Barnard College settles suit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with anti-Israel group
The Manhattan college, an all-women's affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a 'zero tolerance' policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.
The settlement was announced in a joint statement by Barnard and lawyers for two Jewish advocacy groups, Students Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, who brought the lawsuit last February on behalf of some Jewish and Israeli students.
In the statement, Barnard's president, Laura Ann Rosenbury, said the agreement 'reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.'
The terms of the deal also drew immediate pushback from some students and faculty, who accused the university of capitulating to a legal strategy aimed at stifling legitimate pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
'This settlement appears to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,' said Nara Milanich, a Barnard history professor who is Jewish. 'That is a problem for critical thought and academic freedom.'
As part of the agreement, the college will adopt contentious federal guidance to 'consider' the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism and its examples, which include certain critiques of Israel.
A newly-appointed Title VI coordinator will oversee compliance with the policy and produce an annual report on antisemitism for university leaders.
Additionally, the university's leaders agreed not to recognize, meet or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the coalition behind last spring's student encampments. The group has called on both Columbia and Barnard to sever ties with companies that do business with Israel.
As part of the deal, the university will also affirm that its endowment will not be used for expressing political positions, including 'taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.'
The agreement follows a federal lawsuit brought last February that accused Barnard and Columbia of allowing Jewish and Israeli students to be 'bombarded' by antisemitism during protests that erupted against Israel's military campaign in Gaza.
The litigation against Columbia remains ongoing — though the university has already agreed to revamp its policies around protests, among other concessions made under threat from the Trump administration.
New York University and Harvard University have entered into their own legal settlements following lawsuits focused on antisemitism.
In the lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, Jewish and Israeli students said they were subject to unchecked harassment during protests by 'mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty.' Those who participated in the protests, including many Jewish students, have strongly disputed that characterization.
The lawsuit also claimed that students who served in Israel's military were singled out, with some left 'overwhelmed and unable to concentrate in class' after encountering signs accusing Israel of committing genocide and social media posts from fellow students.
Starting next semester, students will be reminded that they can be subject to discipline for off-campus conduct, including social media posts.
Barnard will also restrict where, when and how students can protest. And the university will ban face masks at demonstration used to 'intimidate or interfere with the enforcement' of school policies.
'Barnard's commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students,' said Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs. 'I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard's lead.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Billionaire gay who's one of world's most powerful men makes announcement that will further devastate Dems
A tech billionaire and one of the world's most powerful men made a shocking announcement that is sure to devastate Democrats across the country. Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenAI and co-founder of ChatGPT, made a scathing Fourth of July social media post on X telling the world he has disowned Democrats after claiming his former party 'has lost the plot.' 'The Democratic party seemed reasonably aligned with it when I was 20, losing the plot when I was 30, and completely to have moved somewhere else at this point,' he wrote. 'So now I am politically homeless. But that's fine; I care much, much more about being American than any political party.' Altman - who came out as gay at the age of 16 - also shared his love for America and how 'proud' he is to be a US citizen, but it quickly turned critical of the country's current political climate. 'I'm not big on identities, but I am extremely proud to be American. This is true every day, but especially today—I firmly believe this is the greatest country ever on Earth,' the 40-year-old tech boss, who is worth $1.7 million, wrote. Although Altman himself is not the president of the US, he is nearly just as powerful because artificial intelligence - computer systems that can perform tasks that humans typically could - continues to grow and take over the world everyday. He went on to explain his belief in 'techno-capitalism' and how he thinks there should be a system in place that supports both wealth and innovation, while also attacking the government's role in the economy. Altman - who came out as gay at the age of 16 - made the announcement in a lengthy and scathing post to X on Saturday 'We should encourage people to make tons of money and then also find ways to widely distribute wealth and share the compounding magic of capitalism. One doesn't work without the other; you cannot raise the floor and not also raise the ceiling for very long. He went on to share that he believes the government 'usually does a worse job than markets,' and that education is crucial in 'keeping the American edge.' 'I believed this when I was 20, when I was 30, and now I am 40 and still believe it,' the billionaire continued. Altman's lengthy post didn't stop there, as he took a moment to appear to address the growing claim that billionaires should not exist - something New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani said in a recent interview. While on NBC's Meet the Press on June 29, the 33-year-old Democratic socialist poised to become the Big Apple's next mayor, shared his thoughts on wealthy people. 'I don't think that we should have billionaires because, frankly, it is so much money in a moment of such inequality, and ultimately, what we need more of is equality across our city and across our state and across our country,' Mamdani said. Altman appeared to respond directly to Mamdani's claim, ending his social media post with: 'I'd rather hear from candidates about how they are going to make everyone have the stuff billionaires have instead of how they are going to eliminate billionaires.' He wrapped up his statement, which amassed 2.8 million views, sharing his hope for the country's future. 'The American experiment has always been messy. I am hopeful for another great 250 years. Happy 4th!' In January, Altman hit back at Democrats who criticized him for donating $1 million of his personal cash to Trump's inaugural fund. The CEO received a letter from Senators Elizabeth Warren and Michael Bennet, which accused him of trying to 'cozy up' to the president to avoid federal scrutiny. The senators posed a series of questions ostensibly aimed at discovering his motivations for the cash gift. Altman shared the letter and pushed back at the suggestion, saying: 'Funny, they never sent me one of these for contributing to Democrats.' He then went on to explain that the senator's allegations were unfounded since the money was donated by Altman personally. 'It was a personal contribution as you state; I am confused about the questions given that my company did not make a decision,' he added. Altman was among the tech bosses who were invited to Trump's inauguration. He was pictured chatting to boxer Logan Paul and his brother Jake Paul ahead of the ceremony. Altman wasn't the only tech billionaire to make a statement over the holiday weekend, as Elon Musk decided to launch a new political party. Musk, President Donald Trump's former 'First Buddy,' announced the foundation of the America Party on his X social media platform on Saturday. It came after Musk created an online poll on Independence Day asking his followers whether to establish the new party. The results came back 65.4 percent in favor, leading Musk to make the announcement. 'By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!' Musk wrote. 'When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. 'Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom.' Musk, 54, had been elevated to a prestigious role within the White House acting as a special advisor to the president and overseeing the Department of Government Efficiency. But in recent months a rift has emerged and the two former friends have been embroiled in embarrassing public spats played out over social media.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Report: Rubio impersonator used AI in calls with foreign leaders
An imposter used AI technology to impersonate Secretary of State Marco Rubio and contacted at least a handful of top U.S. and foreign government officials, according to a diplomatic cable warning of the stunning blunder. U.S. officials are hunting for the culprit, and assess that it is part of a plan to mop up information, the Washington Post reported. The news comes just weeks after another impersonation plot involving a high-powered figure in the Trump White House , this one involving White House chief of staff Susie Wiles. That nefarious plot involved stolen data from the personal cellphone of White House chief of staff Susie Wiles that was then used to call some of American's most powerful people. In the Rubio scam, someone purporting to be the secretary of state who also serves as Trump's national security advisor dialed three foreign secretaries, as well as a governor and a U.S. member of Congress 'with the goal of gaining access to information or accounts,' according to a cable obtained by the Post. The imposter 'contacted at least five non-Department individuals, including three foreign ministers, a U.S. governor, and a U.S. member of Congress,' according to the July 3 cable. The imposter used text messages and the encrypted Signal app, the same app that led to the ouster of former National Security Advisor Michael Waltz after he accidentally added a reporter to a Signal group chat where top officials discussed a bombing campaign. The contacts came in mid-June, during a flurry of high-stakes diplomatic activity amid wars in the Middle East and Ukraine and trade wars set off by President Trump's tariffs. 'The actor likely aimed to manipulate targeted individuals using AI-generated text and voice messages, with the goal of gaining access to information or accounts,' according to the cable. The Daily Mail reached out to the State Department for a comment on the security breach. AI tools are becoming increasingly powerful and easy to access, and creating a message in the voice a senior government official like Rubio is not particularly challenging. There are massive amounts of publicly available clips that would allow AI technology to closely mimic Rubio's speech patterns and even content. By relying on voice messages, the imposter would be able to fire off believable sounding missives that could potentially be used to collect additional information, with less risk of catching an error through real-time interaction. The Daily Mail has reached out to the State Department and the White House for comment. 'The actor left voicemails on Signal for at least two targeted individuals and in one instance, sent a text message inviting the individual to communicate on Signal,' according to the cable. Rubio makes for an obvious target because of his influence and his portfolio, which would give him a reason to interact with top officials throughout the government and abroad. The former U.S. senator and former presidential candidate was seated to Trump's right during Monday night's high-stakes meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where the Israeli leader handed Trump a letter nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize, and where Trump called for sending arms to Ukraine and said he would meet with Iranian officials on a potential deal next week.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Churches can endorse political candidates and keep tax-exempt status, Trump's IRS says
The Internal Revenue Service under Donald Trump's administration will now allow churches and other houses of worship to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without losing their tax-exempt status, upending decades of federal law intended to prevent campaigns from using the pulpit as a political tool. The statements were included in a court filing on Monday night as part of a settlement with two Texas churches and Christian broadcasters, which sought an even wider exemption that would open the door for any nonprofit groups to endorse politicians. Those groups initially filed their lawsuit last year during Joe Biden's administration. At the time, the Department of Justice emphatically rejected claims that tax laws violate churches' First Amendment rights. But under the Trump administration, government lawyers compared campaigning from inside a church to 'a family discussion concerning candidates.' 'Thus, communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services through its usual channels of communication on matters of faith do not run afoul of the Johnson Amendment as properly interpreted,' according to Monday's filing. The Johnson Amendment, introduced by former President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1954 when he was a senator, prohibits tax-exempt charitable organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates in an attempt to prevent those groups from being driven by partisan pressure. Trump wants to get rid of it. The president has long promised his evangelical base that his administration would repeal the Johnson Amendment, which would require an act of Congress or aggressive executive actions that would almost certainly face another wave of legal challenges. Repealing the amendment would allow churches to not only openly endorse candidates but turn them into potential fundraising powerhouses. Churches, unlike other nonprofit groups, are not required to file 990 forms that disclose key financial information to the IRS, allowing them to operate with a lower degree of financial oversight — opening the door for houses of worship to function more like political action committees. 'This court filing is deeply concerning, furthering an assault on the bedrock principle that charitable organizations must remain nonpartisan in law, fact, and purpose in order to serve their missions and communities,' according to Diane Yentel, president of the National Council of Nonprofits, which represents 30,000 groups, 'This action — long sought by President Trump — is not about religion or free speech, but about radically altering campaign finance laws,' she added. 'The decree could open the floodgates for political operatives to funnel money to their preferred candidates while receiving generous tax breaks at the expense of taxpayers who may not share those views.' More than three-quarters of Americans say churches and other houses of worship should not get involved with political endorsements, according to the results of a Pew Research Center survey from 2022. That figure includes a wide majority of worshippers across the ideological spectrum, including 62 percent of white evangelical Protestants, 63 percent of Black protestants, as well as 70 percent of Republican voters and 84 percent of Democratic voters. Nothing in the Johnson Amendment prevents churches and nonprofits from addressing political issues, but the National Religious Broadcasters association, the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, argue that the law forces 'self-censorship' in violation of their First Amendment rights. 'For too long, churches have been instructed to remain silent on pressing matters of conscience and conviction' during election cycles, according to the group's president Troy A. Miller. 'We believe that all nonprofits should have the constitutional right to freely express their point of view on candidates, elections, and issues on the ballot,' he said in a statement announcing the lawsuit last year. 'Our challenge to the Johnson Amendment is about securing the future of free expression for all Americans, particularly those standing in the pulpit.' Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, an advocacy group that supports a firewall between government and worship, called on the IRS to 'enforce the law, not to abandon it.' 'If the lawsuit were to succeed, it would have profound and overwhelmingly negative effects on our political system,' according to the group. 'Neither church nor state would benefit.'
