[6][7] LDB was named after Louis D. Brandeis, a Jewish American lawyer and associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States active in the Zionist movement.
The purpose of these chapters is to foster "a new generation of leaders who share LDB's mission" which includes combating antisemitism and anti-Israelism and the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement in particular.
The Jigsaw Initiative is a program run by LDB that trains a specialized group of law students in using legal tools and skills to combat antisemitism and BDS on college campuses.
They are trained to act as mentors to undergraduate students in helping them confront antisemitism on campus and to and understand international law related to BDS.
"[21] LDB considers adopting a definition of antisemitism to be crucial for universities and government to make clear the boundaries between hateful actions and legitimate behavior.
"[23] LDB had previously issued a letter to the Board of Regents, highlighting incidents at UCLA, Santa Barbara, Davis, Berkeley, and Irvine.
[25] It is in the Brandeis Center's view that the BDS campaign is antisemitic because some of its proponents act out of conscious hostility to the Jewish people; others act from unconscious or tacit disdain for Jews; and still others operate out of a climate of opinion that contains elements that are hostile to Jews and serve as the conduits through whom anti-Jewish tropes and memes are communicated; while all of them work to sustain a movement that attacks the commitment to Israel that is central to the identity of the overwhelming majority of Jewish people.
LDB claimed that the federal funds provided to 129 international studies and foreign language centers at universities by Title VI of the Higher Education Act of 1965 were therefore being misused.
The report was accompanied by a statement signed by 10 pro-Israel groups,[12] expressing concern over alleged misuse of taxpayer money and arguing that the programs "disseminate anti-American and anti-Israel falsehoods.
[34] Amy W. Newhall, executive director of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA), rejected the groups' statement as "politically motivated attacks on scholars and academic institutions" and as a serious threat to free speech.
They are even willing to threaten federal funding for university-based Middle East studies centers, which have a long and distinguished history of providing the United States with thousands of people trained in the languages, politics, cultures and histories of this critical region.UCLA's media relations office stated that the university "remains dedicated to complying with all federal laws and respecting the free and open exchange of ideas representing diverse viewpoints."
[33] In response to the criticism from Newhall, Marcus in a letter to the editor of The Chronicle insisted that the groups' goal was not to shut down open discussion, rather the opposite: "accountability systems to ensure that these programs offer the diversity of perspectives that existing law requires.
In a comment, Marcus strongly criticized the decision:[38] In many ways, these micro-BDS efforts are more dangerous than broader campaigns against the entire country of Israel, because they are sneakier and more deceptive.
In October 2015, Chatterjee claimed that the GSA had a policy requiring "neutrality" on speech relating to "Israel-Palestine" and that groups advocating for boycotts of Israel, such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), would be ineligible for funding.
[47] In May 2016, pro-Israeli groups at UC Irvine (UCI) hosted a screening of the film Beneath the Helmet and intended to hold a panel discussion with Israeli soldiers.
[48] The campus group that had organized the protest, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), was issued a written warning and required to host an educational program, a punishment LDB thought were too lenient.
[50] In 2017, LDB endorsed the South Carolinian anti-BDS law H 3643 which would have required colleges to use the 2010 US State Department's definition of antisemitism when investigating alleged civil rights violations.
She cited privacy laws that protects confidential student records from disclosure as a reason as to why the school district couldn't reveal all the details of the case and that the lawyers therefore were only "seeking half a story" and using incorrect information.
[59][63] In response to numerous allegations of antisemitic behavior at the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC), in March 2020, a complaint was filed with the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
This complaint, on behalf of the Jewish students at the university, was filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP in collaboration with the Jewish United Fund and Hillel International, stating that the events taking place on campus are in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
[66] Additionally, within the statement are provisions allowing students to publicly express their Jewish identity, identification with Israel and their belief in Zionism without fear of discrimination or intimidation.
[67][68] The Brandeis Center filed a federal complaint on behalf of Jewish mental health counselors in 2021, alleging anti-Jewish harassment in Stanford University's Counseling & Psychological Services' (CAPS) Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) program.
"[72] The lawsuit further asserted that DEI committee members at Stanford University's CAPS division invoked antisemitic stereotypes related to Jewish power and wealth.
The report revealed that 65% of respondents had experienced or were aware of antisemitism on their campuses, and 50% admitted to hiding their Jewish identity at times to avoid hostility or discomfort.
[74][75][76] Marcus argued that the findings should alarm college leaders, as many Jewish students feel pressured to conceal their identity due to rising antisemitism on campuses.
"[80] “In the wake of a landmark settlement with the federal government, there has been a remarkable evolution in visible support for Jewish students,” stated UVM Hillel Executive Director Matt Vogel.
US District Judge Richard Stearns rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss the case, affirming the claim that the university was “deliberately indifferent” to a hostile environment for Jewish students.
As part of the agreement, Harvard adopted the IHRA working definition of antisemitism in its policies and pledged to enhance its procedures for handling discrimination complaints.
The Wall Street Journal highlighted the significance of this settlement as a major victory for the Brandeis Center, with Kenneth L. Marcus describing it as a “model for other universities nationwide.” Harvard’s president expressed the institution's commitment to fostering an inclusive environment while addressing concerns raised by Jewish students and advocacy groups.
[103][104] On September 11th, 2023, The Louis D. Brandeis Center For Human Rights Under the Law, Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish League, Potomac Law Group, and Stand With Us filed a lawsuit, on behalf of students, against SAUSD that “alleged violations of California’s open meetings law, including failing to provide proper public notice before approving multiple ethnic studies courses containing anti-Jewish bias and for refusing to protect the public, including members of the Jewish community, from intimidation and harassment at Board meetings.” Plaintiffs allege SAUSD violated the Brown Act, which prohibits secret legislation by public bodies and requires open meetings.