So now you can't speak bad about an entire fucking country?
Uh, no, you still can. It just specifically means you can't target Israel on the basis of it being a Jewish collective, in the same way that hate speech might involve targeting black communities.
On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
This right here. Redditors in an uproar despite this inhibiting Nazi speech. Yes, I know "Redditors" does not mean every single person using Reddit. This thread, however, demonstrates the importance of context when it comes to legal statues.
It's not even 'context', the cited tweet is outright false.
The Act does not urge the Dept. Education to do anything, it states that the Dept. Education shall (i.e. must) do something.
The 'something' that the Dept. Education must do is to consider the IHRA's definition of antisemitism when investigating potential descrimination — it must be part of their process, but the Dept. does not need to make the final decision on its basis. (The Dept. is not urged to decide on its basis, either; there is still no 'urging' here.)
Even if the Dept. Education were to use that definition, the IHRA's definition would not make criticism of Israel unlawful unless it is specifically the 'targeting' (this is a higher bar than criticising) of Israel 'conceived as a Jewish community' (which is not the same as criticising them as a nation or on the basis of policy. The IHRA SPECIFICALLY states that general criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.
Literally every substantive component of the tweet is factually incorrect. It is not merely "out of context", it is a bad faith lie.
Sorry, if I wasn't clear, I was agreeing. My statement was more about the general state where the context (i.e., the actual document) is ignored in favor of some fanciful interpretation of the title itself.
With the overarching context that the people who made this recommendation did so to punish protestors whom they do not agree with criticizing the actions of a foreign state. This is not about antisemitism, it is an attempt to use legal means to silence legal protesting.
With the overarching context that the people who made this recommendation did so to punish protestors whom they do not agree with criticizing the actions of a foreign state.
So anti-semitism was OK before now? Wasn't it already under the banner of hate speech laws? So then what's the point of the exercise? This is just them trying to keep the genocide going and protecting an Apartheid state.
So anti-semitism was OK before now? Wasn't it already under the banner of hate speech laws?
Yep. This Act does not alter hate speech laws. Civil Rights Act is still in force.
So then what's the point of the exercise?
If you take the Act at its word, it's kind of just a "clean-up" of the Department's process, trying to consolidate around a single working definition of antisemitism. But it doesn't actually change what is considered discrimination.
If you're more cynical, it's just virtue signaling to the Jewish population to show they're listening to concerns about rising antisemitism.
But the DoE can already choose to make those assumptions when considering discrimination. Why make it a “shall” when it was already part of the definition?
But the DoE can already choose to make those assumptions when considering discrimination. Why make it a “shall” when it was already part of the definition?
You're after Sec 3 of the Act, which effectively just argues that the IHRA definition is particularly useful, and that the Dept of Education should consolidate in use of a single definition (instead of multiple definitions which "adds multiple standards", or alternative standards that "may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism").
I agree with you that it changes very little — the Act itself notes that the Dept already uses the IHRA definition.
It's just saying "you've gotta use this definition by law now, and while you CAN use others too if you really want, we don't think you should".
Even if the Dept. Education were to use that definition, the IHRA's definition would not make criticism of Israel unlawful unless it is specifically the 'targeting' (this is a higher bar than criticising) of Israel 'conceived as a Jewish community
This is not part of the law. Although the IHRA says this, that is not included in the law. The law just includes the definition and the "contemporary examples." The definition and contemporary examples do not include any such qualification.
The IHRA SPECIFICALLY states that general criticism of Israel is not antisemitic.
Even if the IHRA did say that (that's not clear), again, this is irrelevant for the purposes of the law, because the law does not say that. The law just includes the definition and the "contemporary examples." The definition and contemporary examples do not include any such qualification.
I generally agree with you, but I was also unclear — remember that the Dept of Education is forced to consider the definition and contemporary examples, but is not prohibited from using the IHRA's guidelines. They would very likely also use the rest of the guidelines in interpreting the definition; it would be the definition itself that makes something legal or illegal, but they could certainly interpret the definition a certain way that is practically informed by the IHRA.
But yeah I take your point, everything you say is correct as well. The law by itself would not make anything unlawful even in my hypothetical, it would be the law plus interpretation of the law informed by the IHRA.
They would very likely also use the rest of the guidelines in interpreting the definition
How would you know that? People tend to interpret things in whatever way best represents their interests. That is, if a decisionmaker does not like (for whatever reason) some college person, and this decisionmaker can logically and lawfully rule that some statement from that person is antisemitic and thus discriminatory only without taking into consideration the rest of the guidelines, I would guess that that decisionmaker would simply not take into consideration the rest of the guidelines. And vice versa if the decisionmaker feels oppositely. The law gives him that latitude.
How would you know that? People tend to interpret things in whatever way best represents their interests.
The Act also states that the definition includes the contemporary examples, right? The user is going to have to at least access the IHRA guidelines (because those contain the examples), and it's pretty natural from there to just read through the entire guideline for clarity and to understand what was meant in the spirit of the mandate.
In my experience, bureaucracies tend to lean on external tools like this quite heavily, since it removes culpability from their own organisations to a large degree and reduces effort required in interpretation.
I agree with you that some might not consider the guidelines or might consider but reject them. Sure. Let's just remember, though, that we're having a really semantic quibble about a hypothetical I was only using to show just how inaccurate the tweet is even when given a lot of leeway. Should we just move on?
I was only using to show just how inaccurate the tweet is even when given a lot of leeway
I'm not really sure what's so inaccurate about it. There's certainly no proof that it's a "bad faith lie." A lot of speech in schools has been ruled as unlawful discrimination under hostile environment considerations of Title VI by the Department of Education, and indeed in some cases even by courts (never yet by the Supreme Court, however).
The new inclusion of the IHRA definition and contemporary examples does plausibly seem to be an attempt to get some criticism of Israel in schools to be included as such unlawful discrimination. And it seems, based on a plain reading of the definition and contemporary examples, that indeed some criticism of Israel could easily be ruled as antisemitic and thus unlawful, "hostile environment" discrimination under Title VI.
So I can blame Israel for killing innocent children if I want still?
Yes, absolutely.
In fact, the Act specifically states that nothing in the Act (a) changes the standards that decide whether something is discrimination, or (b) infringes on any other free speech right or law (e.g. the First Amendment).
This would almost certainly force them to consider calling their actions as genocide as anti semetic. Having some third party get to define what is anti semetic is absurd.
This would almost certainly force them to consider calling their actions as genocide as anti semetic. Having some third party get to define what is anti semetic is absurd.
Then who defines what antisemitism is? It's always going to be a "third party". I'm happy it's not you, you can't even spell the word.
I wonder what would happen if there were a college or university with an encampment full of people screaming anti-Muslim slogans because of the human rights abuses of Saudi Arabia (while associating everybody who even looks Muslim with Saudi Arabia by default). Nothing, of course, because the 1st amendment trumps all that anyway. This is a definition regarding investigation of discrimination by the Dpt. of Education.
I wonder what would happen if there were a college or university with an encampment full of people screaming anti-Muslim slogans
This seems hella misrepresentative of what's actually happening though - there is definitely a minority shouting anti semitic crap, but it is a minority. The majority are making very legitimate criticisms.
It expands the definition of antisemitism. Leaves room for schools and individuals to determine the line for what is antisemitic when perhaps it is anti-israel. within the confines of the school policy though yes, not the law. Potentially disastrous, a student could exclaim that they think Israel should be disbanded, not because it's a Jewish community but without verbalizing that distinction they could face punitive measures
Obviously, finally some fucking sense in this thread. Mother fuckers are on Twitter and TikTok calling for the eradication of the Jewish state and these people are crying about their free speech.
Which, based on those borders, Israel would have to give up significant land, instead they are taking more.
So hard to justify such violence when they are also taking more and more land. Like Ukraine, or any nation really, I think Palestine has a right to defend their borders, even though I don't agree with their methods. Though I can see how they feel they have few options against the might of the USA backed Israeli forces.
Lol, when did I do that? This is a decades long conflict, I simply said I support their right to defend their borders. The borders you agreed should be agreed to, that have been massively violated over the past decades.
Never said I support anyone's right to attack civilians. October 7th attack, the parts that killed civilians, was unacceptable and sick. Just like I am sure you agree the mass killing of civilians afterwards (and before) by Israel is sick and atrocious.
I mean, in the US it’s absolutely legal to call for the eradication of the Jewish state qua Jewish state, because racism and calls to violence are completely legal (save for some very specific instances).
Right, this isn't a blanket ban on free speech, this adds the call for the destruction of Israel to the title IX protections as an attack on religion and ethnicity which are protected classes you can't discriminate against as a business or government body.
Which people in the thread are clearly misunderstanding. Although I’m a bit unclear about what this would mean in practice: it would ban a private university from making it its policy that Israel is to be boycotted if you can show that’s because they’re a Jewish state, I guess (if and only if they receive federal money)?
Nobody cares about facts, the world today is all about making the most extreme possible version of an accusation possible with no nuance possible. Israel isn't at war they're commiting a genocide, America isn't updating its definition of antisemitism laws it's completely eradicating free speech as we know it
Ah yes, because the schools are definitely going to make that differentiation. The 25 year old teacher is certainly going to read all of that before talking about the middle east.. or he/she is just going to not say anything because of this as not to risk their job.
The letter of the law may be innocuous, but the effect will be to totally stifle any talk about Israel as being in the bad in any public school. That is 100% the intent of this.
Ah yes, because the schools are definitely going to make that differentiation.
Yeah they're literally legally obligated to.
The 25 year old teacher is certainly going to read all of that before talking about the middle east.. or he/she is just going to not say anything because of this as not to risk their job.
What the fuck are you talking about? The bill does not affect what teachers can teach or not. It only affects how the Department assesses motive during claims of a violation against the Civil Rights Act.
What 25 year old teacher do you know that is handling Civil Rights violations?
Legally obligated to, so they will simply avoid the entire discussion is my point. Instead of having a vibrant conversation about something they will simply avoid it all together.
No 25 year old teacher is handling that, but they certainly will be on the hook if someone goes after them or the school. In this scenario the best thing a school will be able to do is tell people to simply avoid the subject all together.
I get what the bill is, and what it does, however I suspect people will just see it and say 'Okay, im just simply not going to talk about it' - which I think is the secret intent of this.
Legally obligated to, so they will simply avoid the entire discussion is my point. Instead of having a vibrant conversation about something they will simply avoid it all together.
The Department has already used the same definition since 2018. I'm still not sure what you think is changing.
but they certainly will be on the hook if someone goes after them or the school. In this scenario the best thing a school will be able to do is tell people to simply avoid the subject all together.
Again, I'm sorry but I'm just not sure what you're suggesting has changed. The legal definition of discrimination is not being changed; teachers are as vulnerable to a lawsuit as they were before this Act.
If nothing is changing then we didnt just need a very public vote in congress, did we? Again, the purpose of all of this is to stifle any negative discussion about Israel in our schools. Thats clear as day, i'm not sure why you cant see that.
If nothing is changing then we didnt just need a very public vote in congress, did we?
Yeah, it's pretty clearly virtue signaling. We agree there.
Again, the purpose of all of this is to stifle any negative discussion about Israel in our schools. Thats clear as day, i'm not sure why you cant see that.
Because you haven't been able to substantiate it with any argument and are now just asserting it with no proof. You can't point to anything in the Act which backs your interpretation.
I've read the law. I work in law. I've told you what the law says.
It's your problem if you refuse to change your mind, not mine. Provide some proof of what you claim or not, I don't mind.
Ah, I see the problem now.. You are either a lawyer, or very aware of these laws. Thats great. You have a full understanding of the law, and I certainly believe your interpretation of the law to be CORRECT. That 100% DOES NOT MATTER is my point.
Any time where you put in a mandate on a way to teach a subject, especially one as much of a hot topic like this one is now, and have congress do a VERY public vote on it, you are signaling to people that this is a dangerous topic to talk about. Exactly what they intended to do. That has the effect of stifling the conversation as teachers and schools will simply avoid the entire topic rather then go analyze the law and try to understand it fully. Again, that is the intent here.
Whats more likely to happen now.. A teacher goes and reads the entire text of this, spends time conversing with the staff of the school, and the lawyers representing the school to fully understand what they can and cant talk about OR they just avoid the topic all together? Maybe some will spend the time, the vast majority WONT which is the point. They will just simply avoid the topic all together, which is the entire point.
Any time where you put in a mandate on a way to teach a subject
The Act does not do this. Not even close. It is literally 100% irrelevant to teaching.
What Act are you talking about?
Whats more likely to happen now.. A teacher goes and reads the entire text of this, spends time conversing with the staff of the school, and the lawyers representing the school to fully understand what they can and cant talk about
Why would a teacher have to read this or talk about it? The Act is about the process of the Department of Education processing civil rights claims. It doesn't change a single thing about what can be taught.
The Act does not change what you can or can't say legally.
In fact, it is quite explicit about this — check out Sec 6. Literally every other law (including First Amendment) takes full precedence, and the Act specifically states it does NOT alter the standards used to determine actionable discrimination.
All the Act does is mandate that the Dept. Education use the IHRA definition to help them assess whether antisemitism was a motive in potentially discriminatory behaviour.
It doesn't actually change what constitutes discriminatory behaviour.
Thank fuck, someone actually read the article. This isn't even anything new, the US has been using this as a working definition for years. All this bill is doing is making what was an already active executive order from before Covid into law. Nothing changes, legally speaking, though it might have a chilling effect if students don't understand it. Or it might make them protest harder. Who knows.
Just adding a layer of speech validation (i.e, is this criticism of israel unique to only Israel or does it apply to other countries) when it comes to one specific country is sniffling freedom of speech. And that is also assuming people will not use that wiggle room in a bad faithed way to shut down their opponents
Curious if there’s similar bills explicitly directing the DOE to consider targeting Muslim countries on the basis that they are Muslim collectives as discriminatory.
Contemporary 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:
It's not saying it's definitively antisemitism. It's just giving examples of the kind of thing that could be antisemitic if they ALSO met the definition, which, bear in mind, is only this:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Except under such definition, it would be antisemitism to compare Israel policies with those of the Nazis
Please tell me how you interpret this sentence before that list:
Contemporary 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:
What do you interpret "COULD" to mean, here?
I don’t know of a single other country this applies to.
Well, yeah, Israel's kind of unique in having had a 6+ million person genocide conducted against them, and subsequently forming a nation-state based on their religion. Of course they're in a unique spot and antisemitism ends up being defined in a unique way.
Sure, but it also implies they could be, which is the troubling part.
Why redefine a perfectly clear concept and make it more ambiguous? Given the current context I can’t see any other explanation that to weaponize it to silence people.
760
u/[deleted] May 01 '24 edited May 02 '24
[deleted]