The other day I reported on allegations of anti-Semitism being investigated at UCSC. The Department of Education (not the Department of Justice) has an Office for Civil Rights, which decided to look into a complaint made by a lecturer, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, which can be traced back to an incident that actually occurred three years ago, in 2007. Ms. Rossman-Benjamin contends that at a conference that took place on campus that year, “Speakers claimed that Zionism was an illegitimate ideology and argued for the elimination of the Jewish state.” She immediately went on to define that conference as “unscholarly, political, and anti-Semitic.” As I wrote in my own news blurb, she went on to claim that “no other group on campus has been subjected to ‘such hostile and demonizing criticism’ as Jewish students.”
The other day I reported on allegations of anti-Semitism being investigated at UCSC. The Department of Education (not the Department of Justice) has an Office for Civil Rights, which decided to look into a complaint made by a lecturer, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, which can be traced back to an incident that actually occurred three years ago, in 2007. Ms. Rossman-Benjamin contends that at a conference that took place on campus that year, “Speakers claimed that Zionism was an illegitimate ideology and argued for the elimination of the Jewish state.” She immediately went on to define that conference as “unscholarly, political, and anti-Semitic.” As I wrote in my own news blurb, she went on to claim that “no other group on campus has been subjected to ‘such hostile and demonizing criticism’ as Jewish students.”
I had my reservations submitting the piece and expressed them to my editor. We agreed that the investigation per se was newsworthy, though I had my doubts about the legitimacy of the original complaint. Considering the ensuing discussion, I think it is worth noting why.
Before I do that, however, I should probably introduce myself, at least in relation to the article I posted. I am Jewish, and I hold dual American and Israeli citizenship. I cannot talk about my experiences on American campuses because, after completing my military service in the Israel Defense Force, I attended the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. My first job when moving back to the U.S. was in the Education Department at one of this country’s foremost Holocaust museums, where I helped to develop curricula. Quite frankly, it won’t be easy to label me an anti-Semite.
And yet, I find Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint offensive. Perhaps more properly I should say that because of my experiences, I find Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint offensive.
The problem, as I see it, is that anti-Semitism has become more than a description. In too many cases, it defies definition and is used more as a catchphrase than anything else. It is a way for some Jews to counter all criticism, whether that criticism is legitimate or not. More worrying even, it is a way for Jews to counter criticism of the independent State of Israel, whether that criticism is deserved or not. And there is no independent nation in the world—not Libya, not Egypt, but not Israel and the U.S. either—which should not be subject to careful scrutiny and called out when it acts in improper ways. That is something that the American Constitution taught the rest of the world. It’s the underlying principle behind freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble to seek redress for grievances.
What I find disturbing about Ms. Rossman-Benjamin’s complaint is the way it conflates Jewish students and Israel. There was a conference which condemned Israel, regardless of whether rightfully or not. Ms. Rossman-Benjamin would have us believe that this is not simply an attack on Israel, but on all Jews on campus.
The problem is that such a statement is in itself anti-Semitic. One significant underlying feature of anti-Semitism is that it looks at the Jews as a homogeneous group, i.e., one Jew is greedy, ergo all Jews are greedy; one Jew is a pornographer, ergo all Jews are pornographers (it’s probably worth noting that this is the same logic used by anti-Muslim groups in the U.S. today: One Muslim is a terrorist, ergo all Muslims are terrorists). But what the complaint seems to state is a belief that all Jews can be lumped together! If some Jews support Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories, ergo all Jews support Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories. If someone attacks that first group of Jews, they are, in essence, attacking all Jews. Are they?
This inevitably comes with a rhetorical flourish. “No other group on campus has been subjected to ‘such hostile and demonizing criticism’ as Jewish students.” Really? What are the criteria by which she gauges that assessment? To which other groups is she comparing this homogeneous glob of Jewish students? To Muslim students? To gay students? How about to Tea Party students? Each of those groups and many, many more has its detractors. How does she address the hostile demonization of those other groups?
In what practical ways are Jews denied access to the university or services from it? In the Soviet Union, for instance, there were quotas on the number of Jewish students. In Argentina during the junta, Jewish students were often picked up by the police, ostensibly for political activity. Some never returned. In France Jewish students sometimes hear “Death to the Jews” chanted at campus political rallies. Is any of that happening at UCSC?
To be fair, I have no doubt that there is some anti-Semitism on the UCSC campus, just as there is some anti-Semitism just about anywhere. On the other hand, it is a question of scope. Frankly, I have more problems with the perceived need to set Jews and Israel up on a pedestal and absolve them of any legitimate criticism by calling such criticism “anti-Semitism.” Being pro-Palestinian is not anti-Semitism. Being for a just solution in the Middle East by replacing Israel with a bi-national state is not anti-Semitism. If it was, Martin Buber and Judah Leib Magnes, the first President of my alma mater, the Hebrew University, would have been anti-Semites.
Two years ago, I had the opportunity to work on the film Defamation, a documentary by Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir that attempted to investigate whether anti-Semitism really did pose a threat to Jewish survival today. While I didn’t always agree with Yoav, I certainly agreed with his closing statement about the role of the exaggerated accusations of anti-Semitism that we sometimes hear. It went like this: “I thought that putting so much emphasis on the past, as horrific as it has been, is holding us back. Maybe it’s about time to live in the present and look to the future.” Maybe this obsession with anti-Semitism is really holding us back after all.
Danny Wool is a freelancer for SantaCruz.com.
