Antisemitism Should Be Outed From the Workplace

Since the 7 October Hamas terror attack on Israel, followed by the Israeli counter-attack in Gaza, reported incidents of antisemitism have dramatically increased worldwide. Employers should clearly outline acceptable workplace dialogue and implement an updated code of conduct regarding antisemitism. Failing to act comes with risks: aside from the legal aspects (discrimination or bullying lawsuits), other significant issues may be raised, such as reputational damage, consumer or supplier boycotts, public shaming, loss of clients, and even temporary shutdowns during a criminal investigation.

Surprisingly, there is no unified definition of antisemitism. However, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition has been adopted by 32 countries, although not without controversy. The text, which is not legally binding defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Additionally, it states that antisemitism “might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that levelled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

Antisemitism can be expressed, insinuated, and even unintentional. Although the law varies between countries, equality is a fundamental human right in all democratic states. As a civil law matter, racial or religious discrimination is judged mainly based on outcome, not intent. Furthermore, antisemitic chants or acts at the workplace violate the employers’ duty to provide workers with a safe environment free of pressure, intimidation, or fear.

Often, antisemitism may have been hidden under the surface for many years. Still, it can explode in the workplace at any moment, creating controversy, dividing teams, and even translating into violence. Recent statistics have shown that antisemitism has been on the rise since 2021, but the events of 7 October and the Israeli response have led to a sudden and significant escalation. The total number of antisemitic incidents reported since the beginning of the war, as collected by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the Israeli Ministry of Diaspora Affairs, and some other global entities (and as reported to the Israeli Parliament on 19 November 2023), went up by 500% around the globe, jumped by 315% in the USA, 320% in Germany, 211% in Toronto, Canada, 738% in Australia and likewise in many other places.

The eruption caught many organisations unprepared. Corporate actors that would no doubt prefer to have remained neutral on the Middle East, instead found themselves drawn into controversy. Starbucks, for example, had to deal with a Twitter post by the SWU union that stated, “Solidarity with Palestine!” accompanied by a picture of a bulldozer tearing down a border fence, which contained a logo reminiscent of Starbucks’s own. This led to consumer boycotts, massive lawsuits, and a chain of vandalism against stores worldwide (some were shut down temporarily). McDonald’s is also facing global boycotts and vandalism because the Israeli franchise advertised a special deal for IDF soldiers. Just before Christmas, two leading Zara stores in London had to close for hours due to pro-Palestine protesters’ blockade who were urging a boycott of the brand because a recent Zara ad campaign (prepared before the war in Gaza) was felt to be insensitively reminiscent of images emerging from Gaza. Another example of this kind of backlash was seen when an antisemitic tweet by Elon Musk led Apple, IBM and Disney to send notice of intent to cut off advertising on X (formerly known as Twitter).

Managing diverse workplaces means employers must be comfortable delivering the company’s stance on delicate subjects. The events of 7 October left many global companies unsure of the “politically correct“ reaction. Only the 100 largest companies in the S&P 500 issued formal statements about the conflict (nearly all, by contrast, released public statements on the Russia-Ukraine war). This silence led to angry responses by some employees or a demand for clear public condemnation of the Hamas massacre.

After some pro-Palestine supporters were alleged to have publicly used a range of antisemitic expressions, some even genocidal, during protest marches, the external criticism grew louder, creating a domino effect. What were considered overly legalistic responses by university presidents to questioning by a New York Republican congressional representative, Elise Stefanik, led to condemnation by some parts of the US media. In addition, the alumni of a number of Ivy League universities threatened to withhold donations. Eventually, the avoidance policy backfired, ending with significant reputational damage and the resignations of top officers.

Another recent development in this area concerns NYU Langone (a teaching hospital in Brooklyn). The hospital suspended both Benjamin Neel and Dr Zaki Masoud for posting on private social media accounts after the October 7th massacre: one for pro-Israel comments and the other for pro-Palestine comments. Subsequently, Dr Neel was terminated, while Dr Masoud was reinstated. NYU is now facing a lawsuit from Dr Neel, in which it needs to justify this apparent double standard.

While these events made the headlines worldwide, they had no real effect on changing the narrative in the workplace. A move forced by outside pressure cannot overturn the culture in a workplace but might create resentment, and attempts to do so will always be accompanied by uncertainty.

Some recently collected data from the Israel Internet Association shows that social media has become a haven of antisemitism. Since 7 October, all the leading platforms have restricted or even deleted racist posts, either on their initiative or per users’ reports. Between 7 October and 23 November 2023, TikTok removed millions of videos and hate content and blocked 35 million fake users; Meta (owner of Facebook and Instagram) removed more than 2 million posts, limited its tagging options, and added other supervisory measures. On 14 November 2023, X publicised that it had taken action against more than 325,000 hate content tweets and 375,000 fake profiles and had expanded its “Community Notes” function.

A private individual post can be associated with the company for whom the poster works and harm that company’s reputation, or it can offend colleagues, clients, or suppliers. Although most global companies already have codes of conduct that deal with harassment and bullying in the workplace, not many address antisemitism specifically. Most disciplinary codes apply only internally, leaving private social media and after-hours activity uncovered. Many organisations, such as the ADL or “StopAntisemitism”, keep track of, document, and report individuals’ after-hours activities (eg, videos of an employee taking down hostages’ posters or screenshots of hate content posts). After identification, the data is transferred to the employer with a demand to terminate the employment. Since the actions involved were carried out openly in public places, there is no presumption or expectation of privacy bans using the data collected.

The critical elements in neutralising the ticking bomb lie in awareness, supervision, regulation of communication channels, and implementation of a basic code of conduct. To prevent a toxic environment, employers should follow multiple steps.

Addressing the needs of one minority group has echoes in many chambers. It reflects the importance of equality and a fair work environment for other minorities. It also builds bridges between opposite sides and offers a variety of perspectives on a sensitive dispute. An antisemitism-free workplace serves the general public good and signals the way to other employers.