Israel/Palestine
Related: About this forumAnti-Semitism Awareness Bill Passes Senate
Bad news for anti-Zionists & BDS.
The bill was proposed by Senators Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, and Tim Scott, a South Carolina Republican, to “ensure the Education Department has the necessary statutory tools at their disposal to investigate anti-Jewish incidents,” according to a news release. The senators say the act is not meant to infringe on any individual right protected under the First Amendment, but rather to address a recent uptick in hate crimes against Jewish students. The bill is supported by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish Federations of North America and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. Casey listed the following examples of anti-Semitism in his explanation of the bill:
-Calling for, aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews
-Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust
-Demonizing Israel by blaming it for all interreligious or political tensions
-Judge Israel by a double standard that one would not apply to any other democratic nation
The bill has attracted criticism from groups including Palestine Legal and Jewish Voice for Peace, who say the proposed definition of anti-Semitism wrongly conflates any criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish sentiments. The definition was rejected by the University of California earlier this year after similar complaints from free speech advocates, faculty and students. Kenneth Stern, who helped write the European Monitoring Center’s “working definition on anti-Semitism” on which the State Department definition is based, at that time argued that it would do “more harm than good” on college campuses.
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/12/02/anti-semitism-awareness-bill-passes-senate
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
FBaggins
(27,703 posts)Worth noting
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: The Forward
A controversial anti-Semitism bill sailing through Congress has a new critic: The expert who wrote the definition on which the bill is based.
Kenneth Stern, formerly the American Jewish Committee’s specialist on anti-Semitism and extremism, says that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016, which aims to combat campus anti-Semitism, is “both unconstitutional and unwise.”
Stern was the lead drafter of the definition of anti-Semitism used in the bill. He says he did not intend the definition to be used in the manner in which Congress is proposing to use it.
The bill, which has the support of such mainstream Jewish groups as the Anti-Defamation League, would instruct the DOE to consider a definition of anti-Semitism that includes “demonizing Israel” or “judg[ing] Israel by a double standard” when investigating discrimination claims.
Read more: http://forward.com/news/356220/expert-on-hate-opposes-campus-anti-semitism-bill-based-on-definition-he-cre/
shira
(30,109 posts)I'm just not sure that's the case on campus WRT hate speech directed at Gays, Blacks, Muslims, or Arabs.
I'd like to see hate speech against Jews dealt with the same way as any other group.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Source: Forward, 5 December 2016 (?)
After pro-Palestinian student activists set up mock West Bank checkpoints on the campus of the University of California, Berkeley in 2012, Jewish groups filed a civil rights complaint with the federal government.
Jewish organizations charged that the mock checkpoints, meant as a protest against the Israeli government, combined with other incidents to create a hostile environment for Jewish students.
The federal Department of Education dismissed the complaint, saying that the protest was an instance of free expression.
Now, a new bill speeding through Congress could change the way the Department of Education reviews such complaints. If it succeeds, critics say, the federal government could determine that protests like the mock checkpoint constitutes civil rights violations.
The bill “opens the door to considering anti-Israel political statements and activities as possible grounds for civil rights investigations,” said Michael Macleod-Ball, chief of staff of the American Civil Liberties Union’s legislative office in Washington. “Whether you agree with the BDS movement or not, aligning oneself with it and even participating in the effort should not subject someone to a civil rights investigation.”
Read more: http://forward.com/news/355903/free-speech-advocates-warn-that-campus-anti-semitism-bill-could-make-palest/
shira
(30,109 posts)Tich, hate speech is protected speech.
http://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/alt-right-safe-space-racism-college-campuses/
Amid major shifts in U.S. politics, a space has opened for revolutionary right-wing politics that have not traditionally been accessible to those outside of the most extreme ranks of the white nationalist movement. Today, the Alt Right is repackaging many of the ideas normally associated with neo-Nazis and KKK members into a new, more middle-class culture by using the strategies and language traditionally associated with the left. This means a heavy focus on argumentation and academic legitimacy, as well as targeting campus locations (and millennials) for recruitment.
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Do you think the ACLU and the others who oppose the bill are right or wrong?
shira
(30,109 posts)Little Tich
(6,171 posts)Racist speech should of course be excluded from protection, but the definition as it stands inhibits free speech to an unreasonable degree.
I think the ACLU is right, as always.
shira
(30,109 posts)That's the wrong response, well-meaning or not.
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus
A: Free speech rights are indivisible. Restricting the speech of one group or individual jeopardizes everyone's rights because the same laws or regulations used to silence bigots can be used to silence you. Conversely, laws that defend free speech for bigots can be used to defend the rights of civil rights workers, anti-war protesters, lesbian and gay activists and others fighting for justice. For example, in the 1949 case of Terminiello v. Chicago, the ACLU successfully defended an ex-Catholic priest who had delivered a racist and anti-semitic speech. The precedent set in that case became the basis for the ACLU's successful defense of civil rights demonstrators in the 1960s and '70s....
Little Tich
(6,171 posts).
At least it seems to be the gist of what is argued by Stern (post #2) and the ACLU (post#4). You are conflating the ACLU stance on protected speech in general on campus with its opposition to the wording in the bill that includes non-racist speech into the definition of anti-Semitic speech. To further demonstrate this I will add the objections of the JVP, the Open Hillel and the LA Times Editorial Board, which are all on the same grounds:
NEARLY 60 JEWISH STUDIES SCHOLARS AND HUNDREDS OF JEWISH STUDENTS OPPOSE MISGUIDED ANTI-SEMITISM AWARENESS ACT
Source: Jewish Voices for Peace, 8 DECEMBER 2016
Opposition is growing to a bill which would codify criticism of the state of Israel as discrimination
b]December 8, 2016–Nearly 60 scholars in the field of Jewish Studies, and over 300 Jewish student activists on campuses across the U.S. have voiced concerns about a bill that passed the Senate last week and is due to be considered in the House of Representatives. Rather than combat the current rise in white supremacist anti-Semitism, the bill (H.R. 6421/S. 10 “The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016”), is targeted at the discourse around Israel/Palestine on college campuses. The bill would direct the Department of Education to consider the State Department’s controversial definition of anti-Semitism when evaluating discrimination complaints on campuses. These complaints frequently allege that criticism of Israel is anti-Jewish hatred, and deprives Jewish students of the opportunity to receive an equal education. So far, the Department of Education has denied such complaints on the basis that criticism of the state of Israel is not harassment targeting Jewish students as Jews.
Rather than clarify when criticism of Israel crosses into anti-Semitism, as its proponents allege, the definition codified in this bill blurs that distinction so as to make a broad range of criticisms of the state of Israel susceptible to DOE investigation. As Kenneth Stern, the original author of the definition of anti-Semitism used by the State Department, wrote in a letter to Congress, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act “essentially incorporates that definition into law for a purpose that is both unconstitutional and unwise.” Civil liberties groups including the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish groups including Jewish Voice for Peace, Open Hillel, and Americans for Peace Now, and the Los Angeles Times editorial board have come out against the bill. A similar policy was rejected by the University of California system last year on free speech grounds.
Read more: https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/nearly-60-jewish-studies-scholars-hundreds-jewish-students-oppose-misguided-anti-semitism-awareness-act/
---
Statement on "Anti-Semitism Awareness Act": Criticism of Israel is Not Anti-Semitic
Source: Open Hillel, December 2, 2016
However, the “Anti-Semitism Awareness Act,” passed yesterday in the Senate, fails to address these issues. Rather, it mis-classifies criticism of Israel as anti-Semitism and aims to ensure that the Department of Education will investigate and suppress criticism of Israel on campus.
In 2010, Hillel International barred the so-called “3 D’s” -- delegitimization, demonization, and applying a double standard to Israel -- as part of its Standards of Partnership for Israel Activities. Since then, we have seen how this policy has done nothing to combat anti-Semitism. Rather, this vague language has served to silence both Jewish and non-Jewish students, professors, and activists and to stifle crucial conversations on Israel-Palestine on campus. Moreover, Hillel’s censorship has promoted division and misunderstanding both within the Jewish community and between Jewish community members and other faith and cultural groups on campus.
---
Undermining free speech on campus
Source: LA Times, Dec 6, 2016
The legislation, sponsored by Sens. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.), was proposed as a remedy for anti-Semitic acts directed at students and faculty members. But the Department of Education already has the legal tools necessary to punish colleges and universities that don’t deal effectively with acts of violence or intimidation motivated by racial or religious hatred, including anti-Semitism.
This legislation is really about something else entirely: Israel. What it does is to endorse an expansive definition of anti-Semitism that was adopted by the State Department in 2010 as a benchmark for diplomats. The problem with the definition is that it unfairly conflates anti-Israel speech with anti-Semitic speech, in a way that, if enforced, would violate the free speech rights of students and professors. Among other things, the examples of anti-Semitism provided by the State Department’s definition
include denying Israel’s right to exist, “demonizing” Israel by blaming it for “all interreligious or political tensions” and judging Israel by a double standard “requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
shira
(30,109 posts)You were wrong about the ACLU and just as wrong now.
JVP and Open Hillel's letters indicate they've only now just discovered antisemitism on campus, as if it didn't exist prior to Trump's election. Unlike Kenneth Stern, they absolutely disagree with the EUMC working definition because they believe anything goes WRT demonizing Israel; like Israel should be destroyed, Zionism = Naziism, Jews are Khazars & white colonialists who have no rights to a homeland of their own...
Here's Kenneth Stern stating very explicitly that all this is really a matter of free speech:
https://www.aaup.org/news/cary-nelson-and-kenneth-stern-pen-open-letter-campus-antisemitism#.WE0fKqIrLVo
Recently, there have been allegations of antisemitism at three universities—the University of California at Berkeley, the University of California at Santa Cruz, and Rutgers. Any claim of bigotry must be treated with the utmost seriousness, not only because hatred harms its victims, but also because it can undermine academic freedom: students become afraid to be who they are and thus say what they think. Conversely, a climate which values academic freedom can unleash the best responses to bigotry, by promoting critical thinking and clear ideas.
Yet some, in reaction to these recent incidents, are making the situation worse by distorting the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and what has been called the “working definition of antisemitism.” Opposing anti-Israel events, statements, and speakers, they believe the only way to “protect” Jewish students is by imposing censorship.
There has been a debate in recent years about whether Title VI, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in federally-funded programs, extends to Jewish students when antisemitic intimidation or harassment is directed at them based on the perception of ethnic, as opposed to religious, identity. In October 2010, the Office for Civil Rights of the Department of Education issued a letter clarifying that in certain limited contexts, antisemitic behavior or intimidation (the letter gave examples of swastika daubings and Jew-baiting bullying) is clearly based on a perception of ethnicity or national origin and is therefore covered by Title VI. “Harassment” encompasses both “different treatment” and the “existence of a racially hostile environment,” meaning that the offending conduct is so severe or pervasive that, in order to continue their education, a student has to suffer an educational environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
While some of the recent allegations (such as charging pro-Israel Jewish students admission to a university event while allowing others to attend for free) might well raise a claim under Title VI, many others seek to silence anti-Israel discourse and speakers. This approach is not only unwarranted under Title VI, it is dangerous.
Six years ago the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) created a “working definition” of antisemitism. Some European countries had no definition of antisemitism, and the few which did had different ones, so it was very difficult for monitors and data collectors to know what to include or exclude. The “working definition,” while clearly stating that criticism of Israel in the main is not antisemitic, gives some examples of when antisemitism may be in play, such as holding Jews collectively responsible for acts of the Israeli state, comparing Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, or denying to Jews the right of self determination (such as by claiming that Zionism is racism). In recent years the US Department of State and the US Commission on Civil Rights have embraced this definition too.
It is entirely proper for university administrators, scholars and students to reference the “working definition” in identifying definite or possible instances of antisemitism on campus. It is a perversion of the definition to use it, as some are doing, in an attempt to censor what a professor, student, or speaker can say. Because a statement might be “countable” by data collectors under the “working definition” does not therefore mean that Title VI is violated. To assert this not only contravenes the definition’s purpose (it was not drafted to label anyone an antisemite or to limit campus speech), it also harms the battle against antisemitism.
The purpose of a university is to have students wrestle with ideas with which they may disagree, or even better, may make them uncomfortable. To censor ideas is to diminish education, and to treat students as fragile recipients of “knowledge,” rather than young critical thinkers. When the disquieting ideas are bigoted, it is incumbent on others on campus to speak out. University leadership should say something when appropriate too (not in every instance, because its role is not to be a quality control on campus debate).
Universities can do many other things to combat bigotry, from surveying students to see if and how they are experiencing bigotry, to offering courses on why and how people hate, to bringing in outside scholars and others to speak on relevant topics. Title VI is a remedy when university leadership neglects its job to stop bigoted harassment of students; it is not a tool to define “politically correct” campus speech.
Antisemitism should be treated with the same seriousness as other forms of bigotry. But one should not, for instance, suggest that a professor cannot make an argument about immigration simply because some might see any such argument as biased against Latino students. Nor was Title VI crafted with the notion that only speakers who are “safe” should be allowed on campus.
By trying to censor anti-Israel remarks, it becomes more, not less, difficult to tackle both antisemitism and anti-Israel dogma. The campus debate is changed from one of exposing bigotry to one of protecting free speech, and the last thing pro-Israel advocates need is a reputation for censoring, rather than refuting, their opponents.
The “working definition” is a useful tool to identify statements that merit attention on campus, but deciding whether a given remark is antisemitic can require careful attention to rhetoric, context, and even intent. As the AAUP has suggested, even objectionable statements can have content worthy of debate. Most individual remarks, moreover, do not rise to the level of creating hostile environments.
Cary Nelson is the president of the American Association of University Professors.
Kenneth Stern is the American Jewish Committee’s director on antisemitism and extremism, and was the lead drafter of the EUMC “working definition.”
Publication Date:
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Little Tich
(6,171 posts)that were not anti-Semitic in the definition.
EU drops its ‘working definition’ of anti-Semitism
Source: Times of Israel, December 5, 2013
Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/eu-drops-its-working-definition-of-anti-semitism/
I think that anti-Semitism should keep on being considered a form of racism, and that no Newspeak definitions that include criticism of countries or political ideologies as anti-Semitism should be allowed.
It's very fortunate that some Congress critters have gotten cold feet about the bill, and I hope that if the bill will ever be reintroduced, it won't include anything about Israel. Kenneth Stern thoroughly botched his work on the definition, and he should pass the torch to someone who has better knowledge about the subject.
shira
(30,109 posts)Or the 31 countries that have recently adopted it...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1134&pid=129437
You were wrong about the ACLU and wrong about Mr. Stern's reason for not applying the EUMC definition WRT college campuses.
Funny thing is you agree that calling for Israel's destruction is antisemitic. That's exactly what the BDS movement does. It's what Mondoweiss advocates. You know, the same Mondoweiss that for years you've had trouble calling a hate site.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary, was responsible for deferring the measure. Since this is the House’s final week in session, Goodlatte opposed “rushing” the bill through without adequate study, noted the Hill staffer. Goodlatte “thought the wording was a little vague and there were definitely first amendment issues as well,” the Congressional official added.
http://jewishinsider.com/9981/congress-defers-anti-semitism-bill-to-2017/