As a Jewish Brown alum and a practicing attorney, I feel compelled to respond to Professor Katharina Galor’s erroneous analysis of the University’s settlement with the federal government. Galor’s reading disregards federal regulatory interpretation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that emerged over the past two decades and falsely claims that it creates a new definition of a Jew as someone who possesses “shared Jewish ancestry.” This claim fundamentally misstates the evolution of the law and its implications.
Title VI is a federal statute that protects students from discrimination based on race, color or national origin. Notably, it does not expressly list religion or being Jewish as protected classes. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, however, expanded this protection to Jewish, Muslim and Sikh students, among others, through a series of regulatory pronouncements made since 2004. Recent federal guidance has also outlined protections based on “actual or perceived: (i) shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or (ii) citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.” This very same expansive definition of race and national origin — the one Galor believes creates a protected class for Jewish students by bloodline and redefines Palestinians as “political threats” — actually protects Palestinian and Muslim students from harassment just as much as it does Jewish students.
This concept did not pop up for the first time in Brown’s settlement this past summer, nor was it created by President Donald Trump. It is well-established law. Anyone who tries to sell you on the idea that President Christina Paxson P’19 P’MD’20 and the federal government intentionally redefined Jews in this agreement based on Nazi concepts of eugenics and race is deeply mistaken. To blame Paxson for having “conceded” to established definitions and statutory interpretations that undoubtedly were not the primary subject matter of the actual negotiations shows ignorance of the law.
However, this misconstruction is necessary for Galor to make her second leap in reasoning. After misreading the definition of Jewish identity applicable under Title VI as a “nationalist, ethnically defined model,” something never stated in any settlement or by the Department of Education’s definition, Galor then argues that the settlement somehow can be weaponized against Jews exercising their First Amendment freedom of speech rights to criticize Israel’s government.
Nothing about the settlement, however, grounds Title VI protections in a nationalist identity for Jews. Nothing in the agreement threatens students’ or faculty members’ ability to criticize Israel. And nothing in the agreement “frames Palestinians as political threats by association,” as Galor claims. In fact, it says nothing about Palestinians or about the freedom to criticize Israel. It does, however, expressly state that “no provision of this agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.”
Far from a panopticon, the settlement merely requires sharing deidentified data on how investigations into claims of antisemitism are handled to ensure procedures are followed, complaints are taken seriously and reports are investigated appropriately. This is standard practice for an Office for Civil Rights settlement. It further requires that Brown conduct a climate survey among Jewish students to obtain anonymous data on how welcome they feel on campus, and whether they feel Brown has responded adequately to reports of antisemitism. Jews critical of the Israeli government are not excluded from that survey. They are just as welcome to respond by saying that they experienced no antisemitism on campus. And Jewish students who reported receiving death threats, bullying on Sidechat, being targeted by anti-Zionist professors, being called “Zionist pigs” or who were subjected to swastikas, are equally welcome to share their experiences. In fact, the University clarified on Tuesday that all students, faculty and staff will be included in the climate survey. It is a commonplace survey, similar to those conducted by companies across the globe annually to take the temperature of their corporate culture.
Finally, as a professor of Judaic studies, surely Galor knows that Judaism is both a religion and an ethnicity. Does she not believe that Title VI should apply to or protect Jews as a group with actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, as it has for 20 years? And does she truly believe that Paxson actively agreed to a redefinition of Jewish identity that would exclude Paxson herself as a convert to Judaism?
As Galor states, Brown indeed used to be a “place known for critical inquiry and courageous debate.” Unfortunately, Galor’s analysis undermines both worthy goals.
Ellen Ginsberg Simon ’00 is a Member of the Steering Committee of Brown Jewish Alumni & Friends. She can be reached at ellengsimon@gmail.com. Please send responses to this op-ed to letters@browndailyherald.com and other op-eds to opinions@browndailyherald.com.
