Earlier this month, President Donald Trump issued an executive order reiterating that Title VI
of the Civil Rights Act protects Jews—just as every other race,
color, national origin, and ethnicity—from discrimination at taxpayer-funded
universities.
The administration also recognized that anti-Zionism
is a contemporary manifestation of anti-Semitism. Although hate speech is protected under
the Constitution, the anti-Semitism infesting many college campuses goes far
beyond the exercise of First Amendment freedom.
Make no mistake: Anti-Semitism in schools and on
college campuses—from fellow students, outside agitators, and even faculty—is a
growing problem.
The Anti-Defamation League reports anti-Semitic incidents jumped 48% from 2016 to 2018. Nearly 30% of these ugly events occurred on college campuses or at non-Jewish schools. Jewish students welcome this partial solution from the Trump administration to this evil.
Anti-Semites routinely target Jewish students by
silencing speakers and shutting down private events with criminal trespass or
disorderly conduct. They also vandalize private property with anti-Semitic
messages, harass Jewish students, block public passageways, and commit outright
assault.
Just last month, Students for Justice in Palestine led a prolonged interruption of a Vassar College event focused on the indigenous Jews of the Middle East—lambasting the audience with an overtly anti-Semitic chant. Similar incidents have occurred across the nation.
Many universities fail to prevent or respond properly to non-constitutionally protected anti-Semitic activity. Some universities have even furthered the cause of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which boycotts Israeli investments or businesses. This echoes the boycotts of Jewish businesses throughout the Third Reich.
Much misinformation persists
regarding the executive order.
The New York
Times claimed the order would classify Judaism (the Jewish faith) as a
nationality. Yet the executive order’s text merely states what should be
obvious: “[I]ndividuals who face discrimination
on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under
Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious
practices.”
This closely mirrors existing guidance from the Office for Civil Rights. In other words, harassing
someone perceived to be of the Jewish race due to her practice of the Jewish
faith is an act of anti-Semitism.
Despite
claims to the contrary, the executive order does not—and should not—ban “hate
speech.” Such a ban would violate the First Amendment and complicate the
already challenging debates over free speech on campus.
Furthermore,
even if such a ban on hate speech were constitutional, any ban would result in government
suppression of speech. Harassment
is a form of discrimination included in
existing guidance
from the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education. It is important
that definitions of “harassment” not include constitutionally protected speech.
Although individuals have the right to counter hate
speech, the government may not ban such speech. The danger exists that some institutions may misapply this
guidance and violate expressive rights.
If history is any guide, the
danger definitely exists that some campus officials may make speech codes
mischief with this guidance. We must be alert for any such violation of free
speech rights. However, nothing in the clear language of the executive
order blocks anti-Semites from continuing their bigoted, hateful (but
constitutionally protected) speech.
Another misconception is that the order equates
criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. It does no such thing. This myth stems
from the administration’s instruction to rely on examples provided by the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in identifying contemporary
anti-Semitism. The
examples simply show how anti-Semitism cloaks itself in the language of
anti-Zionism.
In fact, many of the examples given
(such as “calling for, aiding, or
justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or
an extremist view of religion”) don’t mention Israel at all.
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance does point out that the following rhetoric—“taking into
account the overall context”—relating directly to Israel are manifestations of
contemporary anti-Semitism:
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a state of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Of important note, the executive
order is not an attempt to ban any of this rhetoric. As discussed previously,
hate speech is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
However, using the rhetoric of an individual to determine whether her non-speech-related conduct is anti-Semitic in nature can be incredibly helpful. Administrators should be careful to distinguish between constitutionally permitted codes of student conduct vs. speech codes that unconstitutionally restrict free speech.
These examples of anti-Semitic
rhetoric masquerading as anti-Zionism should serve only to identify the
anti-Semitic nature of other conduct not related to free speech.
Perhaps the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance’s list
of examples are too precise for an executive order. However, the use of
examples in this context helps administrators to identify instances of
anti-Semitism in the form of anti-Zionism.
Rabbi Andrew Baker, director of international Jewish affairs at the American Jewish Committee, played a vital role in crafting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition in 2005. He explains:
It was important for authorities to understand that what might appear to be a political activity, simply because it references Israel or Zionists, shouldn’t be thought of as that and taken at face value. … If you have a responsibility to monitor, to address the problem of antisemitism, whether it’s on college campuses or in the streets of Stockholm, then having a definition like this one is a helpful tool.
Anti-Semites
indeed do compare the world’s only Jewish nation to the Nazi regime, singling
Israel out for alleged human rights violations while largely ignoring the very
real plight of religious, ethnic, and political minorities in places such as
Cuba, China, and Turkey.
Israel
protects the rights of religious and ethnic minorities. All Israeli citizens
have the right to vote, access to public health care, public education, freedom
of speech, freedom of religion, and property rights. Arabs serve in the Israeli
parliament and in the Israeli Defense Forces.
Lastly, denying the very right of an entire people to
even have their own nation-state is far different than criticizing the
government of a nation. Yet many anti-Semites support the right of
self-determination for countless others while opposing the right of the Jewish
people to have a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland.
Jewish
students must also be accorded the same civil rights protection as every other racial and ethnic group—no more and no more less.
When
anti-Semitic activity breaches the bounds of free speech, universities must comply with their
obligations under the Civil Rights Act.
University-sponsored or -enabled discrimination—including toleration of anti-Semitic behavior breaching the bounds of free speech—must stop.
The post Trump’s Executive Order Against Anti-Semitism Will Protect US Jews appeared first on The Daily Signal.
via The Daily Signal
Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/