Is the ADL Right to Narrow Its Mission to Focus More on Protecting Jews?

Interviews by Amy E. Schwartz

Is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) right to narrow its mission to focus more on protecting Jews?

Yes. For a long time, the ADL had an education program that was quite distinct from its work combating antisemitism. Even years ago when I was a young intern at the ADL, it had a program called “A World of Difference,” with a separate staff, that conducted multicultural work in law enforcement and schools and the like. Those programs evolved over time into something like the ADL’s DEI branch. Some of their teacher trainings used the language of white privilege and were not ideologically neutral. A colleague and I wrote an article in The Forward in 2022 critiquing the ADL when it changed its definition of racism to “racism equals prejudice plus power,” a decidedly DEI-ish definition.

I think Jonathan Greenblatt has had a sort of awakening after October 7. At some point, it becomes untenable to both argue against antisemitism and anti-Zionism on the radical left and at the same time have an education arm that promotes a softer version of that same ideology. The organization was at war with itself, and the more mainstream Jewish voice may be winning out.

Has the ADL’s past work made a significant difference on civil rights issues?

Yes. The ADL’s being part of the civil rights coalition—at a time when the Jewish people had a lot to gain from living in a better society—was very effective. The ADL wasn’t the only Jewish organization at the table, but it was one of the primary voices. And it made sense to do that work on behalf of the Jewish people. I’m not suggesting that the ADL end all of its work in civil rights. It just shouldn’t do DEI education programs.

Did October 7 signal the end of interfaith coalition building?

No, but it changed its nature. The Jewish community’s intergroup relations agenda was based largely on the idea that we had to form relationships with progressives against the threat from the right. What October 7 drove home was that there are Cossacks on both sides of the aisle.

October 7 drove home that there are Cossacks on both sides of the aisle.

I’m seeing a paradigm shift. The people who are capable of talking to each other about politics and contentious issues, those are our natural friends. And people trying to shut down discourse, or justify violence, or celebrate Hamas or Tucker Carlson, those people are not our friends. In schools, for example, the average Chinese-American or Indian-American parent is not necessarily concerned about antisemitism but might be concerned about the AP course or the magnet school being shut down. Those are people that Jews should get to know and work with against the common problem of ideological extremism in schools. That’s the new shape of intergroup relations, but I think the American Jewish community is having trouble making the transition.

What pressured the ADL to shift focus?

I know some donors applied internal pressure. Even before October 7, there was a Fox News exposé on the ADL’s education work. And I’m sure they felt pressured by being put on a blacklist by FBI Director Kash Patel after quotations from Turning Point USA were featured in the ADL’s now-defunct online Glossary of Extremism and Hate. For an organization that has historically dealt with law enforcement, how can it have the FBI refuse to work with it? And the ADL also had to ask itself if it was characterizing the various perceived streams of thought on the right fairly. There was a lot of discourse about Turning Point within the Jewish community after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, much of it distorted. And even though his politics are not remotely my politics, I thought, I hope his version of Christian nationalism wins out over some of these other versions of Christian nationalism that I’ve seen in the public square. The ADL could have talked about that, rather than just seeing the group as a threat.

What does the future of the fight against antisemitism look like?

As we all know, American Jews are just two percent of the population, and antisemitism may not be very relevant to the other 98 percent. It’s imperative that we develop an American civic values approach to fighting antisemitism. Our security depends upon values many of us have taken for granted—freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, e pluribus unum. These values are part of the American creed, and most normie Americans, including Jews, subscribe to them. We’ve got to start forming coalitions around those values and stop looking at either the right or the left as a primary threat.

I’m for a democracy agenda, I just don’t think that the mainstream Jewish community up to now has embraced the right one.

INTERVIEW WITH JONATHAN JACOBY 

Is the ADL Right to Narrow Its Mission to Focus More on Protecting Jews? | No

Is the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) right to narrow its mission to focus more on protecting Jews?

No. You can’t fight hatred in isolation. Hatreds and prejudices are bound up together. In the Tree of Life synagogue massacre in Pittsburgh, PA, Jews were killed by a gunman whose motives were a mix of antisemitism and xenophobia.

We often think of Jews as the canaries in the coal mine—when they come after Jews, then others are rarely far behind. Today, there are also other coal mines with their own canaries: undocumented workers, LGBTQ people and others. If we don’t stand with those targeted groups and defend their rights now, who will stand with us when the antisemites in and around the Trump administration come directly for us?

It’s perfectly legitimate for the ADL to decide that it’s going to focus narrowly on protecting Jews. I just don’t agree with it as a strategy. I think it will ultimately fail because Jews do not live in a vacuum in this country. I also wonder how that strategy jibes with times when the ADL has failed to call out and contest blatant antisemitism promoted and normalized by this administration. You can’t pick and choose which antisemitic behavior you condemn. You have to have principles and stick to them.

Has the ADL’s past work made a significant difference on civil rights issues?

Yes. It’s been critical—for American democracy and for Jewish safety. They go hand in hand. The ADL’s ability to form coalitions with like-minded organizations, with other minorities and with disadvantaged groups and civil rights and civil liberties groups, has been crucial to all Americans fighting for the common cause of equality and democracy.

Did October 7 signal the end of interfaith coalition building?

I hope not, because we will never fight antisemitism effectively except in coalition with other targeted groups. October 7 did create a huge challenge. Too many of those who supported the Palestinian cause chose to ignore or even abandon their allyship with Jews. And then, a counter-backlash from some parts of the Jewish community against progressives in general fed into an even more dangerous polarization. It has been very difficult.

We will never fight antisemitism effectively except in coalition with other targeted groups.

There have been some successful efforts to mend those rifts. Groups such as the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and Bend the Arc have reached out effectively to others; they’ve said we need to figure out how to get through our differences in favor of a common cause. We need to understand each other’s issues and realize we have a common adversary.

Some campus groups too have modeled this behavior, saying, in essence, “This is going to be the most challenging thing we’ve ever done, but we need to figure out how to do it, because the future is at stake.”

It’s hard work for many reasons, but partly because it also entails facing uncomfortable facts about the impact of Israel’s actions on American Jews. That’s not something people want to look at, but the ADL’s own data showed a correlation between Israel’s actions in Gaza and the rise of antisemitism. We have to look at what that correlation means, and that’s not so easy.

The wrong way to grapple with it is to conflate opposition to what Israel is doing in Gaza or the West Bank, or even very harsh condemnation of Israel itself, with antisemitism. That’s just not true. And that kind of sensationalizing amounts to a weaponization that degrades truth-telling and ultimately undermines our ability to make good decisions about policy and relationships.

What pressured the ADL to shift focus?

I can’t guess the thinking behind their decision, but if it’s a tactic for responding to pressure from the Trump administration, then what’s the evidence that it will work? Does the ADL think that the Trump administration will leave Jews out when it attacks others who stand up for civil rights, for immigrants or for free speech? Will it make an exception for Jews? It is risky to try to carve out a safe space for Jews while leaving targets on the backs of other American communities.

What does the future of the fight against antisemitism look like?

The fight against antisemitism now is integrally connected to the fight against authoritarianism. It’s as simple as that. Authoritarianism threatens Jews. Anything that weakens democracy weakens Jewish safety. Upholding the Constitution, protecting academic freedom, civil discourse, civil rights, these are all strategies for fighting antisemitism. The alternative is a path where we give in to authoritarianism, where we take ourselves out of coalitions or allow ourselves to be left out of them. Those are both bad outcomes. If we go down that path, then perhaps we ought to consult with Hungarian Jews about what it’s like to live as a persecuted minority in an authoritarian regime.