Zionist Organization of America
Jacob and Libby Goodman ZOA House| 4 East 34th Street, New York, NY 10016(212) 481-1500 | Fax: (212) 481-1515 | email@zoa.org | www.zoa.org

July 5, 2013

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
Office of the President
Northeastern University
716 Columbus Place, Suite 620
Boston, MA 02120
Dear President Aoun:
We write on behalf of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), the oldest and one of
the largest pro-Israel organizations in the U.S., whose leaders have included U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise, and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver. Much of ourwork is dedicated to helping Jewish students who are being subjected to anti-Semitic harassment
and intimidation on their college campuses. We were contacted about longstanding problems
that Jewish students have been facing on your campus, both at the undergraduate level and at thelaw school.
Many of these problems are not news to you. More than a year ago, Jewish students
wrote you a heartfelt letter, telling you that “[t]he Jewish community at Northeastern is
beginning to feel unsafe and uncomfortable on campus and we feel it is the obligation of the
University to prevent that.” In addition, a number of Jewish students have appealed individually
to you and other university officials for help. Outside advocates for students have also brought
the campus problems to your attention, going so far as to document them in three separate andvery disturbing videos.
Northeastern University has taken some positive remedial steps. We understand that theuniversity has finally started to hold accountable Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), the antiIsrael student group on campus, for its misconduct, after the SJP deliberately disrupted an eventthat took place on Holocaust Remembrance Day last April. According to a media report, the SJP
is on probation, it will be suspended indefinitely for further transgressions, and it must create a
civility statement setting forth rules for future conduct. If this media report is true, then weapplaud Northeastern for finally taking the necessary steps to ensure that the SJP complies with
university rules that apply to all students and student groups.
There is more that needs to be done, however, to rectify the hostile environment for
Jewish students. The effects of the hostility are serious: Many Jewish students are feelingmarginalized and even threatened on campus, afraid to express they are Jewish and pro-Israel.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 2
Some students have stayed away from courses they would otherwise be interested in taking,because of the bias and vicious anti-Israel hostility of certain professors. Some students havestopped wearing anything on campus that would identify them as Jewish or pro-Israel. At least
one student left Northeastern University and is transferring elsewhere in part because of the antiSemitism she was subjected to, which university officials ignored.
The problems reported to us are described in detail below; we have identified separately
the problems at the law school. All these problems raise the question of whether Northeastern
University is complying with its legal obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
We have enclosed a policy letter issued in October 2010 by the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office for Civil Rights (OCR). OCR has made it clear that schools receiving federal funding
must remedy a hostile environment for Jewish students and ensure that the hostility does notrecur, pursuant to Title VI. If a school fails to comply with Title VI, then it risks losing its
federal funding.
Jewish Students Are Being Subjected to a Hostile Environment Inside the Classroom
As you already know, there are professors at Northeastern who are using their classrooms
not to educate, but rather to promote their own personal anti-Israel agenda. Teaching factual
distortions and outright lies about Israel and the Middle East conflict, these professors areencouraging students to hate the Jewish State of Israel and the Jewish people, based on
propaganda lies.
Denis Sullivan, Professor of International Affairs and the Director of the Middle East
Center for Peace, Culture and Development, is a prime example of the problem. Students reportthat the readings in his courses are one-sided and hostile to Israel. Even when Professor Sullivan
includes readings written by Israelis, the perspectives are still anti-Israel. As the following
examples show, Professor Sullivan is violating Northeastern’s own policies, by failing to
exercise appropriate discretion and good judgment in his classroom, and violating the academic
freedom of Jewish and pro-Israel students:
1. Students are mocked and ridiculed if they question Professor Sullivan’s anti-Israel factual
distortions and falsehoods
In one course, Professor Sullivan was promoting a so-called “one-state solution” to thePalestinian Arab-Israeli conflict. In effect, he was calling for the elimination of the Jewish Stateof Israel, to be replaced by another Arab state. A Jewish student in the class raised her hand andasked a legitimate question – what this “solution” would mean for Jews living in Israel. Insteadof answering the question, Professor Sullivan personally attacked the student, as the rest of theclass snickered. Understandably, the Jewish student felt unable to defend herself against her
professor. She was so traumatized by the attack that she began crying in class and had to leave
the room. This Jewish student was an international affairs major with a concentration in the
Middle East. But she ended up changing her concentration because of the anti-Israel climate in
the department.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 3In another class, Professor Sullivan fabricated a story about the basis for ChristianZionism, defaming Christian Zionists as anti-Semites who support Israel because that is where
they want Jews to live, instead of in their own Christian neighborhoods. When a Jewish student(who happens to come from the Bible belt) challenged this false and ridiculous notion, Professor
Sullivan mocked him in front of the class, sending the message to the student that he should
know his place and keep quiet.
In the same class, Professor Sullivan lied to his students about the origins of the Israeli
flag, describing the two blue stripes on the flag as representing the Nile and Euphrates Rivers,and claiming that the stripes symbolize Israel’s desire to take over everything in between the tworivers and expand the Jewish Zionist kingdom. Again, Professor Sullivan lied to his students inorder to promote his personal anti-Israel agenda. In fact, the stripes on the Israeli flag were
inspired by the blue and white stripes on the tallit (Jewish prayer shawl).
Sullivan makes it difficult for Jewish students to challenge his anti-Israel views andoutright lies. According to one Jewish student, when you question what Sullivan tells the classabout Israel, Sullivan “finds a way to make you feel stupid.” Such behavior is unprofessional,
violates the academic freedom of students, and violates the professor’s obligation to teach thetruth.
2. Students are threatened when they question Professor Sullivan’s anti-Israel views
One Jewish student was in effect coerced by Professor Sullivan to write a paper thatmirrored Sullivan’s views, rather than her own. Professor Sullivan lectured in one of his courses
about why the terrorist group Hamas should be given legitimacy. He directed his students towrite a two-page paper reflecting on the lecture. The Jewish student completed the assignment
appropriately, taking a position different from Sullivan’s. She wrote – consistent with the U.S.
government’s view – that Hamas, as a foreign terrorist organization, cannot be given legitimacy.
Professor Sullivan rejected the student’s paper and threatened her with a poor grade
unless she rewrote it – in essence, strong-arming her into disavowing her own views andregurgitating his pro-Hamas views. The Jewish student felt that she had no choice but to rewrite
her paper, even if that meant denying her own thoroughly appropriate belief that a terrorist group– whose charter specifically calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of the State of Israel– was not deserving of legitimacy.
Another student reported a similar experience. He felt compelled to tailor his answers on
assignments and on his final essay exam to conform to Professor Sullivan’s anti-Israel views.
Otherwise, he risked Sullivan’s disapproval and/or a poor grade.
Students’ academic freedom is being violated in Sullivan’s classes, where they are afraid
to speak up and express a viewpoint different from his. One student reported that he is afraid
even to reveal his Jewish identity in Sullivan’s class. Some students stay away from Sullivan’sDr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 4courses entirely, even though they are interested in the subject matter, because they do not want
to be subjected to the anti-Israel animus in his classroom.
3. Students are discouraged from questioning anti-Israel speakers sponsored by Professor
SullivanProfessor Sullivan brings in outside speakers who share his hostility toward Israel. In
these forums, there is no tolerance for the expression of other points of view.
For example, on September 13, 2011, Professor Sullivan brought in Dr. Husam Zomlot,
the coordinator of the Palestinian bid for statehood and recognition by the United Nations. In his
lecture, Zomlot presented a false and one-sided anti-Israel narrative about the Middle East
conflict filled with propaganda lies, blaming the lack of peace solely on Israel. When a Jewish
student questioned this position during the question-and-answer period – which was his absoluteright to do – Professor Sullivan publicly ridiculed the student. When the same student asked
Zomlot a logical question about all the offers of statehood that had been offered and rejected by
the Palestinian Arabs, Zomlot refused to answer the question, characterizing it as offensive.
Professor Sullivan should have ensured that this student’s question was responded to, but he did
not because a truthful answer would not have comported with Sullivan’s anti-Israel agenda.
In March 2012, Professor Sullivan moderated a lecture by Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand
Mufti of Egypt, who spoke about “The Radical Middle: Building Bridges between America andthe Muslim World.” According to a student who attended the lecture, Ali Gomaa openly lied,outrageously telling his audience that Judaism oppresses women and Israel slaughters babies.
Neither Professor Sullivan nor any other faculty member or administrator present at the lecture
spoke up to condemn this anti-Semitic falsehood. Indeed, the Provost, Stephen Director, thanked
Gomaa for his “thoughtful, stimulating presentation,” with no acknowledgment, let alone
criticism, of the hateful message Gomaa was sending to students about Jews and Israel.
4. Students are discouraged by Professor Sullivan from hearing pro-Israel views
Professor Sullivan has tried to stifle open discourse by discouraging the expression ofviews that are not hostile to Israel. When one Jewish student wanted to bring Dr. Daniel Pipes to
speak on campus, Professor Sullivan tried to prevent it, openly disparaging Dr. Pipes, who is adistinguished Harvard-educated historian and one of the world’s foremost analysts on the Middle
East and Muslim history. The Washington Post described Dr. Pipes as “perhaps the mostprominent U.S. scholar on radical Islam.” Clearly, Professor Sullivan did not want students
exposed to views on the Middle East conflict that differed from his own views, which put theblame for the conflict solely on Israel.
5. Other professors have created a hostile and intimidating environment for Jewish students
Jewish students have had threatening and intimidating experiences with other professors
besides Denis Sullivan. Professor Berna Turam, who also teaches in the international affairsDr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 5department, justified so-called “honor killings” (the traditional practice in some countries ofkilling a family member, particularly a female, who is believed to have brought shame on thefamily) in one of her lectures. When a Jewish student respectfully challenged her views,
Professor Turam – and the other students in the class – laughed at the student, humiliating her.
On another occasion, Professor Turam yelled at and publicly mocked this same student as
she presented her research proposal in class. Although she felt intimidated by Professor Turam’s
conduct, the student made numerous efforts to meet with the professor, without success.
Strangely, Professor Turam repeatedly referred to this student as “Rachel” – a Hebrew name –despite being told that this is not the student’s name.
This student stopped wearing her Star of David necklace to Professor Turam’s class. She
felt that she had no other recourse but to withdraw from the course.
One professor not only has made false and demonizing accusations against Jews andIsrael, but has also bragged about how students are now too intimidated to speak up andchallenge his views. In a lecture delivered on April 10, 2012, M. Shahid Alam, an economics
professor, accused “Zionist partisans” and “partisans of Israel” – code for Jews – of “trying toshut out the daylight , the daylight of truth about Zionism, about Israel and the hostility of these
two and their crimes against humanity, the war crimes. Their brutality, their massacre, theirethnic cleansing.” Alam also outrageously told students in his lecture that Israelis’ “whole life
depends upon defending lies. They have to defend lies.”
In addition to demonizing Jews and Israelis to students at Northeastern, Alam bragged
about the hostile environment in his classes, where pro-Israel students are now afraid to speak
up: “If there are one or two people who want to say something, they don’t because they cansense that they will get no support from the class.” Alam also embraced claims that he is antiSemitic and encouraged students to follow in his footsteps: “You know we should really laughaway accusations of anti-Semitism. It has now become laughable. And there may come a time
when you wear that label as a mark of distinction.”
A Jewish student (who was about to graduate from Northeastern) present during Alam’s
lecture was horrified by what he heard and wrote to you and several other university officials,
stating:
I sat painfully listening to Professor Alam insinuate, that students should be proud
to be called anti-semitic. I had never in my life, ever, experienced anti-semitism
first hand until this past year when I witnessed Professor Alam and Professor
Sullivan display an age old hatred against the Jewish people. . . . I now
unfortunately can understand what bigotry really is, and it is absolutely notsomething that I ever wanted or needed to experience. No one should have toexperience hatred like this in their learning environment.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 6This Northeastern graduate implored you to take action, telling you that “this is about
doing the right thing and steering the University in the right course. This is about saying that
Jewish students are protected just like any other individual on campus. This is about saying thatevery student on campus is equal and shall be treated with the utmost respect.”
Neither you nor most of the other university officials even responded. The one who did
reply -- Michael Armini, Senior Vice President for External Affairs – did not acknowledge any
wrongdoing by Professor Alam. Instead, Mr. Armini justified Alam’s comments as “academic
freedom.”Academic freedom does not mean that anything goes, that professors like Alam are free
to promote the hatred of Jews and Israel, at the expense of Jewish students’ well-being and theiracademic freedom. It is reprehensible that any administrator would try to justify Alam’s bigotry.
Bigotry is never tolerable, on a college campus or anywhere else.
We understand that Northeastern University recently hired an individual named Dov
Waxman as a professor of political science, international affairs, and Israel studies, and as codirector of the Middle East Center. In a news release about the hiring, Northeastern described
Professor Waxman as a “Scholar of Israel.”With no disrespect intended to Dr. Waxman, the fact that he has been hired does notmake up for the damage that Denis Sullivan and other professors are causing to students as theresult of their enmity toward Israel. Even if Northeastern considers Dr. Waxman to be factualand balanced when it comes to Israel and the Middle East conflict, the university should not betolerating any other professor who promotes his/her personal agenda at the expense of the truth,
and who creates a hostile environment for any student, including Jewish students who love andsupport their religious and ancestral homeland, Israel.
Anti-Semitic Vandalism at Northeastern University Is a Persistent Problem
Anti-Semitic vandalism has been a recurring problem at Northeastern. The menorah has
been vandalized each year for the past three years, and the Hillel was broken into, its windowsmashed and television stolen.
The SJP has also been responsible for vandalizing Northeastern, by posting anti-Israel
stickers all over the campus – including in classrooms, in the library, and over the mouth and on
the forehead of a statue of a prominent and generous Jewish philanthropist and trustee of theuniversity. Many of the stickers promoted the anti-Semitic falsehood that Zionism – theexpression of Jewish nationalism – is racism. As the result of the SJP’s misconduct, Jewish andother students were forced to be an involuntary audience to anti-Semitism – in the library, intheir classrooms and around their campus.
The administration never held the SJP accountable for the vandalism. The SJP’s
misconduct was never even publicly condemned by you or any other administrator. Given

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 7
Northeastern’s recent response to the SJP’s infraction of the rules last April when it deliberately
disrupted a pro-Israel event, we anticipate that the administration will take the necessary steps if
the SJP ever defaces the campus again.
As to the repeated vandalism of the menorah, we understand that the administration’s
response has improved over time. Initially it was ignored and the campus community was noteven informed that the vandalism had occurred. After the last incident in November 2012, when
the Chanukah menorah in Krentzman Quad was damaged, you alerted the campus via e-mail.
You characterized the vandalism as “a deeply disturbing incident that is an affront to ouruniversity community and the values we stand for.”
While your public acknowledgment of the vandalism was appropriate, yourcondemnation should have been clearer and stronger. The incident should have been identified
for exactly what it was: an act of anti-Semitism. The menorah, a symbol of Jewish religious
observance, was desecrated. According to media reports, an adjacent Christian nativity scene
went untouched. An important teaching opportunity was lost, which would have let the campus
community know that Northeastern does not tolerate anti-Semitism and that perpetrators will beheld accountable.
Indeed, you took that tack when an act of racism occurred at Northeastern, in November
2006. When an African American professor received a hateful e-mail, you did not condemn theincident vaguely, as “deeply disturbing.” You appropriately and unequivocally called it racism
and specifically expressed your abhorrence of racism. You also made it crystal clear that “actsof racist intimidation” would not be tolerated and would be responded to “to the full extent
permitted by university policy and the law.” You even appointed a committee to enrich diversity
and combat discrimination.
Acts of anti-Semitic intimidation should be responded to with the same clarity andforcefulness.
Northeastern Has Failed to Remedy Anti-Semitism Directed Against
Individual Jewish Students
One Jewish student reported that Northeastern turned a blind eye when she was thevictim of anti-Semitism while studying abroad for a semester in Austria. This student wasrelentlessly targeted by another student in her program, who threatened her that “You’re going to
get the s_ _t kicked out of you in Austria,” and that Germany is the “pure breed of the world.”
The Jewish student was so frightened that she had to leave the program temporarily and returnhome to her family in the United States, thereby missing out on activities that she had wanted toparticipate in.
The student finished her semester abroad, but suffered deeply. She became anxious andoverwhelmed and was unable to handle her studies. When she returned to the U.S., she sought
professional help from a therapist.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 8The student made the reasonable request that Northeastern cut all ties with the program
she had attended. Northeastern officials not only ignored her request, but also downplayed theanti-Semitic harassment and intimidation she had been subjected to. When this student returnedto the Northeastern campus, she learned about the vandalism of the menorah and the hatefulstickers that the SJP had posted all over the campus, falsely equating Zionism with racism. This
student no longer wears a Star of David on campus, nor does she make it known that she is
Jewish. She does not feel safe and fears that “if they find out I’m Jewish, they’ll target me.”
Another Jewish student was targeted by another Northeastern student with whom sheshared a university-owned apartment. The Jewish student was screamed at and threatened
numerous times. Her apartment mate falsely accused the Jewish student of trying to steal her
boyfriend, screamed that she was “such a Jew” for stealing the apartment mate’s food, and that
she was a “rich Jewish princess.” The apartment mate repeatedly threatened to beat and kill the
Jewish student; some of the threats were recorded on the Jewish student’s phone. In addition, theJewish student’s room in the apartment was broken into and vandalized. Her money and camera
were stolen, her lamp was broken, and her bed was ransacked.
Afraid for her physical safety, the Jewish student reported these incidents to theNortheastern University police department. She met with a Northeastern police detective
numerous times, telling him that she did not feel safe and pleading with him to file charges
against the student who threatened her physically. The student showed the detective the video on
her phone which corroborated that she had been threatened by her apartment mate.
The Northeastern police detective told the Jewish student that her apartment mate’s
conduct was not actionable and that pursuing the matter would be pointless. According to thestudent, after the detective heard that the incidents involved her Jewish identity, he did not seem
to want to have anything to do with the matter.
The Jewish student’s official police reports should have triggered action by
Northeastern’s Office of Student Conduct and Conflict Resolution (OSCCR). OSCCR shouldhave reviewed the police reports to determine whether a violation of the Code of Conduct could
have occurred. See http://www.northeastern.edu/osccr/incident.html.
But OSCCR never acted, even though a number of offenses had been committed against
the Jewish student under the Code of Conduct, including abuse (verbal, harassment, bullying),
breaking and entering and/or theft, endangering behavior, and vandalism. Northeastern made noeffort to hold her attacker accountable. The Jewish student left Northeastern and is planning tocomplete her education elsewhere.
Northeastern Has Failed to Remedy Anti-Semitic Hostility at the Law School
The SJP has created a hostile environment for Jewish and pro-Israel students at the law
school, too. The administration is well aware of the problem but has done nothing to address it.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 9
Indeed, university officials have encouraged and even been complicit in promoting the antiSemitism.
Early in the school year, the SJP took over a huge bulletin board at the law school, andused it to post hateful falsehoods about Israel that cross the line into anti-Semitism. One
message said, “ISRAEL IS AN APARTHEID STATE.” Another read, “ISRAEL ISMASSACREING PALESTINIANS.” A third included the words, “JUDAISM IS A SEMITICRELIGION[.] ZIONISM IS AN EXCLUSIONARY ULTRANATIONALIST IDEOLOGY[.]
It is important to note that the bulletin board that the SJP took over is right outside thelaw school classrooms, and the hateful messages posted on the bulletin board are in huge letters.
Students must see the bulletin board when they go in and out of their classes; it cannot be
avoided.
Indeed, the law school itself has engaged in the same anti-Israel conduct. The bulletinboard being used by the SJP was filled at one point with misleading information and outrightfalsehoods about Israel’s policies and practices toward the Palestinian Arabs. The bulletin board
prominently bore the logo of “PHRGE: Health and Human Rights Program.” PHRGE is theacronym for the law school’s “Program on Human Rights for the Global Economy.”
We understand that Jewish and pro-Israel students complained about the PHGRE’s
participation in demonizing Israel, thereby contributing to the hostile environment that Jewish
and pro-Israel students were already being subjected to. Removing the materials from thebulletin board was easy enough, but it took the law school a week to do it following the initial
complaints.
There is no question that the Northeastern administration understands and appreciates
how hateful and offensive the anti-Israel materials on the bulletin board are. When the law
school hosted a reception for newly admitted students, the administration made sure to cover thebulletin board with a curtain, completely obscuring it and its hateful message about Zionism.
Plainly, Northeastern officials recognized the negative and harmful effect of the SJP’s
conduct, and that it might well deter prospective students from enrolling at the law school. It istroubling that university officials have not shown the same sensitivity to the well-being of Jewish
and pro-Israel students who are already committed to and attending the school.
Northeastern Must Remedy the Hostile Environment and Ensure that It Does Not Recur
Last February, you gave a speech promoting diversity and inclusion at Northeastern.
You said, “Let me be clear. If anyone in this community feels that they are not full members of
the Northeastern family, that is unacceptable. If anyone in this community has ever felt
marginalized because of her faith, color, orientation, or beliefs, that is unacceptable.”Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 10
At least one student took your words seriously. At an event organized specifically tobuild civility on campus and to give students the opportunity to reflect on their own experiences,a Jewish student had the courage to speak up and describe the discrimination that he and otherJewish students had been subjected to in their classes at Northeastern, where they were harassed
and ridiculed for their faith and beliefs. The student asked pointedly but respectfully what
Northeastern would be doing to address the problem.
Instead of responding to this brave Jewish student with respect and concern, Interim Dean
Uta G. Poiger publicly embarrassed the student. Instead of showing compassion for the
problems that he and other Jewish students have been enduring at Northeastern, Dean Poiger
questioned the veracity of Jewish students’ campus experiences and thereby publicly demeaned
them and their concerns. She sent the message that when it comes to Jewish students who arebeing harassed and marginalized because they love and support Israel, Northeastern will cast
doubt on and ignore their concerns and not take their problems seriously.
Respectfully, it is time for that to stop and for you to take action. The first step is torecognize that anti-Semitism has been a serious and ongoing problem at Northeastern, both
inside and outside the classroom. We urge you to begin publicly condemning anti-Semitism
whenever it occurs on campus – including when it is expressed as anti-Zionist or anti-Israel
sentiment that has the effect of promoting prejudice against or hatred of Jews.
This is not just the ZOA’s definition of anti-Semitism. The State Department hasrecognized that contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism can include: (1) making
demonizing or stereotypical allegations about Jews or the power of Jews as a collective (e.g., bypromoting the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, thegovernment or other societal institutions); (2) denying the fact or scope of the Holocaust; (3)accusing the Jews or Israel of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust; (4) denying the Jewish
people their right to self-determination; (5) applying double standards when it comes to Israel, by
requiring of Israel a behavior not expected or demanded of any other country; and (6) comparing
Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. (See the U.S. State Department’s Contemporary Global AntiSemitism Report, at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/102301.pdf.)
This is exactly the kind of anti-Semitism that is being promoted at Northeastern – antiZionist and anti-Israel sentiment that pretends to be legitimate political discourse, but is actually
inciting hatred and promoting bigotry against Jews and Israel. We urge you to speak out andcondemn these incidents publicly, and also condemn the groups and individuals, by name, who
are promoting the anti-Semitic bigotry, so that the perpetrators and the rest of the university
community will understand what is wrong and why it is wrong.
In addition to forcefully and publicly condemning campus anti-Semitism, there are othersystemic steps that we recommend you take:You and other senior administrators should meet with Jewish students and listen to theirconcerns, perhaps at a Sabbath dinner at the Hillel or at parlor meetings set up to promote

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 11open discussion. You and your colleagues will then hear firsthand what Jewish students
are experiencing, what impact the campus hostilities are having on them, and how they
believe the problems can best be addressed.


Faculty and administrators should receive training to recognize and address anti-Semitic
incidents, including when the anti-Semitism is expressed as vicious anti-Zionist and antiIsrael sentiment.

Northeastern should create programs for students that will educate them about the history
and dangers of anti-Semitism, in all of its manifestations.

When Jewish students are threatened or harassed or subjected to anti-Semitic vandalism,
Northeastern should enforce its Code of Conduct and ensure that Jewish students’ rights
are fully protected and that the wrongdoers are held accountable. If such conduct occurs
off-campus, then the university must still take all necessary steps to protect the rights ofstudents who have been victimized.

Northeastern should conduct a full investigation into the conduct of Professors Denis
Sullivan, Berna Turam, and M. Shahid Alam, to determine whether they have acted
professionally using appropriate discretion and good judgment, consistent with their
obligations to the university and to their students. If the evidence shows that any of these
professors have failed to live up to their professional obligations, then such professors
should be disciplined accordingly. In the cases of Denis Sullivan and M. Shahid Alam,
we believe that their conduct has been so outrageous and outside the bounds ofprofessionalism, that their tenure should be revoked and their employment terminated.

Northeastern should undertake a comprehensive review of university courses and course
materials to ensure that (a) principles of academic freedom are not being subverted, by
sacrificing facts and historical truths to promote a particular political agenda, (b) students
have the benefit of the full range of legitimate scholarly views about Israel, Zionism, andthe conflict in the Middle East, and (3) students are not being discouraged (whether
intentionally or not) or intimidated into not expressing their views supporting Israel orcriticizing the actions of its enemies.
You should know that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights iscurrently investigating a complaint filed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act against the
University of California, Santa Cruz. The complaint alleges that Jewish students arebeing emotionally and intellectually harassed and intimidated by the promotion of antiZionist, anti-Israel, and anti-Jewish views and behavior by professors and academic
departments. The federal government’s decision to exercise jurisdiction over thecomplaint shows that the government recognizes that a hostile anti-Semitic environment,
created by anti-Israel and anti-Zionist professors and academic departments, is actionable
under Title VI.

Dr. Joseph E. Aoun
July 5, 2013
Page 12Northeastern should issue a bulletin board posting policy for the law school, which
supports making the law school an inclusive environment for all. The policy shouldmake it clear that bulletin boards at the law school are not personal message boards. They
are solely for sharing information intended to benefit the campus community as a whole.
Postings with inappropriate and/or derogatory information directed to one specificmember, or group of members, of the campus community will not be tolerated. All
postings must be pre-approved and stamped by the Office of Academic and Student
Affairs.

Taking these important and reasonable steps would help ensure that Jewish students
receive the kind of learning environment that every student needs and deserves – one that is
physically and emotionally safe, and conducive to learning. In addition, taking these steps would
help restore Northeastern University’s reputation of excellence.
We offer you our help in achieving these goals and look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,

Morton A. Klein
National President

Enclosure
cc: Robert J. Shillman, Ph.D.

Susan B. Tuchman, Esq.
Director, Center for Law and Justice