Connect with us

RSS

Jewish quotas were at the heart of Supreme Court affirmative action ruling

WASHINGTON (JTA) — Harvard’s 20th-century antisemitic Jewish quotas were a key part of the Supreme Court’s decision to gut affirmative action on Thursday, as the winning litigant and two conservative justices cited them in the landmark case.

The 6-3 decision Thursday, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, bars universities from using race as an explicit factor in considering admissions, but allows race to be cited by applicants in essays describing their life experiences.

Students for Fair Admissions, the conservative advocacy group that brought the cases against Harvard and the University of North Carolina, claimed that the holistic admissions approach Harvard uses — which includes seeking a “extraordinary and diverse class of undergraduate students by conducting a wide-ranging review of every aspect of each applicant’s background and experience” — had its roots in the 1920s quota system “to discriminate against Jewish applicants.”

In 1922, Harvard’s president, A. Lawrence Lowell, noticed a precipitous rise in the number of Jews accepted to the university and proposed accepting a quota of only 15% Jewish students. Other American and Canadian universities followed suit.

At least two justices were sympathetic to the SFFA argument. Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas each raised the Jewish quotas in separate concurrences.

“According to then-[Harvard] President Abbott Lawrence Lowell, excluding Jews from Harvard would help maintain admissions opportunities for Gentiles and perpetuate the purity of the Brahmin race,” Thomas wrote.

Gorsuch quoted the advocacy group’s findings in his concurrence. “Harvard made this move, SFFA asserts, because President A. Lawrence Lowell and other university leaders had become ‘alarmed by the growing number of Jewish students who were testing in,’ and they sought some way to cap the number of Jewish students without ‘stat[ing] frankly’ that they were ‘directly excluding all [Jews] beyond a certain percentage.’”

Gorsuch also brought up Jews in a different context, to ridicule what he said was the incoherence of affirmative action. “There are also decisions granting Hispanic status to a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors fled Spain centuries ago,” he said, referring to a 1995 case in which the Small Business Administration certified a business as minority-owned because of the applicant’s Sephardic heritage.

Two Jewish groups also raised Harvard’s post antisemitism in amicus briefs, but to opposite ends. The Anti-Defamation League said the quota system was an inappropriate analogy because Harvard was seeking the opposite effect — to ease the entry of minorities. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law said the analogy was apt, claiming that the effect of the current policy was to exclude Asian students.

“We are deeply disappointed with the Supreme Court’s decision finding that the admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina are unconstitutional,” Steve Freeman, ADL’s senior counsel, said in a statement. “This decision reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the history and present realities of racial discrimination in this country and the reasons why affirmative action is still needed.”

The Brandeis Center’s director, Kenneth Marcus — who as the chief civil rights officer in the Trump administration’s Department of Education worked on multiple cases involving Israel and alleged antisemitism — called the decision “commendable for its moral clarity.” In a release, Marcus quoted the brief he helped author.

“Just as Harvard used methods in the 1920s and 1930s to identify applicants of sufficient ‘character and fitness’ as a pretext to discriminate against Jews, Harvard’s current use of the ‘personal rating’ to pursue student-body diversity is a pretext to discriminate against Asian Americans,” the brief said.

Another four Jewish groups also criticized the decision: the American Jewish Committee, the Reform movement’s Religious Action Center, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action.

“As a multiracial Jewish community, we know diversity is our strength and recognize that ignoring race will only perpetuate racial injustice,” said Rabbi Jonah Dov Pesner, the RAC director, in a statement.

—
The post Jewish quotas were at the heart of Supreme Court affirmative action ruling appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Post Views: 629
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Conspiracy Theories Blame Israel for Charlie Kirk’s Assassination

Charlie Kirk speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect

On September 10, a loud voice in American conservative politics was silenced after he was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University.

Charlie Kirk, 31, was an outspoken supporter of Israel, the Jewish people, and freedom of speech.

As of September 11, the murderer is still unknown, with American authorities pursuing a manhunt. Despite no public information being available as to the background, whereabouts, or motives of the killer, in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, large numbers of so-called activists posted online claiming that the assailant was not a lone individual, but rather a body determined to silence Kirk.

Their scapegoat? Israel and the Mossad.

By stringing together entirely unrelated “evidence,” a false narrative about Israel as the perpetrator began to take form.

These conspiracy theorists insisted that Kirk’s views slowly evolved to become anti-Israel, and that he had started questioning the actions of the state. This, despite his consistent defense of Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism and the threats that it faces.

In portraying Kirk as a rising critic of the Jewish State, voices online attempted to rewrite his public record, fabricating a motive for Israel to silence him.

These conspiracists pointed to his followers’ anti-Israel views and twisted them as “evidence” of Kirk’s own “shift” where he began a “JQ question” journey. Shorthand for “Jewish Question,” these individuals peddle the theory that the Jewish people are secretly controlling politics, the economy, and the media. Anyone who questions or challenges this alleged control is said to be punished by the Jews who supposedly wield it.

Of course, this conspiracy is not based on any factual evidence, but on recycled antisemitic myths. It became yet another way of turning a tragedy into a vehicle for scapegoating Jews.

The internet claimed Israel as the perpetrator, assassinating Kirk solely to advance its own agenda, even if at the expense of the Israel-US relationship. The accusation is entirely unfounded, but it still garnered support from accounts with over one million followers.

As a result of Kirk’s support for Israel, Israeli politicians, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, rushed to offer him support upon hearing the news that he was in critical condition, praying that he would recover.

Yet voices online quickly concluded that Netanyahu’s well-wishes could only mean one thing: Israel was behind the assassination.

Naturally, terrorist supporter and conspiracy theorist Jackson Hinkle jumped on the conspiracy theory bandwagon.

This is not the first time conspiracy theories blaming Israel for the death of innocent people have been created.

The tragic events of September 11, 2001, were also made into a conspiracy theory, claiming it was the result of a Mossad operation, alleging that the Mossad carried out the terrorist attack to advance the agenda of the Jewish State.

Because Kirk’s assassination happened the day before 9/11, the same conspiracy theorists who push the Mossad narrative found an easy opportunity to link the two events. They claimed that Kirk’s death was part of a broader, coordinated plan by Israel to manipulate global events and public perceptions of the country during a time of war.

The pattern of speculation being transformed into “evidence” is not new. However, the speed with which these false narratives can spread certainly is.

By diverting attention away from actual facts, conspiracy theorists can succeed in luring their audiences into believing dangerous tropes that fuel antisemitism. The exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s horrific assassination demonstrates how quickly a tragedy can be weaponized to fuel age-old antisemitic tropes by blaming the Jewish people for a tragedy in which they had no part.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Post Views: 4
Continue Reading

RSS

In Memory of My Personal Friend, Charlie Kirk

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara

Words cannot express the depth of our grief at the tragic murder of my dear friend, Charlie Kirk, at the hands of an evil gunman. Charlie was not only a national leader; he was also my neighbor here in Scottsdale, Arizona, with whom I shared a special bond.

We often spoke about G-d, whom he loved; our Judeo-Christian values, which he championed; America, which he adored; Israel and the Jewish people, whom he deeply cherished; and the state of our youth, for whom he cared so profoundly.

Beyond Charlie’s profound wisdom and unquenchable curiosity, he had an uncanny ability to engage in every exchange — even when disagreements grew heated — with respect, humility, and grace, along with an unrelenting desire to find common ground. A few months ago, he proudly shared with me that he too “observes the Sabbath.” From then on, we would often wish each other “Shabbat Shalom” every Friday.

Unlike many in positions of power, Charlie never felt threatened by the success of others. He lifted people up, opened doors, and rejoiced in their growth. Over a year ago, he encouraged me to join our mutual friend Seth Leibsohn on the radio, where I now appear regularly every Friday on 960AM The Patriot. Charlie often introduced me to his many friends and influencers, always eager to connect people and help them thrive.

Charlie loved his family fiercely. His beloved wife, Erika, and their children were his crown jewels. He hugged them tightly every day, and often reminded me to do the same with mine. Their well-being was always on his mind; his family was both his source of joy and his greatest mission. Just recently, while I was praying at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, Charlie asked me to “pray for my family, my wife Erika, and our children, Genevieve and MacArthur.”

Charlie was also a true believer in the United States of America, in the Constitution, and in the Divine principles upon which this country was founded. He worked tirelessly to reach everyone — particularly students on campuses across America — engaging them in dialogue and reminding them of our sacred values.

He was a stalwart supporter of Israel and of the Jewish people. Just a few weeks ago, I wrote in the Times of Israel that “Charlie is one of the most stalwart and consistent fighters in this war for truth, faith, and moral clarity… one of the shiniest ambassadors of G-d in our world.” Indeed, he lived with courage, with clarity, and with uncompromising faith.

Charlie’s sudden passing is not only a colossal loss for his friends; it is also a profound loss for America, for the nation of Israel, for all people of faith, and for the world.

To his amazing wife, Erika, to his precious children, Genevieve and MacArthur, and to all of Charlie’s loved ones: We send our deepest love, our fervent prayers, and our endless blessings. Know that we are with you today, tomorrow, and always.

And to all of us, I beg you: In Charlie’s memory, please consider the following:

  • Hug your spouse and children tighter today and every day, as Charlie did.

  • Embrace G-d and His values uncompromisingly, as Charlie did.

  • Add more and more good deeds to your everyday life, as Charlie did.

  • Debate ideas but never demean people, as Charlie did. As the seal of our great nation proclaims: E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one. May we live by it.

May Charlie’s light continue to guide us and illuminate our world. And may we soon see the day in which “G-d will swallow up death forever … and wipe away the tears from all faces” (Isaiah 25:8). Amen.

Rabbi Pinchas Allouche is the founding Rabbi of Congregation Beth Tefillah and the founding Dean of Nishmat Adin Hihh School in Scottsdale, Arizona.

Post Views: 8
Continue Reading

RSS

There Is Still Time to Pull Ourselves Back from the Edge

A Torah scroll. Photo: RabbiSacks.org.

The 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil — who served as British Prime Minister three times at the turn of the 20th century — was not exactly a cheerleader for progress. But he was honest. Brutally honest. His most remembered quote says it all: “Whatever happens will be for the worse, and therefore it is in our interest that as little should happen as possible.” 

Salisbury was the ultimate conservative. He sincerely and genuinely believed that change always makes things worse — and that the status-quo, with all its flaws, is preferable to whatever chaos change might unleash, which it most certainly will. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it — and if it is broken, best not to touch it. Because you’ll only make things worse.

There’s a certain bleak wisdom to Salisbury’s worldview, and it sounds exactly like the sort of thing you’d expect from a 19th-century European aristocrat with a hereditary seat in the House of Lords. But Salisbury’s fear of change isn’t just a relic of the past. It’s a recurring force throughout history. 

Change terrifies people. And when that fear metastasizes, it becomes a pathology — and bad things tend to happen to those who spearhead change, and to challenge accepted norms. Because when someone comes along and quietly unravels the lies, dismantles the illusions, and gently questions the reigning orthodoxy — not with rage, not with violence, but with cold, logical reason — the system panics.

We’ve seen this before, time and again. Martin Luther King Jr. didn’t call for violent revolution — he preached nonviolence and the reconfiguration of a broken system. But he threatened the status quo with something far more destabilizing: clarity. And for that, he was killed. 

Robert F. Kennedy wasn’t storming barricades — he was addressing poverty, race relations, and the Vietnam War, trying to find a way forward that was different. But his calm conviction rattled too many cages. And for that, he was killed. 

Yitzhak Rabin attempted to create peace and hope for Israel — and for that, he was killed. 

Donald Trump also had a brush with death in Butler, Pennsylvania, during the 2024 election campaign, when a would-be assassin fired a bullet that grazed his ear — a few millimeters from changing history.

Truthfully, it doesn’t matter if the agent of change is right or wrong, loud or quiet, from the left or the right — when people perceive that someone is shifting the tectonic plates of the political or cultural landscape, fear sets in. And fear, when left unchecked, becomes violence.

And now we have the killing of Charlie Kirk — the latest casualty of the fear of change. Kirk, a right-wing influencer with an extraordinary reach into Gen Z, was just 31 years old. He was gunned down in broad daylight while speaking to students at Utah Valley University. 

Moments before his murder, he had been doing what he did best — engaging young people calmly, intelligently, and without fear or condescension. He stood before an audience of thousands, not to inflame them, certainly not to encourage hate, but to persuade them. And for that, he was killed.

Immediately after the announcement of Kirk’s death, Donald Trump called him “The Great, and even Legendary, Charlie Kirk… No one understood or had the Heart of the Youth in the United States of America better.” Coming from someone who delights in exaggeration, that was no exaggeration. 

Kirk was uniquely gifted at reaching the very people our society claims to care about but so often fails to understand: disaffected youth struggling to find their political footing in an age of cynicism, manipulation, and institutional distrust.

There’s a chilling line buried in the long litany of curses in Parshat Ki Tavo — a statement by Moses you can easily gloss over or dismiss, until real life stops you in your tracks and the ancient words hit you between the eyes.

Moses begins the section by warning the Israelites not to abandon their moral compass or lose sight of the truth, or else they will descend into darkness. And among the consequences he spells out is this one (Deut. 28:34): “You will go mad from what your eyes see.”

To be clear, this is not a metaphor and it’s not a curse — it’s a prediction, and a diagnosis. A society that is frightened of truth, and of agents of change who prioritize truth over slogans, will eventually lose its collective mind. And then it will turn on the very people trying to save it.

The medieval commentator Ramban explains that this kind of madness is not clinical — it’s existential. It is, in fact, a divinely-sourced affliction on the intellect. When a society detaches itself from plain truth and spiritual grounding, it begins to lose its ability to think straight. Eventually, it sees good as evil, and honest debate as a subversive act. 

Ramban calls it a “strike on the mind” — a kind of blindness where people no longer recognize what is real and what is destructive. Moses is warning us that the results are always terrifying.

Sforno goes even deeper. He writes that this madness causes people to act against their own interests. They’re no longer just mistaken — they become destructive. They pursue what harms them, attack those trying to help them, and misjudge the very people who might lead them to a better place. 

In Sforno’s reading, “you will go mad from what your eyes see” means the world will become so upside-down, so saturated with chaos and distortion, that even when someone shows up with reason and hope, the collective instinct will be to destroy him.

There’s also a strange irony at play here — one that even the Marquess of Salisbury might have found too absurd to imagine. In today’s world, it’s the conservatives who are trying to change things, while the so-called progressives have become the reactionaries, frantically defending a broken, toxic status quo. 

The political compass has spun so wildly out of control that someone like Charlie Kirk — a conservative in ideology, but a radical in his willingness to confront cultural decay — was seen as a dangerous revolutionary, and killed. 

What would Salisbury have made of a world where not changing is what’s dragging us into the abyss? Where the only people trying to pull us back from the edge are the ones labeled as “extremists”? 

Charlie Kirk was a conservative, yes — but he was also a visionary who believed we didn’t have to accept the darkness and craziness that has engulfed the western world. He wanted to change things by bringing us back to our best selves. And for that, he was silenced.

Charlie Kirk said, “When you deliberately distort and selectively present the truth, you lie.” That wasn’t merely a clever observation — it was a moral compass. Charlie’s determined mission was to present the truth: undistorted, unfiltered, and without fear. 

And now that mission has been cut short — not by an opposing argument, but by a bullet. We are left with the unsettling fulfillment of Moses’ warning: “You will go mad from what your eyes see.” A society so overwhelmed by lies, and so afraid of actual truth, that it can no longer tolerate a calm voice of reason. That’s a society in the grip of madness. 

But madness is not destiny. It is a warning. If we can still hear voices like Charlie’s — and in the aftermath of his untimely death, if we can remember what he stood for — then perhaps we can begin, slowly and painfully, to pull ourselves back from the edge. The alternative is too dreadful to contemplate.

The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California. 

Post Views: 7
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News