The Law Offices of Joel H. Siegal has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the San Francisco Police Department and the City and County of San Francisco after uniformed and plainclothes police officers arrested and detained at gunpoint 19 innocent African-American men who were recording and performing a music video in the Bayview-Hunters Point section of San Francisco. The suit alleges that without probable cause or a search warrant, SFPD officers subjected each of the 19 African-American men to unreasonable search and seizure and humiliation at gunpoint. The 19 men were told to get on their knees and were then handcuffed, an act reminiscent of the most vile chapters of US history when government policies allowed whites to imprison any black person who failed to produce freedom papers or a certificate of freedom because it was assumed that African Americans were subhuman chattel, not fit to enjoy any civil rights. ￼
Last month, my office filed an appeal with the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights (OCR) regarding Anti-Semitism on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley.
As the Daily Cal reports:
Two San Francisco-based lawyers have filed an appeal asking the U.S. Department of Education to revisit a previously dismissed complaint alleging that UC Berkeley administrators failed to respond to a hostile campus environment for Jewish students.
Lawyers Joel Siegal and Neal Sher filed the appeal Oct. 4 with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, asking the office to reinvestigate its initial complaint against UC Berkeley that was dismissed in late August.
Like the prior complaint, the appeal alleges that Jewish students at UC Berkeley faced intimidation, violence and offensive comments during various events on campus, including what the lawyers claim to be derogatory language directed at Jewish students by the student group Students for Justice in Palestine during Israeli Apartheid Week.
In their appeal, Siegal and Sher claim the OCR failed to fairly investigate various incidents of intimidation and violence on campus.
Siegal and Sher allege the OCR is practicing a double standard by condemning a “ghetto-themed” party hosted by a fraternity at UC San Diego but failing to address offensive events during Israeli Apartheid Week at UC Berkeley in 2010. They add that the events during Israeli Apartheid Week were “equally offensive and odious to Jewish students.”
“In some ways, Apartheid Week is more offensive,” Siegal said. “It is a full week on-campus, (and) it portrayed Jews as blood-thirsty barbarians.”
After investigating Siegal’s initial complaint, the OCR dismissed the allegations, saying events such as Israeli Apartheid Week did not violate Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.
UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof said the appeal is without merit in light of the OCR’s past ruling on the issue.
“Given the extent to which the university’s position has been fully supported to date, we see the appeal as an unfortunate, quixotic endeavor,” Mogulof said in an email.
Sophomore Michaela Fried, a vice president of Tikvah, a campus organization that advocates self-determination for Jewish people in Israel, said she has at times felt uncomfortable as a Jewish student at UC Berkeley.
“There have been multiple instances since I’ve arrived at Cal of swastikas being drawn in bathrooms and classrooms on campus and in the dorms,” she said in an email.
Some students, such as Elon Rov, a senior and co-chair of UC Berkeley’s chapter of J Street U, a Jewish student political advocacy group, did not experience a hostile campus climate.
“This school has been extremely welcoming and accepting of Jewish practices,” he said. “I feel like I have all the resources I need.”
The OCR also dismissed similar complaints filed by separate individuals against UC Irvine and UC Santa Cruz. Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer at UCSC, has appealed the dismissal of her initial complaint that the campus allows a hostile environment for Jewish students by supporting anti-Semitic events on campus.
“The biggest issue is that they misunderstood my complaint,” Rossman-Benjamin said. “It wasn’t that there was anti-Israel speech or events. My complaint was that those events were sponsored by the university.”
According to the OCR, the appeals are under review.
By: Joel H. Siegal, Attorney at Law, and Neal M. Sher, Attorney at Law
On March 13, 2013, the student council at U.C. San Diego passed a nonbinding resolution calling for boycotting firms with business ties to Israel. The resolution proposed by a Registered Student Organization (RSO) called Students for Justice in Palestine, (SJP) was similar to resolutions previously passed at U.C. Riverside and U.C. Irvine. The resolution names Boeing, General Dynamics, Hewlett Packard, Ingersoll Rand, Caterpillar and Raytheon among those companies that “profit from Israel’s occupation and violence against Palestinians ….” Eyes are now turning toward U.C. Berkeley to see if another BDS resolution is on the horizon there. A divestment measure was passed in 2010, but subsequently vetoed.
As the furor of BDS hits campuses throughout California and the United States, the fundamental question of whether or not these BDS campaigns could expose the University to liability needs to be addressed. University administrators, faced with shrinking budgets to implement fundamental educational programs, need to be mindful of the financial implications of these BDS campaigns.
- BDS potentially violates Title Six of the Civil Rights Act. Often times, the debate at Student Senate hearings on BDS resolutions, digress to one sided Israel bashing festivals. Title Six of the Civil Rights Act protects students from a hostile and intimidating environment on Campus. The University needs to be mindful of the vitriol expressed in the BDS campaign. As eloquently stated by Natan Sharansky there is a “three D” test for anti-Semitism. First, double standards singling out Israel for criticism while ignoring the more egregious behavior of major human rights abusers in the world; Second, demonization of Israel and distorting the Jewish state’s action by means of false comparisons with Nazis or South African Apartheid; Third, delegitimization i.e. denying the fundamental right of the existence of a Jewish state. These are example of anti-Semitism, and when these arguments are expressed are parts of BDS resolution debate, hostile environments to Jewish students have been created. As Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times, “singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic and not saying so is dishonest. University officials should recognize that violation of Title Six has significant consequences such as the possible loss of Federal Funds.
- Passage of a BDS resolution could expose university urustees to liability under ERISA. Support of a BDS resolution may well expose the University and its trustees to Liability under the Employee Retirement Income and Securities Act (ERISA) Sec. 404 (a) (1) (A) (B). ERISA is the Federal law that governs many universities Pension and Trust funds. The law provides that fiduciaries, including trustees, must discharge their duties, “solely in the interest of the participants and beneficiaries for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to the participants and their beneficiaries. The Department of Labor is in concurrence that investment decisions not based upon a portfolio’s ability to provide benefits for beneficiaries may be imprudent and violates of ERISA. It is hard to imagine that a beneficiary, who questioned a Funds decision to divest from a stock that was providing good return, yet did business with Israel, was improper. Such a decision would no doubt expose university trustees to fiduciary liability.
It is clear, that there are potentially huge legal liabilities for Universities’ who support and fail to effectively monitor BDS campaigns. This article has just scratched the surface of potential University liability for support of these resolutions.
Neal M. Sher is a New York Attorney and former Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the U.S. Department of Justice.
Joel H. Siegal is a San Francisco attorney who specializes in civil rights, and labor litigation