Pitt equity, inclusion committee votes in special meeting
Urges changes to resolution creating antisemitism committee
In a sometimes tense Nov. 18 special meeting, the University of Pittsburgh’s Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Discrimination Advocacy Committee voted to suggest changes to the university’s resolution creating an ad hoc antisemitism committee. Those changes included safeguards against conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, which was a concern among members of Students for Justice in Palestine.
The meeting was attended by committee members as well as concerned community members including Chabad on Campus co-Director Sara Weinstein, Chabad at Pitt Rabbi Shmuli Rothstein, Jewish Federation of Greater Pittsburgh Community Relations Council Director Laura Cherner, StandWithUs Mid-Atlantic Regional Director Julie Paris and Beacon Coalition Executive Director Jeremy Kazzaz.
EIDAC’s recommendations to alter the language of the resolution forming the antisemitism committee first acknowledge the experiences and feelings of Jewish students, faculty and staff, including fear, loneliness and abandonment in light of recent acts of violence and shaming on Pitt’s campus.
The recommendations then call for an explicit definition of antisemitism, while noting that according to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, Anti-Defamation League and the U.S. Department of State, “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
Concerned about the effects the creation of an antisemitism committee might have on other university contingents, the EIDAC recommendations state that “it is imperative that this committee attend to its mandate in a way that does not erase the pain of others, or negate the complicated way that individuals, groups and communities navigate their identities.”
EIDAC then implores the proposed antisemitism committee to recognize that opposition to and criticism of Zionism is within the bounds of acceptable discourse.
After calling for objectivity and arguing that the antisemitism committee should strive to build solidarity among marginalized groups on campus, the recommendations urge the proposed committee not to conflate antisemitism and anti-Zionism.
Finally, EIDAC suggests that the resolution acknowledges Pittsburgh’s “long history of significant historical instances of cooperation among marginalized communities.”
The meeting opened with EIDAC co-Chair Bridget Keown sharing insights she gained when meeting with Students for Justice in Palestine, an anti-Zionist group on campus.
SJP, Keown said, is concerned with a portion of the IHRA definition of antisemitism that says that it could be antisemitic to require behavior of Israel “not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
Members of SJP told Keown that according to that definition, anyone focusing on “Israeli abuses” could be labeled antisemitic if worse abuses are occurring somewhere else in the world.
SJP, Keown said, is concerned that using the IHRA definition of antisemitism would “limit speech and activism regarding Palestinian rights.”
Neither EIDAC nor the university uses the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Instead, Pitt defines antisemitism as “the fear or hatred of Jews, Judaism, and related symbols” on the Equity, Diversity & Inclusion page of its website.
Jennifer Murtazashvili, director of the university’s center for governance and markets and co-chair of the proposed antisemitism committee, reminded EIDAC members of the recent physical assaults on three Jewish Pitt students.
She then spoke of the trauma felt by Jewish community members who are being forced to define themselves and antisemitism before their issues are even addressed.
Acknowledging the concerns of SJP, Murtazashvili noted that none of the students or faculty who spoke in support of the antisemitism committee discussed Zionism, Israel or the war between Hamas and the Jewish state.
“None of the people that have spoken about grievances or challenges they have faced mentioned the current conflict,” she said. “It really is problematic that these issues keep coming up by people outside the Jewish community.”
Murtazashvili said SJP’s concerns illustrate why “it is absolutely necessary to have a committee on antisemitism.”
“Would we allow, or would we think it’s appropriate for individuals outside of other communities to debate the validity of those groups organizing and advising on issues pertaining to issues within their own community?” she asked.
The proposed antisemitism committee, Murtazashvili said, would be purely advisory, would not impose a definition of antisemitism on the university and would not impose restrictions on speech.
Faculty Assembly President Robin Kear and Vice President Kristin Kanthak both spoke in favor of creating the antisemitism committee.
Several attendees expressed concern that EIDAC might be attempting to be a gatekeeper of the antisemitism committee; others were concerned with the effects the creation of the committee might have on academic freedom.
At the conclusion of the meeting, eight members of EIDAC voted in favor of the recommendations and none voted against it.
The recommendations will now go to the full Faculty Assembly, whose members are scheduled to vote on the creation of the antisemitism committee at its December meeting. PJC
David Rullo can be reached at drullo@pittsburghjewishchronicle.org.
comments