Anti-Semitism

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Columbia President Nemat Shafik Resigns After Israel-Hamas War Turmoil

      by

      Nemat Shafik is the third Ivy League president to resign in the wake of turbulent congressional appearances and strife connected to the Israel-Hamas war. Columbia University’s president, Nemat Shafik, resigned on Wednesday after months of far-reaching fury over her handling of pro-Palestinian demonstrations and questions over her management of a bitterly divided campus.She was the third leader of an Ivy League university to resign in about eight months following maligned appearances before Congress about antisemitism on their campuses.Dr. Shafik, an economist who spent much of her career in London, said in a letter to the Columbia community that while she felt the campus had made progress in some important areas, it had also been a period of turmoil “where it has been difficult to overcome divergent views across our community.”“This period has taken a considerable toll on my family, as it has for others in our community,” wrote Dr. Shafik, who goes by the name Minouche. “Over the summer, I have been able to reflect and have decided that my moving on at this point would best enable Columbia to traverse the challenges ahead.”She added that her resignation was effective immediately, and that she would be taking a job with Britain’s foreign secretary to lead a review of the government’s approach to international development.The university’s board of trustees named Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, a medical doctor who has been the chief executive of Columbia’s medical center and dean of its medical school since 2022, as the interim president. The board did not immediately announce a timeline for appointing a permanent leader.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Connecticut Official Loses to Jewish Opponent After Antisemitic Comments

      by

      In an interview posted online, Anabel Figueroa made comments that have been widely condemned as antisemitic. On Tuesday, she lost her Democratic primary to a Jewish challenger.A Connecticut state representative lost a primary election Tuesday, just hours after a video surfaced of her saying that her challenger should not represent the district because he is Jewish.The incumbent, Anabel Figueroa, a Democrat, made the comments in a late July interview posted to YouTube.“We cannot allow for a person of Jewish origin, of Jewish origin, to represent our community,” Ms. Figueroa said in Spanish. “It’s impossible.”Ms. Figueroa’s statement comes as Jewish Democrats across the country are contending with anxiety about antisemitism both within and outside their party. Democrats in Connecticut and beyond were quick to condemn Ms. Figueroa on Tuesday, and her opponent, Jonathan Jacobson, went on to win with a decisive 63 percent of the vote.Mr. Jacobson said that outrage at his opponent’s comments had probably helped cement his support, but that he credits his victory to their substantive policy differences over issues like abortion and affordable housing.“Ultimately, her hate, that’s not what lost her the election; her hate is not what won me the election,” Mr. Jacobson said. We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Doug Emhoff Stresses a Personal Push Against Antisemitism

      by

      At an event in Paris to commemorate a 1982 attack on a Jewish deli there, Kamala Harris’s husband said, “Part of fighting hate is living openly and proudly as a Jew.”When Vice President Kamala Harris’s husband, Doug Emhoff, landed in Paris this week, the Summer Olympics were naturally on the schedule. He met with the champion sprinter Noah Lyles, watched the U.S. men’s basketball team rally against Serbia and is to lead the American presidential delegation at the closing ceremony on Sunday.But Mr. Emhoff, the first Jewish spouse of an American vice president or president, also used his trip to focus on an issue that is far more sobering and also deeply personal: a surge of antisemitism in the United States and around the world since the war between Israel and Hamas erupted in October.“It is a poison coursing through the veins of democracy and democratic ideals,” Mr. Emhoff said on Friday at a commemoration of a deadly 1982 attack on a storied Jewish deli in Paris. Six people were killed in that attack, including two Americans, and 22 were wounded.“Part of fighting hate is living openly and proudly as a Jew and celebrating our faith and our culture,” Mr. Emhoff said as helicopters buzzed overhead, a reminder of the tight security that France has imposed during the Olympics. “I love being Jewish, and I love the joy that comes with being Jewish. And I’m not going to let anyone tell me how to be Jewish.”Mr. Emhoff has emerged as the Biden administration’s most visible face in the struggle against antisemitism. He has convened Jewish leaders at the White House, called former President Donald J. Trump “a known antisemite,” and drawn on his faith to offer comfort to Jewish Americans anguished by the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.He is also, of course, the spouse of a presidential candidate. And to that end, he attended a private fund-raiser in Paris for Ms. Harris’s campaign, though he made no direct mention of her presidential bid in his public statements — even to the scores of journalists who watched him grab lunch at L’As du Falafel, a celebrated falafel spot, on Friday.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Shapiro’s College-Era Criticism of Palestinians Draws Fresh Scrutiny

      by

      Gov. Josh Shapiro, Democrat of Pennsylvania, wrote in his college newspaper three decades ago that Palestinians were “too battle-minded” to achieve a two-state solution in the Middle East, prompting criticism as Vice President Kamala Harris considers him to be her running mate.Mr. Shapiro, 51, has embraced his Jewish identity and been one of the Democratic Party’s staunchest defenders of Israel at a moment when the party is splintered over the war in Gaza.But he says his views have evolved since publishing an opinion essay as a college student at the University of Rochester in New York, when he wrote that Palestinians were incapable of establishing their own homeland and making it successful, even with help from Israel and the United States.“They are too battle-minded to be able to establish a peaceful homeland of their own,” he wrote in the essay, published in the Sept. 23, 1993, edition of The Campus Times, the student newspaper. “They will grow tired of fighting amongst themselves and will turn outside against Israel.”Mr. Shapiro, who was 20 at the time, noted in his essay that he had spent five months studying in Israel and had volunteered in the Israeli Army.“The only way the ‘peace plan’ will be successful is if the Palestinians do not ruin it,” Mr. Shapiro wrote, adding, “Palestinians will not coexist peacefully.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Antisemitism on Campuses, Ivy and Beyond

      by

      More from our inbox:A Middleman’s Role in Drug PrescriptionsObjection, Your HonorTrump vs. the Environment Alex Welsh for The New York TimesTo the Editor:Re “Should American Jews Abandon Elite Universities?,” by Bret Stephens (column, June 26):Mr. Stephens has issued a sobering and well-documented indictment of antisemitism on elite campuses. The question asked by the headline is timely and troubling for many Jewish high school students and their families.As noted by Mr. Stephens, confused administrators and revisionist curriculums contributed to this crisis. But the insensitivity and hypocrisy of supposedly idealistic and enlightened college students may be the most striking and unkind cut of all.“Safe spaces” and rules against “microaggressions” have become commonplace on campuses. Yet when Jewish students made it known that calling for deadly attacks on Jews (“Globalize the intifada!”) is offensive and intimidating, they were ignored.Chants in favor of colonization or racism would never — and should never — be met with such indifference. It hurts.Perhaps the headline of Mr. Stephens’s column should be rephrased: “Have Elite Universities Abandoned American Jews?”Alan M. SchwartzTeaneck, N.J.To the Editor:While the Ivies have claimed the antisemitism spotlight this year, Jew-hatred is flourishing on many other campuses, including mine, the University of California, Davis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      A Wall Street Law Firm Wants to Define Consequences of Anti-Israel Protests

      by

      Sullivan & Cromwell is requiring job applicants to explain their participation in protests. Critics see the policy as a way to silence speech about the war.For as long as students at colleges across the United States have protested the war in Gaza, they’ve drawn the fury of some of the financial world’s mightiest figures — investors, lawyers and bankers — who have flexed their financial power over universities, toppling school leaders in the process.It didn’t stop the students. The protests intensified this year until campuses emptied out for the summer.Now, a prominent Wall Street law firm is taking a more direct approach with protesters. Sullivan & Cromwell, a 145-year-old firm that has counted Goldman Sachs and Amazon among its clients, says that, for job applicants, participation in an anti-Israel protest — on campus or off — could be a disqualifying factor.The firm is scrutinizing students’ behavior with the help of a background check company, looking at their involvement with pro-Palestinian student groups, scouring social media and reviewing news reports and footage from protests. It is looking for explicit instances of antisemitism as well as statements and slogans it has deemed to be “triggering” to Jews, said Joseph C. Shenker, a leader of Sullivan & Cromwell.Candidates could face scrutiny even if they weren’t using problematic language but were involved with a protest where others did. The protesters should be responsible for the behavior of those around them, Mr. Shenker said, or else they were embracing a “mob mentality.” Sullivan & Cromwell wouldn’t say if it had already dropped candidates because of the policy.“People are taking their outrage about what’s going on in Gaza and turning it into racist antisemitism,” Mr. Shenker said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Columbia Removes Three Deans, Saying Texts Touched on ‘Antisemitic Tropes’

      by

      Nemat Shafik, the university president, called the sentiments in the text messages “unacceptable and deeply upsetting.”Three Columbia University administrators have been removed from their posts after sending text messages that “disturbingly touched on ancient antisemitic tropes” during a forum about Jewish issues in May, according to a letter sent by Columbia officials to the university community on Monday.The administrators are still employed by the university but have been placed on indefinite leave and will not return to their previous jobs.Nemat Shafik, the Columbia president, described the sentiments in the text messages as “unacceptable and deeply upsetting, conveying a lack of seriousness about the concerns and the experiences of members of our Jewish community.” She said the messages were “antithetical to our university’s values and the standards.”The announcement came about a month after a conservative website published photos that showed some of the text messages sent by the administrators.And it followed weeks of unrest at Columbia over the war in Gaza as the university emerged as the center of a nationwide protest movement. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations led Dr. Shafik to order the arrest of students on trespassing charges this spring. In late April, protesters occupied a campus building, leading to more arrests. In May, citing security concerns, the university canceled its main commencement ceremony.The three Columbia administrators involved in the text message exchanges are Cristen Kromm, formerly the dean of undergraduate student life; Matthew Patashnick, formerly the associate dean for student and family support; and Susan Chang-Kim, formerly the vice dean and chief administrative officer. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      France’s New Popular Front Was Formed to Keep Far Right From Power

      by

      Even as vote counting was still underway across France on Sunday night, one thing was clear: The left-wing coalition called the New Popular Front did much better than expected and helped deny the far right a victory.Projections show the coalition coming out in front and gaining dozens of seats — a feat for an alliance that was forged only last month with the goal of keeping the far-right National Rally from power. The alliance includes four left-wing parties: Communists, Socialists, Greens and the far-left party, France Unbowed. While many in France cheered what appeared to be a loss for the far right, others were fearful of what the far left might bring.Last week, after the first vote in a two-round election, the coalition withdrew more than 130 of its candidates from three-way races in which the far right had a chance of winning — and pushed their supporters to vote strategically against far-right candidates.The strategy appeared to have worked.Despite the apparent win for the left, the polls showed that no party or alliance got an absolute majority that would make it the likely choice to form a government. Still, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, founder of France Unbowed, a pugnacious and divisive figure, quickly declared that his party was not willing to negotiate to form a coalition government. Instead, he demanded that the left-wing alliance be given the reins to govern so it could implement its “entire program.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More