It sounds great, just like the Patriot Act did some 20-odd years ago. In fact, it sounds even better than that.
In the midst of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel campus protests, where Jewish students have been blocked from going to class, in an environment where presidents of top American universities tell Congress that calling for the genocide against the Jewish people only breaches their schools’ codes of conduct if it’s done in a certain “context,” the “Antisemitism Awareness Act” sounds pretty perfect.
The legislation, overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives in a 320-91 vote on Wednesday, purports to crack down on acts of hate against Jewish students by requiring the Department of Education to apply the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s Working Definition of Antisemitism when enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — an act which “prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance,” according to the Education Department’s own website.
“We have seen a rapid rise in antisemitism on these college campuses, and we need to crack down on it,” said GOP Rep. Mike Lawler when he introduced the bill in November alongside one other Republican and two Democrats, The Hill noted.
“This is not a free speech issue. This is hate speech.”
Trending:
Yes, and the Patriot Act would never be used to indiscriminately spy on Americans or give undue powers to federal law enforcement … we were told. If, 22 years on, I have to spell out to you the excesses that have made that law thoroughly unpopular on both the American left and right, you haven’t been paying attention.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act is nowhere near that sweeping, but every bit as problematic in terms of what it purports to do vs. what it actually does — which is why 21 Republicans joined 70 Democrats in voting against it.
The problems with the bill aren’t arcane, nor is the description of it especially complicated. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance is a respectable organization — but it is not in the business of crafting a definition of anti-Semitism that is in line with the freedoms granted by the First Amendment. And, indeed, its working definition is, by nature, vague, saying that “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to” a set of bullet points, some of which are much better defined than others.
For instance, I think we can all agree that “[a]ccusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews” or “[d]enying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust)” are almost pretty much 100 percent foolproof evidence you’re dealing with an anti-Semite.
Do you believe that this legislation is bad for America?
Others are significantly more problematic, particularly in how vaguely inclusionary they are when it comes to what constitutes anti-Semitism.
Here’s bullet point No. 2: “Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.”
OK, that sounds terrible — until you remember the last time a conservative complained about the money George Soros pumps into American elections to get progressive candidates elected and leftist policies enacted, and was subsequently called an anti-Semite conspiracy theorist because they were alleging that a man who just happens to be Jewish also happens to spend an inordinate amount of his money trying to get the Chesa Boudins and Alvin Braggs of these United States into office.
The Anti-Defamation League has a page on its website titled, “The Antisemitism Lurking Behind George Soros Conspiracy Theories.” European academic Armin Langer, who contributed a chapter in a book about conspiracy theories intimating that those opposed to Soros’ agenda are covert anti-Semites, wrote upon Soros’ decision to hand the reins of his Open Society Foundations to his son Alexander in 2023, that that the elder Soros had been “demonized as a shadowy puppet master manipulating world events for his own gain. Such baseless accusations often target his Jewish heritage, invoking hatemongering and centuries-old antisemitic tropes.”
Are you feeling so complacent about the Antisemitism Awareness Act’s decision to rely on the IHRA’s Working Definition of Antisemitism to police anti-Semitic acts on campus now? Because, if we’ve learned one thing about college administrators over the past month, it’s not the militants in keffiyehs shouting anti-Jewish slurs they’re going to go after if given additional powers to police anti-Semitism, it’s going to be the College Republicans’ speaker who makes a reference to a “Soros-funded DA.”
Furthermore, the working definition includes other examples of “anti-Semitism” that you might not agree with, but agree fall under the aegis of free speech, particularly concerning the state of Israel. For instance: “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” or “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”
The vast majority of Republicans just voted for a bill to criminalize criticisms of the Israeli government. If the bill passes you will be guilty of hate speech if you “apply double standards” to the government of Israel or accuse it of genocide. This is honestly one of the most… https://t.co/5SPRT0I0jk pic.twitter.com/2k6n9A3hiY
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) May 1, 2024
Again: You may not agree with these criticisms — and I certainly don’t agree with the vast majority of them — while simultaneously agreeing there’s a major First Amendment breach by making it an act of hate to simply express them. No government is above criticism, even if many of its critics are rebarbative. And, note again the vagueness of the terms used and how liberally this definition could be applied.
The same could be said for this bullet point: “Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.” As GOP Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, who voted against the bill, pointed out, this could — if liberally interpreted — make parts of the Bible unpreachable on campuses — noting three examples that could be conveniently misconstrued by administrators:
Acts 4:10
Be it known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.1 Thessalonians 2:14-16
For you, brethren, became imitators of the…— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) May 1, 2024
In Acts 3 and Acts 4, the apostle Peter is addressing contemporary Jewish believers and elders sometime in the aftermath of Christ’s death and resurrection. In 1 Thessalonians, the apostle Paul is addressing both gentiles and former Jews in the church in Thessalonica, who were being persecuted by gentile authorities at the behest of some members of the city’s Jewish synagogue, who were angered at the preaching of both Paul and Silas, and the conversions that followed.
Now, all but the most dubious — and, indeed, potentially anti-Semitic — interpretations of these verses indicate they have nothing to do with modern Israel, Israelis or those of the Jewish faith. However, again, look at the weasel words here: If a particularly leftist administration wants to shut down a conservative campus ministry, using the powers granted to them by the DOE under the Antisemitism Awareness Act to make false claims of anti-Semitism for simply preaching from Acts 3-4 or 1 Thessalonians 2 could do the trick. At the very least, it’s enough to potentially incite a nasty court battle, along with enough legal bills and harassment that the ministry decides it’s not worth it.
There is a quote popularly misattributed to the French writer Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” He may not have actually said it, but our Founding Fathers, for the most part, believed this — which is why we have the First Amendment.
“Freedom of speech is a principal pillar of a free government,” Benjamin Franklin said. “When this support is taken away, the constitution of a free society is dissolved, and tyranny is erected on its ruins. Republics and limited monarchies derive their strength and vigor from a popular examination into the action of the magistrates.”
It may be — as rioters who are clearly violent anti-Semites run roughshod over college campuses from New York to Los Angeles — extremely popular to deliver what sounds like a tool to curb anti-Semitism into the hands of the Department of Education. In the same way, it was extremely popular to allocate novel and expansive powers to examine the lives of everyday Americans to the federal government after a failure to connect a series of red flags led, in part, to 9/11.
But like the Patriot Act, the Antisemitism Awareness Act is both hastily conceived and sufficiently vague as to allow definitions of hate speech to be weaponized against nonviolent students exercising their right to free speech. Yes, Rep. Lawler, like it or not, this is “a free-speech issue” — and removing another pillar of it won’t stop student rioters or the Claudine Gays and Liz Magills of the world from saying that calling for genocide of the Jewish people is an issue of “context” when it comes to whether or not it violates their schools’ codes of conduct. Rather, it dissolves protections that America ought to be providing its college students — and allows administrators more “context” to go after those it deems politically unsavory, even if they aren’t anti-Semites in the slightest.
And it doesn’t take a genius for conservatives to figure out what opinions college administrators view as politically unsavory, does it?
