RSS
John Hopkins University Adopts ‘Institutional Neutrality’ Policy After Anti-Israel Protests
John Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Photo: Paul Sableman/Wikimedia Commons
John Hopkins University (JHU) announced that it has adopted a policy of “institutional neutrality” and will not weigh in on topics outside its direct “interest or function,” which ostensibly means it will not issue public statements on contentious political issues.
The decision came after JHU was one of many US universities to experience raucous anti-Israel protests on campus last spring semester.
“The dedication to restraint applies to university statements from the president, provost, and deans,” the university said on Thursday. “It does not apply to individual faculty members in their scholarly or personal capacity. In fact, one intent of the commitment is to extend the broadest possible scope to the views and expressions of faculty, bolstering faculty in the exercise of their freedom to share insights and perspectives without being concerned about running counter to an ‘institutional’ stance.”
It continued, “Moving forward, in considering whether and when to issue a statement, university leaders will determine whether the issue clearly pertains to the ‘direct, concrete, and demonstrable interest or function of the university.’ Determinations will ultimately fall to an internal working group including senior members of the president’s and provost’s staff.”
Coming just a week before the start of its new academic year, the policy addresses a bitter debate in academia over what stance, if any, universities should take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israel’s war with Hamas. Anti-Zionist scholar-activists and students have implored administrators to adopt the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, while Zionist and pro-Israel forces have insisted on their denouncing anti-Zionist speech that is antisemitic. In the spring, anti-Zionist students escalated their demands for an anti-Israel boycott by illegally occupying a section of the campus for 13 days.
At the time, JHU pledged that a “petition for divestment will be considered, pursuant to existing policies,” and a committee convened to study it in June. Thursday’s institutional neutrality statement arrived before the committee announced its recommendations. With it, JHU follows Harvard University, Vanderbilt University, and other institutions that have opted against becoming enmeshed in interminable debates. However, some maintain that doing so abdicates the university’s responsibility to stand for principles which hold together the fabric of Western civilization.
“These institutional neutrality policies sound wholesome in the abstract, but I fear they are often just attempts to by college administrators to avoid taking a stand against antisemites, communists, and other radicals who attempt to hijack the university’s credibility to advance their own agendas,” Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars (NAS), told The Algemeiner on Monday.
Wood, the author of several books and hundreds of articles on higher education, has weighed in on the matter before, most recently in a report titled “The Illusion on Institutional Neutrality” which was published in April. The concept, he says, dates back to 1915, but it reached widespread popularity during the Vietnam War, when the University of Chicago issued the “Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action” in 1967. The previous year, over 400 university students held a “sit in” to protest president George Beadle’s decision to provide, with permission, the US Army information — class rank and grade point averages, for example — about students who had registered for the draft. From that controversy emerged what is today known as the “Kalven Report,” the work of a committee chaired by University of Chicago law professor Harry Kalven Jr.
It famously said, “There is no mechanism by which [the university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives … The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity.”
While Wood’s NAS and other organizations once supported its conclusion, Wood argues that it is today insufficient for addressing the threat academic antisemitism poses to the university, which, he says, cannot afford to remain neutral on the issue of anti-Jewish hatred.
“Institutional neutrality empowers the mob by giving the activists of popular causes the assurance that the university’s officials will not get in their way,” Wood argued. “Activists of less favored causes are seldom treated with such leniency. University officials can easily ignore institutional neutrality to run critics of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ off campus, but they seldom if ever stand up to a large group of excited proponents of, say, Hamas apologists.”
He continued, “The ideal has proved delusional, and as a weapon it is easily used against reform as for it. We must call for universities to espouse substantive ideals of truth, liberty, and citizenship, even though they cut directly against the ideological commitments of many of higher education’s administrators and faculty members. This is a challenging task. But Hamas’ massacre of Israelis [on Oct. 7] has stripped us of many illusions … We must say forthrightly what virtues we wish our universities to champion. And if we wish our universities to fight once more on the side of the angels, the swiftest way to that goal is to teach them how to speak with courage by speaking so ourselves.”
As The Algemeiner previously reported, Harvard University followed its adoption of institutional neutrality with several policy decisions which, according to critics, protected those who uttered antisemitic speech. In July, it “downgraded” disciplinary sanctions it levied against several pro-Hamas protesters it punished for illegally occupying Harvard Yard, where they called for a genocide of Jews in Israel for five weeks and created a sign which depicted President Alan Garber as an antisemitic caricature. Also, the university has chosen to contest a lawsuit which accuses it of doing little to stop a wave of antisemitic incidents on campus, one of which saw a Jewish student surrounded by a mob students screaming “Shame!” into his ears.
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.
The post John Hopkins University Adopts ‘Institutional Neutrality’ Policy After Anti-Israel Protests first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Swiss Museum Compensates Jewish Heirs of Nazi Looted Painting for Pissarro Artwork
A partial view of Camille Pissarro’s “La Maison Rondest, l’Hermitage, Pontoise” (1875). Photo: Provided by the Kunstmuseum Basel
A museum in Basel, Switzerland, said on Thursday it will compensate the heirs of the late German-Jewish textile entrepreneur Richard Semmel for a Camille Pissarro painting he was forced to sell due to Nazi persecution.
Kunstmuseum Basel said that, together with Semmel’s heirs, they decided upon the compensation payment as a “just and fair solution” regarding Pissarro’s “La Maison Rondest, l’Hermitage, Pontoise” (1875). The painting will remain a part of the museum’s permanent collection in its main building and will be displayed alongside a sign that explains the origins and history of the artwork. The exact amount of the compensation payment was not revealed.
“The Kunstmuseum is delighted to be able to retain the work in its collection and the heirs are satisfied with the solution,” the museum stated in a press release.
The Pissarro artwork was donated to the museum in early 2021. It was part of the collection of the late Dr. Klaus von Berlepsch and was set to appear as a loan in an exhibition at the museum about the famed artist. However, even before the exhibition opened, von Berlepsch decided to donate the work to the Kunstmuseum Basel. The museum and von Berlepsch were both unaware of the painting’s provenance at the time of the donation. The Swiss institution researched the painting’s provenance only after it joined the museum’s collection and “prior ownership by the Jewish entrepreneur Richard Semmel was quickly revealed,” the museum said.
Semmel owned a Berlin-based linens manufacturing company called Arthur Samulon, which he led as sole shareholder starting in 1919. In June 1933, Semmel he and his wife emigrated to the Netherlands, which was not yet under Nazi occupation. The couple had no children. Semmel himself said that he left Germany not only due to “racial” persecution by the Nazis, but also because he was accused of having ties to the Social Democratic party.
He managed to transport a large portion of his art collection of more than 100 works to the Netherlands and the Pissarro painting was sold at auction in Amsterdam in June 1933. In October of that same year, it was displayed at a gallery in Basel, where it was quickly sold to the collector Walther Hanhart. Around 1974, Hanhart passed the painting on to his daughter, who was married to von Berlepsch.
Proceeds from the sale of his art were used by Semmel to mitigate financial difficulties his linens company faced in Berlin and was also spent on salaries, debt repayments, and taxes. The Kunstmuseum Basel explained that the National Socialist Factory Cell Organization, which was a worker’s union controlled by the Nazi Party, ordered that despite a decrease in orders from Semmel’s company, no employees could be dismissed, so Semmel was forced to continue paying them and keeping the business afloat from abroad.
“From the point of view of Semmel’s heirs, the sales [of his art] were a direct consequence of Richard Semmel’s persecution, regardless of where they took place, and thus represent a loss of assets due to Nazi persecution,” according to the Kunstmuseum Basel. “Richard Semmel could not remain in Germany or could do so only at great risk to his life. He used the proceeds from the sale of his paintings to try to keep the linens business in Berlin operational. The art sale proceeds therefore flowed into the German Reich.”
“Semmel thus fought for economic control of his companies in Germany while on the run and outside the Nazis’ immediate sphere of influence, albeit in vain and most likely with no chance of success to begin with. For this reason, the Kunstmuseum and the Kunstkommission [Art Commission] agree that the heirs’ claim to the work is justified.”
In June 1939, Semmel and his wife fled again but this time to New York via Chile. They lived in the US in poverty and with poor health. After his wife’s death in 1945, Semmel was taken care of by an acquaintance from Berlin, Grete Gross née Eisenstaedt (1887-1958). As thanks, he appointed her as his sole heir. When she died in 1958, her daughter Ilse Kauffmann became Semmel’s heir. Kauffmann is now deceased and her two daughters will receive the compensation payment from the Kunstmuseum Basel.
The Swiss institution said several museums have also determined that Semmel was forced to sell his art collection due to Nazi persecution. Some have restituted arworks to Semmel’s heirs — such as The National Gallery of Victoria, in Melbourne, Australia — and others have paid his heirs compensation for the artwork, including a Dutch museum in 2021. Kunstmuseum said that privately, there have been “numerous” out-of-court settlements with Semmel’s heirs about artwork that he formerly owned.
In 2022, a landscape painting by Claude Monet was auctioned by Christie’s for $25.5 million and portions of the sale were divided between Semmel’s heirs and a French family who are the painting’s current owners.
The post Swiss Museum Compensates Jewish Heirs of Nazi Looted Painting for Pissarro Artwork first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Reclaiming Jewish Pride on Campus: Lessons from an Israeli Reserve Captain
An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
I recently traveled across the United States with Olami, a global organization committed to building Jewish identity and ensuring Jewish continuity. My goal was to connect with Jewish students on campus, and share my experiences as a reserve captain in the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) on and after October 7th.
This was my first trip to the US, and I came simply expecting to tell my story: On that black Saturday, I mobilized two of my sergeants and headed straight to the Nova music festival, where one of my soldiers was trapped. We began the rescue mission for him, but ultimately saved over 100 civilians. During the operation, I found my own father’s body, yet I pressed on, driven by our duty to protect others. Afterward, I continued my service in Gaza, spending months defending my country and rooting out the terrorists who had taken so much from us.
When I spoke with American students on campuses and in communities across the East Coast, I realized that something vital was missing: their confidence. Over the past year, they had faced such vicious attacks for being Jewish that they were left with a deep struggle, rooted in uncertainty, fear, and hesitancy regarding their Jewish identity.
In Israel, strength and pride in our identity are ingrained. It’s part of who we are — passed down through generations and fortified by a shared history. In the US, I encountered a very different reality.
At each event hosted by Olami, a large group of students gathered, and many expressed a deep insecurity about standing up for themselves or even speaking openly about being Jewish. They seemed paralyzed in the face of campus hostility, unsure of how to respond or confront the negativity they encountered. For the first time in my life, I saw young Jews unsure of their own strength, something I’d never encountered among my peers in Israel, where Jewish pride is second nature.
I realized my focus for the speaking tour had to shift. This trip was no longer just about sharing my story, it was about helping these students find confidence as Jews.
I wanted to address the fear and hesitation they felt in expressing their Jewish identity, and impart some of the pride that, for us in Israel, is part of our national DNA. We are raised to face daunting challenges head-on because there’s simply no alternative. We are taught from a young age that if we stand up, others back down. This strength isn’t just a mindset; it’s essential to who we are as Israelis and as Jews.
I felt compelled to share this message with the students I met. I wanted them to understand that even though American campuses may feel hostile, they don’t need to compromise their pride or dilute their identity to fit in or avoid conflict. When we stand proudly as Jews, our presence itself — as a united community — is a powerful shield against hate and prejudice. This sense of unity is something deeply ingrained in Israeli society, where we rely on one another not just for support but for survival. It’s a powerful source of resilience that I believe can be shared with Jewish communities everywhere.
To my fellow young Jews in America, I say this: you must reclaim your confidence. You have the right to be unapologetically Jewish, to speak out and stand firm against hate. It’s not easy, but when we remember that we are not alone — that Jews around the world are standing with us — our strength becomes undeniable. The challenges we face may be different, but the need for unity and Jewish pride is the same.
I left those US campuses with a renewed understanding of the work we must do together. We need to build bridges within and between Jewish communities, creating spaces like Olami does, where students can strengthen their identity and learn to develop resilience in the face of hostility. This effort should involve meaningful dialogue between Israeli and Diaspora Jews, along with regular cultural gatherings, Shabbat meals, and holiday celebrations. These experiences reinforce our shared history, deepen our bonds, and create a supportive foundation for students to confidently embrace their Jewish identity.
Yhoni Skariszewski is a VP of Sales and a reserve deputy commander in the Givati unit of the Israeli Defense Forces. He is a graduate of Olami-Nefesh Yehudi Jerusalem University chapter.
The post Reclaiming Jewish Pride on Campus: Lessons from an Israeli Reserve Captain first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
‘Globalize the Intifada’ Becomes Reality as Amsterdam Erupts in Fresh Wave of Antisemitic Riots
Pro-Palestinian protesters face Dutch police while taking part in a non-authorized protest in Amsterdam, Netherlands, Nov. 10, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Anthony Deutsch
“Globalize the Intifada.”
It’s the chant that has become a staple at anti-Israel protests sweeping across the West after the Hamas-led October 7 attacks ,and throughout Israel’s subsequent war against the terrorist group in Gaza. The phrase is a call for Israel’s destruction, and a thinly veiled invitation to target Jews worldwide.
Unfortunately,“Globalize the Intifada” is fast becoming a reality. On Monday night in Amsterdam, violence erupted again. Rioters, reportedly “youth claiming solidarity with Palestinians,” attacked police with fireworks and projectiles, destroyed property, and set a tram ablaze.
This time, there were no Israeli sports fans in sight and no alleged provocation. Just a city under siege, with attackers chanting “Cancer Jews” into the night.
What’s more, the violence appears to be escalating, with Belgian police announcing on Monday the arrest of five people in Antwerp as calls spread on social media for a “Jew hunt” in the city, which was already grappling with a surge in antisemitic assaults.
The scenes in Amsterdam last week hinted at what was to come: Israeli soccer fans were ambushed in what we now know was a coordinated attack planned in advance and unleashed after the Maccabi Tel Aviv versus Ajax match.
And yet, many media outlets were predictably reluctant to call it what it was: antisemitic violence.
The following video has been circulating on social media showcasing riots breaking out in Amsterdam, again.
Rioters are damaging property and shouting “Kankerjoden,” which means “Cancer Jews.” pic.twitter.com/dWqqE9GVSz
— Jewish News Syndicate (@JNS_org) November 12, 2024
Meanwhile, media pundits like Mehdi Hasan and Owen Jones rushed to rationalize the attacks, implying Israelis “brought it on themselves” by singing offensive songs before the game — as if that justified being hunted down by a baying mob (and ignoring that he attack was planned.)
This, despite the Mayor of Amsterdam condemning the attacks as perpetrated by “antisemitic hit-and-run squads,” and Dutch police confirming evidence of premeditation.
In other words, Israeli fans were targeted not for their chants, but simply for being Israeli.
When antisemitic mobs in Amsterdam launched a coordinated assault on Jewish fans, some media pundits glossed over the premeditated nature of the attack.
This wasn’t a random clash—it was a planned assault, but that context was lost in the media’s dangerous spin. pic.twitter.com/KRiiuOLjU8
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 11, 2024
So, how are the media covering Monday’s fresh wave of violence? Mostly, they’re not.
The Associated Press and BBC are among the few major outlets to report on it in any capacity, and even they avoid linking it to the recent antisemitic surge — ignoring footage of rioters screaming “Cancer Jews.”
The conclusion? “No Jews, no news.”
If there’s no angle to subtly blame Jewish victims, the mainstream media doesn’t seem interested.
Footage from the scene caught at least one of the participants shouting, “Cancer Jews.”
But @AP leaves that bit out to avoid linking this arson attack on a tram to the same people who attacked Israelis and Jews in Amsterdam only a few days ago. pic.twitter.com/KjERhNNYM7
— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) November 12, 2024
The attacks in Amsterdam last Thursday night, reminiscent of Nazi-era pogroms, are the direct result of the “Globalize the Intifada” movement that anti-Israel protesters have been championing for over a year. This slogan isn’t just a catchy chant; it’s a blatant call for violence against Jews, mirroring the atrocities of the First and Second Palestinian Intifadas.
Just days before Israelis were hunted down in the streets of Amsterdam, reports emerged from the Netherlands revealing that some Dutch police officers were refusing to guard Jewish sites, citing “moral dilemmas.” Such inaction and moral equivocation effectively serve as a green light for the violence we’ve witnessed, both last week and this week.
Welcome to the “globalized intifada” — it didn’t begin in Amsterdam, and it certainly won’t end there.
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.
The post ‘Globalize the Intifada’ Becomes Reality as Amsterdam Erupts in Fresh Wave of Antisemitic Riots first appeared on Algemeiner.com.