The Manifestation of Anti-Semitism at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago

    For many individuals, enrolling into a master's degree program represents an era of excitement and new opportunities. However, for Shiran Canel, a Jewish Israeli student, her enrollment into the School of the Art Institute of Chicago (SIAC) represented a long-trend of discriminatory practices on the grounds of her religious beliefs. 

    Prior to her admission into the SIAC's prestigious Art Therapy master's program, Shiran Canel first experienced the school's discriminatory practices during her interview process, and subsequent denial from the school's masters program. After hearing of her rejection from the program, Canel challenged SIAC, claiming her interview and application process was conducted in a discriminatory manner, on the basis of her Jewish beliefs. Following Canel's complaint to SIAC, the school quietly investigated her application process, and subsequently allowed her admittance into the program. 

   Once a student at SIAC, the anti-Jewish and Israeli sentiment that plagued her admissions process became further prevalent within the classroom. Following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, anti-Jewish hostility amongst students and professors within SIAC rose, and Canel felt outcasted for both her cultural and religious values. In the hallways and online, slurs and hatred were abound. Within the classroom, Canel also faced discrimination, particularly from Professor Sandie Yi, who altered the final project to endorse anti-Semitism. During the final assignment for Yi's "Material and Media in Art Therapy" course, students were asked to evaluate a "collection of drawings all of which pertained exclusively to the Israeli military and Israeli soldiers engaged in seemingly senseless violence against Gazan families and children." 

    In response to Yi's final assignment, Canel filed a temporary restraining order and subsequently filed suit against SIAC on the grounds of violations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act, which specifically condemns anti-sematic hate. Following Canal's actions, Yi subsequently modified the final assignment, yet changed the grading standards to incorporate a peer review element. Since Canal's classmates were also known to discriminate against the Jewish community, Yi's decision to modify the grading parameters severely disadvantaged Canal. 

     Thus, in considering the facts, does the inclusion of anti-Islamic art within the SIAC's curriculum violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act? 

    Within the context of Canal's lawsuit, it is essential to unpack the protections allotted under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. According to this document, the "discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity that receives federal funding or financial assistance" is strictly prohibited. Here it is important to note that Canal is duly protected as a student at SIAC under this act for both her religious beliefs and cultural background. While there are several cases regarding anti-semitism in court which are currently awaiting rulings, Owen & United States v. L'Anse Area Schools serves  loosely as precedent. The background on the Owen case follows that both students and staff within Michigan's L'Anse area schools discriminated against Mr. Owen on the grounds of his Jewish religious beliefs. After making an appearance before the court, and subsequently attending mediation, Mr. Owen was awarded $265,000 in damages for the discriminatory hatred he experienced. The Owen case establishes that there is no tolerance for anti-Semitism within academia. 

    With specific regard to the state of Illinois, for which SIAC is located and hence subject to state law, the Illinois Human Rights Act exists to further protect individuals from discriminatory practices. This act ensures "Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination based on race, color religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age... in connection with employment, real estate, transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations, including in elementary, secondary and higher education". 

    In my opinion, Shiran Canal has been undoubtedly discriminated against on behalf of her religious beliefs and cultural background. One seeks to

attend higher education institutions to better themself, and the blatant discriminatory acts which Canal experienced evidently served as a hinderance within her educational process. Although SIAC claims that they "strongly condemn[] antisemitism and any discrimination based on religion, nationality or any other aspect of a person's identity", the institution's actions prove the contrary. While this case has yet to be heard, I believe that the implications would be devastating, should the courts rule in favor of SIAC. Canal has the benefit of protections under both Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Conversely, SIAC will struggle to find legislation which supports the hatred they have previously endorsed. 

Sources:

https://www.artnews.com/art-news/news/school-of-the-art-institute-of-chicago-lawsuit-antisemitism-allegations-1234692121/ 

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2266 

https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-summaries 

https://admin.muchlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Canel-12.22.23-Complaint.pdf 

https://www.campusreform.org/article/jewish-israeli-student-sues-chicago-art-school-for-anti-semitism/24692 

https://religionclause.blogspot.com/2024/01/art-institute-school-sued-for.html