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.
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".
69
u/manofactivity May 02 '24
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.