Reviews | Will campus criticism of Israel violate federal law?

[ad_1]

Over 25 years ago, at the height of efforts to pass the codes of hate speech on college campuses, I wrote a monograph on how to do it without censorship.

It began with a quote from a student who had been bullied for being Asian American: I wish they had hit me. Had he been beaten, he said, the damage would have been easier for everyone to see.

No student should be threatened, harassed or intimidated by word or deed. But every student must be worried and forced to struggle with difficult ideas, even odious ones, and especially with ideas that he finds disagreeable.

On some campuses, pro-Israel Jewish students feel victimized. Some classmates who support the Palestinian cause consider them racist, and some activists have encouraged violations of academic freedom, from heckling pro-Israel speakers to boycotting Israeli academic institutions.

But, as was the case 25 years ago, the worst remedy is to ban speech deemed offensive, disparaging or bigoted that would otherwise be protected by the First Amendment. The Antisemitism Awareness Bill of 2016 is a speech code for schools and colleges that is touted as common sense protection against bigotry. After it passed unanimously by the Senate recently, the House Judiciary Committee postponed its review until 2017. As I told the committee, it should not be reviewed in any form.

The law would require the Department of Education, when deciding whether federal anti-discrimination laws have been violated, to consider the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism, which is a version of the United States’ working definition. anti-Semitism published in 2005 by the European Observatory Center on Racism and Xenophobia. I was the main author of the definition of the centers when I was director on anti-Semitism for the American Jewish Committee. I encouraged the State Department to use it when discussing anti-Semitism with other countries.

The definition contains examples related to criticism of Israel, including applying double standards by requiring it to behave in ways that other democratic countries do not expect, or denying Jews the right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist enterprise.

The definition was intended for data collectors writing reports on anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never meant to restrict speech on campus.

And Jewish students are protected by current law. In 2010, the Department of Education clarified that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs, also protects Jewish students. This means schools and colleges could lose federal funding when they are the site of a Title VI violation involving anti-Semitism. As a result of this clarification, in 2011 I filed a Title VI action against a school district where Jews were bullied, bullied, and even kicked, forcing authorities to take action. .

But some right-wing Jewish groups and individuals have tried to go beyond the limits of clarification by filing Title VI complaints arguing that the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel, educational programs about the occupation of the West Bank and anti-Israeli actions – Class texts and speakers from Israel violated the definition and were evidence of a violation of Title VI. All cases lost.

Then these groups urged the University of California system to adopt the State Department’s definition. This was not the case.

Now they want to enshrine the definition in law so the Department of Education will consider anti-Israel speech when assessing a Title VI violation.

And after? Should Congress define what speech is Islamophobic? Anti-Palestinian? Racist? Anti-white? How about defining anti-American speech? We could dust off the records of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

One group supported the legislation because it believes Jewish students do not enjoy the same protections as other demographic groups. He cites examples of a professor being suspended for a gay marriage blog post deemed homophobic and the cancellation of an on-campus screening of the film American Sniper, branded as anti-Islamic.

Rather than viewing them as troubling violations of academic freedom and free speech, supporters of the congressional bill also want to suppress criticism of Israel. If this bill becomes law, it is easy to imagine calls for university administrators to stop pro-Palestinian rhetoric. Even if lawsuits alleging Title VI violations fail, students and faculty will be scared and silenced, and administrators will opt for speech suppression or censorship.

In a political environment where all the good is seen on one side and all the bad on the other, a law that punishes political speech fuels more hatred.

When people are seduced by the misconception that a law can stop hateful ideas, they neglect to fight bigotry. In addition to conducting anonymous surveys of students about the climate on campus and making sure students know how to report harassment, there should be more lessons on anti-Semitism, the human capacity to hate, conflicting narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and how to discuss difficult topics.

Rather than suppressing the discourse of conflict, we should encourage it. If not, how will students learn?

[ad_2]