Uncategorized
Feds to investigate NY college where an assault survivor group booted a Zionist student
(JTA) – The U.S. Department of Education has opened an investigation into the State University of New York at New Paltz surrounding an incident in which a student-led group for sexual assault survivors kicked out one of its co-founders for sharing a pro-Israel Instagram post.
Pro-Israel legal groups filed a complaint with the department last year alleging that the school did not respond forcefully enough to the incident, which they characterized as antisemitic discrimination. They are calling on the school to improve its training on antisemitism, which they define as including targeting students for a “connection to Israel.”
Announced Thursday, the investigation is taking place under the auspices of the department’s Office of Civil Rights, which looks into allegations of discrimination at educational institutions that receive federal funding. It is the latest in a series of investigations opened into allegations of campus antisemitism since the Trump administration broadened the office’s mandate to include certain kinds of anti-Israel speech in 2019.
It is also the first antisemitism investigation to be opened since the Biden administration unveiled a plan last month to combat antisemitism that includes a section on higher education. The 60-page document outlining the plan notes that “Jewish students and educators are targeted for derision and exclusion on college campuses.”
“No student should ever be excluded from campus because of facets of their Jewish identity, let alone survivors of sexual assault,” Julia Jassey, a recent University of Chicago graduate who is the co-founder and CEO of the college antisemitism watchdog group Jewish on Campus, said in a press release celebrating the investigation.
Jewish on Campus brought the federal complaint in partnership with the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a pro-Israel legal group that often involves itself in campus conflicts over speech about Israel. The complaint was filed on behalf of two Jewish students at the school, which is located in upstate New York.
A spokesperson for SUNY New Paltz said the university does not comment on pending investigations, adding, “We unequivocally condemn any attacks on SUNY students who are Jewish, and we will not tolerate anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation on campus.” In the immediate aftermath of the controversy, the school’s president condemned antisemitism but indicated that, because the student group was not formally recognized by the university, administrators were limited in their ability to respond.
The federal investigation will focus on two claims: that SUNY New Paltz did not respond appropriately to the exclusion of a Jewish student from a student group, and that students were being harassed on the basis of their Judaism.
The investigation itself does not mean the department believes the claims have merit — only that they fall under the purview of its Office of Civil Rights under a section of the law known as Title VI.
The complaint focuses on an episode that CNN featured as part of a prime-time special on antisemitism in the United States last year. It was filed on behalf of Cassandra Blotner, a Jewish student who was, according to coverage by the campus newspaper, removed from the student group New Paltz Accountability over her pro-Israel Instagram post. It was also filed on behalf of another Jewish student, Ofek Preis, who quit the group in solidarity with Blotner. Blotner was a co-founder of the group, which seeks to pressure the university to adopt greater transparency in its sexual assault investigations.
As reported last year by the New Paltz Oracle, a student newspaper, Blotner shared an infographic on Instagram in December 2021 from pro-Israel influencer Hen Mazzig reading, in part, “Jews are an ethnic group who come from Israel,” and, “Israel is not ‘a colonial state’ and Israelis aren’t ‘settlers.’ You cannot colonize the land your ancestors are from.”
Shortly afterward, Blotner said, her fellow group leaders messaged her to request a conversation about her views on Israel. One wrote, “Personally, I think Israel is a settler colonial state and we can’t condone the violence they take against Palestinians.”
Blotner at first refused to have a conversation with other members of the group, then later suggested they talk to the school’s Jewish Student Union — at which point, she said, the group kicked her out. Preis then decided to resign from the group (administrators said she had only been a prospective member).
“They told me that because I’m a Zionist, that that means I’m an oppressor, and that means I’m not against all forms of oppression, which means that I’m not against sexual violence,” Blotner told CNN’s Dana Bash in the antisemitism special.
One day after the publication of the student newspaper article detailing the allegations against the group, New Paltz Accountability appeared to defend its opposition to Zionism in an Instagram post.
“Being against sexual violence but indifferent to colonialism are conflicting ideologies,” the post stated. “Justifying the occupation of Palestine, in any way, condones the violence used to acquire the land. This does not mean we do not support survivors or students with different political beliefs.”
According to the Brandeis Center and Jewish on Campus, Blotner requested that university administrators provide her with a security escort because her interactions with the group left her feeling unsafe on campus, but they declined her request. She graduated last month, thanking the Brandeis Center, Jewish on Campus and Mazzig in an Instagram post that said they “lifted me up when I was down.”
In response to the incident, SUNY New Paltz’s president met with Jewish students and issued a strongly worded condemnation of antisemitism, saying, “Excluding any campus member from institutional events and activities on the basis of differing viewpoints on such matters is a traditionally defined form of antisemitism.”
The university, according to the Brandeis Center, also said that it should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism. That definition has been endorsed by dozens of U.S. universities, according to the American Jewish Committee, but has drawn criticism for saying that certain criticisms of Israel are antisemitic.
The Brandeis Center has frequently called for universities to adopt the IHRA definition, yet in this case it said SUNY New Paltz had not gone far enough and called on the school to change other policies in response to the incident. Some previous investigations into schools accused of antisemitism violations have resulted in universities pledging to make tangible changes to their diversity training programs and other initiatives.
That was the case recently at the University of Vermont, which was the subject of a federal civil rights complaint that also partially revolved around a student group for sexual assault survivors excluding Zionists. In 2020, the University of Illinois pledged to take steps to combat antisemitism days after the Department of Education opened up a Title VI investigation into the school.
But other campus communities faced with Title VI antisemitism investigations into Israel-related matters have seen the investigations prompt division and distrust. George Washington University faced its own investigation days after clearing a professor of antisemitism allegations brought against her by pro-Israel groups.
And the University of California, Berkeley saw an investigation opened into its law school after the Brandeis Center’s founder, a former Trump administration official, alleged in an op-ed that it was propagating “Jew-free zones” because an alliance of student groups at the law school pledged not to invite Zionist speakers. The Jewish dean of the law school vehemently denied the charge.
—
The post Feds to investigate NY college where an assault survivor group booted a Zionist student appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
In the Social Media Age, What the Torah Teaches About Gossip Is More Relevant Than Ever
Social media apps on a smart phone. Photo: Jonathan Raa/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
“Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.” This often-quoted line is usually attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt, although ironically, there’s no proof she actually said it. This makes it a fitting introduction to a discussion on gossip, truth, and our tendency to repeat irresistible stories — real or not.
Modern psychology has devoted a surprising amount of attention to the study of gossip, and its conclusions are rather more nuanced than one might expect. Far from being merely idle chatter or malicious whispering, gossip turns out to serve a meaningful social function. It helps people bond and creates the kind of informal networks that allow individuals to navigate the complexities of social life.
In other words, when people engage in what we dismissively call tittle-tattle, they are often doing something constructive — strengthening connections and quietly laying the foundations of lasting social relationships.
And yet, research underscores a vital caveat: While gossip can build social bonds, its malicious form erodes trust and achieves the opposite effect. When gossip sours, it distorts reality, encourages harsh, often unjustified judgments, and breeds suspicion.
What starts as a seemingly harmless exchange — “Did you hear what happened with so-and-so?” — can swiftly become a narrative with far-reaching consequences, echoing widely and lingering long after the original words.
That has always been the case. But recently, the scale, speed, and stakes have increased. Social media has supercharged gossip, making it far more potent and dangerous. What once occurred in private circles now unfolds publicly, amplified by algorithms favoring outrage and sensationalism. Gossip isn’t just local — it fuels widespread conspiracy and can fracture societies.
The wave of conspiracy theories proliferating online in recent years — claims about hidden forces manipulating events, and viral rumors about public figures spreading faster than corrections — has seeped into mainstream conversation. News of public shootings or assassination attempts quickly sparks theories of “false flag” operations or that those arrested are merely patsies.
Such narratives start on the fringes but spread quickly because they tap into a deeply human urge: to feel privy to hidden knowledge, to believe we see what others do not. By the time facts emerge, the damage is done — and facts are dismissed as cover-ups. Reputations inevitably suffer, and the harmful consequences outlast the true facts.
What all of these examples have in common is not merely their inaccuracy, but their emotional appeal. Gossip, whether ancient or modern, thrives on a particular kind of pleasure — the satisfaction of being “in the know,” coupled with the subtle reinforcement of one’s own worldview.
In a polarized environment, that pleasure is intensified. We are far more inclined to believe, and to repeat, information that confirms what we already think, especially when it casts the “other side” in a negative light.
All this signals a broader societal shift. Modern, digitized gossip now powerfully drives polarization. It is no longer just people speaking ill of each other; it has become a process where entire communities build parallel realities, each sustained by its own ecosystem of rumors, half-truths, and falsehoods.
Given these developments, the Torah’s treatment of gossip in Parshat Tazria–Metzora feels less like an ancient curiosity and more like a strikingly relevant corrective. The metzora — one afflicted with tzara’at, a discoloration that appears on skin, clothing, or walls — is traditionally seen by Chazal as suffering the consequences of lashon hara, harmful speech.
Remarkably, it is not just about the harmful speech producing a physical manifestation, but also the response to the condition: The metzora is isolated (Lev. 13:46): בָּדָד יֵשֵׁב מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מוֹשָׁבוֹ – “he must sit alone, outside the camp.” The social fabric once woven by innocuous gossip is now withdrawn; the result of malicious speech is, quite literally, social isolation.
Lashon hara does more than harm its immediate target; it undermines the integrity of the entire community. It distorts reality, erodes trust, and creates divisions where cohesion should prevail. In a society built on shared values and mutual responsibility, that kind of corrosion cannot simply be ignored.
But the Torah does not merely punish — it educates. The isolation of the metzora is not an act of rejection, but an opportunity for reflection. Removed from the constant chatter and the endless exchange of words, the metzora is forced to confront the true power of speech — what it can build, and what it can so easily destroy.
In our world, we rarely experience that kind of enforced pause, especially in an age of addictive smartphone use. We scroll endlessly through emails, messages, videos, and social media, caught in a relentless information stream.
The pressure to respond is immediate, and the urge to share something that is particularly evocative or provocative is ever-present. There’s always another headline, a salacious rumor, or some kind of “inside information” demanding attention and ready to be passed along.
The medium may have changed, but the core dynamic remains. Words still shape reality; they influence how we see others, interpret events, and position ourselves in society. The only real difference is that the ripple effects are now far greater.
Our goal shouldn’t be to eliminate social chatter — which is neither possible nor desirable — but to act with more responsibility. The fleeting satisfaction of spreading sensational news is often outweighed by the long-term cost to truth and trust.
One should certainly resist being the first to repeat a story; instead, be the person who ensures accuracy and fairness. This discipline, difficult in a culture favoring speed over nuance, is what the Torah seeks to instill.
Millennia before social media and modern polarization, the Torah revealed a simple truth: Speech is not neutral. It leaves a mark and, when misused, can fracture people and communities.
Every time we want to share that intriguing, unverified detail, we aren’t just making harmless conversation. We are shaping the world we and others live in. That’s a responsibility to take seriously.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
Uncategorized
Europe’s Counterterrorism Strategy: How Laws and Intelligence Cooperation Strengthened Security
French police and members of French special police forces of Research and Intervention Brigade (BRI) secure the area near Iran’s consulate where a man was threatening to blow himself up, in Paris, France, April 19, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Over the past two decades, Europe has faced evolving terrorist threats that required a comprehensive and coordinated response. From lone-wolf attacks to transnational extremist networks, European states have been compelled to rethink their security frameworks. In response, the European Union and its member states have developed a multi-layered counterterrorism strategy centered on legislation, intelligence cooperation, and institutional coordination. This approach has significantly enhanced Europe’s ability to prevent and respond to terrorism, although challenges remain.
At the core of Europe’s counterterrorism efforts lies a robust legal framework. European countries have introduced extensive legislation aimed at criminalizing terrorism-related activities, including recruitment, financing, incitement, and travel for extremist purposes. These laws are designed not only to punish acts of terrorism but also to prevent them before they occur. By harmonizing legal standards across member states, the European Union has reduced legal loopholes that previously allowed suspects to exploit differences between national systems.
One of the most important aspects of this legal evolution is the emphasis on preventive measures. Authorities now have greater powers to monitor suspects, disrupt networks, and intervene at earlier stages of radicalization. This proactive approach reflects a shift from reactive policing to anticipatory security, where the focus is on identifying threats before they materialize.
However, legislation alone is not sufficient. Intelligence cooperation has become a cornerstone of Europe’s counterterrorism strategy. Given the transnational nature of modern terrorist networks, no single country can effectively combat terrorism in isolation. European intelligence agencies have therefore intensified their collaboration through formal and informal mechanisms that facilitate the exchange of information.
A key platform in this regard is the Counter Terrorism Group (CTG), which brings together intelligence services from EU member states to share assessments and coordinate responses. In parallel, agencies such as Europol and Eurojust play a crucial role in operational coordination and judicial cooperation. Europol supports law enforcement by providing intelligence analysis, while Eurojust facilitates cross-border prosecutions and legal coordination.
The importance of information sharing cannot be overstated. Timely and accurate intelligence allows authorities to track suspects across borders, identify emerging threats, and prevent attacks. Systems such as the Schengen Information System (SIS) enable member states to share alerts on individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism, enhancing border security and law enforcement effectiveness.
In addition to intra-European cooperation, transatlantic collaboration has also been a key component of counterterrorism efforts. The United States and European countries have worked closely to exchange intelligence, track foreign fighters, and dismantle terrorist networks. For example, data sharing initiatives have enabled European authorities to identify individuals returning from conflict zones and assess the risks they pose.
Another critical dimension of Europe’s counterterrorism strategy is the effort to cut off funding for extremist groups. Terrorist organizations rely on financial resources to operate, recruit, and carry out attacks. European governments have implemented strict measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, including enhanced financial surveillance, regulatory oversight, and international cooperation. These efforts aim to disrupt the financial lifelines of extremist networks and reduce their operational capabilities.
Despite these advancements, Europe continues to face significant challenges. One of the most pressing issues is the phenomenon of radicalization, particularly among individuals who are born and raised in Europe. Online platforms have become a major tool for extremist propaganda, making it easier for groups to recruit and indoctrinate individuals. Addressing this challenge requires not only security measures but also social and ideological interventions that tackle the root causes of extremism.
Another challenge is balancing security with civil liberties. Expanding surveillance powers and preventive measures has raised concerns about privacy and human rights. European governments must navigate this delicate balance to ensure that counterterrorism efforts do not undermine the democratic values they seek to protect.
Moreover, the return of foreign fighters from conflict zones such as Syria and Iraq poses an ongoing security risk. European countries must decide how to handle these individuals, whether through prosecution, rehabilitation, or monitoring. This issue highlights the complexity of modern counterterrorism, where legal, ethical, and security considerations intersect.
In conclusion, Europe’s counterterrorism strategy has evolved into a comprehensive system that combines legislation, intelligence cooperation, and financial controls. By strengthening legal frameworks, enhancing information sharing, and fostering international collaboration, European countries have significantly improved their ability to combat terrorism. However, the dynamic nature of the threat means that these efforts must continue to adapt. Future success will depend on maintaining this balance between security, cooperation, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.
The author is a political analyst specializing in Middle East affairs, with a focus on political Islam, regional security, and minority rights.
Uncategorized
Gen Z Canceled Critical Thinking
Illustrative: Thousands of anti-Israel demonstrators from the Midwest gather in support of Palestinians and hold a rally and march through the Loop in Chicago on Oct. 21, 2023. Photo: Alexandra Buxbaum/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
As a society, we haven’t reckoned with the impact that cancel culture has had on Gen Z, and we need to.
Starting in 2020, cancel culture was implemented through social ostracization, major media campaigns, online bullying, and toxic one-sided debates used to demean individuals for their perspectives. For developing brains, cancel culture created a very real fear in their life: the fear of social death.
Because cancel culture doesn’t care about your morals or values, it is used as a form of social control that latches on to anything different from the dominant political ideologies. Social death will be performed through ostracization.
For Gen Z, cancel culture taught us not to share our own perspectives, not to post our own ideas on social media, and, saddest of all, to stop talking with one another about conflicting ideas. Cancel culture has led to a form of self-suppression, effectively silencing ourselves. This in turn has led to the decline of critical thinking and allowed for a mental void to take the spot of a once-busy analytical brain.
Critical thinking has become dangerous in a society that platforms specific ideologies above democratic debate.
As a society, we have not truly realized what cancel culture has done to our generation, starting in 2020. Professors and teachers continue to ask students, “What do you think about this?” and expect an authentic answer, not realizing the student can only give them a safe answer from within the accepted ideological bubble. Because if a student steps outside of what has been deemed “moral” by the virtue-signaling police, they will be shunned and a social death will ensue.
I’ve experienced this firsthand at the University of British Columbia (UBC), a university with over 60,000 students but no room for different views.
The dominant social justice warrior ideology on campus has become anti-Israel, and wearing my IDF hoodie draws vicious UBC Reddit and social media attacks. When I discussed a translation assignment with an English professor and said I’d like to translate a Hebrew prayer, I was pulled aside and asked if I “work for Zionist entities?” Through social isolation, my peers and professors alike have shunned me for my support of Israel, simply because it doesn’t align with the dominant woke ideologies of our generation.
Unless we reckon with cancel culture, which has been branded as a purity test for moral clarity, we can’t begin to discuss how to get children to think critically again.
As a society, we allowed this disease to affect the brains of my generation. Unless we do something about it, we will become Generation Zombie, and the mental apocalypse will be upon us.
I used to feel afraid to share my own opinions when I started university, because for a while, cancel culture won, and I muzzled myself. But this is anti-democratic; intimidation of thought has become a tool to control our young, impressionable generation. We must reckon with this before moving forward and taking accountability for a solution.
My solution to this disease is to ask questions. We have to revert back to our pre-school cognitive development stages, when we asked, “why, what, when, where, and how.” We have to revert back to searching for answers and hearing a difference of opinion.
This sounds simple at its core. However, to Generation Zombie, we have to reteach these fundamental cognitive capacities. I say this as a Gen Zer who has lived experience inside our Canadian university system since 2020 and can attest that academic rigor and the ability to grapple with complex ideas are going the way of the dodo bird.
Be curious. Ask questions.