Yosmin Badie, NYU Law Student and Antisemite

Let's recap what happened at NYU Law School recently. NYU Students for Justice in Palestine sent out an email in essence justifying Palestinians terrorists murdering Israeli civilians. In the course of doing so, the author of the email threw some antisemitic tropes regarding Jewish control of the media, including arguing that "framing is everything and the Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent" and referencing the "Islamophobic, Zionist-funded US and Western media." Several other NYU student groups chimed in to endorse the email.

Defenders of the email, as one would expect, argue that vehemently criticizing Israel and Zionism, even arguing that Palestinians have the right to murder Israel civilians to resist "occupation," is not antisemitic. However, as I noted in my original post on the matter, the lines noted in the above paragraph criticize neither Israel as a state nor Zionism as an ideology. Rather, they claim that "Zionists" fund and control the media. And as I noted, the most obvious form of antisemitism that tries to obscure itself behind antizionism is when one can substitute the word "Zionist" for the word "Jew," and one is left with an obvious, longstanding antisemitic trope, as with the NYU SJP email.

I can easily imagine a student or student organization signing on to the statement, not recognizing or noticing the obvious (at least to those with some knowledge of the history and practice of antisemitism) antisemitic implications of claiming that Zionists fund and control an Islamaphobic media. And I can easily imagine them regretting this language, even if they decline to publicly apologize for it or retract it. Indeed, I would think that even antisemitic students would regret the language in question, because it associates a cause they support with antisemitism, which simply isn't a good strategy, at least in the US.

More generally, when someone uses antisemitic language, I'm inclined to point it out, but not suggest that the individual himself or herself is antisemitic. Some people pick up antisemitic tropes unknowingly or negligently. Some use overly provocative language without really thinking of the implications.

I'd prefer that such individuals retract and/or apologize for their language. But even if they don't, I'm still hesitant to judge them more harshly than what I suggested in the previous paragraph. I'm also inclined to give the benefit of the doubt in general to people who are speaking (or tweeting) off the cuff.

But I draw the line at people who, once their antisemitic language has been pointed out to them, choose to double down on it. That includes NYU law student Yosmin Badie, previously best known for repeatedly tweeting "fuck Israel," along with the occasional "fuck Amerikkka." As reported by JTA:

Yosmin Badie, a member of NYU Law's Students for Justice in Palestine, said in a statement to the New York Jewish Week that the response to the [Student of Justice in Palestine's] emails was "shameful."

"The effort to silence those who choose to speak out against apartheid and violent occupation is shameful, and equally shameful is the purposeful conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism," Badie said.

"I will not be intimidated by those who wish to deny this right and will continue to unequivocally stand with Palestinians in their struggle," she said.

According to Ms. Badie, you see, not only was the email not antisemitic but only "antizionist" (please tell us, Ms. Badie, who these "Zionists" are who control and fund the media?), but pointing out and criticizing the underlying antisemitism is an attempt to silence her.

I'm not here to silence or "cancel" Ms. Badie. But I also don't see that Jews need to sit back and let antisemites like Ms. Badie hide behind "antizionism" while purporting to represent anti-racism and progressive values and not call them out for it. (And by the way, in case you are inclined to think that Ms. Badie must have been traumatized by her experiences as a Palestinian victim of Israel or whatever formulation people use to excuse Palestinian extremism, she identifies herself on Twitter as an "Iranian American" and has been affiliated with the National Iranian American Council, known for running interference in the US on behalf of the Iranian theocracy. Always interesting to find self-proclaimed "human rights activists" with origins in horrible dictatorships who focus their energy on Israel instead.)

So, Ms. Badie, you have a right to spew whatever antisemitic (and genocidal) rhetoric you wish. And I may point out that you are an antisemite. And, for what it's worth, the same applies to any of your classmates who continue to defend the email SJP sent out.

And while we are on the subject, readers should check out NYU law student Tal Fortgang's essay at Bari Weiss' substack, To the Antisemites Who Sit Next to Me in School.

UPDATE: If you thought that perhaps by now SJP at NYU Law would have second thoughts about using antisemitic tropes in its communications, and might acknowledge that it was a mistake to use such tropes, you would be wrong.

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

If she used NYU facilities or devices, shut down NYU Law. It is spewing indoctrination not providing education. That violates its promises to the IRS. Seize its assets in civil forfeiture for tax fraud.

They need to expel this Iranian agent. The Jews should visit the members of the Board of Trustees who allow this violation of tax law to continue.

[Michael P]

Civil rights law says that students can create a hostile educational environment, right? At what point does kind of behavior meet the legal standard for a hostile educational environment, in violation of anti-discrimination law?

[Don Nico]

I suspect that it already does once warned.

[Social Justice is neither]

Since she’s on the left and a member of a marginalized community I’d assume you couldn’t criticize her until the bombs go off and all of the current defenders of her actions suddenly recall they always knew she was a rightwinger.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Tal Fortgang, the ‘what are all the Blacks complaining about this time?‘ crusader on a Mission From Right-Wing God?

With friends like that, support for Israel’s right-wing belligerence might not have much of a future in modern America.

[Bored Lawyer]

As usual, deflection from you. The woman supports murdering Israeli civilians. Do you support that? Apparently you do.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

” That includes NYU law student Yosmin Badie, previously best known for repeatedly tweeting “fuck Israel,” ”

I have never heard of Yosmin Badie, but if Prof. Bernstein objects to someone repeatedly tweeting that phrase, he must be shocked by comments precipitated by a white, male blog with which he is familiar. Has Prof. Bernstein ever objected to a single violent threat against liberals launched by conservative commenters at this blog?

I don’t like the killing of civilians, whether those conducted by Israelis in the occupied territories or by those objecting to those killings. These dueling emails by NYU students seem to feature some students who embrace just half of that sentiment and other students who embrace just the other half.

[bevis the lumberjack]

He hasn’t, probably because there a violent threat against liberals launched at this blog, you fucking loon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The conservative commenters cultivated by the Conspirators at this blog have threatened violence repeatedly — to gas non-conservative judges; to come to my house and shoot me in the face as I open my front door; to place liberals face-down in landfills; to rape me; to send me to a Zyklon shower.

So far as I am aware, not one of those threats has been determined to conflict with this blog’s ostensible civility standard and removed from the archives, so if anyone knows how to search comments the threats should be relatively easy to find (Zyklon seems a relatively useful search term).

(Perhaps Prof. Bernstein has objected to one or more of those threats. It wouldn’t surprise me if he objected to them silently or actively. But I don’t recall it, which makes me wonder about outrage concerning a student’s nasty but nonviolent tweet.)

[David Welker]

Having observed you for a while, I notice the one thing that seems to set you off the most is hypocrisy. And I will go out on a limb and suggest that a lot of liberals (not just you) feel nearly visceral disgust at hypocrisy.

But the number one cause of hypocrisy is selfishness. People adopt contradictory views because doing so benefits their self-interest.

But humans have evolved to be selfish and self-interested. Look around you at society. If you don’t take care of yourself, no one is going to save you. We have tens of thousands (or more) homeless people wandering our streets as a testament to that fact.

Ultimately, the cause of hypocrisy, namely selfishness, is built into the human species as a necessary defense mechanism.

The other thing about hypocrisy is that it is logically inconsistent. But with respect to this point, I would say that it takes time for people to reconcile their views. People don’t even fully remember what they believed yesterday and the world is so complex that people are bound to have contradictory views. Some of this is going to manifest itself because many of our views are judgment calls. That is, the truth is complicated but when we formulate our beliefs with words, we are moving from a probabilistic and continuous world to a discrete world. Subtle differences in calculations will inevitably result in apparent contradiction when translated into discrete categorizations.

Anyway, hypocrisy is worth pointing out. As is any contradiction or other source of questionable thinking. But it probably isn’t worth getting that excited about. It ultimately comes from a motive that is universal among humans (selfishness) and people will generally attempt to correct the contradictions in their views with time if you point out those contradictions in a non-threatening way.

I am sorry that anyone said anything weird to you, by the way. That is gross. But I just wanted to address the issue of hypocrisy right now, because I feel like that is a bigger theme of yours that goes beyond this particular instance.

[Hank Ferrous]

You would be incorrect. RAK is a hypocrite, the instance comments being deleted was nearly a decade ago, it never points out that the same policy impacts other comments from other commenters. Pure drama, and you would be better of ignoring it.

[David Nieporent]

Shorter Kirkland: I agree with Yosmin Badie.

[ragebot]

How many times have we seen that Palestine agents never fail to fail.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So long as Israel has America’s political, cultural, and military skirts to operate behind, those agents have a tough hill to climb.

Perhaps, as the situation develops in America, we will observe how a less-rigged situation in the Middle East might develop.

[kkoshkin]

We already know how a “less-rigged situation in the Middle East might develop.” See Syria, Iran; see also Libya.

[kkoshkin]

I should add “see also Gaza.”

[Michael P]

And Iraq, Yemen, Egypt. Or Turkey for a more secular take on the same patterns of behavior.

[Krayt]

Some day a Palestinian proper state may be created. On that day, people worldwide will rejoice the creation of another Middle East kleptocracy-dictatorship.

Hooray!

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

the author of the email threw some antisemitic tropes regarding Jewish control of the media, including arguing that “framing is everything and the Zionist grip on the media is omnipresent”

Huh. I don’t remember that. Guess the J*ws blocked it again. Probably tomorrow I won’t remember this fake post either.

[Eric VonSalzen]

It ought to be accepted that one can be a critic of Israeli actions or policies without being anti-Semitic. It ought also to be accepted that SOME critics of Israeli actions or policies are anti-Semites. You can usually tell the difference by the rhetoric used. AN EXERCISE FOR THE READER: Go back over the comments on this post and ask yourself whether it is, or is not, anti-Semitic. Be particularly scrupulous in reviewing your own comments.

[Michael P]

That distinction is accepted, especially by the bloggers here. But the kind of people who go heavy for conspiracy theories involving “Zionist” control of broad western institutions tend to not make that distinction.

[SimonP]

I’m not here to silence or “cancel” Ms. Badie.

David, this is absolutely what you’re attempting to do here.

In your previous post on this subject, you called for employers to boycott law students from NYU who don’t sufficiently distance themselves from the original email. Apparently not content to leave it at that, you’ve taken it upon yourself to search through Badie’s internet history for other “incriminating” statements and vaguely-sourced associations that you can bring together in a single post that will, hopefully (in your view), be top-of-the-list when prospective employers happen to google her relatively unique name.

You are, in short, attempting to torpedo her legal career, and you are recklessly indifferent to the way that putting her on “blast” may lead to online or real-life harassment or threats. And, shamefully, you are doing so from the position of being employed by an employer that is unlikely to take any disciplinary action against you for it, despite your actions being extremely unprofessional for a member of the legal profession and an educator.

Hopefully, if any prospective employer does google her name and find this post, they will understand that you are a bad-faith, unprincipled blowhard whose indictment of Bodie is specious and misleading in the extreme. Hopefully they will understand that your initial description of the email as “antisemitic” was based on a couple of unfortunately-chosen tropes within a much lengthier critique of Israel policy, and that your smearing of Bodie is based solely on her failure to disavow of an email you have intentionally mischaracterized.

Put simply, law professors should not be attacking law students in a misguided, self-righteous attempt to torpedo their career chances. This post is shameful, and I hope everyone reading this post recognizes what it says about the kinds of standards that apply at GMU’s law school.

[David Bernstein]

And no, the email wasn’t mischaracterized at all, and all your deflection doesn’t change that.

Those are the only two factual claims you made, and they are both incorrect, the rest is a bunch of nonsense.

[Sarcastr0]

I find her pretty detestable, but this post cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to cancel her.

[David Nieporent]

Hopefully they will understand that your initial description of the email as “antisemitic” was based on a couple of unfortunately-chosen tropes within a much lengthier critique of Israel policy,

For the woke left, Jews are the only marginalized group not allowed to identify for themselves the hatred of their group. If you tell a black person that people saying “All lives matter” are not necessarily racist, SimonP will rush to call that whitesplaining. Ditto with respect to people who respond to discussions of police violence against blacks with “What about black on black crime?” Similarly If you tell a Hispanic person that being vehemently anti-immigration isn’t necessarily bigoted. But he and his ilk routinely feel both the need and the competence to explain to Jews that clear anti-semitism is actually just legitimate criticism of Israeli policy. And when the language is explicit, it’s just “unfortunate” (!)

[David Nieporent]

For the record: I don’t think any group — not Jews, blacks, hispanics, or anyone else — has some sort of monopoly on the right to define its enemies. I think a non-black person can say, “No, that’s not racism” and a non-Jew can say, “No, that’s not anti-semitism.” They should have a bit of intellectual humility about it, but outsiders are just as capable of thinking it through as insiders. What I’m commenting on is the inconsistent approach.

[David Bernstein]

“you called for employers to boycott law students from NYU who don’t sufficiently distance themselves from the original email.” No, I did not. I suggested that employers ask them if they believe “Zionists” fund and control the media. Having signed on to a statement that says just that, seems like an utterly fair question to me.

[SRG]

Any betting on whether the DEI lot at NYU act on any complaints of anti-Semitism?

[Ed Grinberg]

Maybe if there’re some serious injuries. But even then, I’d say it’s 50-50.

[SimonP]

You know full well what you’re doing, and it will hopefully be just as obvious to thoughtful people that should happen to come across this post. I realize you’re banking on many employers not understanding that you’re a hack. But you have every intention of making life difficult for Badie. Don’t pretend otherwise.

I hope that, when Badie herself comes across this post, she will read through the comments and see that there are people out there who won’t hold this google bomb against her. I hope she will grasp that the fascist commentators here who are eating this up as just more red meat are, for the most part, disaffected, middle-aged-to-retired white men who largely work outside the legal profession.

That you choose to double-down on obfuscation is not surprising.

[David Bernstein]

What you are really saying is that when people find out that Badie is an antisemite, they won’t want to hire her. Of course, it’s entirely possible that her career goals involve jobs where that won’t be a barrier and may be a bonus.

[David Bernstein]

Meanwhile, you are apparently fine with Badie calling her critics shameful, suggesting that people concerned with antisemitism are merely trying to “silence” her and other critics of Israel, and are conflating antizionism and antisemitism, despite critics specifically complaining about antisemitism that has nothing to do with criticism of Israel (like claiming “Zionists” control and fund an islamaphobic media.” I am one of those she is attacking, so apparently she is allowed to say all the nonsense she wants, and no one is allowed to rejoin with the obvious, that she is an antisemite.

[SimonP]

Meanwhile, you are apparently fine with Badie calling her critics shameful,…

I agree that you are acting shamefully in this case.

…suggesting that people concerned with antisemitism are merely trying to “silence” her and other critics of Israel, and are conflating antizionism and antisemitism,…

She is right to point out that people who try to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism more generally are doing so in order to make it easier to attack people who oppose Zionist ideology, in an attempt to smear and “silence” them.

…despite critics specifically complaining about antisemitism that has nothing to do with criticism of Israel (like claiming “Zionists” control and fund an islamaphobic media.”

You are treating her statement as though it’s a response to your strawman claims about the LSJP email.

Let’s be clear about this.

The NYU LSJP email described the ongoing conflict between Israel and various Palestinian factions in a way that might be charitably described as contentious. You, no doubt, would disagree with it in its entirety, as you have chosen to characterize it as “casually endorsing the murder of Israeli civilians” (which it does not), and I’m sure the NYU JLSA would disagree with it, as well. The LSJP email attempts to frame the conflict within a broader imperialist project, and attempts to explain why American perceptions of the conflict are so contrary to how the LSJP would portray it – by invoking these anti-Semitic tropes.

I agree that those tropes are essentially anti-Semitic, and I cannot find any reading of the LSJP email that defensibly connects a Zionist ideology with the purported media or political “control.” I also don’t think that the LSJP’s attempts to clarify what they actually meant with these tropes make sense, or avoid the problem. I agree that our media do not accurately cover the Israel-Palestine conflict or its history, and our politicians are too deferential to Israeli interests, but the reason for this, in my view, has to do with received institutional biases and dynamics that have nothing at all to do with “Zionist” ideology or a putative “Jewish control of the media and political establishment.” Corruption and ignorance have their own role to play here.

Now – a good-faith interlocutor and educator of law students might approach this as an opportunity to refresh on why these particular tropes, reframed as being merely about “Zionist control” or “Zionist propaganda” (as opposed to “Jewish” control or propaganda), are not really factual, and instead traffic in a kind of anti-Semitic sentiment that needs to be examined and excised. And one observing the dust-up at NYU over the use of these tropes might comment on the points being made on either side.

But that is not, rhetorically, what you are doing. While you have focused strategically on the tropes, it is clear that you intend to attack the LSJP’s framing of the conflict obliquely (hence, for example, describing it as “in essence justifying Palestinians terrorists murdering Israeli civilians”). Attacking the tropes and extrapolating from their use in order to characterize a broader critique of Israel or groups and individuals making them as “anti-Semitic” is precisely the kind of misleading conflation that Badie is responding to, in her own statement. And it is a conflation that you clearly understand to be misleading – as you have carefully tried to insist that it’s really just about the tropes, while engaging in this broader, more inflammatory rhetoric.

And so now, Badie has responded to the dust-up with her own incendiary comment, not defending the anti-Semitic tropes, but instead calling out the critics of the LSJP as trying to shut down a broader criticism of Israel with charges of “anti-Semitism.” That may or may not be accurate – it would not be an accurate description of what the JLSA’s response has been, based on the limited materials I have seen – but it would not be “anti-Semitic.”

So how do you justify calling her that? Well, you think it’s justified because she’s defending a group that issued an email that you’ve concluded is “anti-Semitic.” This is some kind of “degrees of separation” game, and moreover it’s one conducted solely based on your own personal framing of the facts in question. And it’s apparently motivated less by any particular objection to the tropes in question than it is your rejection of the broader argument the LSJP has made (i.e., among other things, that Israel is an “apartheid state,” which IIRC is another characterization of the conflict that you’ve described as false and anti-Semitic).

So you’re smearing Badie based on an inference from an inference from an inference. You’re trying to torpedo her career (your snide remark that her comments “may be a bonus” notwithstanding). It’s nasty business, and unbecoming of anyone in your position.

[David Bernstein]

“I agree that those tropes are essentially anti-Semitic, and I cannot find any reading of the LSJP email that defensibly connects a Zionist ideology with the purported media or political ‘control.'”

OK, let’s start from this. Ms. Badie was one of those who originally signed her name to the statement. You acknowledge that the statement included antisemitic tropes. If she wasn’t aware of that when she signed the statement, she was certainly aware of that when it was pointed out both within and without NYU Law. At that point, instead of apologizing for the antisemitic tropes–which, I should add, bear a strong resemblance to the tropes believed by the Islamist gunman who recently took a rabbi and congregants hostage–she attacked those who pointed out the antisemitism. Note that she could have apologized for the antisemitic tropes AND also added that this is distracting from the real point, how evil Israel is. But she did not.

And from that, we can’t conclude that she is antisemitic. It seems to me that the only other conclusion one can draw is that she isn’t actually antisemitic, but she is overtly willing to use and defend antisemitism to further her cause. If anything, this is worse, so I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt and just assert she is antisemitic. If you have a more charitable explanation of why she would use and endorse antisemitic tropes that these, please share.

[SimonP]

Endorsing the broader LSJP statement does not, in my view, entail endorsing each and every thing said within it. That’s just not how these “open letters” are generally understood to work.

So that’s your first fudge – you’re taking her initial signature as tantamount to having drafted the entire thing herself.

That having been “established,” you then assert that she ought to have “apologized” for the antisemitic tropes (and, one might surmise, more forcefully than the LSJP itself has). While I might agree that one properly characterized as having directly used antisemitic tropes might prudently try to distance oneself from those tropes, after the fact, in order to focus subsequent discussion on matters of import, I do not think it is valid to infer from a failure to do so as a further endorsement of those antisemitic tropes or justification of their use. That is a standard you are imposing.

So that’s your second fudge – you are taking her failure to distance herself sufficiently from an ascription you have imputed to her as endorsing the tropes themselves, which is not a valid inference.

In the alternative, you are suggesting that her failure to “apologize” for something she never said would have to be read, if not as antisemitism per se, then as using antisemitism instrumentally. Which is a false dichotomy, and a further fudge.

My more “charitable” reading begins with the fact that the LSJP email and Badie’s statement appear to be part of a broader discussion that we don’t know all of the details of.

I view Badie’s initial endorsement of the LSJP position as endorsing just its broader point – i.e., that Israel is an imperialist project within the context of which contemporary violence must be understood – and not an express endorsement of every single word included within it. But I also view the LSJP’s invocation of antisemitic tropes as an unfortunate reflection of their lack of sophistication and education in these matters, not a sincere affirmation of antisemitic beliefs, and not material to the point of the statement itself.

I think the JLSA’s objection to the use of these tropes is valid, and it would be appropriate for the LSJP to go further than it has in acknowledging that the tropes were essentially antisemitic. But I would view Badie’s own statement as likely responding to a broader discourse where the putative antisemitism of the tropes is being used to smear the LSJP and invalidate its broader argument. Accordingly, I believe that her decision not to specifically address the use of the tropes may reflect her belief that the focus on the tropes is being used rhetorically as a red herring by opponents to the LSJP to invalidate its broader claims. Thus, to even engage in a performative “apology” – as you demand – in itself concedes the validity of the red herring argument.

In a similar vein, and somewhat ironically, I would expect that she views your attempts to smear her here as just more of the same – an attempt to distract attention away from Israel’s actions in its conflict with the Palestinians by calling Palestinian advocates “antisemites,” as you explicitly and unapologetically do here.

[David Bernstein]

“it would be appropriate for the LSJP to go further than it has in acknowledging that the tropes were essentially antisemitic…” They could easily go further, b/c they haven’t done so at all.

“I also view the LSJP’s invocation of antisemitic tropes as an unfortunate reflection of their lack of sophistication and education in these matters,” That’s only a potentially valid excuse *before* it’s been explained, in detail, why they are antisemitic tropes. So it’s no longer an excuse.

“I view Badie’s initial endorsement of the LSJP position as endorsing just its broader point – i.e., that Israel is an imperialist project within the context of which contemporary violence must be understood – and not an express endorsement of every single word included within it.” She probably wrote it. But even if she didn’t, if you sign on to a statement without caveat, you are endorsing it, without caveat. And when you then defend the statement without caveat, you are endorsing it again, without even the plausible deniability that you are endorsing the entire thing.

[SimonP]

They could easily go further, b/c they haven’t done so at all.

The link to Jewish Week that you provided apparently indicates otherwise. They attribute the following quotation to the LSJP, apparently as a response to JLSA’s criticism: “Zionism does, in fact, intentionally and strategically use US and Western media as propaganda.” That statement is nowhere to be found in the email published by the Washington Free Beacon.

Like I said, this is a strange and not factual claim, and just traffics in the same conspiratorial nonsense that the original statements did. But it appears that there has been some movement on the LSJP’s end.

That’s only a potentially valid excuse *before* it’s been explained, in detail, why they are antisemitic tropes. So it’s no longer an excuse.

Sure. So if someone were to repeat those tropes, it wouldn’t be excusable on the same grounds. Has Badie done that?

She probably wrote it.

Evidence?

But even if she didn’t, if you sign on to a statement without caveat, you are endorsing it, without caveat. And when you then defend the statement without caveat, you are endorsing it again, without even the plausible deniability that you are endorsing the entire thing.

Since we are just making conclusory statements and self-serving assumptions, I might as well just respond here by saying that none of this is correct.

Co-signing an open letter can logically indicate, at best, only that the co-signer broadly agrees with the open letter as a whole. We can’t validly infer anything further about the co-signer’s intent, even if we might try to vest moral significance in the co-signing by describing it as “without caveat.” That is all your gobbledygook, specifically manufactured to reach your desired conclusion.

Similarly with this stuff about responding to criticism. All I see Badie saying in her statement is that the critics accusing the LSJP of engaging in “anti-Semitism” are themselves cynically engaged in bad faith. I don’t see her subsequent statement as saying anything like, “I acknowledge that the original LSJP statement included anti-Semitic tropes, and I specifically affirm them.” Again, your gobbledygook.

[David Bernstein]

I hope you are not a lawyer because trying the *I signed this filing but I don’t take responsibility for everything in it, and if my opponent points out something wrong with what I signed I’ll accuse him of bad faith* with a judge would have interesting and regrettable consequences.

[SimonP]

An open letter is not a court filing, David, as I think you recognize.

If I were to point out that the OP here and some of your responses to me would similarly have no place in a courtroom, what would your response be? Wouldn’t you say – and haven’t you in fact said – that this is an online blog, and not a courtroom?

[David Nieporent]

She is right to point out that people who try to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism more generally are doing so in order to make it easier to attack people who oppose Zionist ideology, in an attempt to smear and “silence” them.

That’s false; the people who try to conflate anti-Zionism with antisemitism are primarily anti-semites.

[zztop8970]

Badie is not the victim here.

[Ed Grinberg]

She sounds like a typical crybully.

[zztop8970]

Indeed, and has her apologists here in the comments

[Bill Falcon]

You have to wonder how this comes to America? Some immigrant groups leave the “old world” and its historical ethnic/religious issues and start as Americans. Besides maybe some Irish Americans in Boston who were a bit misguided, I can’t honestly think of any other immigrant group that constantly is pulling the US into ‘old world issues.” Not saying the issues in Israel/Palestine are not an absolute tragedy but honestly it’s time we left the place alone. One day perhaps they will realize they are all humans and learn to put the past behind them and live in peace. But honestly focus on America. If you want to change the world..you are free NYU students to go to Gaza or the West Bank and protest. No one is stopping you.

[Krayt]

We are currently supporting a struggling democracy in Europe fighting a dictator by heaving billions of dollars of equipment shy of tanks and planes into it.

[Mr. Hook]

“I’m not here to silence or ‘cancel’ Ms. Badie.”

I’m curious, then, what your point is in these two posts on the subject. Is it just therapeutic, venting your spleen? Because it seems a sensible conclusion that in highlighting Badie’s comments, you want there to be negative consequences for her words and views. It’s hard to believe that you’d publish these two posts without greater purpose.

Maybe you’re just saying you personally don’t want to “cancel” her, but you’d prefer others do so, if not now then in the future? If so, that’s pretty chickenshit—come out and say that you don’t want her to be employed. Seriously, if she’s an antisemite, why would you want her eventually practicing law? Sack up and own it if that’s what you believe.

[David Bernstein]

What’s the point? That an elite law school in 2022 there are individuals openly spewing antisemitism, and at least some, when called on it, double down? That seems newsworthy and comment-worthy to me. I didn’t mention any names the first time, for the reasons indicated. And I mentioned Badie’s name this time, also for the reason indicated. If you want to publicly express antisemitism, and indeed double-down on it and express your pride in continuing to do so, you should be publicly called out as an antisemite. Is there some reason she *shouldn’t* be? Why is the burden of persuasion on the person calling out antisemitism, rather than the person alleging that Jews control the media, and, more subtly, used the media not just to support Israel but to disrespect Islam? People believe this kind of thing and then commit violence. And I’m supposed to justify pointing it out? Nope.

[Mr. Hook]

Of course you should call it out when it appears. Duh. But saying you don’t want to cancel her—that you don’t want there to be consequence—for being antisemitic is chickenshit. Don’t pretend otherwise. She should own her words and so should you.

[David Bernstein]

Actually, what I ‘d like is for her to reflect on her antisemitic rhetoric, apologize, and not repeat her behavior.

[David Bernstein]

And not because of fear, but because she doesn’t really want to be hateful.

[Mr. Hook]

That’s admirable and something I entirely agree with. Perhaps something worth adding to clarify/buttress your claim that you don’t want to cancel her.

[SimonP]

David’s choice of title for this post clearly conveys his intent here. It’s a simple, clear, and defamatory statement that picks up her full name and law school. It’s currently the top Google hit for her name.

If she “apologizes,” do you suppose David would take this post down?

[Leo Marvin]

Defamatory? Do I have a distant, hazy recollection that you reside in the UK? I can’t speak to defamation law there, but it isn’t defamation in the US.

[SimonP]

I don’t live in the UK.

I’m also not going to get sidetracked like this is some 1L torts exam. The statement is defamatory. Whether it is actionable under applicable defamation law is irrelevant.

[Ed Grinberg]

The statement is defamatory.

To be defamatory, a statement must be false. In this case, it isn’t.

[Leo Marvin]

It may or may not be false. What it isn’t is a provably false statement of fact. It’s opinion.

[SimonP]

It is false. But Leo’s point was more likely that it is a non-actionable statement of opinion.

Either way, it’s irrelevant whether “defamation” is the precisely right term. My point, in the comment above, was that David is intentionally using his platform here to spread an easily-googleable smear about Badie, with an intention of undermining her career prospects.

To respond to this by saying, “Well, it may be true that he’s smearing her and intending to harm her employment prospects, but it isn’t technically ‘defamation’,” is to engage in a pointless nit-picking exercise, and I’m not going to entertain it further than to point it out.

Get lost.

[David Nieporent]

SimonP: This statement is X.
People smarter than SimonP: No, it’s not X.
SP: Yes it is.
PSTSP: No. Here’s why.
SP: It’s not important whether it’s X. You’re just trying to distract by talking about whether it’s X. Why are you responding to my statements by discussing whether they’re correct?

[SimonP]

David – feel free to suggest a better term. No one else has.

For what it’s worth, in response to the comments I’ve received, I’ve attempted to find some better term for describing a negative statement about a person’s character whose truth is open to dispute, that is not provably true or false, or is a statement of personal opinion. No near synonyms to “defamatory” that are truth-agnostic or applicable regardless of a statement’s truth appear to be apt. Not even Leo’s suggestion of the word “smear” properly escapes a falsity requirement, as some dictionaries do seem to indicate that a “smear” of a person’s character must be false.

I’m forced to conclude that my colloquial use of the term “defamatory” is, if not normative, at least sufficiently close to commonplace that I am not off my rocker here.

[David Nieporent]

Derogatory?

[SimonP]

Fine! Substitute “derogatory” for “defamatory,” then.

So the fuck what?

[Leo Marvin]

The statement is defamatory. Whether it is actionable under applicable defamation law is irrelevant.

“It may not be defamation legally, but it’s defamation anyway because… reasons” is an odd position to take on a legal blog.

[SimonP]

Trolls really hate it when I refuse to engage in some kind of digression on semantics.

What do you want, Leo? A fight over internet definitions? A patient explanation that legal terms have meanings that may differ from colloquial usage?

How would you describe a negative description of someone’s beliefs or character whose truth is open to dispute or that is a matter of subjective opinion? What’s the right term to use? Whatever it is, substitute it for my use of “defamatory” and be done with this pointless claptrap.

[Leo Marvin]

What would I call it? If I’d reached the same conclusions you have, I suppose I might call it a smear.

I take your point that whether it’s defamation isn’t central to your argument. But dude, this is a legal blog. You can’t seriously complain when someone points out that you’re asserting a legal falsehood.

[SimonP]

By the same token, VC’s being a legal blog, I tend to think that relevance matters more than semantics.

[Leo Marvin]

Correcting legal inaccuracies and misconceptions may be merely semantic in some contexts, but not here. It’s practically in the definition of legal blogging. Whether it matters more or less than relevance I can’t say. I don’t see them as being in competition.

[SimonP]

This is some kind of Inception-level of question begging. Get a life.

[santamonica811]

You’re posting on a legal blog. Using legal words correctly is not a sidetrack. A truthful statement is NOT DEFAMATORY. There are other potential issues (invasion of privacy, etc), but for you to whine about someone pointing out important legal distinctions is, well, odd.

How would you feel about someone calling OJ Simpson a killer? I mean, it’s a mean thing to say about someone. It’s designed (at least in part) to make other people view him less favorably. But, it’s also truthful.

Re ‘defamatory’ . . . To quote the inestimable Vizzini, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

[SimonP]

Why are you leaving this comment? Are you adding anything here that Leo hasn’t? Are you making a better argument than he is?

No?

Then buzz off.

[Ridgeway]

Why is it so hard for people to say, “You’re right, that was a poor choice of words”?

Come to think of it, if a certain someone had said that, and followed up with, “My point was that the media coverage of of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is routinely biased in favor of Israel”, this would be a big nothing-schwarma.

[David Bernstein]

The most plausible explanation of why they said it to begin with, and didn’t retract it in favor a formulation that would make a similar point without being antisemitic, is that they meant what they said, and said what they meant.

[Ridgeway]

No doubt. Like how BLM activists said they wanted to defund the police. Then their white liberal intermediaries said that what they had really meant was [insert pabulum about having a “dialogue” and refocusing certain law enforcement priorities]. This was followed by the BLM activists saying, no, they meant they wanted to defund the police when they said they wanted to defund the police.

But when you use code words like “Zionist” you should be aware that you are using the code words for a reason. I guess the “code” has become so ingrained with some on the Left that it is no longer a code, it is just a synonym.

[John Rohan]

So, Ms. Badie, you have a right to spew whatever antisemitic (and genocidal) rhetoric you wish.

Does she? It seems to violate a few provisions of the NYU student code of conduct:

https://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/university-student-conduct-policy.html

[Michael P]

She has the legal right to violate that code of conduct, at least in ways that are not otherwise criminal or tortious, and the school has a responsibility to respond based on her behavior.

[David Welker]

This labeling of people is X, Y, or Z based on their thoughts is not something I support.

The reason is that I believe people need to fully explore ideas in order to reach closer to the truth. One may go down a rabbit hole and even follow a stupid line of thought. And we all know that some people get “stuck” with certain ways of thinking that are wrong.

When we decide to label people as “racist” or “antisemitic” what we are really doing is labeling them as “bad people” as opposed to “good people.” And I think there is a self-protection motive here, because racist people or or antisemitic people who act on untrue belief systems can be dangerous.

I understand that certain thought patterns can cause some people to become physically dangerous and that the motive for labeling people “bad” is a sort of self-defense. But the problem is that I don’t think a person is “bad” just for having an incorrect thoughts or drawing an incorrect conclusions. I think people believe what they believe based on the data they have processed (i.e. their experiences and what others have told them) more than based on whether they are “bad” or “good.”

The counter-argument to my view is the fear that bad ideas will spread like wildfire, and people will resort to evils like genocide.

But I don’t really believe that bad ideas will spread like wildfire if we allow people to have bad ideas without (inaccurately, in my view) calling the person themselves bad. Ultimately, for most people, instead they can and will change their mind as they encounter better data than the data which caused them to hold the bad or incorrect belief.

Ultimately, the alternative belief is that we have to censor or shame people just for thinking whatever they think. But that is not an appeal to rational thinking. That is an appeal to fear and emotion. And once we go down this unprincipled route, censorship and shame can be used to promote bad ideas, not just good ones. The only really safe path to changing people’s minds is through rational and calm discussion. Emotional manipulation or social ostracism, no matter how well-intentioned, will ultimately be used for purposes far beyond the limited ones in which they were originally deployed.

Witness the rise of “cancel culture.” A person cannot even hold traditional views on gender or marriage without a good part of the population trying to condemn them as bad people and seeking to cancel them and economically destroy them. This approach is NOT going to lead to good outcomes but instead is more like a formula for civil war.

[Ed Grinberg]

…NYU law student Yosmin Badie, previously best known for repeatedly tweeting “fuck Israel,” along with the occasional “fuck Amerikkka.”

https://reason.com/volokh/2022/04/13/remarkable-outbreak-of-antisemitism-at-nyu-law-school/?comments=true#comment-9446485

[Steven Howard]

What Jew haters fear and despise is the ability of Jews to defend themselves against violence and destruction. All this vitriolic anger and frustration with Israel that manifests itself by non Jews and complicit Jews seeking acceptance by those who hate them comes out in rallies, comments, essays, tweets, by Jew haters like yosmin bodie. They should at least have the courage and honesty to use the word “Jew” instead of masking this hatred by using the word “Zionist.”