Is there a Jewish Agenda on campus?

When a UC 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 due to his involvement in a “Jewish agenda” demonstrates a hateful, naïve, and ineffective form of lobbying. Put simply, Bernstein was targeted for intimidation because he is a student leader of Jewish background, which 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, instructing them 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, total dismissal of the idea that Jewish and pro-Israel students have identified the importance of political activism on campus and begun operating as some form of the “Jewish Agenda” denies a increasingly visible trend, and doesn’t give credit to whom it’s due.

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. In 2015, Jewish students are often the boots on the ground against BDS campaigns in student governments. 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, the Rachel Beydas and Daniel Bernsteins of the UC system are attacked based solely on their faith, while Jewish frat houses are spray painted with swastikas and students find verbal harassment to be commonplace. Watchdogs regularly publicize terrifying figures about rates of anti-Semitic activity on campus, often at the expense of highlighting the positive experiences of Jewish communities.

Jewish student activists working against BDS, anti-Semitism, and general hate on campus may — wisely — take to the campus government to work to improve student wellbeing on campus and establish a climate of understanding, tolerance, and acceptance. But in a less noble scenario, some UC 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.

Either way, there’s nothing wrong with Jewish students championing certain issues in the student senate. There is no denying, however, that this political effort by Jewish students is in fact a form of a “Jewish Agenda.” Aided by a plethora of largely Jewish campus organizations with the stated aim of limiting 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, where activists identify a need to lead mass organizing efforts against hate and Israel-bashing, but unifying in the open to do so invites scrutiny and even more hateful rhetoric. We cannot pretend the Jewish Agenda doesn’t exist, nor can we publicly admit that it does.

There’s no conflict of interest with organizing, advocating, and legislating on issues that are specific to a community. If Jewish students lead a movement to refocus campus debates to issues like affordability, accessibility, and diversity, and less on foreign politics, then this so-called Jewish Agenda is actually quite admirable.

The Jewish Agenda™ (better name pending) insists that its goals are to keep campus 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 and has taken actions to calibrate USAC activities toward campus issues.

However, with this power comes the responsibility of taking a mature approach to all campus instances of intolerance and limits on speech. For obvious reasons, the 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 the same courtesy must be extended to students on campus 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 lies 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 a blanket policy where every anti-settlement pamphlet is 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 UC San Diego.