RSS
Explosive Lawsuit Accuses Northwestern University of Reverse Racism in Hiring
Signs cover the fence at a pro-Palestinian encampment at Northwestern University in Evanston, Ill. on April 28, 2024. Photo: Max Herman via Reuters Connect.
Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law discriminated against white male applicants in its faculty hiring process, according to a new federal lawsuit citing as cause the US Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that affirmative action in higher education is unconstitutional.
The sharply worded complaint, filed by Faculty, Alumni, and Opposed to Racial Preferences, opens a new front in the conservative movement’s attempt to proscribe what scholars and activists have described as an insidious pattern of reverse discrimination, which, while intending to assuage the lingering effects of racism in the US, has fostered a new “anti-white” bigotry that penalizes individual merit and undermines the spirit of the 1960s Civil Rights Movement.
Taking aim at “inclusive” hiring practices, the suit focuses on a component of affirmative action in higher education that is not widely known among the American public, such as “cluster hiring” — programs which aim to hire bunches of minority professors at a time — and “diversity recruitment” stipulations which all but guarantee that scores of white men, or individuals perceived as white, are denied employment in academia.
“For decades, left-wing faculty and administrators have been thumbing their noses at federal anti-discrimination statues and openly discriminating on account of race and sex when appointing professors,” court documents filed in the US District Court of Illinois say. “They do this by hiring women and racial minorities with mediocre and undistinguished records over white men who have better credentials, better scholarship, and better teaching ability.”
It continues, “The practice, long known as ‘affirmative action,’ is firmly entrenched at institutions of higher learning and aggressively pushed by leftist ideologues on faculty-appointment committees and in university [diversity, equity, and inclusion] offices. But it is prohibited by federal law, which bans universities that accept federal funds from discriminating on account of race or sex in their hiring decisions.”
The complaint goes on to allege that high-level officials went to great lengths to conceal the law school’s allegedly discriminatory hiring practices, going as far as banning frank discussions about them on a digital messaging forum to avoid “litigation risk.” This code of silence, it argues, enabled the rejection of a job application submitted by Professor Eugene Volokh, a “renowned legal scholar” who has taught law for three decades and is cited in numerous opinions issued by the US Supreme Court. Volokh also clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman ever to serve on the country’s highest court.
“The idea of appointing Professor Volokh was supported by many of Northwestern’s public-law faculty,” the complaint says. “But the appointments committee that year was chaired by former dean Dan Rodriguez, who repeatedly pushed for race-based hirings as dean and refused to even invite Professor Volokh to interview. Because of Rodriguez’s intransigence, Professor Volokh’s candidacy was never even presented to the Northwestern faculty for a vote, while candidates with mediocre and undistinguished records were interviewed and received offers because of their preferred demographic characteristics.”
Volokh was “blocked” from teaching at the law school because he is white, the complaint continues, noting that another white candidate, Ernie Young, was denied a job despite holding a prestigious position at Duke Law School and publishing a mountain of legal scholarship in the thirty years since he graduated from Harvard Law School in 1993. It adds that Pritzker Law was allegedly so committed to excluding accomplished white men from its faculty that it hired Destiny Peery, a Black woman of color who was awarded a tenure-track position “even though the faculty at Northwestern was fully aware of her abysmal academic record as a student at the law school” and had “expressed concerns that Peery was unqualified for an academic appointment and incapable of producing serious scholarship.”
The complaint’s allegations stand to be controversial for its challenging a system that purports to redress the legacy of anti-Black discrimination and sexism and for seeking to apply civil rights laws to white men, a demographic that is described by leading progressives as “privileged.” However, non-white students, both male and female, have complained about the discriminatory effects of racial preferences, which has in practice punished intellectual achievement in pursuit of “social justice” and was even outlawed in California, a state where whites are a minority, decades before it was ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
“Northwestern Pritzker School of Law is among the top law schools in the country, and we are proud of their outstanding faculty,” Northwestern University said on Wednesday, as reported by ABC News, in a statement responding to the lawsuit. “We intend to vigorously defend this case.”
On Friday, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, founder of higher education antisemitism watchdog AMCHA Initiative, told The Algemeiner that, in addition to undermining civil rights, racial preferences have fostered antisemitism on college campuses. Admissions and hiring committees packed with progressives ideologues, she said, not only prefer non-white candidates, they also aim to ensure that new hires are ideologically progressive — and, moreover, anti-Zionist. The effect of this, she explained, is that Jews in higher education, whom mainstream progressive ideology classifies as white, are also subject to discrimination, an issue The Algemeiner has covered extensively.
“Racial preferences pit racial identity against the meritocracy, and one of the reasons that Jews have became so prominent in academia is because it is a system that rewards talent, character, and grit. Jews tend to be well-educated and highly achieving, and when an institution’s primary concern is the quality of the individual as opposed to the color of his or her skin or perceived background, Jews excel,” Rossman-Benjamin explained. “What the university stands for, academic integrity and excellence, are values that have lifted Jews up in America, and, in addition to being critical for advancing humanity, they have been one of the most important sources of our strength in this country.”
She continued, “However, when you impose academia criteria that have nothing to do with those values and nothing to do with academic integrity but everything to do with a political agenda that really at its core is discriminatory and hateful — and antisemitic — you make the university not just a hostile place for Jews but also a hostile place for learning.”
Rossman-Benjamin further argued that progressives have effortlessly “captured” higher education institutions over the past several decades and that their predominance in academia and the explosion of antisemitism on campuses across the US are directly linked.
“What’s so interesting is that the way you know that contemporary progress is not just a fraudulent and bankrupt ideology but an evil one, is that it produces antisemitism,” she continued. “Antisemitism is a bellwether of its malevolence. If it were positive and healthy, it would lift people up — but it isn’t. In fact, it is hurting them in the deepest ways.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post Explosive Lawsuit Accuses Northwestern University of Reverse Racism in Hiring first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Silence and Bias: When NGOs Lose Their Moral Compass
Partygoers at the Supernova Psy-Trance Festival who filmed the events that unfolded on Oct. 7, 2023. Photo: Yes Studios
On October 7, 2023, the world witnessed the largest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. Hamas terrorists stormed across the border, butchering families, burning homes, and taking hundreds of hostages, while Hezbollah joined in by launching rockets from Lebanon.
For most people, this was a day of horror. For the world’s leading humanitarian organizations, however, it became another opportunity to blame Israel.
The Selective Outrage of Humanitarian Groups
Instead of directing their moral outrage toward Hamas and Hezbollah, many NGOs chose to focus their fire on Israel.
Amnesty International, for instance, has published multiple reports accusing Israel of genocide. In its December 2024 publication, tellingly titled “You Feel Like You Are Subhuman,” Amnesty concluded: “Israel is committing the crime of genocide against Palestinians in Gaza by killing members of the group, causing serious bodily and mental harm, and inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about their destruction.”
Earlier in 2025, Amnesty doubled down, releasing a statement that Israel was “pursuing a deliberate policy of starvation as a weapon of war, which constitutes a form of genocide.”
Such sweeping accusations, leveled without context about Hamas’ role in starting the war, hoarding aid, building tunnels under hospitals, and deliberately embedding among civilians, reveal less about facts on the ground and more about political framing.
Oxfam’s Numbers Without Context
Oxfam, too, has amplified this one-sided narrative. In January 2025, it contributed to a survey of aid organizations, claiming that “89% of humanitarian groups report that Israel’s restrictions obstructed aid delivery, and 93% noted worsening conditions in Gaza.”
While the figures sound damning, what Oxfam omits is crucial: Hamas has systematically stolen aid, turned civilian areas into weapons depots, and even fired rockets from UN schools. These realities are either downplayed or erased from NGO reports.
This selective framing is not new. Oxfam’s 2014 report, Cease Failure, made sweeping condemnations of Israel while barely mentioning Hamas rocket fire or the terror tunnels that threatened Israeli families in Sderot and Ashkelon. By removing key context, Oxfam transformed a complex war into a simple morality play where Israel was cast as the villain.
The Watchdogs Respond
Independent monitors have called out these double standards. NGO Monitor, which analyzes human rights organizations, noted that Amnesty’s March 2025 report accusing the European Union of “complicity in genocide” was riddled with “misrepresentations, omissions, and a selective application of international law.”
In other words, these organizations are not simply misinformed, they are actively shaping narratives that delegitimize Israel’s right to defend itself.
A Look Back at History
History provides perspective. When the Allied forces bombed Dresden in February 1945, up to 35,000 civilians were killed. The action was seen within the context of total war against Nazi Germany, not as a war crime. After the attacks of September 11, the United States invaded Afghanistan. Yet global discourse at the time emphasized the US right to self-defense against terrorism — not accusations of genocide.
But Israel, facing existential threats on multiple borders, is treated differently. The same moral logic that is applied to America and Europe is denied to the Jewish State.
Israel’s Ethical Conduct in War
Unlike its adversaries, Israel has taken extraordinary measures to protect civilian lives.
The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) deploy tactics almost unheard of in modern warfare: “roof-knocking” (dropping non-lethal devices on buildings to warn civilians), sending text alerts, distributing maps of humanitarian corridors, and even pausing operations to allow aid trucks to enter Gaza.
Compare this to Hamas, whose leaders openly boast about using human shields. Hamas military commander Fathi Hammad once declared: “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry … This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen.”
Hamas has vowed to repeat Oct. 7 “over and over” until Israel is destroyed.
But no NGO report from Amnesty or Oxfam highlights this with the same intensity they reserve for Israel.
The Right to Exist Is Not Optional
The Dutch proverb says: “Schoenmaker, blijf bij je leest” — let the shoemaker stick to his trade.
Humanitarian groups should focus on saving lives, not rewriting history or enabling propaganda. By ignoring terrorism, downplaying hostage-taking, and erasing Israeli suffering, they betray their own missions.
Israel is not waging an elective war; it is fighting for survival in a hostile region. To condemn the Jewish State for defending its citizens while minimizing the atrocities of Hamas is not humanitarian advocacy, it is moral inversion.
The right of Israel to exist, and to defend that existence, is not negotiable.
Sabine Sterk in the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.
RSS
I’m an American Jew with Iranian Roots: Here’s Why I’m Investing in Israel
A general view shows thousands of Jewish worshipers attending the priestly blessing on the Jewish holiday of Sukkot at the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City, Sept. 26, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Ammar Awad.
For Iranian-American Jews, the latest escalations between Israel and Iran felt especially personal.
Many of us watched the three pillars of our identity collide on the world stage, with growing uncertainty about what comes next. Like many others, I speak Farsi, cook the dishes created by my Persian ancestors, and still dream of a world where I can take my children to visit Iran.
The people in our community host Shabbat dinners that echo the spirit of Iranian Mehmoonis, rather than the typical American Shabbat at home. At the same time, we speak Hebrew, send our children to Jewish camps, and celebrate holidays with family and community — living at the intersection of rich, layered traditions.
And we also relate to the human rights and political challenges that so many Iranians face today. The world now sees a glimpse of what our families once endured to escape Iran.
Growing up, my grandfather told me stories about his childhood there in the 1930s and 1940s — about how Jews weren’t allowed on the streets when it rained because of the antisemitic belief that their supposed uncleanliness would contaminate the ground.
By the 1950s, under the Shah, Jews were able to participate in society and contribute to Iran’s growing industrial economy, despite continued antisemitism. And though many Iranians looked down on him, my grandfather — like so many others — remained a proud Zionist.
But everything changed with the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Iran was no longer safe for my family. They fled first to Israel, and then to Los Angeles, where their American Dream began.
They rebuilt their lives in a new country, carrying their culture with them, and worked hard to provide my family with opportunities. They saw no reason to look back. Through hard work, risk, and luck, they made a name for themselves and built generational companies in aerospace manufacturing and telecommunications.
Still, their love for Israel was deeply ingrained in who they were. And more than love or pride, they believed in Israel’s potential and the resilience of its people.
Even after leaving Israel in the late 1970s, they viewed the country with inspiration. With their children’s futures in mind, my grandparents invested in Israeli technology, energy, and real estate, hoping these ventures would help the next generation of my family maintain ties with the country and its people. And that’s exactly what happened.
I was born and raised in Los Angeles, but the values my family passed down have always tethered me to Israel. As a child, I visited the Jewish State for summer camps and holidays. In high school, I lived with an Israeli family and attended school there. Even as life got busier with college and my career, I made a point to stay connected to my roots, to my family, and to Israel.
As my career progressed, Israel was increasingly becoming a highly investable place in both technology and real estate, despite being a resource-poor country. This wasn’t a coincidence.
Israeli innovation and military prowess stem from its need to defend itself — a reality every Israeli confronts through mandatory military service. This experience, especially in elite intelligence units, exposes young people to cutting-edge technology and instills the discipline and leadership that drive many to launch start-ups.
Over the last five years, I helped bring together a group of Persian-Jewish families to invest in Israel’s technology ecosystem. With the help of friends I made in Israel throughout my life, I’ve developed lasting partnerships and invested in many of the country’s most dynamic businesses.
Just as it was for my grandparents, Israel is once again a source of inspiration for our generation. To me, Israel is not just a refuge — but a future. I hope to show other people why the country is worthy of their investment, while also being a place to visit and support through philanthropy.
Since October 7, 2023, the Tel Aviv 35 index has climbed nearly 50 percent, while the Israeli shekel has gained more than 10 percent against the US dollar. Israel is home to one of the world’s most concentrated and dynamic technology ecosystems, generating over $140 billion in tech exits since 2014, and consistently ranking among the top four countries for the number of companies listed on the Nasdaq.
Iran is the land of my family’s past, my family’s language, and our most cherished traditions. I still dream of walking the streets of Tehran not as a child of refugees, but as a proud Iranian American Jew.
But Israel is where our past meets our future, a place that calls on us to invest our time, our love, and, yes, our money, to help ensure the country’s future.
Ariel Torbati is a private equity and venture capital investor based in Los Angeles. He is a founding partner of Canon Equity and a third-generation member of the Nazarian family office.
RSS
A Media Campaign Sought to ‘Blackout’ Coverage Against Israel; Here’s What It Means
A Palestinian Hamas terrorist shakes hands with a child as they stand guard as people gather on the day of the handover of Israeli hostages, as part of a ceasefire and a hostages-prisoners swap deal between Hamas and Israel, in Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip, Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ramadan Abed
While some media outlets allege that Israel has something insidious to hide by not allowing foreign journalists into Gaza, the demand to be allowed access is a genuine and understandable one coming from some reliable news outlets.
But Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has taken this demand and turned it into a full-on campaign, whose thinly-veiled purpose is a betrayal of journalistic ethics.
That RSF partnered with the activist group Avaaz should have raised red flags in newsrooms around the world. Perhaps because of this, despite the proud boasts of RSF claiming to have over 200 global media outlets signed up, the results of the pair’s media blackout of Israel should be put in perspective.
It was supposed to be a global media blackout — dark front covers, demonstrations, and rage. But the majority of the participating media were fringe outlets or from countries with a limited global influence (like The New Arab or Venezuela’s Tal Sucal).
Nonetheless, the presence of NPR and The Independent should raise some eyebrows.
Unethical Campaign
A unified campaign message meant to be promoted by every media outlet says it all: “At the rate journalists are being killed in Gaza reporting on Israel’s war, there will soon be none left to keep you informed.”
The first of RSF’s demands is “the protection of Palestinian journalists and an end to the impunity for crimes perpetrated by the Israeli army against them in the Gaza Strip.”
Clearly, the campaign is aimed solely at blaming Israel and accusing it of deliberately killing journalists.
It ignores evidence that (a) Israel is not deliberately targeting genuine journalists, and (b) dozens of so-called journalists killed by the IDF in Gaza were, in fact, either affiliated with terror organizations or working as actual terrorist operatives.
Indeed, the campaign mentions the death of Al Jazeera “journalist” Anas Al-Sharif in an Israeli strike last month, omitting hard evidence presented by the IDF proving that he was a commander of a terrorist cell in a Hamas rocket-launching platoon.
And while the organizers choose to decry the deteriorating living conditions faced by local Gazan journalists, who are no different than any other resident of the embattled enclave, there’s no mention of the intimidation genuine journalists face from Hamas, or the threats from the terrorist organization to independent journalism in the Strip.
Local journalists in Gaza work under Hamas’ watchful eye, out of bias or fear.
The campaign effectively asks fellow journalists to do the exact opposite of what their profession demands: take sides.
Because it is not really about media access or solidarity with Gaza journalists — consensus issues that sound easy to agree to.
It’s all about demonizing and delegitimizing Israel.
And the media situation is not unique to Israel.
The IDF has allowed embedded journalists to accompany its forces in the same way that other armies, such as the US in Iraq, have done. Gaza is a warzone. Other Western armies that do not wish to see foreign journalists come to harm take the same precautions as the IDF has.
No army wants to add foreign journalists to the mix when it comes to operational considerations. None of this is about “covering up” the harsh realities, particularly when an enormous amount of (enemy-controlled) footage is being beamed from inside Gaza already.
These outlets aren’t reporting the news — they’re performing a script designed to delegitimize Israel.
Scripts are pre-written, visuals standardized, timelines synchronized, hashtags dictated.
What an absolute embarrassment. pic.twitter.com/Y9Y8QN56Lc
— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) August 31, 2025
Media Lip Service
The two largest wire agencies — Reuters or AP — did not blacken their home pages. Nor did The Washington Post, CNN, or The New York Times.
This is because professional outlets still believe it is wrong for agenda-driven NGOs to dictate their policy.
In a cowardly fashion, The New York Times jumped on the bandwagon with an editorial, thereby amplifying the message without signing up to the campaign, similar to what The Guardian did. And CNN reported on it, thereby giving the campaign the publicity it sought.
Ultimately, this was not only an anti-Israel campaign, but also an anti-journalistic one.
Professional journalists — not terrorists in disguise or their biased colleagues — deserve to be treated with respect, but they should not be dancing to anyone’s tune.
And let’s not forget the attitude shown by the media towards any kind of pro-Israel campaigning, whether coordinated or not — sometimes dismissively rejected as “hasbara” to delegitimize those attempting to carry out public diplomacy or activism on behalf of Israel.
That a few hundred media outlets felt that a coordinated campaign that crosses the line from journalism into (anti-Israel) activism is a legitimate activity, speaks volumes about the hypocrisy present in newsrooms across the globe.
HonestReporting is a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.