In my backyard
Jewish advocacy groups allege antisemitism behind Santa Ana’s ethnic studies rollout
The discussion in the LA Times and the article related to Kenneth Stern appear not to take into account the atrocities of October 7th, 2023. The politicization of this definition helps no one, but arguing that antisemitism and anti-Zionism are two different issues is wrong. Criticizing any country is acceptable when the same criteria are used. Anti-Zionism criticizes Israel for the actions overlooked in many other countries, which puts this approach into a different category. Ethnic studies, in turn, are contributing to the isolation of Jewish students, hence paving the road to discrimination.
By Gabriel San Román
An ethnic studies curriculum at Santa Ana Unified School District is headed for a court battle in an ongoing lawsuit that alleges courses were developed in secret and “infected” with antisemitism.
Before a scheduled Sept. 19 hearing, the Anti-Defamation League, Brandeis Center and American Jewish Committee point to the term the “Jewish Question” appearing on an ethnic studies steering committee agenda in making their case.
Attorneys also obtained text messages that appear to show senior district officials discussing a strategy of the school board to hold votes on Jewish holidays, like Passover, to approve ethnic studies classes without protest from the Jewish community.
“The policy-making committee that was established saw Jews as an obstacle to exclude in the process,” said James Pasch, the ADL’s senior director for national litigation. “Due to that exclusion, the end result was the creation of anti-Jewish, anti-Israel classes being implemented into the curriculum.”
Similar pitched battles framed the original attempt to draft an ethnic studies model curriculum at the state level in 2019. The draft faced criticisms, including charges of antisemitism, and was significantly revised before Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 101 into law, requiring the state’s students to take a semester of ethnic studies as a graduation requirement for the class of 2030.
But the state allowed school districts flexibility in developing ethnic studies curriculum.
In April 2023, the Santa Ana school board approved World Histories and World Geography ethnic studies classes that later drew protest from pro-Israel groups. Pro-Palestinian activists packed a school board meeting last year to defend the classes, one of which included lessons critical of the Israeli government in its course outline.
The lawsuit that followed claimed those lessons overstepped the bounds of legitimate criticism and unfairly demonized Israel as a uniquely evil settler colonial enterprise. It also alleged the district’s steering committee developed ethnic studies classes, including the pair approved last year, in private to avoid a replay of the fight that happened over the state’s model curriculum.
Groups took legal action after deeming a series of meetings between district officials and the Jewish Federation of Orange County as “lip service.”
“We are disappointed that the district remains unrepentant regarding its violations of state law and the deeply offensive statements made by district officials,” Pasch said. “Our evidence is based primarily on the district’s own records.”
Four years ago, Santa Ana Unified positioned itself at the vanguard of ethnic studies instruction in Orange County. The district’s teachers have taught such courses as electives for years. But on June 9, 2020, the school board voted to make ethnic studies a graduation requirement by the class of 2026, four years before the state’s own requirement.
The resolution also directed the district’s superintendent to establish a task force consisting of school board members, administrators, teachers, staff, parents and students to develop an action plan by the following month on how best to implement the new graduation requirement.
The suit alleges that the task force morphed into a steering committee dominated by board members Rigo Rodriguez and Carolyn Torres, so as to avoid a “watered-down” ethnic studies curriculum.
It further claimed that the steering committee met regularly, took meeting minutes and voted on items but violated the Brown Act by never meeting in public.
David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, said that such bodies warrant a careful look at the open meeting law.
“If the superintendent, without involving the school board, creates a task force to advise the superintendent, that’s not necessarily covered by the Brown Act,” he opined. “If, in fact, the school board directed the superintendent to create this body to advise on curriculum, and if it, in fact, did that consistently over time, then yes, there’s a very substantial Brown Act concern there.”
The suit alleges that the steering committee became an arena for antisemitism itself with one member dismissing another as having “a colonized Jewish mind” in text messages over them raising the issue of antisemitism during a meeting. Another staffer complained about “thinly veiled antisemitism” from a committee leader.
In addition to questions about government transparency, the debate over the ethnic studies classes that emerged from the steering committee and antisemitism continue ahead of the September court date.
In referring to the World Histories and World Geography ethnic studies classes approved last year, the suit alleges that the course outlines contain “false and damaging narratives” about Israel and Jewish people and cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism in support.
Earlier this year, Congress passed a bill that would have the U.S. Department of Education adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism when enforcing federal antidiscrimination laws.
Shira Klein, a Chapman University history professor, independently evaluated the district’s courses last year and didn’t find that they reflected or promoted bias or bigotry. As a scholar, she finds the IHRA definition “deeply flawed,” as a majority of its contemporary examples surround criticisms against the state of Israel.
“Hundreds of scholars of antisemitism, the Holocaust and genocide, and the Middle East took a stand against it in the well-known Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism,” she said. “Even Kenneth Stern, the main drafter of the IHRA definition, now opposes it. Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews as Jews. Criticism of Israel, however harsh, is not in and of itself antisemitic.”
Books listed in course outlines have also come under sharp criticism.
Michael Mann, an emeritus professor of sociology at UCLA, has defended his book “The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing,” as it appeared as a teacher reference for World Histories.
A significant portion of his book is dedicated to the Holocaust, but the latest court filing against Santa Ana Unified criticized the scholarly work for its brief characterization of Israel as the main contemporary example of a “settler conqueror” case.
“I stand by what I wrote,” Mann said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times last year. “My book instances the Israel case as a settler conquest case, which is an accurate label used by numerous Israeli historians and social scientists — in fact I reference one of them, Oren Yiftachel.”
As students have returned to Santa Ana Unified classrooms, World Histories is currently being offered as an ethnic studies class that counts towards the graduation requirement.
But amid the acrimony, the district put the World Geography ethnic studies class on hold.
Jewish advocacy groups taking legal action are asking the court to invalidate any ethnic studies classes that were approved, in part, through the steering committee.
When initially contacted by TimesOC, a spokesperson said ongoing litigation prevented district officials from commenting.
But the following day, Santa Ana Unified issued a statement in response to the suit’s allegations that its ethnic studies classes were passed in violation of the Brown Act and are illegally biased against Israel and the Jewish community.
“The district denies these claims and will present counter arguments and facts to the court for consideration and is optimistic that the court will ultimately find in favor of the district,” the statement read.
See referenced by Shira Klein (below). Note that this article is more than 4 years old
“I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.”
“Fifteen years ago, as the American Jewish Committee’s antisemitism expert, I was the lead drafter of what was then called the “working definition of antisemitism”. It was created primarily so that European data collectors could know what to include and exclude. That way antisemitism could be monitored better over time and across borders.
It was never intended to be a campus hate speech code, but that’s what Donald Trump’s executive order accomplished this week. This order is an attack on academic freedom and free speech, and will harm not only pro-Palestinian advocates, but also Jewish students and faculty, and the academy itself.
The problem isn’t that the executive order affords protection to Jewish students under title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The Department of Education made clear in 2010 that Jews, Sikhs and Muslims (as ethnicities) could complain about intimidation, harassment and discrimination under this provision. I supported this clarification and filed a successful complaint for Jewish high school students when they were bullied, even kicked (there was a “Kick a Jew Day”).
But starting in 2010, rightwing Jewish groups took the “working definition”, which had some examples about Israel (such as holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of Israel, and denying Jews the right to self-determination), and decided to weaponize it with title VI cases. While some allegations were about acts, mostly they complained about speakers, assigned texts and protests they said violated the definition. All these cases lost, so then these same groups asked the University of California to adopt the definition and apply it to its campuses. When that failed, they asked Congress, and when those efforts stalled, the president.
As proponents of the executive order like the Zionist Organization of America make clear, they see the application of the definition as “cover[ing] many of the anti-Jewish outrages … frequently led by … Students for Justice in Palestine, including … calls for ‘intifada’ [and] demonizing Israel”. As much as I disagree with SJP, it has the right to make “calls”. That’s called free speech.
If you think this isn’t about suppressing political speech, contemplate a parallel. There’s no definition of anti-black racism that has the force of law when evaluating a title VI case. If you were to craft one, would you include opposition to affirmative action? Opposing removal of Confederate statues?
Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law and special adviser, wrote in the New York Times that the definition “makes clear [that] Anti-Zionism is antisemitism”. I’m a Zionist. But on a college campus, where the purpose is to explore ideas, anti-Zionists have a right to free expression. I suspect that if Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or think they conspire to harm humanity. Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the government is essentially defining the answer for us.
The real purpose of the executive order isn’t to tip the scales in a few title VI cases, but rather the chilling effect. ZOA and other groups will hunt political speech with which they disagree, and threaten to bring legal cases. I’m worried administrators will now have a strong motivation to suppress, or at least condemn, political speech for fear of litigation. I’m worried that faculty, who can just as easily teach about Jewish life in 19th-century Poland or about modern Israel, will probably choose the former as safer. I’m worried that pro-Israel Jewish students and groups, who rightly complain when an occasional pro-Israel speaker is heckled, will get the reputation for using instruments of state to suppress their political opponents.
Antisemitism is a real issue, but too often people, both on the political right and political left, give it a pass if a person has the “right” view on Israel. Historically, antisemitism thrives best when leaders stoke the human capacity to define an “us” and a “them”, and where the integrity of democratic institutions and norms (such as free speech) are under assault.
Rather than champion the chilling of expressions that pro-Israel Jews find disturbing, or give the mildest criticism (if any) of a president who repeatedly uses antisemitic tropes, why weren’t those Jewish officials who were present when Trump signed the executive order reminding him that last year, when he demonized immigrants and called them “invaders”, Robert Bowers walked into a Pittsburgh synagogue because he believed Jews were behind this “invasion” of brown people as part of a plot to harm white people, and killed 11 of us?
Kenneth Stern is the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, and the author of the forthcoming The Conflict Over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate