The PRIZE in Defining and Fighting Jew Hatred in American Courts

“New 5 Point Plan for Fighting Antisemitism on the Ground and in the Courts”

Peloni

Video Loads Below

Sarah Stern of the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET) held an important interview with Professor Jeffrey Lax, Founder and Chairman of S.A.F.E. Campus, (@_safecampus) a nonprofit organization dedicated to combating antisemitism in academic environments.  Lax is also a Professor of Law and Chair of the Business Department at Kingsborough Community College in the CUNY system.

Their discussion centers around Lax’s argument that effectively combating antisemitism—especially in U.S. courts—requires a clearer, more precise way of defining Jewish identity than has been used to date. He correctly assesses the term “antisemitism” as being too vague and inconsistently understood to function as the basis in a legal setting.  Under such conditions, discrimination claims depend on clearly defined protected classes.  He explains that the resulting lack of clarity surrounding cases involving charges of antisemitism has weakened legal efforts while substantiating charges of anti-Jewish discrimination.

To solve this conundrum, Lax has developed the “PRIZE” framework, a systematic approach to demonstrate the discrimination raised against Jews.  The PRIZE framework is an anachronym used to categorize Jewish identity in ways which align with American anti-discrimination law which Lax developed over the past three years. These five categories are as follows:

• Practicing Judaism (religion)
• Religious Zionism (a faith-based connection to the land of Israel)
• Israeli nationality
• Zionist ethnicity (shared cultural and ancestral ties to Israel)
• General Jewish ethnicity.

Lax emphasizes that these categories reflect how Jews identify themselves in real life, while also reflecting their status as being included in legally protected categories such as religion, nationality, and ethnicity. Individuals may of course find that they easily fit into more than one of these categories, but the purpose in having developed this system of categorizations is intended to serve as a defensive legal tool by which to assert and defend the rights of the individuals, rather than as representing either an offensive strategy or as a political instrument.

A key theme underlying Lax’ PRIZE framework is that the relative categories identify both the basis of the charge of discrimination as well as the target of the discrimination.  Hence, it allows the relative plaintiffs the ability to clearly explain who they are in legal terms, why they are protected, and simultaneously why the discriminating act was applied against them.  More than this, though, it avoids the confusion which commonly arises from the use of either ambiguous or politicized definitions. Lax stresses that courts do not respond well to legal arguments which are either broadly based or ideologically founded, particularly when they are tied to geopolitical themes.  The use of the systematic PRIZE categories avoids this by providing a concrete, legally grounded basis on which claims of discrimination can be shown to be based on protected statuses and nothing more.

Relevantly, Lax provides an important illustration for preferring this approach while recalling the upsetting loss in the StandWithUs v. MIT case.  Lax explains that, while he is a strong supporter of the work done by StandWithUS, the case was entirely undermined by the basis on which the case was argued by the plaintiffs themselves. By defining Zionism primarily as a political right to self-determination of the Jewish People on the ancestral lands of the Jews, while also providing significant arguments surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Lax anticipated that the suit would fail to gain purchase in a court of law, and in fact, the case was defeated and this defeat was affirmed upon appeal.  Lax explains that these arguments in defense of Zionism, all of which Lax squarely supports personally, provided a poor basis on which to defend the protected rights of the plaintiffs in court, and that it was these arguments which led the court to reject the claim that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitic and to rule against the plaintiffs, highlighting the lack of consensus on these definitions. Lax argues that if the PRIZE framework had been used to describe the basis of both the protected class as well as that of the discrimination, thus focusing on the plaintiffs’ identities as members of protected categories, the case would have been stronger.

Lax repeatedly emphasized that success in court depends on providing clearly articulated arguments as to how individuals fit into legally protected categories while simultaneously demonstrating the discrimination which occurred specifically violated these legal protections.  By shifting away from political debates and toward structured legal definitions, which are the underlying basis highlighted by the PRIZE legal framework, is essential for winning cases, shaping future legal precedent, and ultimately securing stronger protections against anti-Jewish discrimination.

Lax also acknowledges the significant setback which came from the ruling against the plaintiffs in the StandWithUS v. MIT case, and he explains that a counter judgement needs to be won, whereby the rights of those in the Zionist class are judged to be protected.  Following this, a ruling at the level of the Supreme Court will be needed to determine which legal judgement would be deemed to be legally binding.  By providing courts with a clear understanding of the connection between the plaintiffs, their protected legal status and the demonstration of the discrimination being based on this status, discrimination based on Jew Hatred in America can be defeated with the full support of the legal system.