Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reporting Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions about ‘California Versus Hate’ resource choices and partner vetting
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the commission they were directed to a political advocacy group (referred to in public comment as 'Ben the Ark') listed on the California Versus Hate resource page for Jewish anti‑Semitism support and called for transparent vetting, published criteria and clarity about how victim reports are shared.
Several callers and emailed commenters told the commission they had reported anti‑Semitic incidents to the California Versus Hate system and were alarmed to find a political advocacy organization listed among statewide Jewish anti‑Semitism resources.
"When you report an incident to a PAC, you are no longer a victim seeking justice," said one Zoom commenter, urging the commission to review partner selection and to rely on established civil‑rights or communal organizations. Multiple callers pressed the Civil Rights Department and the commission for transparency about referral criteria, data sharing, and community consultation used to populate the resource page.
Commission chair Brian Leven clarified that California Versus Hate is a separate entity and that the commission is not the operator of the state's resource page, but commissioners and staff acknowledged the concerns and said they would ensure public comments and questions are forwarded to the appropriate program managers. Commenters asked: what criteria were applied, was there community vetting, and what protections exist for reporters' anonymity and privacy.
Public commenters described personal experiences in which reporting to California Versus Hate led to offers of therapy but not to investigation or enforcement, and they asked whether reports had been shared with partner organizations and what protections existed for victims' information. One caller said she had waited five months for an investigative interview and had her appeal denied; another said a group listed as a statewide resource was not registered to operate in California.
Staff told the commission they would circulate the questions and the public comments to the appropriate California Versus Hate administrators and that slides and presentation materials requested earlier would be shared with audience members who had asked for them.
The commission did not take a formal vote on the resource‑listing issue at the meeting; several commissioners emphasized the importance of transparent criteria and broad community engagement for any state referrals or partnerships.
