Shani Shahmoon: SCR 35 should not use broad definition of anti-Semitism
(Bijun Liang/Daily Bruin senior staff)
By Shani Shahmoon
May 8, 2015 2:59 a.m.
Anti-Semitism has a broad impact on college campuses, but when it comes to defining the issue, broader is not better.
In late March, Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 was introduced by several senators to approach anti-Semitism issues on University of California campuses. Last week, a hearing was held to discuss the language of the resolution, and suggestions were made to replace the U.S. Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which includes references to Israel, with the Merriam-Webster definition because some thought it limited academic freedom.
Anti-Semitism has modernized into more political attacks referencing the Jewish state of Israel, and by using the U.S. Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, this problem will be properly addressed. Implementing the vague Merriam-Webster definition will not change the ongoing growth of anti-Semitism on college campuses.
The Merriam-Webster definition of anti-Semitism is, “hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or racial group.”
What happened to Rachel Beyda is a prime example of where this definition would serve little to address anti-Semitism on college campuses. Beyda was accused of “divided loyalties” due to her religion and its connection to Israel while she was being wrongly questioned during her appointment to UCLA’s student government judicial board.This politicizing of Judaism is strongly connected to Israel.
Being Jewish is now modernly associated with the Jewish state of Israel, and with divestment on the forefront of many public secondary education institutions in California, Jews become targets in attacks that are instigated by feelings of resentment toward Jewish students as the appropriators of human rights violations in the State of Israel.
UCs have become the bases of anti-Semitism. For example, the Jewish fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi, at UC Davis was vandalized with graffiti of Swastikas shortly after a divestment hearing and the term “anti-Semitism” was delegitimized by a member of the UC Student Association Board of Directors as not serving specifically to the Jewish people.
Currently, SCR 35 uses the Department of State’s definition of anti-Semitism, which acknowledges that demonizing Israel, holding Israel to a double standard and delegitimizing Israel are all forms of anti-Semitism.
Much of the anti-Semitism on college campuses has manifested itself through the malicious rhetoric around Israel, the polarization of specific political groups on campus and the unsuccessful attempts toward dialogue regarding the conflict.
From the start of Genesis, Israel has had a crucial importance in Judaism. The line between the two is blurred because of the deep roots in biblical history.
The Department of State’s definition has been criticized for limiting academic freedom and criticism of Israel; therefore, a suggestion was made at the hearing to use the Merriam-Webster definition of “anti-Semitism.”
The Department of State’s definition will not limit academic freedom but rather creates a structure for respectful criticism and disagreement with the Jewish state in a way that doesn’t offend or discriminate its Jewish constituents or Jewish people in general. It is by no means aiming to limit academic freedom, which was clearly stated in the hearing notes.
The brevity of Merriam-Webster’s definition, although it allows for a wide range of free speech, creates a possibility for hate speech and discrimination of Jews due to their relationship with the Jewish state of Israel. Times have changed. Anti-Semitism has distanced itself from the cliche stereotyping of Jews that this definition has referenced, and has become much more political. SCR 35 needs to address the reality of modern anti-Semitism, and using the U.S. Department of State’s definition is the only way to do so.
Last quarter, the Undergraduate Students Association Council passed a resolution titled, “A Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism.” This resolution uses the U.S. State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism and directly references specific acts of anti-Semitism that have occurred on college campuses and worldwide.
This distant conflict has become so close to home that students have felt other students as somewhat responsible for governmental actions, on both sides of the narrative. And creating a resolution that doesn’t address the centralized causation of anti-Semitism will serve little to no purpose in stopping anti-Semitism from continuing its rapid growth on college campuses.
