The Yudelman Affair

. . . and Why it Matters

In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus (a French artillery officer of Jewish descent) was accused (falsely), tried, and convicted of treason in a military show trial. During his court-martial, the persecuted Jew was denied the right to examine the evidence against him, including evidence that had been suppressed or forged. Dreyfus was sentenced to life imprisonment on the infamous Devil’s Island in French Guiana, where he spent five years in solitary confinement.

Dreyfus’s fortunes changed in 1898 when the great French novelist Émile Zola took up his defense. Zola published an open letter to the President of France, which was a full-throttled defense of the innocent Dreyfus and a devastating critique of the French justice system. As a result, the so-called “Dreyfus Affair” became an international cause célèbre that rocked the Third French Republic for over a decade. Dreyfus was subsequently pardoned in 1899 and fully exonerated in 1906.

Fast forward 130 years to America’s “Dreyfus Affair.”

On May 5, Jonathan Yudelman was confronted on a Phoenix street corner during a pro-Israel rally by a baying mob of masked, pro-Hamas counter-demonstrators. The hate-filled mob screamed in Mr. Yudelman’s face that the mass murder of over 1,100 Israelis on Oct. 7, did not occur, that the Israel Defense Force was responsible for raping children, and that Mr. Yudelman himself was a “butcher.”

Mr. Yudelman was justly outraged, particularly given that Jewish students at ASU have been repeatedly terrorized for months by pro-Hamas students. Moments later, when he encountered another group of protestors confronting a second Jewish man with the same hate-filled lies, he regrettably lost his temper. In the ensuing 25 seconds caught on video and posted online, Mr. Yudelman got in the face of one of the pro-Hamas demonstrators with his arms held wide and called her a “bitch.” He never touched her or said a word about her religion or national origin. He committed no crime. He walked away.

The ”Yudelman Affair” is a classic example of the important legal maxim, “De minimis non curat lex” [The law is not concerned with trifles]. This is a trifle. There is no crime, and the alleged “victim” has apparently disappeared.

Yes, Mr. Yudelman’s words and deeds were imprudent and indecorous. He forgot a simple rule adhered to by campus administrators around the country: pro-Hamas demonstrators are permitted to spew vile antisemitic hatred and sometimes commit acts of violence, while Jews are expected to engage politely with those who wish them dead.

Mr. Yudelman’s life has been subsequently turned upside down. Following Saul Alinsky’s thirteenth rule for radicals, the Intifada Left has picked its target, frozen it, personalized it, and polarized it.

Since the altercation, Mr. Yudelman has been the object of a high-tech lynch mob. He has received thousands of abusive emails and death threats (e.g., “we’re going to find you” and “slit your throat”). His name and reputation have been smeared publicly in the ugliest terms possible. His photograph has appeared in newspapers around the world. He has been doxxed, and his home address has been published on Facebook. He’s also been forced to go into hiding for his personal safety.

It gets worse.

The day immediately after the incident, ASU put Mr. Yudelman on paid administrative leave for allegedly having engaged in discriminatory harassment. But the university’s discriminatory harassment policy does not apply to the facts of this case.

Mr. Yudelman’s interaction with the alleged “victim” had nothing to do with her religion or national origin. That’s clear from the video. Furthermore, the university’s policy applies only to members of the ASU community and there is no publicly available evidence to suggest that the anti-Israel protestors were connected to the university. The incident did not even occur on campus.

To make matters worse, ASU refuses to tell Mr. Yudelman who his accusers are other than to tell his counsel that the university has received “thousands of complaints,” which suggests a coordinated effort. Nor has the university identified the specific policies under which they are investigating Mr. Yudelman other than to say the allegation concerns protected-group harassment!

An investigative interview was scheduled for May 14, and yet on May 9, five days before the fact-finding interview with Mr. Yudelman was to take place, ASU President Michael Crow issued a public statement: Yudelman “is no longer permitted to be on campus and will never teach here again."

Mr. Yudelman was accused, tried, convicted, and sentenced before the investigation had concluded and before any formal judicial proceeding! The day after Mr. Crow made his statement, the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a press release welcoming “the firing of Professor Jonathan Yudelman from Arizona State University”—a public announcement that ASU has not contradicted.

While ASU will nominally conduct an investigation to consider Yudelman’s case, it seems clear the fix is in. Concerned Arizonans are right to wonder if justice, the rule of law, and due process are vanishing from the state’s universities.

The time has come for decent men and women to “Do the Right Thing.” Much is at stake not just for Mr. Yudelman and ASU but for the future of higher education in the United States. The Yudelman case is a bellwether to determine if America’s colleges are governed by a two-tier system of justice or not.

All of us will be judged by how we respond to this ugly intolerance. Sitting on the fence is not an option. Nothing less than the future of Western Civilization is at stake.

"Fiat justitia ruat Caelum!"