Anti-Semitism in the United States

Changing Conditions

The security of Jews and of the Jewish community in the United States remains strong, even as disturbing manifestations of anti-Semitism persist in some areas. Most major criteria for assessing anti-Semitism show continued reduction in levels of significant forms of anti-Semitism. The United States Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, a hate-crimes case, validated the "sentence-enhancement" approach to drafting hate-crimes laws, Efforts by some black leaders to reach out to Minister Louis Farrakhan led to strains with the Jewish community that were exacerbated following expressions of anti-Semitism by Farrakhan aide Khalid Abdul Muhammad.

 

Background

Anti-Semitism of a serious nature, as measured by a number of standard evaluative criteria, continues at a low level, and the overall security of the American Jewish community remains strong (see NJCRAC Criteria for Assessing Anti-Semitism). Most Jewish community relations agencies continue to make the key distinction between anti-Semitism in the United States, which exists at certain levels and must be monitored and counteracted, and the security and status of American Jews, which remain strong primarily because of the strength of constitutional protections that inform a society based on democratic pluralism.

Nonetheless, the perception has grown during the past decade that there is a greater expression of both behavioral and attitudinal anti-Semitism than is reflected in the data collected and assessed by experts in the field. These perceptions are taken seriously by the Jewish community relations field. The field is mandated to explore whatever realities there may be underlying the perceptions by many in the grass-roots and to explore the sources and root causes of these perceptions.

Overall, the long-term decline in attitudinal anti-Semitism continued during 1993. A Marttila and Kiley study, released in November 1992, on racial attitudes in America, commissioned by the ADL, confirmed the high correlation between negative attitudes toward specific minority groups, such as blacks and Jews, and a general intolerance of all racial, ethnic, cultural, and social diversity. Those Americans who hold the most negative attitudes toward Jews are also among the most likely to harbor negative feelings about blacks, immigrants, illegal aliens, homosexuals, and women, reported the Marttila study. The ADL/Marttila survey confirmed earlier findings about the well-known reverse correlation of education and prejudice: Americans most likely to hold anti-Semitic or racially-prejudiced attitudes tend to be disproportionately less educated (and older) than the general public.

Three additional studies released in 1994 evaluated and analyzed the general state of intergroup relations in the United States, and provided a further context for the study of anti-Semitism. An American Jewish Committee study conducted by the Gallup Organization, The Texture of Intergroup Relations: A National Survey, found that, while a large majority of Americans express a strong commitment to intergroup harmony and equal rights, Americans view intergroup relations as a troubled area. According to the AJC study, "race relations" are viewed by Americans in the most negative light, followed closely by "ethnic relations"; fewer Americans -but still a majority -see relations between religious groups as problematic. One in ten Americans report that they themselves have been the target of a racial, ethnic, or religious slur.

A study conducted by the National Conference (formerly the National Conference of Christians and Jews), Taking America's Pulse: The National Conference Survey on Intergroup Relations, explored in detail many aspects of intergroup relations. With respect to prejudicial attitudes, the study found that members of minority groups are more likely than whites to agree to negative stereotypes about other minority groups, In terms of anti Semitism, the National Conference survey data revealed disturbingly high numbers in the responses to the "Jewish-power" and "dual-loyalty" questions, among both whites and minority-group members. The Jewish community relations field will be called upon to assess the findings of these and other studies on racial attitudes, with a view toward evaluating the crucial relationship between anti-Semitism and prejudiced attitudes in general in American society. (A third study, an American Jewish Committee study of anti-Semitism in America, conducted by Tom W. Smith of the University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center, was released too late to be incorporated in this Joint Program Plan.)

The number of anti-Semitic incidents during recent years has remained more or less stable, although there was an increase in the number in 1993, following a small decline in 1992, as reported by the Anti-Defamation League's annual audit. The ADL reported a total of 1,867 incidents in 1993, an eight percent increase over 1992, with a relatively sizable increase (23%) in the number of "anti-Semitic assaults, threats, or harassment."

Concerns with respect to anti-Semitism in the African-American community, one of the principal sources of anxiety among American Jews, was fueled in late 1993 and early 1994 by the activities of Nation of Islam leader Minister Louis Farrakhan and his spokespersons. Strains were exacerbated when, on November 29, 1993, Farrakhan deputy Khalid Abdul Muhammad, in an address to an audience of some 140 students at Kean College in New Jersey on "The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews" (also the title of a Nation of Islam book replete with anti-Semitica), delivered an anti-white, anti-Catholic, homophobic, and virulently anti-Semitic address. At the end of 1993 there was, in the words of historian Roger Wilkins, writing in the op-ed page of The New York Times, "a loud silence on racism" from black leadership to Muhammad's address. The Muhammad address received widespread public attention as a result of an advertisement developed by the Anti-Defamation League, placed in the New York Times on January 17, and elsewhere. The ADL ad, entitled "You Decide," was significant and striking in that it consisted entirely of excerpts from the Muhammad speech.

The ADL ad generated a renewed discussion within the Jewish community on tactical approaches to the counteraction of anti-Semitism. A consensus within the Jewish community agreed that the potential for delivering a platform, and thereby legitimacy, to the views of racists was far outweighed by the possibilities for counteraction through public information and education.

In the days following the appearance of the ADL, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, NAACP President Benjamin Chavis, and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Kweisi Mfume (MD) denounced the Muhammad speech. Farrakhan, for his part, at a February 3, 1994 press conference, rebuked Muhammad for making "vile" and "repugnant" remarks about Jews and others; Farrakhan nonetheless asserted "I stand by the truths that he spoke." In his press conference, Farrakhan also accused the Anti-Defamation League of being "anti-black" and said that the ADL was trying to drive a wedge between himself and other black leaders.

The aftermath of Farrakhan's press conference produced a mixed response from black leadership. While Jewish groups had welcomed the earlier statements from the Rev. Jackson, Chavis and Rep. Mfume denouncing Muhammad, disappointment was ex pressed at the qualification in Chavis statement issued following the Farrakhan press conference: "The NAACP is prepared to believe Minister Farrakhan's statement that he is neither anti-Semitic nor racist."

More convincing were forthright repudiations of Farrakhan's racism by other CBC members. In what appeared to be a symbolic gesture to distance black lawmakers from the Nation of Islam, CBC chairman Mfume, while not labeling Farrakhan an anti-Semite, stated that the Caucus does not have official working ties with the Nation of Islam. On February 2, the U.S. Senate voted 97-0 to condemn Muhammad's Kean College speech as "hate-mongering." The House of Representatives, after a ten-day delay, passed a similar resolution, condemning "all manifestations and expressions of racism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism and ethnic or religious intolerance," on February 23 by a 361-34 margin. (For additional information, see section on Community Relations Concerns on the Campus.)

The quest for legitimacy during 1993 and early 1994 by spokespersons (mainly black) of the anti-Semitic extremist "fringe," exemplified by Farrakhan in the political arena, were evident in the arena of higher education as well. The activities of City College of New York Professor Leonard Jeffries, a leading proponent of Afrocentrism who has made numerous explicit anti-Semitic statements (see 1992-93 Joint Program Plan for details on Jeffries), continued during 1993 as he visited numerous colleges around the country in an effort to spread his message. A significant legal development in the Jeffries matter came when a federal district court ruled in Jeffries v. Harleston that CUNY violated Professor Jeffries' First Amendment rights by removing him as chairman of the CCNY Black Studies Department in 1992. On appeal, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April 18, 1994 that CCNY indeed violated Jeffries' First Amendment rights; at the same time, the appellate court vacated the jury's award of punitive damages to Jeffries, and remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of damages. The American Jewish Committee and the Anti- Defamation League had filed amicus briefs in the case, urging the Second Circuit to reverse the district court's decision.

Also attempting to make anti-Semitism an academically-respectable area of expression were the activities of Tony Martin, a tenured black studies professor at Wellesley College in Massachusetts. Reports emerged in March 1993 that Martin was using as a text in an undergraduate course in African-American history The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, a virulently anti-Semitic and academically discredited volume prepared under the auspices of the Nation of Islam. Welcomed was an immediate response from Selwyn Cudjoe, chairman of the Africana Studies Department at Wellesley, who maintained that such usage went beyond the spirit of academic freedom and was inappropriate. Cudjoe's response was printed as an op-ed article in The Wellesley News, the student newspaper.

Meetings between Farrakhan and members of the Congressional Black Caucus raised concerns within the Jewish community of the minister's efforts to introduce into the political arena a message with an anti-Semitic "fringe". (See section on African American - Jewish Relations.)

The Jeffries, Martin, and Farrakhan events were related, as expressions of three of the more visible individuals associated with extreme Afrocentricism, which distorts history and science in claiming that blacks are biologically superior to whites and that all history can be traced to Africa. These historical distortions craft justification for anti-white, anti-gay, and anti-Catholic teachings as well as anti-Semitism.

Holocaust Denial

Holocaust denier Bradley Smith, whose advertisements for the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust," asserting that the Holocaust did not occur, was able to place his ad in the Portland Oregonian, the first mainstream newspaper to carry such advertising. The ad, which appeared on October 14, 1993 was followed on November 3, 1993 by an apology by the Oregonian, which stated that the ad was "repugnant, and we regret having published it." (For additional information, see section on Community Relations Concerns on the Campus.)

It remained clear that the overwhelming majority of Americans continue to repudiate extremist expressions of anti-Semitism such as Holocaust denial. At the same time Jewish community relations organizations expressed increasing concern that the reception accorded individuals like Farrakhan and Jeffries suggests that anti-Semitism in some areas will no longer be automatically and forcefully constrained by leadership.

Hate-Crimes

The constitutionality of the "sentence-enhancement" approach to the drafting of hate crimes laws was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a milestone case, Wisconsin v. Mitchell, in which an amicus brief was filed on behalf of the NJCRAC supporting the assertion that laws that enhance penalties for conduct rather than speech are constitutional. The decision in Mitchell upheld a Wisconsin statute that enhances a defendant's penalty when the prosecution is able to prove that the defendant selected his or her victim because of race, religion, color, disability, sexual orientation, national origin, or ancestry. The Wisconsin Supreme Court had struck down the law as unconstitutional under the First Amendment (see 1993-94 joint Program Plan for details). The Court ruled that such a statute does not violate the First Amendment's protection of freedom of expression. The Wisconsin statute was based on model hate-crimes legislation drafted by the Anti-Defamation League. The NJCRAC has long supported the "penalty-enhancement" approach to hate-crimes laws. Thirty-two states now have penalty-enhancement hate-crimes laws.

The decision in Wisconsin v. Mitchell will have implications in the courts and in state legislatures. In a number of pending cases in which the constitutionality of statutes based on penalty enhancement is at issue, Mitchell should ensure that the laws are upheld by federal and state courts. As of July 1, no fewer than twelve hate-crimes cases were pending at various levels. Further, states that to date have hesitated to approve hate-crimes statutes for fear that they would not survive judicial scrutiny can now be encouraged to pass such legislation.

The Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act (H.R. 1152), supported by the NJCRAC, was passed by the House of Representatives on September 21, 1993 and, in the Senate, was incorporated in omnibus disability legislation, where it also passed. The measure, sponsored by Representatives Charles Schumer (NY) and James Sensenbrenner (WI) and by Senators Diane Feinstein (CA), Barbara Boxer (CA), Daniel Inouye (HI), and others, would oblige federal judges, who operate under the guidelines set by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, to increase the penalty for those found guilty of any crime in which the defendant acted because of the victim's race, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, ethnicity, or (in the Senate version) disability. A significant difference between the House and Senate versions was resolved in early 1994. The Senate bill had required that the bias or hate motivation be demonstrated as an element of the crime at the trial; the House version required a showing only at the sentencing proceeding that the crime was hate-motivated. The Senate version, which had been supported by Jewish groups, was agreed to in conference, and was expected to pass the Congress.

---

 

Priority Strategic Goals

The Jewish community relations field should

[NOTE: For additional strategic goals, see Joint Program Plan for 1993-94.]