Wednesday, October 18th | 28 Tishri 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
April 7, 2017 6:44 am

Is Stanford Hillel Leaving Pro-Israel Students in the Cold?

avatar by Paul Miller / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Is Stanford Hillel Leaving Pro-Israel Students in the Cold?" to a friend

Stanford University alums Miriam Pollock (left) and Molly Horwitz (right) claim that Stanford Hillel staffers attempted to thwart efforts to expose campus antisemitism. Photo: Courtesy Miriam Pollock.

JNS.org – For Molly Horwitz, it’s not the antisemitism itself that stings the most. The feeling that some Stanford University Jewish leaders abandoned her in her fight against discrimination is what still brings tears to her eyes.

As Horwitz and  fellow Stanford alum Miriam Pollock see it, those Jewish leaders were borderline hostile toward mainstream pro-Israel students while fostering warmer relations with the campus arm of J Street, the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby.

If true, the former students’ allegations are not isolated, but indicative of the extent to which J Street’s agenda permeates campus discourse on Israel — including within Hillel, the international organization fostering Jewish life at more than 550 colleges and universities.

The question that started it all

Related coverage

October 17, 2017 12:07 pm
0

Alan Dershowitz: Trump Did the Right Thing by Walking Away From UNESCO — for Now

This article was first published by Gatestone Institute. The State Department announced on Thursday that the United States would be withdrawing...

In the spring of 2015, Molly Horwitz, then a junior at Stanford and a candidate for student senate, was publicly questioned by the Students of Color Coalition (SOCC) about how her “strong Jewish identity” would affect her vote on an anti-Israel resolution. She was offended and outraged.

Horwitz, who graduated in 2016, claims Stanford Hillel Executive Director Rabbi Serena Eisenberg and then-Director of Jewish Life and Learning Rabbi Daniel Silverstein attempted to thwart efforts to expose campus antisemitism, fearing it would drive Jewish students away from the prestigious university. Eisenberg and Silverstein allegedly labeled Horwitz and Pollock — then president of the pro-Israel student group Cardinal for Israel — as “radicals” who were unfit to lead. (Eisenberg announced March 30 on Facebook that she will step down from her position at the end of June. She did not disclose why she is leaving Hillel, but noted she is “so excited to take a break.”)

After she first became acquainted with Stanford Hillel following the SOCC incident, Horwitz told the Haym Salomon Center that a friend recommended she speak to Eisenberg, who subsequently “advised that we should not talk about what happened because…it would discourage Jewish students from enrolling at Stanford.”

Pollock, who joined Horwitz for that conversation with Eisenberg, echoed that the Hillel director “wanted the controversy to blow over, quietly.”

The climate for Jews at Stanford

According to the campus antisemitism watchdog AMCHA Initiative, 22 antisemitic incidents have occurred at Stanford since January 2015. This year alone, six incidents involving swastikas appearing on campus have been reported.

Horwitz won the student senate seat. The following spring, she offered a resolution calling on the senate to support Jews against antisemitism. Horwitz said a Stanford Hillel staffer told her that “only if J Street got on board with the bill, would [Hillel] support the measure.”

It was not until an uproar over controversial comments by student senator Gabriel Knight that Hillel changed its approach, Horwitz said. Knight opposed the resolution’s language, arguing that the antisemitic canard of Jewish control over government, media and finance should not “theoretically” be regarded as antisemitism.

After Knight’s remarks, Horwitz said Hillel sent out emails praising the bill. “I was very uncomfortable being manipulated and used by someone who didn’t want to even be associated with the bill in the first place,” she said.

Hillel International provided the Haym Salomon Center with a copy of a letter Hillel distributed in support of the bill. Horwitz stands by her remarks, saying, “Only after me pressuring them and stating that there is a precedent of Hillel’s sponsoring similar bills, did they write the letter.”

J Street’s refusal of pro-Israel collaboration

J Street did sponsor the resolution against antisemitism. But Horwitz and Pollock claim the progressive group’s perspective was forced upon Israel advocates on campus.

At the start of the 2015-16 school year, Silverstein “informed me I would not be a good leader because I didn’t have ‘liberal values’” and told all prospective members of Cardinal for Israel that they “would be working with J Street,” Pollock said.

Although she considers J Street “anti-Israel,” Pollock said she “attempted to work with J Street on those few issues where we saw eye to eye.” Yet J Street “was unwilling to work with Cardinal for Israel when given certain reasonable conditions,” she said.

Pollock is referring to a vigil organized by pro-Israel students to remember those killed and injured during the Palestinian “stabbing intifada” against Israelis from September 2015 through the first half of 2016.

Horwitz said Eisenberg declined her invitation to lead the memorial prayer, “telling me that it was not okay for us to leave out the Palestinians who died in those attacks, and it was too right-wing because we hadn’t talked to J Street about co-sponsoring with us.”

When Pollock approached J Street about participating, she said they refused to meet conditions such as “not bringing up or criticizing ‘the occupation’ during the vigil for Israeli victims of terror.”

According to Horwitz, Hillel ultimately funded a vigil paying homage to Palestinians, promoted by students involved with the anti-Israel group Jewish Voice for Peace. Eisenberg made herself available to attend the Cardinal for Israel vigil, but only after another rabbi agreed to lead the service, Horwitz said.

Hillel’s response

The current and former Hillel staffers both dispute the alums’ claims.

“Their allegations are false…the experiences of two individuals are not reflective of the experiences of the majority Jewish community on campus,” said Eisenberg. “Thousands of students of diverse backgrounds and political perspectives have been touched and inspired by Stanford Hillel to strengthen their Jewish identities and connect to Jewish life, learning and Israel.”

“If you interview a representative cross-section of Jewish students who were present at Stanford during my time there, they will confirm that the allegations against me are untrue, and that I served the interests of the entire Stanford Jewish student community with diligence and love,” Silverstein said.

Yisroel Quint, an undergraduate senior at Stanford, said that while he “can’t directly dispute” the alums’ claims, Eisenberg “is an excellent, attentive leader. She has always offered and provided any support that I could possibly need at Stanford to be a strong supporter of Israel…I have worked closely with the rabbi against the BDS movement on campus.”

Stanford graduate school student Fabian Schvartzman described Eisenberg as “super helpful,” and expressed gratitude for bringing him and nearly 20 other students to the recent AIPAC policy conference.

J Street on campus: the bigger picture

The challenge J Street poses to mainstream pro-Israel students is not unique to Stanford. The progressive advocacy group and its campus arm tout their participation in the fight against BDS, yet partner on programming with pro-BDS groups.

Hillel, by contrast, states in its Israel guidelines that it will not partner with organizations that “delegitimize, demonize, or apply a double standard to Israel.” But when Hillel partners with J Street, what sounds like a firm policy can become a slippery slope.

J Street has hosted Breaking the Silence — an NGO claiming the Israeli military engages in “crimes against humanity” and accusing Israel of “ethnic cleansing” — at the Hillel facilities of Columbia University, Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania and Washington University in St. Louis.

“J Street, in our observation — and we’re working on 70 campuses — damages healthy, normal pro-Israel work, especially when the group is closely involved with the Hillel, as it is in some places,” said Andrea Levin, executive director of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America. “It often obstructs the wider effort to speak out for Israel on the facts and can demoralize pro-Zionist students.”

Looking back and ahead

Horwitz does not consider her experience at Stanford an indictment of Hillel International, the student movement’s parent group, and still holds the organization in high regard. She acknowledges that “each [Hillel] chapter is a reflection of the staff on [that] campus.” Horwitz even applied for multiple post-graduation jobs with Hillel, including one at Stanford, with the hope of changing the climate.

Pollock, however, does not hold back in her criticism.

“I find it very unfortunate that Hillel rabbis and staff behaved in such an unprofessional, unsupportive, anti-Israel fashion,” she said of her time on campus. “I find it extremely unfortunate that I have zero positive experiences at Stanford Hillel to speak of.”

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • As a Stanford alum living in Palo Alto who witnessed these events from close range as they occurred, I can tell you that everything Molly Horwitz and Miriam Pollock have reported is true. If you find it hard to believe, that should only tell just how bad the political climate at Stanford is, and on many other college campuses across the country. I have spoken with Serena Eisenberg on one or two occasions, and corresponded with her on others, and my impression has always been that she was always more interested in quieting any controversy on campus involving Israel, or Jewish civil rights issue, than lending a helping hand as should be the proper role for Hillel on campus. Only when stories on campus began to reach the broader Jewish community or, even worse, Stanford alumni did I see Hillel lift a finger, and when successes were accomplished by courageous students like Molly and Miriam, Stanford Hillel was the first to take the credit, quite undeservedly I might add. I don’t doubt that Serena felt her approach was best to promote Jewish life on campus by avoiding controversy at _all_ costs and having “mum” be the word on anything that might disturb the appearance of an idyllic life for Jewish students at Stanford. The problem is that campus life is not idyllic for Jewish students who defend Israel and stand proudly behind their Jewish identity, who do not wish to cower to the forces of hatred and bigotry against students who support Israel unapologetically. By putting the appearance of tranquility ahead of more primary principles, Ms. Eisenberg’s administration served, in the end, more as an apologist to Israel’s detractors than a support system for proud, pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam whose lives were, at times, made even more miserable precisely because there was no Jewish institutional support system for them on campus. At moments when students like Molly and Miriam needed Hillel the most, Hillel failed them, and effectively left them to be sacrificed on the altar of intersectionality, which posits that every minority group has a claim of victimization except, of course, for Jews. As Alan Dershowitz recently wrote, the only thing that intersectionalist groups have in common is precisely their bigoted loathing of Israel and proud Jews who stand in her defense. See http://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-Bigotry-of-Intersectionality.html Even when I was a student at Stanford 30+ years ago, Hillel had an air of progressive universalism, but at least then it did not discriminate against or let down its own; it did not betray its necessarily parochial role to serve as a safe space for Jewish students of all political stripes and to endeavor to keep Stanford a safe and tolerant place for them generally. But the Stanford Hillel of today is a fair weather friend of unapologetic pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam. When the chips are down, don’t count on Stanford Hillel to be there for your child, unless s/he is a card-carrying member of J-Street or some other anti-Israel group on campus. In that case, you can rest assured that any concern or complaint that might be offered, no matter how illegitimate, will be given the utmost respect and tolerance. The saddest part of all this is that Stanford Hillel is not alone in its betrayal of certain Jewish students on campus, despite Hillel’s supposed mission to promote and support Jewish life for all Jewish students. Unfortunately, fair weather friends just don’t cut it when the climate on campus is perpetually tempestuous for truly pro-Israel Jewish students.

  • As a Stanford alum living in Palo Alto who witnessed these events from close range as they occurred, I can tell you that everything Molly Horwitz and Miriam Pollock have reported is true. If you find it hard to believe, that should only tell just how bad the political climate at Stanford is, and on many other college campuses across the country. I have spoken with Serena Eisenberg on one or two occasions, and corresponded with her on others, and my impression has always been that she was always more interested in quieting any controversy on campus involving Israel, or Jewish civil rights issue, than lending a helping hand as should be the proper role for Hillel on campus. Only when stories on campus began to reach the broader Jewish community or, even worse, Stanford alumni did I see Hillel lift a finger, and when successes were accomplished by courageous students like Molly and Miriam, Stanford Hillel was the first to take the credit, quite undeservedly I might add. I don’t doubt that Serena felt her approach was best to promote Jewish life on campus by avoiding controversy at _all_ costs and having “mum” be the word on anything that might disturb the appearance of an idyllic life for Jewish students at Stanford. The problem is that campus life is not idyllic for Jewish students who defend Israel and stand proudly behind their Jewish identity, who do not wish to cower to the forces of hatred and bigotry against students who support Israel unapologetically. By putting the appearance of tranquility ahead of more primary principles, Ms. Eisenberg’s administration served, in the end, more as an apologist to Israel’s detractors than a support system for proud, pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam whose lives were, at times, made even more miserable precisely because there was no Jewish institutional support system for them on campus. At moments when students like Molly and Miriam needed Hillel the most, Hillel failed them, and effectively left them to be sacrificed on the altar of intersectionality, which posits that every minority group has a claim of victimization except, of course, for Jews. As Alan Dershowitz recently wrote, the only thing that intersectionalist groups have in common is precisely their bigoted loathing of Israel and proud Jews who stand in her defense. See http://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-Bigotry-of-Intersectionality.html. Even when I was a student at Stanford 30+ years ago, Hillel had an air of progressive universalism, but at least then it did not discriminate against or let down its own; it did not betray its undeniably parochial role to serve as a safe space for Jewish students of all political stripes and to endeavor to keep Stanford a safe and tolerant place for them generally. But the Stanford Hillel of today is a fair weather friend of unapologetic pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam. When the chips are down, don’t count on Stanford Hillel to be there for your child, unless s/he is a card-carrying member of J-Street or some other anti-Israel group on campus. In that case, you can rest assured that any concern or complaint that might be offered, no matter how illegitimate, will be given the utmost respect and tolerance. The saddest part of all this is that Stanford Hillel is not alone in its betrayal of certain Jewish students on campus, despite Hillel’s supposed mission to promote and support Jewish life for all Jewish students. Unfortunately, fair weather friends just don’t cut it when the climate on campus is perpetually tempestuous for truly pro-Israel Jewish students.

  • As a Stanford alum living in Palo Alto who witnessed these events from close range as they occurred, I can tell you that everything Molly Horwitz and Miriam Pollock have reported is true. If you find it hard to believe, that should only tell just how bad the political climate at Stanford is, and on many other college campuses across the country. I have spoken with Serena Eisenberg on one or two occasions, and corresponded with her on others, and my impression has always been that she was always more interested in quieting any controversy on campus involving Israel, or Jewish civil rights issue, than lending a helping hand as should be the proper role for Hillel on campus. Only when stories on campus began to reach the broader Jewish community or, even worse, Stanford alumni did I see Hillel lift a finger, and when successes were accomplished by courageous students like Molly and Miriam, Stanford Hillel was the first to take the credit, quite undeservedly I might add. I don’t doubt that Serena felt her approach was best to promote Jewish life on campus by avoiding controversy at _all_ costs and having “mum” be the word on anything that might disturb the appearance of an idyllic life for Jewish students at Stanford. The problem is that campus life is not idyllic for Jewish students who defend Israel and stand proudly behind their Jewish identity, who do not wish to cower to the forces of hatred and bigotry against students who support Israel unapologetically. By putting the appearance of tranquility ahead of more primary principles, Ms. Eisenberg’s administration served, in the end, more as an apologist to Israel’s detractors than a support system for proud, pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam whose lives were, at times, made even more miserable precisely because there was no Jewish institutional support system for them on campus. At moments when students like Molly and Miriam needed Hillel the most, Hillel failed them, and effectively left them to be sacrificed on the altar of intersectionality, which posits that every minority group has a claim of victimization except, of course, for Jews. As Alan Dershowitz recently wrote, the only thing that intersectionalist groups have in common is precisely their bigoted loathing of Israel and proud Jews who stand in her defense. See http://www.aish.com/ci/s/The-Bigotry-of-Intersectionality.html Even when I was a student at Stanford 30+ years ago, Hillel had an air of progressive universalism, but at least then it did not discriminate against or let down its own; it did not betray its undeniably parochial role to serve as a safe space for Jewish students of all political stripes and to endeavor to keep Stanford a safe and tolerant place for them generally. But the Stanford Hillel of today is a fair weather friend of unapologetic pro-Israel Jewish students like Molly and Miriam. When the chips are down, don’t count on Stanford Hillel to be there for your child, unless s/he is a card-carrying member of J-Street or some other anti-Israel group on campus. In that case, you can rest assured that any concern or complaint that might be offered, no matter how illegitimate, will be given the utmost respect and tolerance. The saddest part of all this is that Stanford Hillel is not alone in its betrayal of certain Jewish students on campus, despite Hillel’s supposed mission to promote and support Jewish life for all Jewish students. Unfortunately, fair weather friends just don’t cut it when the climate on campus is perpetually tempestuous for truly pro-Israel Jewish students.

Algemeiner.com