As an officer in the Israel Defense Forces, Ofir Dayan served in hostile territory in Gaza and Lebanon. But, the undergrad told The Post, nothing prepared her for life at Columbia University.
Ofir, the 24-year-old daughter of Israel Consul General in New York Dani Dayan, said she is harassed and threatened over her background by the group Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), and that the school is failing to protect her.
“SJP is violent,” she said. “I’m worried about my personal safety.”
The political science major had her initial run-in about a month into the fall 2017 semester, when she was in the lobby of Knox Hall — home to the Middle East Institute — having a phone conversation in Hebrew.
“A girl heard me and started screaming, ‘Stop killing Muslim babies! . . . You’re a murderer!’ ” Ofir said. “Then she screamed, ‘Zionist, get out!’ A nearby public-safety administrator did nothing.”
In October 2017, Ofir said, she and four members of Students Supporting Israel (SSI) — she is the vice-president of the Columbia chapter — were leaving an on-campus event for Israeli beauty queen Titi Aynaw. “The moment [members of SJP] saw us, they started screaming their slogans with a microphone to intimidate us. There were at least 50 SJP members blocking the walkway.
“They were really angry and it was scary,” said Ofir, a vocal supporter of the Jewish state. “I believed it would escalate to physical violence.”
Ofir and SSI filed a complaint about the incident to the Student Governing Board (SGB) in January. It described, in part, “horrified and terrified Jewish students huddled together while surrounded by a raging mob . . . [exhibiting] physically threatening behavior.” She also submitted cellphone video that she had recorded of the protesters being “hostile.” (Dalia Zahger, chapter president of SSI, agreed that the incident was “really scary.”)
‘I thought the university would protect me, but they didn’t do anything when [protesters] called me a terrorist.’
Ofir added that things intensified after February 2018, when her father delivered a speech on campus. She said that a few dozen SJP protesters set up mock checkpoints to intimidate attendees. When Ofir was handed a flier about the “war criminal” consul general, she revealed that Dani was her dad.
In March, Ofir said, SJP members screamed “terrorist” at her and others handing out literature during Hebrew Liberation Week.
The head of SGB told SSI that the complaint should instead be filed with the school’s newly formed adjudication board, a student-run group whose purpose is to meet with both parties in a complaint to settle differences.
About a month later, the SSI student president sat down with a university administrator who is an adviser to the adjudication board. That official told the student that the complaint was not eligible for adjudication because it was from a previous semester and it was too complicated for the student-run board to handle. She then dismissed the complaint in late March. SSI tried to appeal at a subsequent meeting.
Ofir is frustrated that the adjudication process never happened. “They were blowing us off,” she said.
At a meeting over the summer, an administrator told SSI that the school cannot do anything absent proof of anti-Semitism.
“I thought the university would protect me, but they didn’t do anything when [protesters] called me a terrorist,” Ofir said. “The school stands by as I’m harassed.”
Professor Suzanne Goldberg, executive vice president for university life, said in a statement: “The safety and well-being of all of our students is fundamentally important . . . we will always work with students who have concerns about their physical safety, allow debate on contentious questions where our students hold strong views, and provide essential personal and group support.”
Last year at the University of California, Irvine, an SJP chapter was issued a two-year probation for disrupting an on-campus pro-Israel event. The same group had been sanctioned in 2016 for “threatening chants,” according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
In May, the UCLA chapter of SJP was accused by a rabbi attending a campus SSI event of “emotional and physical attacks”; a university spokesperson told the Jewish Journal at the time that “officials [were] carefully reviewing the incident.” Despite watchdog groups urging UCLA to take action, the school has since said it is permitting SJP to hold a November summit. “UCLA is bound by the First Amendment,” a school representative said. (The UCLA chapter of SJP did not reply to a request for comment.)
Ofir said she supports freedom of speech and the right to protest, but added, “There’s no difference between being anti-Israel and anti- Semitic [at Columbia].”
A representative for the Columbia chapter of SJP told The Post: “SJP firmly stands against discrimination in all forms, including anti-Semitism.” He did not address Ofir’s specific complaints.
Last week, Ofir met with Goldberg. The student requested protection from SJP and pleaded for disciplinary action to be taken against the group. Ofir said Goldberg refused and recommended that she put the school’s public-safety number on speed dial. (A school representative declined to comment on this.)
“[She] said that unless SJP gets violent, they can’t do anything,” said Ofir, who lives with her father in his official Upper East Side residence. “We have to wait until we’re beaten to call you? [The school] can protect me, but they choose not to.”
The performance of women this week – from Senator Dianne Feinstein to Christine Blasey Ford to the howling mobs on Capitol Hill – made me seriously consider surgically altering my sex. They are demanding special treatment because of their sex and in the process placing all of us – male and female alike – at peril of witch hunts against men and then, in time, against all who will not bow to their rule. My Facebook friend Alex Bensky reminded me of the advantage to me of transgendering: Ah, then we'd be unable to criticize your politics, your social viewpoints, your choice of teams to root for, and anything else you say because we'd be transphobic. As a footnote, I've seen an estimate that the transgender population is about 0.05% of the population. This is hardly a warrant for beating up people but it is not clear to me why unless we substantially alter social arrangements that have existed in almost every known human society and celebrate...not just accept but celebrate...transgenderism, we are mean, hateful people. Victor Davis Hanson offered up the most succinct summary of Blasey Ford's testimony:
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) responds to a letter from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) requesting an additional FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh for alleged false statements during Senate testimony. (Mark Wilson/Getty Images, Andrew Harnik-Pool/Getty Images)
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) postured Saturday when he wrote a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asking the FBI to probe the truthfulness of answers Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s gave during last Thursday’s emotional hearing.
“In order for the FBI investigation regarding Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to be complete, it is imperative the bureau must not only look into the accusations made by Dr. [Christine Blasey] Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick, it should also examine the veracity of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee,” Sanders wrote.
Noting that lying to Congress is a crime, Sanders outlined nine specific instances he believes should be investigated, including five from Kavanaugh’s earlier Senate confirmations in 2004 and 2006, and four from Kavanaugh’s testimony last week. Each of Sanders’ requests stem from unsubstantiated claims.
Grassley responded to Sanders’ letter late Saturday night, putting the very obvious political ploy to bed.
What did Grassley say?
The longtime Iowa lawmaker came out swinging. He began his response by noting that on July 10, less than 24 hours after President Donald Trump announced Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sanders publicly remarked, “[w]e must mobilize the American people to defeat” Kavanaugh.
Reminding Sanders that all senators have had access to 307 Kavanaugh court decisions, over 500,000 documents, over 40 hours of live testimony, and “more answers to written questions than every prior Supreme Court nominee combined,” he condemned Sanders for his rush to judgement.
“Nevertheless, you made your decision on this nomination in less than 24 hours,” Grassley wrote.
He added:
Your public statements clearly reveal how unimportant it is to you to review any facts related to this nomination. So you can imagine my surprise at receiving your letter regarding the supplemental FBI background investigation. This supplemental FBI background investigation was requested by undecided members of both parties. Am I to take from your letter that you are now undecided and seriously willing to engage with the Senate’s advice-and-consent constitutional duties related to the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States? If so, we should have a conversation about what information you need to assist you in making your decision, and I look forward to that conversation.
Grassley concluded the letter with a thunderous one-liner.
“I appreciate your raising concerns, which others have already raised, at this 11th hour,” he wrote.
The city Department of Education’s fight against gaping racial proficiency gaps on state tests has gone largely nowhere over the past five years, a Post analysis of exam data has revealed.
The divide between black and Latino students and their white and Asian peers has actually widened in five of eight comparative categories in English and math since 2014, the numbers show.
That year, the percentage of black students proficient in math was 37.2 percentage points lower than that of white students. That gap grew to 38.2 points this year, according to state figures released this week.
The math-proficiency gap between Hispanics and whites also crept up, from 32.7 points in 2014 to 33.3 points this year.
Divides also inched up for most comparative groups — black vs. white, black vs. Asian, and Hispanic vs. Asian — in English between 2014 and last year.
The only categories where the gaps narrowed slightly were black and Hispanic students’ math-proficiency rates compared with Asians’, and Hispanics’ English proficiency compared with Asians’.
Proficiency rates on state tests, which have undergone frequent changes in recent years, have risen for all racial groups. But there’s little sign that major performance discrepancies are budging.
“While we can’t compare year to year because of changes in the test, we can be sure that there continues to be a devastating achievement gap,” said CUNY education professor David Bloomfield.
“This hasn’t been dented by this administration. At least regarding test scores, the equity and excellence mantra rings hollow.”
Mayor de Blasio and Chancellor Richard Carranza have stressed that test scores are only one measure of progress for black and Latino kids.
Teachers union chief Michael Mulgrew echoed that sentiment this week, saying the “days of test scores being a scarlet letter in New York City are over.”
De Blasio and Carranza have touted higher graduation rates, lower dropout rates, improved college readiness, as well as better access to AP and SAT programs.
“While we’ve had some success in narrowing the gap in graduation and dropout rates, and while test scores are up for every group of students, it’s clear that our schools and have much more to do to ensure every kid is getting a great education,” DOE spokeswoman Danielle Filson said on Friday.
"In the suit, Webtrends alleged Swetnick claimed to have graduated from Johns Hopkins University but the company said it subsequently learned the school had no record of her attendance. Webtrends said she also "falsely described her work experience" at a prior employer.
The suit also alleges Swetnick "engaged in unwelcome, sexually offensive conduct" while at Webtrends and "made false and retaliatory allegations that other co-workers had engaged in inappropriate conduct toward her.""
A group of radical abortion supporters are asking Twitter to prevent pro-life activists from promoting their tweets.
Reproaction, an activist group aimed at "increasing abortion access," is circulating a petition to censor pro-life content on the social media site. The group says Twitter should not have reversed its controversial decision to block a 2017 ad from Tennessee Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) that featured her discussing Planned Parenthood's organ harvesting operations. The controversy led a Twitter official to apologize to Blackburn during a July House Judiciary Committee hearing on social media bias.
Reproaction said the company was wrong to apologize to the Republican congresswoman. It wants social media sites to apply the ban on Blackburn to other pro-life arguments and activists. Ads like Blackburn's should be purged from Twitter as "dangerous rhetoric" prohibited under the site's ban on "ads making misleading or deceptive claims," according to Reproaction.
"Stop bending to the will of anti-abortion leaders who seek to spread lies and misinformation," the petition says. "Stop the spread of pro-life lies."
One of the groups that has previously been censored by Twitter said the petition is the latest attempt by pro-abortion forces to marshal private companies to silence conservative voices. Susan B. Anthony List, a group that works to elect pro-life women, has seen a number of ads and promoted Tweets restricted by social media sites and radio stations, including one spot that featured a pro-life quote from Mother Teresa. SBA List spokeswoman Mallory Quigley said censorship campaigns are a sign of desperation.
"There is no clearer indication that life is winning than the desire of our opponents to silence us," she told the Washington Free Beacon. "The abortion lobby fears the pro-life movement precisely because our message is true and compelling."
Reproaction did not return requests for comment about the petition and how many supporters it had received. The group paid Twitter to promote a Tweet advertising the campaign. The campaign sparked backlash from pro-life users who said the promoted Tweet ended up in their timelines.
One pro-life user mocked the ad campaign, saying, "you need some help w your ad targeting; I'm a pro life conservative. But I'm glad you wasted money asking me to sign something I never would." Another called the movement "pathetic," adding, "Now you're advertising to me with a NEW tweet? How bad is your targeting? I'm STILL strongly #ProLife."
The petition is the latest effort by abortion supporters targeting speech from pro-life lawmakers. In recent years Planned Parenthood and NARAL have backed bills that force pro-life pregnancy centers to post signs advertising abortion or face punitive fines large enough to shut them down. The Supreme Court dealt that campaign a severe blow in June when it ruled that California's law was an unconstitutional violation of the freedom of speech.
The law "unduly burdens protected speech," the 5-4 ruling written by Justice Clarence Thomas said. "It imposes a government-scripted, speaker-based disclosure requirement that is wholly disconnected from the State's informational interest."
Similar laws adopted by Hawaii and Illinois are now subject to legal challenges from pregnancy centers and religious groups.
SBA List said abortion advocates can see the writing on the wall for the future of legal restrictions on pro-life activism. Shifting the strategy from government regulation to stifling pro-life speech in the private sector will avoid First Amendment legal challenges, according to Quigley. She added it would be a mistake for companies to take the bait as it would only motivate activists to fight against "censorship and intimidation."
"We will never stop speaking out about the brutality of Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry or cease fighting to protect unborn children and their mothers," Quigley said. "Social media companies should not take part in these bully tactics, either."
(Bloomberg) -- European Union antitrust regulators are asking whether Amazon.com Inc. unfairly copies popular products sold by rivals on its online marketplace, according to a questionnaire sent to merchants.
In a 16-page form to be filled out by Oct. 9, regulators want to know whether Amazon has in recent years started to sell products under its own brand that are "identical or very similar" to ones merchants have offered on the company’s website and what impact that’s had on their business.
EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager last week said her department had opened a preliminary investigation into Amazon to check how the Seattle-based company gathers information on sales made by competitors on the Amazon Marketplace and whether that gives it an unfair edge when it sells to customers.
Speaking at an event in Washington on Friday, Vestager said that while "there are no accusations against Amazon at this point," she and her team have concerns about the company’s practices. She said people are asking: "is this a level playing field when they both can access all our data but they also can sell the products that we sell ourselves?"
The Commission and Amazon declined to comment on the details of the questionnaire.
Big Tech Is Speed Test for EU as Vestager Vows Faster Probes
Internet giants’ control of data is an increasing focus for regulators who are uncertain whether companies might breach antitrust when they harvest more and more information on how consumers behave online. The European Commission said it began the preliminary probe in large part because of responses it received during a broader e-commerce sector investigation concluded last year.
The EU in its questionnaire asked merchants to provide hard evidence such as correspondence with Amazon, and the exact date when Amazon began selling any rival product under its own brand. The EU also wants to know whether merchants use data-sharing tools, for instance for sales optimization, that may be provided by Amazon.
The questionnaire also asks how Amazon’s practices have affected merchants’ business and whether their products saw fewer or no sales after the e-commerce giant entered their market or whether the companies had to lower or raise prices as a result of the new competition.
A 2016 Bloomberg story depicted how Amazon is using insights gleaned from its vast web store to build a private-label juggernaut that includes thousands of products -- from electronics accessories, to kitchenware, bedding and more.
The company now has more than 120 private-label brands, according to TJI Research. Some, like Amazon Basics, are clearly identified as Amazon products. Others, like its clothing and furniture lines, are less obviously from the company. This explosive growth has intensified concerns of merchants who see Amazon gaining unfair advantage to compete with them.
Amazon has access to voluminous data on which shoppers purchased or browsed particular products that are similar to its own private-label brands, so it can direct its marketing to those shoppers and spend less than competitors to get customers, said James Thomson, a former Amazon executive who now advises merchants how to sell on the marketplace.
"Amazon forces you to give them your data and then uses it to compete against you," he said. "You can run the marketplace platform or you can be a seller, but you shouldn’t be able to do both."
Even though the probe could be the first steps in a process that leads to fines, Amazon shares have risen 3.7 percent since Vestager’s announcement, with a current market value of $982 billion.
Senator Jeff Flake released a statement Friday morning saying he would vote to confirm Judge Brett Kavanaugh, bringing the nominee much closer to sitting on the Supreme Court. But before Flake could get out of the elevator in the Capitol to join the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting where a first vote is scheduled, two women confronted him and tearfully, angrily demanded he answer their questions.
The women could be heard on CNN as Flake stood in the elevator for about five minutes from 9:31 to 9:36 ET.
“You’re telling me my assault doesn’t matter,” said one. “You’re letting people who do these things into power. That’s what you’re telling me when you vote for him. Don’t look away from me,” one woman said through tears.
Flake, looking stricken, nodded his head and looked at her. Another woman began speaking.
“You’re allowing someone who is unwilling to take responsibility for his own actions... you are allowing someone to take responsibility for his own actions to sit in the highest court in the land” she said.
Flake repeatedly thanked the women and said he needed to get to the hearing.
“I need to go to the hearing, I just issued a statement. There have been a lot of questions here,” Flake told reporters.
“After hearing more than 30 hours of testimony from Judge Kavanaugh earlier this month, I was prepared to support his nomination based on his view of the law and his record as a judge. In fact, I commented at the time that had he been nominated in another era, he would have likely received 90+ votes,” Flake wrote.
“When Dr. Ford’s allegations against Judge Kavanaugh surfaced two weeks ago, I insisted that she be allowed to testify before the committee moved to a vote. Yesterday, we heard compelling testimony from Dr. Ford, as well as a persuasive response from Judge Kavanaugh. I wish that I could express the confidence that some of my colleagues have conveyed about what either did or did not happen in the early 1980s, but I left the hearing yesterday with as much doubt as certainty.”
“What I do know is that our system of justice affords a presumption of innocence to the accused, absent corroborating evidence. That is what binds us to the rule of law. While some may argue that a different standard should apply regarding the Senate’s advice and consent responsibilities, I believe that the constitution’s provisions of fairness and due process apply here as well. I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh.”
