April, 17 2025, 06:40pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Jonah Rubin| jonah@jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Liv Kunins-Berkowitz | liv@jewishvoiceforpeace.org
Over 30 Scholars of Antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and Jewish History Challenge Trump’s Attack on Free Speech
Jewish Scholars intentionally violate the controversial and discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism which has been a tool for the Trump administration to imprison activists and dismantle higher education
Over 32 prominent Jewish scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and Jewish History today challenged the Trump administration’s authoritarian crackdown on free speech by demonstrating the danger and falsehood of its false claims to care about Jewish safety. The Trump administration uses the guise of fighting antisemitism in order to attack the Palestinian rights movement and enact its broader authoritarian agenda including dismantling higher education and targeting student activists. Trump and his allies use a controversial, dangerous, and discredited IHRA definition of antisemitism, which inaccurately conflates criticism of the State of Israel with antisemitism. The IHRA definition and its associated examples have been criticized and rejected by Jewish, Palestinian, Israeli, civil rights, and human rights organizations for years.
The first Trump administration embraced the discredited IHRA definition in a 2019 Executive Order and has reinforced it in another EO from January 2025. Over the last several months, the IHRA definition has been a tool in the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services’ broad attacks on universities, including their withholding billions in federal funds from institutions of higher education, and their egregious detainment of student activists. The Trump administration is now pushing universities to adopt this flawed definition of antisemitism, as part of a broader campaign of censorship and ideological control over universities. Many scholars, including Kenneth Stern, the author of the definition, have warned that Trump is using this definition to attack academic freedom and free speech.
Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Stockton University: “We take action to expose the absurdity of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Hundreds of Jewish scholars around the world oppose it, including those who have publicly violated it today in rallies and protests in cities and campuses across the United States. The IHRA definition prohibits experts from talking about well-documented historical and contemporary realities, such as the systemic racism in Israel that is expressed explicitly and in unashamed terms in Israel's own Jewish Nation-State Basic Law. The IHRA definition also requires us to censor truths about Israel’s genocide in Gaza documented by the UN, Amnesty Internation, Human Rights Watch, and a growing number of Holocaust and genocide scholars who describe the killing of more than 50,000 Palestinians, including over 18,000 children, as a genocide. As a Jewish-Israeli scholar of the Holocaust who grew up with four grandparents who had survived the Holocaust, I reject this definition and I am proud to join dozens of Jewish scholars today in violating it and insisting on the value of our expertise and our scholarship.”
The intentional violations of the discredited IHRA definition took place across the country as part of a larger “Day of Action” organized by the Coalition for Action in Higher Education, in partnership with the American Association of University Professors, Jewish Voice for Peace, and other organizations.. Scores of other scholars, organized by Jewish Voice for Peace and the Liberatory Jewish Studies Network, engaged in similar violations at rallies across the country and in recorded statements.
The flawed IHRA definition outlines several examples of “contemporary antisemitism” that dangerously and falsely conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism. For example, the definition asserts that it is antisemitic to “draw.. comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” This provision is an egregious overreach that silences Holocaust scholars and Holocaust survivors who have found it necessary to draw comparisons.
At the AAUP-organized New York City rally in Foley Square, Marianne Hirsch, Professor of English and Comparative Literature and a scholar of Holocaust Memory at Columbia University said: “The widespread embrace of the confusing IHRA definition of antisemitism has created a crisis in my field of Genocide and Holocaust Studies. When I teach the history and memory of the Holocaust, I necessarily use historical analogy as a method of knowledge and inquiry. We learn things by comparing, as long as we do it with care. Right now, it is irresponsible to teach the Nazi persecution of Jews – which included ethnic cleansing, population transfer, starvation, expulsion and murder —without referring to the Israeli military’s brutal assault on Gaza. To do so is to violate the terms of the IHRA definition. Not to do so is to capitulate our intellectual integrity as scholars, our moral fiber as human beings and our sense of justice as citizens.”
Jonah Rubin, Sr. Manager of Campus Organizing at JVP: “The white supremacists, Christian Nationalists, and far-right authoritarians driving Trump’s so-called antisemitism policy do not care about Jewish safety. They embrace discredited definitions of antisemitism as a tool to attack social movements , rip visa holders away from their families and communities, and dismantle higher education. Today, some of the most prominent scholars of antisemitism, Holocaust Studies, and Jewish history are putting themselves on the line and laying out a challenge for every college and university president: will you continue to bow down to Trump’s demands or believe the experts and reject the IHRA definition and stand up for free speech.”
Interviews with scholars including Raz Segal, Marianne Hirsch, and Judith Butler available upon request
Participants include:
Rabbi Dr. Rebecca T. Alpert, Professor of Religion Emerita at TempleDr. Joel Benin, Donald J. McLachlan Professor of History and Professor of Middle East History, Emeritus at Stanford University. Dr. Bernadette Brooten, Kraft-Hiatt Professor Emerita of Christian Studies and Professor Emerita of Women's and Gender Studies at Brandeis University.Dr. Rachel Ida Buff, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.Dr. Judith Butler, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Berkeley Dr. Hasia Diner, Paul And Sylvia Steinberg Professor of American Jewish History at New York University.Dr. Jonathan Feingold, Associate Professor of Law, Boston University.Dr. Penny Gold, Burkhardt Distinguished Professor of History, Emerita at Knox College.Dr. Emmaia Gelman, professor in Social Sciences at Sarah Lawrence College and the founding Director of the Institute for the Critical Study of Zionism.Dr. Lisa Heineman, Professor of History, University of IowaDr. Marianne Hirsch, William Peterfield Trent Professor Emerita of English and Comparative Literature and the Institute for the Study of Sexuality and Gender at Columbia University. Dr. Nitzan Lebovic, Apter Chair of Holocaust Studies and Ethical Values at Lehigh University.Dr. Bruce Levine, J. G. Randall Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History, University of Illinois Urbana-ChampaignDr. Mark Levine, Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History, University of California, Irvine.Dr. Laura Levitt, Professor of Religion, Jewish Studies and Gender at Temple University.Dr. Zachary Lockman, Professor of Middle Eastern and Islamic Studies, and History at New York University.Nina Mehta, Co-Director of PARCEO.Dr. Eli Myerhoff, AAUP Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom Fellow.Dr. Donna Nevel, co-director of PARCEO and an expert in antisemitism.Dr. Atalia Omer, Professor of Religion, Conflict, and Peace Studies at Notre Dame University.Dr. Penny Rosenwasser, City College of San Francisco. Dr. Jonah Rubin, Sr. Manager of Campus Organizing, Jewish Voice for Peace.Dr. Rayaa Rusenko, Independent Scholar, National Coalition of Independent Scholars.Dr. Jennifer Ruth, Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Professor of Film at Portland State University.Dr. Daniel Segal, Jean M. Pitzer Professor Emeritus of Anthropology and Professor Emeritus of History at Pitzer College.Dr. Raz Segal, Associate Professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Stockton University.Dr. Aaron Shakow, Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard University.Dr. Victor Silverman, Emeritus Professor of History, Pomona College.Dr. David Slavin, Emory University.Dr. Tamir Sorek, Liberal Arts Professor of Middle East History at Penn State University. Dr. Arlene Stein, Distinguished Professor of Sociology, Rutgers UniversityDr. Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History at Wake Forest University.Dr. Alan Wald, H. Chandler Davis Collegiate Professor Emeritus at University of Michigan.
Jewish Voice for Peace is a national, grassroots organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for a just and lasting peace according to principles of human rights, equality, and international law for all the people of Israel and Palestine. JVP has over 200,000 online supporters, over 70 chapters, a youth wing, a Rabbinic Council, an Artist Council, an Academic Advisory Council, and an Advisory Board made up of leading U.S. intellectuals and artists.
(510) 465-1777LATEST NEWS
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one officials said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweatheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Elon Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Advocates Warn GOP Just Unveiled 'Most Dangerous Higher Ed Bill in US History'
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," said the Debt Collective.
Apr 29, 2025
At a markup session held by a U.S. House committee on the Republican Party's recently unveiled higher education reform bill Tuesday, one Democratic lawmaker had a succinct description for the legislation.
"This bill is a dream-killer," said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) of the so-called Student Success and Taxpayer Savings Plan, which was introduced by Education and Workforce Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) as part of an effort to find $330 billion in education programs to offset President Donald Trump's tax plan.
Tasked with helping to make $4.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans possible, Walberg on Monday proposed changes to the Pell Grant program, which has provided financial aid to more than 80 million low-income students since it began in 1972. The bill would allocate more funding to the program but would also reduce the number of students who are eligible for the grants, changing the definition of a "full-time" student to one enrolled in at least 30 semester hours each academic year—up from 12 hours. Students would be cut off from the financial assistance entirely if they are enrolled less than six hours per semester.
David Baime, senior vice president for government relations for the American Association of Community Colleges, suggested the legislation doesn't account for the realities faced by many students who benefit from Pell Grants.
"These students are almost always working a substantial number of hours each week and often have family responsibilities. Pell Grants help them meet the cost of tuition and required fees," Baime toldInside Higher Ed. "We commend the committee for identifying substantial additional resources to help finance Pell, but it should not come at the cost of undermining the ability of low-income working students to enroll at a community college."
The draft bill would also end subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest when a student is still in college and gives borrowers a six-month grace period after graduation, starting in July 2026. More than 30 million borrowers currently have subsidized loans.
The proposal would also reduce the number of student loan repayment options from those offered by the Biden administration to just two, with borrowers given the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time or an income-based plan.
At the markup session on Tuesday, Bonamici pointed to her own experience of paying for college and law school "through a combination of grants and loans and work study and food stamps," and noted that her Republican colleagues on the committee also "graduated from college."
"And more than half of them have gone on to earn advanced degrees," said the congresswoman. "And yet those same individuals who benefited so much from accessing higher education are supporting a bill that will prevent others from doing so."
“In a time when higher ed is being attacked, this bill is another assault,” @RepBonamici calls out committee leaders for wanting to gut financial aid.
“With this bill, they will be taking that opportunity [of higher ed] away from others. This bill is a dream killer.” pic.twitter.com/UjTYvnOEKv
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
Democrats on the committee also spoke out against provisions that would cap loans a student can take out for graduate programs at $100,000; the Grad PLUS program has allowed students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
The Parent PLUS program, which has been found to provide crucial help to Black families accessing higher education, would also be restricted.
"Black students, brown students, first-generation college students, first-generation Americans, will not have access to college," said Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.).
“We cannot take away access to loans, and not replace it with anything else, not make the system better. We know the outcome here—Black, brown, and poor students will not figure it out. Instead, only elite students from the 1% will continue to access education.”@RepSummerLee🙇 pic.twitter.com/oGbRH154Ed
— Student Borrower Protection Center (@theSBPC) April 29, 2025
As the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) warned last week, eliminating the Grad PLUS program without also lowering the cost of graduate programs would "subject millions of future borrowers to an unregulated and predatory private student loan market, while doing little to reduce overall student debt and the need to borrow."
Aissa Canchola Bañez, policy director for SBPC, told The Hill that the draft bill is "an attack on students and working families with student loan debt."
"We've seen an array of really problematic proposals that are on the table for congressional Republicans," Canchola Bañez said. "Many of these would cause massive spikes for families with monthly student loan payments."
With the proposal, which Republicans hope to pass through reconciliation with a simple majority, the party would be "restructuring higher education for the worse," said the Debt Collective.
"It's the most dangerous higher ed bill in U.S. history," said the student loan borrowers union. "It strips the Department of Education of virtually every authority to cancel student debt. Eliminates every repayment program. Abolishes subsidized loans."
"This is the boldest attempt we've seen in recent history to segregate higher education along racial and class lines," the group added. "We have to push back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular