By Lili Levi

On May 25, 2023, the Biden Administration released The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism—America’s first national strategy of this kind. In early November 2023, the White House announced the establishment of the first-ever U.S. National Strategy to Counter Islamophobia. These historic commitments respond to increases in identity-based bias incidents and expression against Jews and Muslims. Antisemitic incidents, which were already rising even before the pandemic, increased by almost 400% since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The war also triggered a sharp upturn in Islamophobic incidents in the U.S., including the shooting of three college students and the murder of a child. Although there has been fresh contestation in the U.S. over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this is also a particularly pressing moment for the effective implementation of the national strategies to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia here.

This Article focuses on The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism (hereinafter National Strategy). The National Strategy laudably recognizes that rising antisemitism—linked, as it is, to white nationalism—poses risks not only to Jews, but to the nation and to democracy. The self-professed centrality of antisemitism to the broadly racist white nationalist goal of enhanced political power in the United States makes that clear. By recognizing this, the National Strategy implicitly highlights the risks posed both by those conservatives who downplay associations with antisemites and those progressives who discount antisemitism. In centering anti-antisemitism as a national goal, the National Strategy additionally makes three key contributions: (1) by focusing on antisemitism as a broad social challenge rather than principally a problem on college campuses; (2) by its recognition of the role of social media in disseminating and amplifying antisemitism; and (3) by emphasizing the need for more empirical research aimed at the idiosyncrasies and impacts of antisemitism.

To be sure, as the Article points out, some of the National Strategy’s recommendations to reverse the normalization of antisemitism—its specific proposals regarding social media, its slant on “speaking out” and public condemnation, and its reliance on voluntary corporate sanctions—could benefit from further consideration, refinement, and empirical study. Nevertheless, it would be regrettable for American democracy if some under-analyzed policy recommendations, partisan politics, or concerns about disagreements over the Middle East were to cause the White House’s important anti-antisemitism commitment for the U.S. to be discounted as mere political theater

 78 University of Miami Law Review 745 (Spring, 2024) , 96p.

By The Australian Human Rights Commission

A study is being undertaken into the prevalence, nature and impact of racism in Australian universities for both staff and students, at the individual and systemic level. This interim report outlines how this will be done and provides initial insights reflecting stakeholder feedback, emerging themes and early issues for consideration. It highlights a range of concerns from both students and staff in relation to their experience of racism on university campuses.

Racism in universities is a long-standing problem, with research showing it is a persistent and systemic issue for students and staff from First Nations and other negatively racialised backgrounds. The severity of recent incidents of antisemitism and Islamophobia combined with other experiences of racism across different groups, creates an urgent need to act decisively.

The findings reveal trends in racism and structural discrimination with significant impacts on wellbeing, participation and performance. At the conclusion of the study, the Commission will deliver comprehensive research findings and recommendations on how to effectively address and reduce racism, in all its forms, at universities.

Key findings

First Nations students and staff – Indigenous participants report enduring structural and interpersonal racism.

Jewish students and staff – Jewish students and staff cited a rise in antisemitism including extremist propaganda, intimidation and exclusion.

Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim students and staff – participants described hostility, threats and discriminatory practices, including restrictions on cultural expression and prayer spaces.

African and Asian students and staff – African students and staff frequently encountered severe racism, often feeling the need to moderate their natural ways of expressing themselves. Asian participants reported being stereotyped as high achieving but limited to specific academic disciplines.

International students – reports of exclusion, social isolation and fears of visa repercussions were common. Many felt reduced, viewed as ‘cash cows’ for universities.

Sydney: Australian Human Rights Commission, 2024. 137p