ADL and JCPA reactions to US teachers union exposes divide on how to fight antisemitism

A public rift has emerged between two leading Jewish civil rights organizations, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), over strategies to combat antisemitism within the National Education Association (NEA). The disagreement surfaced following reports of antisemitic harassment targeting Jewish teachers at the NEA's recent annual convention.

“

ensure the safety of Jewish members and educators at the [Representative Assembly] without undermining the union’s vital commitment to free speech and democracy.

The JCPA, alongside the NEA's Jewish Affairs Caucus, announced new rules and policies developed in collaboration with union leaders. They stated these measures aim to "ensure the safety of Jewish members and educators... without undermining the union’s vital commitment to free speech and democracy." This approach emphasizes working directly with institutions to find solutions.

Conversely, the ADL expressed "extreme frustration" with what it called a "so-called ‘agreement’" reached without full representation from the NEA Jewish Affairs Caucus leadership. The ADL criticized the NEA's "inconsistent enforcement of its own protections," asserting that "Jewish educators are not a priority" and demanding change. This stance reflects a more confrontational strategy, including assigning "report cards" to universities for their handling of campus antisemitism.

“

extremely frustrated about a so-called ‘agreement’ with JCPA that was reached without all NEA JAC leadership and delegates at the table.

Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the JCPA, defended her organization's process and outcomes, suggesting the ADL's criticism focused on procedure rather than substance. She highlighted the JCPA's commitment to fighting antisemitism while upholding democratic values, contrasting with approaches that have drawn criticism from other groups like the Jewish Federations of North America.

“

NEA’s inconsistent enforcement of its own protections has sent an unmistakable message: Jewish educators are not a priority. That must change now.

The differing approaches underscore a simmering tension within the Jewish community regarding how best to address antisemitism in educational institutions and unions: whether to prioritize collaboration and dialogue or to adopt a more assertive and critical stance.

“

When you can’t criticize substance, you find reasons to criticize process.