Uncategorized
The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor
There are plenty of examples of blatant antisemitism and attacks on Jews that have occurred over the past 10 months. It seems that every day, we read about a synagogue being attacked, a Jewish student being spat on or assaulted, or the all too mainstream protester chants calling for Intifada or for Jews to go back to Poland — and the list goes on.
Perhaps less obvious — but more frequent — is the antisemitism that’s happening under the radar: things that are circumstantial and much harder to prove.
I’m not talking about Jewish writers having their lectures cancelled out of concern “for their safety” — it’s clear to everyone (except the organizers) where the motivation comes from.
No, this is the kind of discrimination that Black people and others experienced before the Civil Rights movement — and even after: being rejected as a tenant on a lease to an apartment, passed over for a job or promotion based on the color of their skin , or — as in my case — perhaps not having a contract renewed at a college after speaking out against their policies regarding “free speech.”
Do I have proof that me being Israeli or Jewish had anything to do with my dismissal?
Absolutely not.
But are the circumstances suspicious? Yes.
Two years ago, I accepted a Visiting Assistant Professorship in the English Department of a private Midwestern college in the United States. It was a one-year contract, and following the first year, the Chair of the Department notified me how much he appreciated my work — noting the anonymous student evaluations that gave me high marks, that a large number of students requested to take a second class with me, and that I helped raise the visibility of the college through public performances by my students. He also informed me that there was restructuring going on in the English Department, which would result in some of the classes I was teaching being offered only periodically.
In short, he asked me if I would be interested in remaining affiliated with the school, and return either every other semester, or, for instance, if another English teacher took a sabbatical. That suited me fine, as it allowed me to continue teaching, but also gave me time for my own creative endeavors back in Los Angeles, where I was commuting from every week.
On October 7, I was not teaching on campus. But like so many other colleges, a segment of the student population rose up to protest Israel. And even though I was a thousand miles away, I received an email from a student member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) notifying all faculty that the group was calling for a one-day strike to protest, accompanied with a list of atrocities Israel had allegedly committed, even listing the bombing of the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza two weeks earlier, which had already been attributed to a stray missile from Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
How was it possible for one student to access the entire faculty and student body to spew their propaganda?
I contacted the Provost and Dean of the college to inquire. She replied that this was a recent policy change put into place two years earlier to encourage freedom of expression. I asked how this policy might play out if I rebutted the student’s charges through the college-wide email system, only to have another student rebut my defense, and so on and so on?
She replied that if it got out of hand, the school would shut it down.
I replied that the situation had already gotten out of hand, and trusted I wouldn’t be receiving anymore emails from such organizations.
The student newspaper got wind of this, and contacted me for my opinion. Here’s what they wrote in their article:
Safdie, who is of Israeli and Syrian Jewish descent, found sections of the message antisemitic and questioned why he received the email. “I’m all for freedom of expression, but I’m not sure this decision was able to foresee such a situation where students might abuse the privilege and create a hostile work/study environment for other members of the community.”
Fast forward several months, when I returned to campus for the Spring semester. Within a week of arrival, I received an email from the new chair of the English Department (who was also the associate Dean of the Race and Ethnic Studies program). She wanted to set up a Zoom meeting with me — even though our offices were 10 feet apart.
In a carefully worded statement that sounded like it was crafted by an attorney, she got to the point. Although the college was extremely pleased with all the work that I’d done, and that all my students loved my teaching, the college was making budget cuts and were not going to be able to renew my contract.
When I tried to explain to her my prior arrangement with the previous Chair, she simply replied that she’d be happy to write me a letter of recommendation.
Something about the Zoom call and her demeanor felt suspicious.
On a whim, I did an Internet search on my new Chair.
The first thing that came up on her Twitter Feed was a statement on the masthead of a literary magazine she edited, condemning the alleged mass killing and displacement of Palestinians in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks.
As I explored further, I discovered other parts of the statement:
The Israeli military—with the support of the U.S. government—has bombarded Palestinian civilians relentlessly, in violation of international law, and deprived Palestinians of food, water, fuel, and electricity.
And:
Because we work to “bring our readers into the living moment, not as tourists, but as engaged participants,” we believe that Palestinians need space to speak directly, whether from siege in Palestine or in diaspora. So too do others who bear witness to the ongoing settler-colonial violence in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Two days after the Zoom meeting, I figured I might as well take the Chair up on her offer to write me a letter-of-recommendation; it was March, and I could still apply to other universities for employment the following year. (Universities can be suspicious if you leave a position after just two years, so a letter would be crucial to securing a position.)
After a week of email silence, the Chair wrote me back, saying that she wasn’t familiar with my teaching and requested to attend one of my classes to observe my skills. I invited her the following week to attend a class, which fit her schedule, but she did not show, and didn’t even write to give an explanation.
I followed up with an email to offer her another opportunity, followed by a second and third, but there was nothing but email silence.
I should also mention that, at the one faculty meeting we had, she stayed as far away from me as possible, and if I approached, she would quickly engage in discussion with another professor. The topic that day was adding a requirement for English Majors to take an anti-Racism class. One of the new offerings for the following year was focused on racism against Palestinians.
By the end of April, I decided to contact the Associate Dean of Humanities who oversaw the English Department, and sure enough, within an hour of my email, I finally received an email back from the Chair of the English Department, offering to attend my class, but letting me know that she was too busy to write me a letter of recommendation until the end of May — well past the end of the semester, and too late to help with a teaching application for the following year.
If there was ever a thought of going to the administration to complain about my treatment, that was quickly extinguished following an SJP demonstration that demanded that the college divest from Oracle. Apparently, Oracle’s website had stated support for Israel, and the Head of Financial Aid for the college felt the need to apologize for the school’s actions.
A response from the school’s administration read thus:“The business strategy or public statements from Oracle do not represent the viewpoints of the College. Due to the College’s contract with the business and the cost it took to make such major system changes, the College does not have any feasible or affordable alternative.
It also went on to assure protesters:
Less than 0.5 percent of the College’s investments are tied to Israeli companies and that none of these investments are directly held by the college.
As the semester ended, on another whim, I searched the Human Resources page of the college, and sure enough, there was a listing for a new English professor. The skills they were looking for were for someone who taught poetry as well as Race and Ethnic studies courses — none of which I was qualified to teach.
Was the college looking to shift away from courses like Screenwriting, Playwriting, and Non-Fiction — three popular courses I had taught that were always in high demand and had long waiting lists?
I guess I’ll never know.
Oren Safdie is a playwright and screenwriter.
The post The Quiet Antisemitism: My Experience as a Jewish College Professor first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
Uncategorized
Mamdani confronts backlash over exclusion of Jewish lawyers from judicial panel
Since taking office in January, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has shrugged off criticism from Jewish organizations over his opposition to Israel and Zionism. But new allegations that his administration excluded Jewish lawyers from a key City Hall appointments committee appeared to strike a nerve — getting directly at how he is governing New York City.
“The suggestion that there would be any decision-making motivated by religion, it does bother me,” Mamdani told reporters on Wednesday. “This is a city that is beautiful because of the breadth of diversity of those who call it home, and that includes the Jewish community across the five boroughs.”
On Monday, a coalition of New York City’s Jewish bar associations circulated a letter accusing Mamdani of excluding Jews from his appointees to the city’s 18-member Advisory Committee on the Judiciary. New York City has the largest Jewish population in America, and Jews are heavily represented in the legal profession.
The critics suggested that the absence of Jewish attorneys on the judicial advisory committee follows a “troubling pattern” that has left many Jewish New Yorkers “feeling increasingly marginalized.” The letter also pointed out that the rejection of retired Appellate Division Justice John Leventhal during the vetting process was “disconcerting” given the lack of outreach to other Jewish lawyers.
Mamdani forcefully denied suggestions that religion played any role in assembling legal experts for the committee. “I did not ask for the religion of each of the person that was put forward,” he said on Wednesday.
🚨Mamdani, facing qs about the lack of Jewish members on his judicial advisory committee, says he has appointed and reappointed a dozen judges from diverse backgrounds, “including Jewish ones.”
Mamdani appointed three new judges in January. The rest, including the Jewish judges… https://t.co/1b30y1y0XL pic.twitter.com/R0UQSl3Hmv
— Jacob N. Kornbluh (@jacobkornbluh) July 29, 2026
Mamdani’s press secretary, Joe Calvello, said that Leventhal was rejected after the vetting team found that he served on the legal team of Ghislaine Maxwell, a socialite who was sentenced for helping late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Calvello also said that Mamdani “had the privilege of appointing a dozen qualified judges from a range of backgrounds, including Jewish judges.” In January, Mamdani appointed three new judges. Another nine, including those referenced as being Jewish, are sitting judges whose original appointments were made under previous administrations.
That explanation became the centerpiece of Mamdani’s defense Wednesday. “The thing that matters most to me is that in the judges that have been appointed and reappointed, that they do reflect that diversity of New York City, and that diversity includes Jewish New Yorkers,” he said.
Why this controversy is different for Mamdani
The exchange with two reporters at Wednesday’s press conference, who questioned him about the appearance of excluding Jewish lawyers, reflected a different political challenge than the one Mamdani has faced for much of his first six months in office.
Mamdani has clashed with Jewish organizations that have largely centered on foreign policy or how to define antisemitism related to anti-Zionist activity.
His Day One repeal of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, labeling Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide, support of boycotts, production of a Nakba Day video commemorating the displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s founding in 1948, response to pro-Palestinian protesters outside synagogues hosting an Israel real estate sale, pledge to seek the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited New York, and most recently his call for protests against Netanyahu’s expected visit to the United Nations alienated much of New York’s organized Jewish community. But they reinforced Mamdani’s standing with his progressive base and the pro-Palestinian movement that helped propel him into office.
The judicial committee controversy is different. It raises questions about Jewish representation within his own government and whether the country’s largest Jewish community is being included in an influential legal panel.
It also follows questions earlier this year about the administration’s outreach to the Jewish community. Mamdani’s Jewish American Heritage Month reception at Gracie Mansion in May drew few leaders from mainstream Jewish organizations, after many declined invitations amid ongoing tensions over the mayor’s handling of antisemitism and Israel. The guest list reflected stronger ties with progressive Jewish groups, anti-Zionist activists and Hasidic leaders.
Wednesday’s response showed that Mamdani sees this as a different kind of political challenge. Unlike criticism over Israel, accusations that Jews are being left out of his own administration strike at the inclusive image he has tried to build as mayor.
The post Mamdani confronts backlash over exclusion of Jewish lawyers from judicial panel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Tidbits: A huge Jewish dating event through AI and Chabad
Tidbits is a Forverts feature of easy news briefs in Yiddish that you can listen to or read, or both! If you read the article and don’t know a word, just click on it and the translation appears. Listen to the report here:
דעם 9טן אויגוסט וועלן טויזנטער אומבאַפּאָרטע ייִדן איבער דער וועלט אָנשטעלן זייערע עקראַנען און רעדן נײַן מינוט לאַנג מיט אַ פֿרעמדן. בײַ אַ טייל פֿון זיי וועט דאָס אפֿשר, אָן זייער וויסן, זײַן דער ערשטער שמועס מיט זייער זיווג.
אַזוי האָפֿן טאַקע די אָרגאַניזירער פֿונעם ריזיקן ראַנדקע-געשעעניש, Met@Chabad, וואָס זיי זאָגן וועט זײַן די גרעסטע סינכראָניזירטע ייִדישע ראַנדקע־אונטערנעמונג אויף דער וועלט. אין איין נאַכט וועלן אומבאַפּאָרטע ייִדן פֿון מער ווי 30 לענדער און טויזנט קהילות — אַרײַנגערעכנט מעלבורן, בוענאָס־אײַרעס און ניו־יאָרק — צונויפֿגעפּאָרט ווערן מיט פֿינעף מענטשן, אַ דאַנק דער הילף פֿון „איי־אײַ“ און אויך דורך רבנים און רביצינס, וואָס קענען די באַטייליקטע פּערזענלעך. מיט יעדן פֿון די פֿינעף מענטשן וועט דער באַטייליקטער שמועסן נײַן מינוט לאַנג דורך ווידעאָ.
זינט 2021, ווען מע האָט אײַנגעפֿירט די יערלעכע ראַנדקע־אונטערנעמונג, זענען מער ווי 30 פּאָרלעך פֿאַרקנסט געוואָרן דורך דער סיסטעם, און כּמעט בײַ אַלע זענען די פּאָרלעך געווען פֿון אַנדערע שטעט און לענדער. מיט אַנדערע ווערטער, אָן דער אונטערנעמונג וואָלטן זיי זיך קיין מאָל נישט באַקענט.
די יערלעכע אונטערנעמונג איז אָרגאַניזירט געוואָרן צוליב אַ וואַקסנדיקן פֿענאָמען בײַ די חב״ד־שלוחים איבער דער וועלט. יונגע ייִדן וואָס קומען צו זיי אויף שבת־מאָלצײַטן אָדער כּדי זיך צו באַראַטן מיט זיי וועגן אַ קאַריערע אָדער צוליב אַ פּערזענלעכן ענין, האָבן אָפֿט אויך געבעטן הילף בײַם געפֿינען אַ שידוך. אָבער בײַ חב״ד איז פּשוט נישט געווען קיין „שדכנות־ביוראָ“.
נעמענדיק אין באַטראַכט וויפֿל אַמעריקאַנער ייִדן האָבן הײַנט חתונה מיט נישט־ייִדן האָבן די שלוחים שטאַרק געוואָלט העלפֿן די אומבאַפּאָרטע ייִדן וואָס זוכן אַ זיווג. לויטן „פּיו“־פֿאָרשצענטער, האָבן 72% נישט־אָרטאָדאָקסישע ייִדן זינט 2010 חתונה געהאַט מיט עמעצן וואָס איז נישט קיין ייִד. אָבער זינט דעם 7טן אָקטאָבער 2023 האָבן די שלוחים באַמערקט אַ נײַע טענדענץ: מער יונגע ייִדן זאָגן זיי, אַז זיי ווילן חתונה האָבן מיט ייִדן און זוכן הילף ווי צו דערציִען ייִדישע משפּחות.
כּדי זיך צו פֿאַרשרײַבן אויף דעם ראַנדקע־געשעעניש דעם 9טן אויגוסט גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
צו לייענען וועגן דעם אויף ענגליש גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ:
To read about this in English click here:
The post Tidbits: A huge Jewish dating event through AI and Chabad appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
‘Do not boycott people who dislike us’: Netanyahu challenger Yair Lapid urges AIPAC and J Street to make support for Israel bipartisan again
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday made headlines, but he is not the only Israeli official trying to make inroads in the nation’s capital this week.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Yair Lapid is also in town to get a head start on repairing the U.S.-Israel relationship. On Wednesday, Lapid, who is running on a joint slate with former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett to unseat Netanyahu in Israel’s October elections, met with a group of Democratic senators, including a handful who have voted in favor of restricting arms sales to Israel.
“I took advantage of the visit to convince them they were wrong, presenting them with facts on the ground,” Lapid wrote in a post on X translated from Hebrew. “Boycotting those who speak out against you is not the way. In the face of opposition in the Senate, you need to work hard, meticulously, to repair relations with both parties.”
Lapid and Bennett’s priorities are shared by many liberal Israelis who see the bipartisan foundation of the U.S.-Israel alliance falling apart and believe that replacing Netanyahu and winning back Democrats are both key to the survival of the Jewish state.
A recent poll found that nearly half of Americans believe the U.S. should enforce an International Criminal Court (ICC) arrest warrant for Netanyahu over his actions during Israel’s war in Gaza. Meanwhile, in April, more than three dozen Democratic senators voted in favor of a resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont to block certain arms sales to Israel.
On Wednesday, Lapid met with some of those Democratic senators: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Cory Booker (D-NJ), all of whom voted to restrict some U.S. arms sales to Israel. Also at the meeting were Sens. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), both of whom have staunchly backed U.S. military support for Israel.
Ahead of those meetings, Lapid outlined the opposition’s plan to bring Israel out of international isolation in a speech Monday evening at the Atlantic Council, an influential DC-based think tank.
First on the “to-do list,” as he called it, was to “restore Israel’s bipartisan standing in the United States” and “firmly encourage AIPAC and J Street to move away from partisanship, remind our friends that to be pro-Israeli is to be bipartisan, and build a broad coalition of support.”
“Do not boycott people who dislike us,” he added. “Insist on meeting them and presenting our case.”
AIPAC has long marketed itself as a bipartisan lobbying organization, though critics argue it has become increasingly aligned with Republicans in recent years. In late 2021, it launched a political action committee that has spent heavily in Democratic primaries against candidates whom it deemed unsupportive of Israel.
Meanwhile, J Street, founded in 2008, has long been closely aligned with Democratic lawmakers, often maintaining a critical position on Israeli policies and advocating for a two-state solution to the conflict.
At present, Lapid and Bennett’s joint party, called Together, is the second-strongest party running against Netanyahu in the polls. Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party is polling ahead of it — and, in some surveys, ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud party
Any coalition capable of ousting Netanyahu would likely require Together and Yashar to join forces, meaning Bennett, Lapid and Eisenkot would likely all hold very senior positions in a future government if they manage to build a coalition.
Lapid also pledged that a new government would “stay out of American politics” and “respect the American people and the leaders they have chosen on both sides of the aisle.”
“Elizabeth Warren, John Ossoff and Tim Kaine are not the enemy,” he said. “The Democratic Party is not the enemy. J.D. Vance is not the enemy.”
Vance has rattled the U.S. Israel relationship in recent weeks by belligerently defending a ceasefire agreement with Iran and lambasting the Netanyahu government. In addition to Kaine, Warren of Massachusetts and Ossoff of Georgia were among the senators in April who voted in favor of restricting arms sales.
The post ‘Do not boycott people who dislike us’: Netanyahu challenger Yair Lapid urges AIPAC and J Street to make support for Israel bipartisan again appeared first on The Forward.
