024)
In April 2024, Columbia University's Hamilton Hall was occupied by protesters, during which two janitors were allegedly assaulted and held against their will. The janitors filed a federal lawsuit against more than 40 individuals involved in the occupation, claiming they were subjected to antisemitic slurs and physical harm. The lawsuit also revealed that the protesters used detailed maps and manuals to coordinate the takeover, suggesting a premeditated effort to target Jewish individuals and institutions.[54][55]
Occidental College Lawsuit (2024)
In April 2024, the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law partnered with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to file a Title VI complaint against Occidental College with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. The complaint alleged that the college failed to address anti-Semitic incidents on campus, including harassment and bullying of Jewish students.
The case was resolved in November 2024 through a voluntary settlement agreement. Occidental College committed to several measures to address the concerns raised. These included revising its discrimination policies to provide explicit examples of antisemitic conduct, utilizing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, and implementing mandatory training for students and staff. The agreement also required expert-led training on discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students and emphasized inclusion of Jewish identities, including Zionism, in the college's broader efforts for diversity and inclusivity. These standards will remain in place through the 2025-2026 academic year, with regular reviews to ensure compliance.[56][57]
Occidental College acknowledged the concerns raised by Jewish students and affirmed that antisemitism contradicts the institution’s values. This resolution is seen as a significant step in promoting a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students on campus.
University of Vermont lawsuit (2021-2023)
In 2021, the Anti-Defamation League reported that the University of Vermont had the highest number of reported anti-Semitic incidents.[58] In the same year, the Brandeis Center and Jewish on Campus filed a complaint against the University of Vermont alleging that the university fostered a hostile environment for Jewish students, and did not respond adequately to anti-Semitic incidents.[59] The complaint argued that students were excluded from organizations on campus for being Jewish, students threw rocks at a dorm that housed Jewish students, and that a teaching assistant bragged on social media about subtracting participation points from Jewish students.[60] Initially, the university attempted to push back against the allegations of anti-Semitism; university President Suresh Garimella stated that “the uninformed narrative published this week has been harmful to UVM” and that the investigation “painted our community in a patently false light.”[61]
In April 2023, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) identified areas of concern within the university’s policies that “...have allowed a hostile environment for...Jewish students to persist at the university."[62] OCR officials noted that “it does not appear that the university...took action...until after the commencement of OCR’s investigation."[62] The university agreed to settle the complaint, resolving to edit their discrimination and harassment policies and provide extra training to staff and students “on the prohibition of harassment based on national ancestry."[60] “In the wake of a landmark settlement with the federal government, there has been a remarkable evolution in visible support for Jewish students,” stated UVM Hillel Executive Director Matt Vogel.[63] “We view [the Vermont agreement] as a success, and it’s our understanding that there’s been a dramatic difference on that campus as a result of the resolution,” remarked Kenneth L. Marcus.[64]
SUNY New Paltz (2022)
In 2022, two Jewish students at the State University of New York (SUNY) at New Paltz filed a federal civil rights complaint after being expelled from a sexual assault awareness group due to their Jewish and Israeli identities. The students alleged that their removal led to subsequent harassment and threats. The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into the matter, highlighting concerns about discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.[65]
Stanford Title VII lawsuit (2021)
The Brandeis Center filed a federal complaint on behalf of Jewish mental health counselors in 2021, alleging anti-Jewish harassment in Stanford University's Counseling & Psychological Services' (CAPS) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) program.[66] The complaint was filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.[67] The Brandeis Center claimed that Stanford University's CAPS DEI program perpetuated a "hostile environment and invidious discrimination" that the program was designed to eliminate.[68] The complaint alleged that the DEI committee declined requests to address antisemitism in their trainings, even in the aftermath of an antisemitic "Zoom-bombing."[69] The lawsuit further asserted that DEI committee members at Stanford University's CAPS division invoked antisemitic stereotypes related to Jewish power and wealth.[70]
Antisemitic conduct at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (2020–2021)
In response to numerous allegations of antisemitic behavior at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC), in March 2020, a complaint was filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR). This complaint, on behalf of the Jewish students at the university, was filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in collaboration with the Jewish United Fund and Hillel International, stating that the events taking place on campus are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In November 2020, OCR then opened an investigation into the complaint. Following this action, UIUC along with LDB, Hillel International, and the Jewish United Fund put out a "joint statement" pledging to take a number of concrete steps to address antisemitism on its campus and support Jewish students.[71][72]
Among these commitments, they promised to form an “Advisory Council on Jewish and Campus Life” and have just recently announced its establishment.[73] Additionally, within the statement are provisions allowing students to publicly express their Jewish identity, identification with Israel and their belief in Zionism without fear of discrimination or intimidation. The university has pledged to safeguard these rights and more, to ensure the safety of its Jewish students and condemn anyone who threatens antisemitic harassment.[74][75]
American Studies Association lawsuit (2016–2019)
In December 2013, the American Studies Association (ASA) voted to join the academic boycott of Israeli educational institutions. In April 2016, LDB, Eugene Kontorovich and four American studies professors sued ASA, alleging that the boycott was illegal. The lawsuit was dismissed in 2019 when the judge ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing.[76]
Film screening protest (2016)
In May 2016, pro-Israeli groups at UC Irvine (UCI) hosted a screening of the film Beneath the Helmet and intended to hold a panel discussion with Israeli soldiers. A group of up to 50 pro-Palestinian students protested the event. Following the event, the protestors were accused of improper conduct and some participants in the film screening said they had been harassed. LDB and other pro-Israel groups acted on behalf of the allegedly harassed students and demanded that UCI investigated the matter. UCI did so, but their investigation cleared the protestors of most of the allegations, except of being too loud.[77]
The campus group that had organized the protest, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), was issued a written warning and required to host an educational program, a punishment LDB thought were too lenient. In particular, one student, Eliana Kopley, claimed to have been chased by protestors and LDB were unhappy with UCI not having investigated that allegation.[78]
The Milan Chatterjee affair (2015–2016)
The Milan Chatterjee affair was a controversy on University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) over the President of the Graduate Student Association (GSA), Milan Chatterjee's allocation of funds. In October 2015, Chatterjee claimed that the GSA had a policy requiring "neutrality" on speech relating to "Israel-Palestine" and that groups advocating for boycotts of Israel, such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), would be ineligible for funding.[79] SJP felt unfairly singled out as they advocate for boycotts of Israel. Civil rights groups got involved in the matter on behalf of SJP and Zionist groups on behalf of Chatterjee. The university launched an investigation which found Chatterjee guilty of having violated university policy that requires neutral point of view in allocating funds.[80]
Early on, LDB law students sided with Chatterjee and questioned how the UCLA was addressing the situation.[81] Marcus condemned BDS-activists who tried to have Chatterjee removed from office: "the Milan Chatterjee affair reflects the insidiousness of the anti-Israel movement's new strategy, which is to suppress pro-Israel advocacy and intimidate not only Jewish pro-Israel students but anyone who even remains neutral."[82]
Modern Language Association proposed boycott (2015–2016)
LDB was active in lobbying against the Modern Language Association's proposed academic boycott of Israel. In particular, in 2016, it threatened to sue the organization if a resolution under consideration endorsing such a boycott was passed. The resolution, however, failed with the vote 113–79.[83]
Brooklyn College ejection of students (2013–2014)
On February 7, 2013, four pro-Israel Jewish students at Brooklyn College were evicted from an open forum organized by Students for Justice in Palestine. The students alleged that their First Amendment rights had been violated and that they had been targeted because they were Jewish. Three of the four students were represented by LDB as they field a legal complaint against the college. The complaint eventually led to Brooklyn College President Karen L. Gould apologizing to the evicted students.[84][85]
K-12
Santa Ana Unified School District Lawsuit (2024)
On September 11, 2023, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under the Law, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish League, Potomac Law Group, and Stand With Us filed a lawsuit, on behalf of students, against SAUSD that “alleged violations of California’s open meetings law, including failing to provide proper public notice before approving multiple ethnic studies courses containing anti-Jewish bias and for refusing to protect the public, including members of the Jewish community, from intimidation and harassment at Board meetings.” Plaintiffs allege SAUSD violated the Brown Act, which prohibits secret legislation by public bodies and requires open meetings. The lawsuit asks the court to block the controversial curriculum.[86]
Stoughton High School swastika (2017–2018)
On November 22, 2016,[87] a student at Stoughton High School, Massachusetts, created a swastika out of tape on a piece of paper and put it on a recycling bin in the school hallway.[88] A Jewish girl noticed the swastika and asked him to remove it. He did so, and responded, "Well just burn it like they did to the Jews."[89][90]
One teacher addressed the incident in her classroom and another spoke to a student about it. A third, Hilary Moll, having written a letter of recommendation on behalf of the student who created the swastika, contacted the college and withdrew her letter and explaining her reasons why.[91] The information led the college to withdraw their acceptance of him.[87] He was also suspended by the school for six days.[92]
The school subsequently received a complaint from the mother of the student which stated that he felt that he was being bullied by members of faculty for his actions. The complaint mentioned one of the teachers, Jamie Regan, who had asked to have the student removed from her class on the Holocaust where Holocaust survivors would speak.[92] Two of the teachers were reprimanded and Moll were suspended for 20 days without pay.[93][90][94]
LDB lawyers stepped in on the teachers behalf which led to some exchanges between them and the school's superintendent Marguerite Rizzi who defended the decision to discipline the teachers. She cited privacy laws that protects confidential student records from disclosure as a reason as to why the school district couldn't reveal all the details of the case and that the lawyers therefore were only "seeking half a story" and using incorrect information. The LDB lawyers rebuffed that notion.[95]
This led to a lengthy judicial process between LDB and the Stoughton High School. On May 18, 2018, arbitrators determined that the disciplinary action taken against Regan was wrong and that the letter of reprimand should be expunged from her personnel records.[92] On July 19, arbitrators determined that Moll was wrongly suspended without pay, but that the letter of discipline against her should stand.[92][96]
Corporate and Other Institutions
Jerusalem Coffee House lawsuit (2025)
In March 2025, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court on behalf of Jonathan Hirsch, an Oakland resident, alleging religious discrimination by Jerusalem Coffee House. The lawsuit claims that on October 26, 2024, Hirsch and his five-year-old son were ejected from the café after Hirsch was confronted by owner Abdulrahim Harara for wearing a baseball cap featuring a Jewish Star. Harara allegedly demanded to know if Hirsch was a "Zionist" and, upon receiving no answer, ordered him to leave, stating, "This is a violent hat" . The incident was captured on video and widely circulated online.[97][98]
The Brandeis Center's lawsuit asserts that the café's actions violated California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on religion in business establishments. This case marks the inaugural legal action by the Brandeis Center's newly established Center for Legal Innovation, dedicated to combating antisemitism through litigation.
Additionally, in February 2025, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP filed a separate federal lawsuit on behalf of Michael Radice, another Jewish customer, alleging similar discriminatory practices by Jerusalem Coffee House. Radice claims he was harassed and denied service on two occasions in 2024 due to his Jewish identity.[99]
Both lawsuits highlight a pattern of alleged antisemitic behavior by the café, including the introduction of menu items with names referencing Hamas figures, such as "Sweet Sinwar," around the anniversary of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks on Israel.[100]
New York Legal Assistance Group (2025)
In May 2025, the Brandeis Center filed federal complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against A Better NYLAG (ABN), the union representing employees of the New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG). The complaints allege that ABN fostered a hostile work environment for Jewish employees by promoting antisemitic rhetoric and obstructing NYLAG's efforts to maintain workplace neutrality on the Israel-Gaza conflict. The Brandeis Center contends that ABN's actions violated its duty of fair representation under federal labor law and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
This legal action is part of the Brandeis Center's broader initiative to address antisemitism within legal aid organizations. In 2024, the Center filed a federal lawsuit against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys (ALAA), UAW Local 2325, alleging retaliation against members who opposed the union's anti-Israel resolutions. The lawsuit claimed that ALAA attempted to expel Jewish and allied members for their opposition to what the Center described as antisemitic practices.
The Brandeis Center's efforts have led to significant developments, including a ruling by the United Auto Workers Public Review Board in March 2025, which blocked ALAA from expelling four Nassau County Legal Aid attorneys who opposed the union's resolution.
Through these legal challenges, the Brandeis Center continues to advocate for the rights of Jewish employees and to combat antisemitism in the workplace.[101][102][103]
Unilever Ben & Jerry’s lawsuit (2022)
The Brandeis Center and co-counsel filed a lawsuit[104] in the U.S. District Court of New Jersey on behalf of Avi Zinger, Ben & Jerry’s Israeli licensee, alleging that Unilever violated U.S. and Israeli law when they terminated a 34-year business relationship with Zinger to boycott Israel.[105]
Unilever reached a settlement preventing Ben & Jerry's from boycotting Israel, which granted Avi Zinger the right to sell Ben & Jerry's ice cream in Israel and the West Bank under the company's Hebrew and Arabic names.[106] The legal settlement was announced on June 29, 2022.[107] The Brandeis Center commended the settlement as a "major defeat for the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement."[108]
Employee Resource Groups
Adobe Jewish ERG Recognition (2025)
In May 2025, the Louis D. Brandeis Center announced a successful resolution with Adobe following concerns over the company's initial reluctance to recognize a Jewish employee resource group (ERG). After internal advocacy and support from the Brandeis Center, Adobe formally approved the creation of a Jewish ERG, aligning its inclusion practices with its treatment of other affinity groups. The Brandeis Center praised Adobe’s decision as a positive example of corporate responsiveness to Jewish employee concerns amid a broader national conversation about antisemitism and diversity policies in the workplace.
The case marked a contrast to ongoing disputes with other tech companies and was highlighted by both the Brandeis Center and Jewish media as a model of constructive resolution.[109][110]
Microsoft discrimination complaint (2025)
In May 2025, the Louis D. Brandeis Center filed a legal complaint against Microsoft, alleging anti-Jewish discrimination in its employee resource group (ERG) policies. According to the complaint, Jewish employees were denied the ability to form an ERG while other ethnic and religious groups were permitted to organize. The Brandeis Center, along with other advocacy groups, claimed this amounted to unequal treatment and a violation of civil rights protections. The case attracted national media attention and renewed debate about whether corporate diversity policies must include Jewish identity within frameworks of inclusion.
The press release stated that the Brandeis Center intended to pursue legal remedies, citing Microsoft’s refusal to recognize Jewish-specific concerns in its DEI infrastructure despite repeated employee requests. The complaint followed previous reports of marginalization of Jewish employees within tech company diversity efforts.[111][112][113]
Remove ads
Advocacy and Public Policy
Summarize
Perspective
The Brandeis Center engages in a variety of advocacy efforts aimed at addressing discrimination and protecting civil rights. These activities can be categorized into policy advocacy and legal action.
Campus Advocacy
Harvard SodaStream controversy (2014)
In April 2014, students at Harvard University raised concerns about the water machines in the dining rooms which had SodaStream labels on them. The company producing the machines had been taken over by SodaStream which maintained a factory in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. A meeting was held with the students and Harvard University Dining Services (HUDS) on April 7, after which HUDS decided to stop buying more machines and to remove the labels on the ones they had.[114] When the decision was reported on in the student newspaper The Harvard Crimson in December, Harvard's President Drew G. Faust said she was not aware of it and requested an investigation.[115] Pro-Israel and Jewish advocacy groups criticized the decision to stop buying from SodaStream, particularly LDB. In a comment, Marcus strongly criticized the decision:[116]
In many ways, these micro-BDS efforts are more dangerous than broader campaigns against the entire country of Israel, because they are sneakier and more deceptive. They target one or two companies, or a short list of Israeli politicians or universities. And they claim that they are not advocating boycotts against the entire Jewish nation. But they are based on the notion that it is okay to apply different standards to Israelis than to the rest of the world's peoples. And they ultimately end up in the same place. All anti-Israel boycotts, whether limited or comprehensive, advance the same agenda, which is to deny Israel normalcy and legitimacy. This is a deeply anti-Semitic campaign and it must be understood as such.
Criticism of Middle East studies (2014)
In 2014, LDB produced a report called The Morass of Middle East Studies which accused federally-funded Middle East studies centers at various colleges to be biased against Israel. LDB claimed that the federal funds provided to 129 international studies and foreign language centers at universities by Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 were therefore being misused.
The report was accompanied by a statement signed by 10 pro-Israel groups,[16] expressing concern over alleged misuse of taxpayer money and arguing that the programs "disseminate anti-American and anti-Israel falsehoods."[117] The statement also called for changes to Title VI which should "[r]equire recipients of Title VI funds to establish grievance procedures to address complaints that programs are not reflecting diverse perspectives and a wide range of views" and "[r]equire the U.S. Department of Education to establish a formal complaint-resolution process similar to that in use to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."[118] The statement referenced a study by the AMCHA Initiative which, among other things, claimed that 93% of the mentions of Israel in any event sponsored, or co-sponsored by the UCLA's Middle East studies center, in the period fall 2010 to spring 2013 were critical.[119]
Amy W. Newhall, executive director of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), rejected the groups' statement as "politically motivated attacks on scholars and academic institutions" and as a serious threat to free speech. She also stated that MESA opposes antisemitism and that[117]
... some of the reports issued by partisan political groups based outside academia may actually weaken efforts to combat anti-Semitism by portraying all criticism of Israeli policies as a form of anti-Semitism or as ‘anti-Israel.’ Their real goal seems to be to shut down open discussion of issues of public concern by demonizing academic and other critics of Israel, Zionism, and U.S. policy in the Middle East, in many cases by tarring them with the brush of anti-Semitism. They are even willing to threaten federal funding for university-based Middle East studies centers, which have a long and distinguished history of providing the United States with thousands of people trained in the languages, politics, cultures and histories of this critical region.
UCLA's media relations office stated that the university "remains dedicated to complying with all federal laws and respecting the free and open exchange of ideas representing diverse viewpoints." It also claimed that the centers on UCLA regularly provide programming on Israel.[118]
In response to the criticism from Newhall, Marcus in a letter to the editor of The Chronicle insisted that the groups' goal was not to shut down open discussion, rather the opposite: "accountability systems to ensure that these programs offer the diversity of perspectives that existing law requires. If Professor Newhall's association defends the status quo against diverse perspectives, then it is they who are trying to shut down debate."[120]
Legislative/Policy Initiatives
South Carolina antisemitism Awareness Act (2017)
In 2017, LDB endorsed the South Carolinian anti-BDS law H 3643 which would have required colleges to use the 2010 US State Department's definition of antisemitism when investigating alleged civil rights violations. Critics of the bill claimed that it was intended to suppress political speech by smearing it as antisemitism.[121] Marcus, however, rejected that claim and stated that the bill did not restrict free speech.[122] While the bill didn't pass the South Carolina legislature, in 2018, text mirroring the language of the bill was inserted into the 2018–2019 state budget bill which did pass.[123]
Remove ads
Education and Research
Summarize
Perspective
The Brandeis Center is committed to educating institutions and individuals about anti-Semitism and civil rights through various resources:
- White Papers: The Center publishes comprehensive documents on topics such as Holocaust denial, anti-Semitic discourse, and legal protections for Jewish employees.[124]
- Webinars: Educational webinars are hosted to discuss issues like anti-Semitism in the workplace and on college campuses. For example, the Center hosted a webinar titled "Anti-Semitism in the Workplace," featuring discussions on the effects of anti-Semitism in corporate settings and the role of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) training. EEOC chair lists of our webinar under resources to address antisemitism in the workplace.[125][126]
- Resource Library: An extensive collection of materials, including case studies, legal documents, and best practice guides, is available to support education on combating anti-Semitism.
Through these efforts, the Brandeis Center aims to foster a deeper understanding of anti-Semitism and equip individuals and institutions with the tools to address and prevent it effectively.
Anti-Semitism Reports
Anti-Semitism Report (2021)
In September 2021, a report based on a survey conducted by the Cohen Research Group for the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity examined the experiences of Jewish fraternity and sorority members on college campuses. The survey collected responses from 1,027 self-identified Jewish students involved in Greek life at 118 campuses across North America. The report revealed that 65% of respondents had experienced or were aware of antisemitism on their campuses, and 50% admitted to hiding their Jewish identity at times to avoid hostility or discomfort.[127][128][129]
Marcus argued that the findings should alarm college leaders, as many Jewish students feel pressured to conceal their identity due to rising antisemitism on campuses.[130]
Anti-Semitism Report (2014–2015)
In February 2015, LDB and Trinity College issued an "Anti-Semitism Report,"[131] presenting results from an online survey of American Jewish college students. The survey had a 10–12% response rate, does not claim to be representative, and included 1,157 self-identified Jewish students at 55 campuses nationwide. The report showed that 54% of the students who took part in the online survey reported having experienced or witnessed antisemitism on their campuses during the Spring semester of the last academic year.[132]
Marcus claimed that the findings should have been a wake-up call to college administrators that Jewish students face real problems of bias.[133]
The study was criticized by The Forward which argued that the study documented only a snapshot in time, rather than a trend, because it did not have a representative sample of Jewish college students and because it allowed students to define antisemitism (leaving the term open to impression).[134]
Remove ads
Publications
| This section may contain material unrelated to the topic of the article. (December 2022) |
LDB authors have published numerous books, research articles, and opinion pieces that are relevant to LDB's mission.[135]
Books:
- Marcus (August 30, 2010). Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-139-49119-8.
- Marcus (2015). The Definition of Anti-Semitism. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-37564-6.
- Eunice G. Pollack (2011). Anti-semitism on the Campus: Past and Present. Academic Studies Press. ISBN 978-1-934843-82-6.
- Richard L. Cravatts (January 21, 2012). Genocidal Liberalism: The University's Jihad Against Israel and Jews. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1-4699-2535-6.
- Alvin H. Rosenfeld (April 20, 2011). The End of the Holocaust. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-00092-7.
Research : Testimony
Remove ads
References
External links
Wikiwand - on
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Remove ads