This is the fourteenth part of a series on Christianity and the history of antisemitism. While we are often reminded to “Never forget,” many of us were never taught this history.

Critical Race Theory and Antisemitism in America: A “Color of Law” Approach

Critical Race Theory (CRT) emerged as a legal and academic framework to analyze how laws and policies have perpetuated systemic racism in the United States. Books such as The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein have demonstrated how racial segregation was not simply the result of individual prejudice but was actively reinforced by government policies, court decisions, and legal structures. This same “Color of Law” approach could be applied to the study of historic and systemic legal discrimination against Jews in America—a history that is often overlooked in contemporary CRT discussions.

While CRT has been instrumental in exposing the legal structures of anti-Black racism, many critics argue that it fails to adequately address antisemitism, often treating Jews as “white” or privileged, rather than as a historically oppressed group. By applying CRT’s legal analysis framework to Jewish discrimination, we can better understand how laws and policies systematically marginalized Jews in the United States—and how some of these issues persist today.

I. Applying a “Color of Law” Approach to Jewish Discrimination

Just as Rothstein’s The Color of Law examines government policies that reinforced racial segregation, a similar analysis could uncover how US laws systematically restricted Jewish opportunities in immigration, housing, education, employment, and politics.

1. Immigration Laws: Keeping Jews Out

One of the most direct ways American law discriminated against Jews was through immigration restrictions, which were explicitly designed to limit Jewish entry into the country.

• The Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act)

  • Restricted immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, areas with large Jewish populations.
  • Used eugenic arguments to justify excluding Jews, portraying them as “undesirable” immigrants.
  • Result: Thousands of Jews were blocked from entering the US, including refugees fleeing the Holocaust.

• The St. Louis Incident (1939)

  • Over 900 Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany aboard the MS St. Louis were denied entry due to strict immigration quotas.
  • Many were forced to return to Europe, where many later perished in concentration camps.

This mirrors how the US government actively created racial barriers against Black Americans through redlining and segregation laws. In both cases, legal policies prevented marginalized communities from accessing safety and opportunity.

2. Housing Discrimination: Redlining and Restrictive Covenants

Like Black Americans, Jews were systematically excluded from certain neighborhoods through racially restrictive covenants, redlining, and exclusionary housing policies.

• Restrictive Covenants

  • Many housing deeds explicitly banned Jews from buying homes in elite suburbs.
  • Example: Levittown, NY—one of America’s first mass suburban developments—initially excluded both Jews and Black Americans.
  • Shelley v. Kraemer (1948) ruled that courts could not enforce these covenants, but informal discrimination persisted for decades.

• Country Clubs and Co-op Housing

  • Many elite country clubs and housing cooperatives in New York and Boston maintained Jewish exclusion policies well into the 20th century.
  • Even after legal victories, informal quotas continued to keep Jews out of many elite spaces.

These restrictions parallel how Black Americans were redlined out of white neighborhoods—revealing that discrimination was not just social but legally reinforced.

3. Higher Education: Jewish Quotas at Elite Universities

Similar to how Black students were historically excluded from many universities, Jewish students faced quotas at Ivy League schools from the 1910s through the 1960s.

• Harvard University (1920s)

  • President A. Lawrence Lowell sought to limit Jewish enrollment, which had surged past 20%.
  • Rather than imposing an explicit cap, Harvard introduced “character assessments” and geographic diversity requirements—methods later used to restrict Asian students in modern affirmative action cases.

• Columbia, Yale, and Princeton (1920s–1950s)

  • Adopted similar covert quotas, requiring higher test scores and stricter admissions criteria for Jewish students.
  • These quotas were lifted in the 1960s due to public pressure and legal challenges.

The use of subjective admissions criteria to limit Jewish enrollment mirrors how modern race-based policies have affected different groups. Some argue that today’s “holistic admissions” methods still disadvantage Jews and Asians—an issue explored in the Harvard and UNC affirmative action Supreme Court case (2023).

4. Employment Discrimination: Exclusion from Elite Professions

Until the 1960s, Jews faced widespread employment discrimination, particularly in law, finance, and academia.

• Law Firms

  • Prestigious “white-shoe” law firms in New York and Boston refused to hire Jewish lawyers.
  • As a result, Jewish-founded firms like Skadden Arps and Wachtell Lipton emerged—eventually becoming some of the most powerful law firms in the US.

• Wall Street & Investment Banking

  • Jewish bankers were excluded from major firms like J.P. Morgan, leading to the creation of Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers as alternatives.

• “No Jews Need Apply”

  • Well into the 1950s, job postings explicitly stated that Jews were unwelcome.
  • The Civil Rights Act of 1964 formally outlawed this, but informal discrimination persisted.

This employment discrimination mirrors racial barriers faced by Black professionals, demonstrating how elite gatekeeping was enforced by both social and legal means.

5. Political and Social Barriers: Limiting Jewish Influence

• Judicial and Political Exclusion

  • Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice (1916), faced fierce opposition from antisemitic politicians.
  • Jewish political candidates often faced voter skepticism and unofficial quotas in government appointments.

• Media and Public Influence

  • Figures like Henry Ford and Father Charles Coughlin spread antisemitic conspiracy theories, accusing Jews of controlling finance and politics.
  • The Dearborn Independent (Ford’s newspaper) promoted ideas that influenced Nazi propaganda in Germany.

The idea that Jews had “too much power” in media, banking, or government fueled policies designed to limit their influence—a tactic that parallels modern antisemitic conspiracy theories.

II. The Blind Spot in Critical Race Theory: Ignoring Jewish Oppression

Despite CRT’s emphasis on systemic discrimination, many Jewish scholars argue that CRT fails to properly address antisemitism.

1. Why CRT Overlooks Antisemitism

• CRT frames race in a “white vs. non-white” binary, often excluding Jews from discussions on historical oppression.
• Some DEI programs classify Jews as “white”, ignoring the distinct history of Jewish persecution.
• CRT’s focus on power structures sometimes echoes antisemitic tropes (e.g., “Jews control finance and media”).

2. Jewish Concerns with CRT-Based Policies

• Affirmative Action & “New Quotas” – Some critics argue that modern affirmative action policies in college admissions disadvantage Jewish and Asian students in ways similar to past Jewish quotas.
• The Anti-Zionism Debate – Some CRT-inspired DEI programs tolerate or promote anti-Zionist rhetoric, which can blur into antisemitism.

Conclusion: A “Color of Law” Approach to Jewish Discrimination

While CRT has been invaluable in exposing systemic racism, its failure to address Jewish exclusion undercuts its broader message. A “Color of Law” approach to Jewish discrimination would:

• Reveal the systemic legal barriers that Jews faced in immigration, housing, education, and employment.
• Correct the historical narrative that Jews have always been “privileged” in America.
• Encourage CRT scholars to incorporate Jewish experiences into their framework of systemic discrimination.

By applying CRT’s legal analysis framework to Jewish history, we can create a more inclusive, accurate, and just approach to understanding systemic oppression in America.