The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Chemerinsky: "Anti-Semitism is not taken as seriously as other kinds of prejudice"
"A plainly anti-Semitic poster received just a handful of complaints from Jewish staff and students"
Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote an essay in The Atlantic about the protest at his home. The Dean provides more details on the facts leading up to, and during the protest. But the one paragraph towards the bottom is perhaps the most important:
Overall, though, this experience has been enormously sad. It made me realize how anti-Semitism is not taken as seriously as other kinds of prejudice. If a student group had put up posters that included a racist caricature of a Black dean or played on hateful tropes about Asian American or LGBTQ people, the school would have erupted—and understandably so. But a plainly anti-Semitic poster received just a handful of complaints from Jewish staff and students.
Chemerinsky is exactly right. The double standard is painful, but utterly unsurprising for anyone who has studied anti-semitism. And if silence is violence, there was a bloodbath in what was once Boalt Hall. The fact that only Jewish staff and students complained about the poster demonstrates the problems with the DEI industrial complex: only certain types of diversity are to be promoted. Jews with any attachment to the Jewish state need not apply. And forget ideological diversity.
In every generation, there is anti-semitism. 1619 was four centuries ago, but Jewish oppressions stretches back to the beginning of recorded history. Yet Jewish people will never fit into the DEI intersectional hierarchy. The aftermath of October 7 reveals that anti-semitism is always present; it just manifests in different forms.
In December I wrote:
Regrettably, as soon as Israel was established, the millennia-long train of anti-semitism simply morphed into its latest manifestation: anti-Zionism. They don't hate all Jews, they just oppose all Jews who seek to protect the the only speck on planet Earth devoted for their protection. This doctrine was dressed up in all the academic garb of Marxism, anti-colonialism, and critical racial studies. Anti-Zionism was championed by elite academics on campuses. DEI apparatchiks, ostensibly hired to promote equity, reified the anti-Zionist trope. Students, who are woefully unfamiliar with world history, see the children of the Holocaust as just another oppressor. And, as they are taught, any act of resistance against the oppressors is not only justified, but necessary. The right type of violence demands silence.
What lessons will Chemerinsky and other progressives draw from this experience? Will they reflect on how spending countless hours and dollars on DEI yielded nothing but crickets? Or will they realize that DEI enables and emboldens these students to engage in such antisemitic activity?
I'll admit that when conservative states started to clamp down on DEI, I thought it was mostly performative virtue signaling. But the events of the past few weeks have convinced me that these efforts are not just prudent, but may be necessary for the survival of higher education. I think a significant issue in the 2024 election should be how the Department of Education enforces Title VI.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's much more important to ask why the US DOJ is not enforcing US anti-genocide law. Genocide is a US federal capital crime without a statute of limitations, and the president is a probable perpetrator of this capital crime.
No one should take seriously a vacuous accusation of antisemitism from a racist Jew or a post-Judaism Zionist. Such an accusation is intended to distract from the ongoing genocide, which post-Judaism colonial settlers of the Zionist baby-killer state are perpetrating in stolen Palestine. Because such an accusation is also intended to facilitate the ongoing genocide, the accusation is genocide incitement and a US federal crime under 18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide
Explaining Antisemitism and Racism (I am really tired of vacuous accusations of antisemitism)
An example of racism is the treatment of blacks under Jim Crow. White racists hated and oppressed blacks. Blacks reciprocated with hate, but the black hatred cannot rationally be considered racism.
During the 19th century modernization caused the traditional Jewish economic niche gradually to vanish in Central and Eastern Europe. In response, in order to maintain incomes, Jewish business practices in finance (loan sharking) and in commerce (unfair dealing) became nastier. This changing economic behavior caused friction and tension.
The lower bourgeoisie and peasantry reacted with antisemitism (a genuinely new concept), but this antisemitism was not racism. It was the hatred of the exploited class for the exploiter class. When the exploited class reacted to exploitation with violence, Jews were often able to obtain protection from the state. Jews often responded to this antisemitism, which I call “traditional”, with hatred that probably qualifies to be called racism.
Traditional antisemitism was dwindling in the 19th century as the Jewish and gentile communities worked out issues of modernization. 19th century German or Austrian antisemitic parties were failures and vanished in the early 20th century.
The Nazis created a new antisemitism in the 1920s. This Nazi antisemitism combined remnant traditional antisemitism with fear and loathing of the Soviet Union, whose face seemed and was disproportionately Jewish. Few non-Jews realized how much the Jewish section of the Soviet Communist Party persecuted more traditional Jews like the members of my father’s family. (My mother’s family consisted of N. African Jewish Berbers and did not have to deal with the same sorts of issues of modernization until the family was tricked into emigration to the Zionist state, which I nowadays call the Zionist baby killer state.
Today neither traditional 19th century antisemitism nor Nazi antisemitism exists to any major extent.
We, who hate, scorn, and loathe the Zionist baby killer state, are just like my father’s generation that abominated the Nazi state because of its racism, because of its mass slaughter, because of its war crimes, and because of its genocide.
Gentiles, who worry about antisemitism today, are ethically challenged nitwits.
A group, which has been subjected to genocide at the hands of a first set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Nazis), can later themselves form a second set of genocide perpetrators (e.g., Zionists) just as evil as the first set of genocide perpetrators.
A Zionist is not a Jew. A Zionist is post-Judaism because Zionism murdered Judaism by transforming Judaism into a program of genocide.
Among undergraduate students at many colleges, Jews and anti-Zionists seem vastly to outnumber the Zionists, who cannot rationally be considered Jewish — even (or especially) those Zionists that have Jewish ancestry.
There is no middle ground on genocide, and a university must not ignore the the presence in its community of supporters of a genocide that Zionist colonial settlers perpetrate before our eyes in real-time as we watch on computer monitors.
US anti-genocide law is unforgiving. For example:
18 U.S. Code § 1091 – Genocide; and
18 U.S. Code § 2339A – Providing material support to terrorists.
The ICJ has already ruled that SA’s accusation is plausible, which alleges that the State of Israel perpetrates genocide. The ICJ ruling is like a magistrate’s report and recommendation.
The US federal definition of genocide and the international definition of genocide differ little.
Throughout the world experts in genocide law and in genocide studies call the actions of the State of Israel a textbook genocide.
The Zionist logic of mass murder genocide against Palestinians is exactly the same logic that Nazis used to justify mass murder genocide against Jews.
The Nazis always told us they were fighting Jewish Bolshevism. The Holocaust only started after Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) began.
To the Nazis, all the civilian deaths were collateral damage of the war against Jewish Bolshevik terrorism, and every Jew including a baby was either a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist or potentially a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist. The judges of the Nuremberg Tribunals laughed at this nonsense. The propaganda of Zionists and of supporters of the Zionist baby killer state is equally if not more ridiculous and just as evil.
On Dec 11, 1946, the international community banned genocide and made this ban jus cogens. No compromise is possible with a state that perpetrates genocide. Zionist genocide against Palestinians started in Dec 1947 and has never ended. The Zionist genocide against Palestinians will not have ended until Palestinians return to their homes, property, villages, and country. The State of Israel belongs to the same category to which a cannibal state belongs.
By maintaining ties with Zionist groups and individuals and by accepting contributions from a genocide-supporting Zionist, a university potentially exposes itself both civilly and also criminally. Somewhere between 33 and 50% of Americans believe that Israel is perpetrating genocide. The percentage is trending upward. A university should consult its legal department to determine whether any Zionist genocide-supporter should have membership in the university’s community.
Notice how Klanspeople and their ideological affiliates whip up prejudice against peoples they seek to target by presenting their history as one long story of terror and attrocity.
After all, it was the federal government’s utter refusal to enforce the genocide laws against the rampaging, raping, theiving, murderous, genocidal niggers that caused the Klan’s freedom fighters to have to turn to Judge Lynch to get any justice and end the illegal occupation in the first place.
After all, it was just as plain-as-the-eyes-on-your-face obvious to the Klan that genocide was the basic goal and method of the Yankees and the niggers as it is obvious to Jonathan Affleck that it’s the goal and method of the kikes. And on pretty similar evidence too. It’s true the niggers were less able to defend themselves than the kikes. But they too also sometimes tried. And every time they did, it was promptly labeled an act of mass attocity using rhetoric using rhetoric that would be very familiar to Jonathan Affleck’s, although truth be told the vocab was a little less high-falutin’.
Jonathan Afflrck’s Jews-are-genocidal rant is a good crib of the White Supremacist, niggers-are-killers rants of a century ago.
And for good reason. Jonathan Affleck knows perfectly well that one of Hamas’ goals, just like ISIS’ Al Kaida’s etc.’s, is to restore slavery in the area, along with the rest of Sharia law. After all, the other regimes did exactly that. Hamas seeks to do the same. He knows perfectly well they think Jews, the niggers of the Middle East, completely fair game to enslave.
The reason his rhetoric so closely resembles that of defeated American slaveholders whining about the unfairness of outsiders setting up their nigger slave stock to rule over them, bitterly complaining about the atrocities they’ve been subjected to, and moldering with lust for revenge, is because…His goals are pretty much the same as theirs.
ReaderY babbles Zionist propaganda that is probable genocide incitement, which is a US federal crime. By providing communications common carriage of a message in support of ongoing Zionist genocide Reason may violate the US federal statute, which criminalizes material support to perpetrators of genocide.
Josh Blackman and Erwin Chemerinsky can incoherently screech about DEI and antisemitism, but anyone with children in primary or secondary school knows exactly why college students are so vehemently protesting the Zionist state and the Gaza Holocaust.
The US Jewish community has worked hard to guarantee that US children study the Holocaust and genocide in every grade from 1st grade through 12th grade. The depraved and evil Jewish racists and post-Judaism Zionists among the US population believed that such study would immunize the Zionist baby-killer state against the accusation of genocide. Instead college students know a mass murder genocide when they see it.
Depraved and evil Zionists have been hoist upon their own petard. Genocide is a US and international capital crime without a statute of limitations.
Every Zionist on the planet must be transferred to a detention camp to await trial, almost certain conviction, sentence, and punishment for the crime of genocide.
In consequence, the world will become a better place.
Jonathan Affleck admits his long-term goal is to put all “Zionists” in “detention.”
Ahhh, the good old days, when John Calhoun persuaded Congress to make anti-slavery nigger-Zionist propaganda a federal crime. ‘Cause unless enslaved, and here Mr. Affleck all but admits this is exactly his goal, everybody knows niggers and Zionists commit atrocities.
The part about trials before the enslavement is bullshit.
Thanks for calling out the bullshit.
Another anti-DEI screed without a single piece of supporting evidence behind his partisan rant.
Jurist of the year, indeed.
Your turn:
Give us some evidence DEI has improved anything.
https://www.epscorideafoundation.org/success-stories
All I see is some money given away, money that was taken out of taxpayers pockets and put in others pockets by the government.
I don't see anything actually improved.
Scientific breakthroughs come from having a broad talent base to draw from.
Yes, that even means scientists from Alabama.
If you're going to call federally funded basic research a bad use of taxpayer money then the issue is your fundamental view of society, not DEI.
Again, lots of hidden assumptions and ipse dixit in your response.
Scientific breakthroughs come from peer reviewed research proposals, not from picking grant recipients based on skin color or sex or non-binary status, or what state they come from.
Truth is DEI makes things worse, not better:
"It shouldn’t be surprising that most diversity programs aren’t increasing diversity. Despite a few new bells and whistles, courtesy of big data, companies are basically doubling down on the same approaches they’ve used since the 1960s—which often make things worse, not better. Firms have long relied on diversity training to reduce bias on the job, hiring tests and performance ratings to limit it in recruitment and promotions, and grievance systems to give employees a way to challenge managers. Those tools are designed to preempt lawsuits by policing managers’ thoughts and actions. Yet laboratory studies show that this kind of force-feeding can activate bias rather than stamp it out. As social scientists have found, people often rebel against rules to assert their autonomy. Try to coerce me to do X, Y, or Z, and I’ll do the opposite just to prove that I’m my own person."
"Things don’t get better when firms put in formal grievance systems; they get worse. Our quantitative analyses show that the managerial ranks of white women and all minority groups except Hispanic men decline—by 3% to 11%—in the five years after companies adopt them."
https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail
So long as you think federally funded science is worthwhile, we can talk.
Science is done by people, not by a peer review panel. That means the proposals and the setup - all the innovation comes from people.
If you don't do the work to expand the number and type of the people who are proposing stuff, you are leaving ideas on the ground. Heterodox ideas - the type that create leapfrogging insights.
Don't do outreach and engagements of nontraditional groups, and you'll do science alright - incremental, plodding science. Yay your meritocracy is pure, it's just not actually resulting in merit rising to the surface.
You know what's a DEI initiative? Proposers' guides. So people who aren't experienced with the specific stuff a peer review panel likes to see are forewarned and can submit competitive proposals even if their grad advisor or whatever didn't engage with this or that agency.
Seems like a good way, easy, and fair way to expand the talent pool to me.
You link to *a pro DEI article* hahaha.
You quote a bit where it discusses at the top what DEI interventions work and what don't. Your quote is about trainings. I agree with the opinion! Even if it does handwave 'lots of studies.'
But Did you read the rest of the article? The vast majority is about how DEI DOES work!
"Five years after a company implements a college recruitment program targeting female employees, the share of white women, Black women, Hispanic women, and Asian American women in its management rises by about 10%, on average. A program focused on minority recruitment increases the proportion of Black male managers by 8% and Black female managers by 9%."
"Mentoring programs make companies’ managerial echelons significantly more diverse: On average they boost the representation of Black, Hispanic, and Asian American women, and Hispanic and Asian American men, by 9% to 24%. In industries where plenty of college-educated nonmanagers are eligible to move up, like chemicals and electronics, mentoring programs also increase the ranks of white women and Black men by 10% or more."
"[A] third tactic, encouraging social accountability, plays on our need to look good in the eyes of those around us. It is nicely illustrated by an experiment conducted in Israel. Teachers in training graded identical compositions attributed to Jewish students with Ashkenazic names (European heritage) or with Sephardic names (African or Asian heritage). Sephardic students typically come from poorer families and do worse in school. On average, the teacher trainees gave the Ashkenazic essays Bs and the Sephardic essays Ds. The difference evaporated, however, when trainees were told that they would discuss their grades with peers. The idea that they might have to explain their decisions led them to judge the work by its quality."
That is mighty weak tea that has little to do with DEI.
Epscore is absolutely a DEI program.
Epscore is a NSF program. Your describing it as a DEI program is hardly consistent with the description on NSF's site.
That program had nothing to do with Commerce awarding Global Foundries a $1.4B contract. Your narrative seems dishonest.
Epscore is not just NSF (https://www.epscorideafoundation.org/about/agencies)
It is a program to build capacity and engagement in states underserved by federal research spending. That's center-mass DEI.
How do these right-wingers square their hatred toward DEI with their embrace of Heterodox Academy and affirmative action for conservatives?
By being devoid of self-awareness and judgment.
Seems?
You're arguing with the Kool-Aid mixer, not merely a kool-aid drinker.
The second story there, about XLerateHealth, is about nine white people, seven of them men, being recognized. (At least, Dr. Sraj's profile picture at WVU makes him look Caucasian.) That's a DEI success story to you?
DEI isn’t just about race. Don’t be ignorant.
Or rather you show what anti DEI is about and it’s not DEI.
That's strong motte-and-bailey energy there, chief.
I linked to a DEI program. You're like 'where's the blacks??'
You're telling on yourself, chief.
The org behind the "success story" I mentioned describes itself thus:
Where do you get DEI out of that? Or was a DEI program stealing credit from something else? Where did DEI come into the first "success story", except that it jammed together a description of a new foundry with a quote from somebody associated with the org you linked to? Hell, the entire org you linked to is just a bunch of states and territories working together to suck at the federal teat.
So calling it motte-and-bailey was too generous: the argument is actually that all these great things that don't claim association with DEI are really DEI! But things that DEI advocates say and do aren't really DEI!
You should probably educate yourself on what EPSCoR is.
XLerator is funded by money that can only go to underserved states. Specifically, it builds capacity in KY, WV, SC, AR, MS, LA and Puerto Rico.
Location is a demographic DEI speaks to.
Your pinched understanding, again, tells on yourself.
That's a lot of words to admit that they don't claim to be about DEI.
You still insist DEI has gotta be about race and gender only.
You have any source other than your own ass for that limit?
Whatever the fuck that's supposed to mean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
You could look it up yourself, but I guess you prefer to get schooled.
I know what it means. I don’t know what you’re trying to make it mean.
Then again misuing terms for logical fallacies is practically a signature move of some of the right-wing commenters here.
Gaslight0's bailey is the full DEI program of reverse racism and misandry. His motte is that trying to get more federal tax money for R&D in Hawaii, Maine, Puerto Rico, and 24 other states and territories is "center-mass DEI" because it's about where people live.
I mean, it's only motte if you believe the deranged racist shit you people believe about DEI, but I suppose in those terms it's a correct usage! Congratulations!
Wow, you owned yourself on multiple points there. Congratulations!
You’re very angry people are dunking on you because you insist DEI is about race and women and refuse to learn otherwise. When I point it it is different, you use a fallacy wrong.
Because racial grievance is all you really want. Same as anti-woke, and anti-CRT, and anti-multiculturalism. The actual substance of the thing isn’t something you care to actually learn about; you will rewrite the material so you can yell about white oppression.
Why are you so committed to racial stuff? I won’t speculate, but you are telling on yourself over and over and don’t even realize it.
Okay, now you don't know what 'owned' means, despite experiencing it several times a day.
"the one paragraph towards the bottom"
The article is paywalled for me, so I can only see a few paragraphs at the top.
Full article here.
Thanks! I had the same problem as the Margrave.
Compare that with anti-Catholic prejudice.
As one random example, West Virginia University President Gordon Gee and former men's basketball coach Bob Huggins would have been fired if you replace "Catholic" with any other religious group or other classification.
You're correct. It is okay to discriminate against Catholics
Whew, that's a relief! I've been doing it for years.
Oh look, someone found out there is a bottom to the victim stack, and it's not so nice to be there.
There's nothing 'Diverse', nor 'Inclusive' about DEI. As for 'Equity'; that's a moronic concept for anyone that has gotten past second grade.
As for ‘Equity’; that’s a moronic concept for anyone that has gotten past second grade.
WTF?
Treating people equitably is a "moronic concept?" Strange thinking.
Treating people equally at least has a fairly clear meaning. Treating people "equitably" means deliberately treating them unequally, in order to achieve an "equitable" result (which could mean anything).
Yes, I'd have to agree that a high concept which boils down to "whatever I want" is fairly moronic, as a concept.
This assumes that the existing method of treating people is a level playing field and/or selects optimal people.
While some of the rationale behind DEI is long-term equality by giving unequal opportunities, there is no small amount of dealing with unseen assumptions in the current meritocracy. (e.g. proposer's guides for grants so everyone knows how an application should look beyond just the bare requirements)
Antisemitism.
Yada Yada
DEI is evil.
DEI is what Blackman is asking for, if he weren't so ignorant about what he's demonizing.
Anyhow, this is sure to lead Blackman into some great places.
Local Jew-hater is dramatically dismissive of antisemitism discussion, film at 11. “Damned Jews always going on about hate, don’t murder our babies, don’t protest our existence, yadda yadda, boring stuff."
The Jew-hater then rolled his eyes and sighed. “Why would anyone even care? Yadda yadda is all I hear. I mean, they’re just Jews.”
Blackman's wrong, so you decided to join him. Blackman isn't asking for DEI. He's asking for antisemitism to be taken seriously, and then shoehorning a racist rant about DEI into that.
Antisemitism should be taken seriously.
Just look at the amount of antisemitism this right-wing blog publishes (along with plenty of racism, Islamophobia, misogyny, transphobia, superstitious gay-bashing, xenophobia, etc. etc. etc.)
Antisemitism should be taken seriously? So why don't you take it seriously instead of refusing to admit it exists even when people are outright calling for the murder of Jews?
I have never refused to admit antisemitism exists.
During my childhood, Jews were rarely given enough respect to be called Jews. That bigotry -- a large part of the reason I left that uneducated, downscale world -- persists, although to greatly diminished degree thanks to a half-century of American progress.
I would offer every Israeli (even the right-wing assholes) the opportunity to emigrate to the United States and avoid the consequences of Israel’s conduct. That’s how much I hate Jews. I want to invite them to join me in America.
Open wider, bigoted clingers.
It is not taken seriously because it is not serious. Jews are in many positions of power and can take care of themselves. It is not as big of a practical problem, though of course most everyone will object to it in the abstract.
I have to say, that even though I was initially alarmed by the sensational reports about rising antisemitism, I have found the actual evidence quite lacking. I would not defend or make excuse for isolated cases actual antisemitism, but many of the widely reported and discussed incidents have been either grossly exaggerated and/or downright fabricated. Crying wolves and all that.
Amen. As a comment above notes "I am really tired of vacuous accusations of antisemitism."
Calling an Israeli murderer a murderer is not anti-Semitic. Our own government has determined that Israelis committed more than 21,000 acts of murder -- and I find no reason to prefer euphemisms ("freedom fighters," "Zionists," "the faithful," etc.) when describing outright murder.
The rest of us know you are lying. You should either give up or make better arguments.
Anti-semite lies about Jews, and then pretends that he's not anti-semitic.
To be precise, he “merely” asserted his behavior is not antisemitic just before showing he clearly is antisemitic. He wasn't even pretending to be anything else.
Are you saying that what happened to Prof. Chemerinsky is an example of a "vacuous accusation of antisemitism?" If so you are either an antisemite or an idiot.
Por que no los dos?
Defending antisemitism with overt antisemitism. No need for further comment.
Not taken as seriously? Really?
Imagine if someone was opposed to the internal political policies of a country in Europe or Asia, based on a political or legal disagreement with the formal structure of those policies, and there was an organized lobby in the US that accused that person of categorical racism -- because those policies were generally viewed with favor by an identifiable group in the US. Would that ever be a thing except for this one group and this one issue? Would anyone ever suggest that your advocacy for minority immigration rights in Belgium or Norway was "racist" or "genocidal" because you had the audacity to oppose the ethno-supremacy regime trying to keep those groups down?
This whole paradigm is Kafkaesque.
Hmmm... extending the parallel: would any group advocating the killing of all those advocating minority immigration rights in Belgium or Norway (and the complete destruction of all their real and personal property) be considered credible?
Does DEI somehow mandate an exemption for murderers who believe themselves to be murdering in the "name of the Lord"? Do rules against so-called "anti-Semitism" create a state-sponsored religion disfavoring those who do not subscribe to the "Semitic" value system?
You seem to find lots of reasons for hating Jews.
Your attempted analogy is totally incoherent. Can you elaborate on what "minority immigration rights in Belgium or Norway" is supposed to be analogous to? What "ethno-supremacy regime" do you think exists in Belgium or Norway or Israel?
Have you recently told anyone to "go back to Poland"?
Oh look, more overtly antisemitic nonsense - this time a full-blown Nazi conspiracy theory.
Hey, look . . . the Volokh Conspiracy's white, male, right-wing law professors and their conservative fans have finally found some bigotry they do not ardently embrace!
Well, at least so long as they figure taking this position will enable them to snipe at their betters for a while. They figure this will divert some attention from their racial slurs, superstition gay-bashing, bigoted hatred of immigrants, old-timey misogyny, Islamophobia, white nationalism, transphobia, etc. for at least a little while.
The irony is that it's the one kind of bigotry you do embrace. Why? Because it's socially acceptable to hate Jews.
No one screams louder about bigotry than the bigot who sees his chance to play offense for one time in his pathetic, deplorable life.
Carry on, clinger. So far as your betters permit. It's all you deserve and all you will get.
Have you been drinking? I have never disagreed with you about anything except your refusal to admit antisemitism is real.
I wonder what Dean Chemerinsky thinks of an "academic," "legal," "often libertarian" blog -- a white, male conservative blog -- that publishes vile racial slurs habitually, once a week or more often?
Or of a blog that never gets through a day without bigoted comments and slurs concerning gays, Muslims, transgender people, women, Blacks, Palestinians, immigrants, and other target groups of white, male conservatives?
Or a blog that regularly features calls for liberals to be gassed, placed face-down in landfills, dropped from helicopters, raped, pushed through woodchippers, sent to Zyklon showers, shot in the face when opening doors, exterminated, and lined up and shot?
Or a blog steeped in right-wing bigotry and calls for violence against liberals that censors liberals and libertarians when they use terms such as p_ssy, c_p succ_or, and sl_ck-jaw_ed to describe conservatives?
I doubt Dean Chemerinsky wants to be associated with the Volokh Conspiracy any more than Georgetown, UCLA (not for long), Georgetown, Northwestern, Berkeley, Harvard, Emory, and Chicago want their names stained by association with this blog.
It says a lot that you can't bring yourself to include Jews in your list of targets for racist slurs from contributors to these comments, despite the actual unashamed Nazis here who regularly call for a new attempt at the Final Solution. (Let's leave aside for a moment those who pretend they aren't antisemitic.)
Thereby proving that even a nebbish like Blackman can be right about antisemitism, even while talking racist nonsense about DEI, or whatever other far-right talking point he's been led to believe.
I decry this blog's antisemitism daily, dumbass.
Your right-wing bigotry has rotted your brain. But that's no problem replacement won't solve.
Whut? We discussed it recently, and you said you had seen no evidence of any antisemitism.
I'm not right wing at all. I spend all my time here laughing at the various different flavours of Nazis fighting each other, and pointing out where they're saying far right nonsense.
Your response says a lot about how right I actually am about your blind spot.
Antisemitism was one of the forms of bigotry I observed every day until the day I graduated from high school. I have seen evidence of antisemitism throughout my life.
Pretty sure Chemerinsky would not like how you're invoking his name in service of rewarmed 'woke mind virus' nonsense.
Amen.
Ya think?
Maybe it would be best to actually look at common ground people can, and should, agree on. Like ... anti-Semitism is bad. Whether it's on the left or the right.
And that the issues involving Israel (and the lack of memory of those people about the past, given that for them they only know Israel in its current incarnation with, um, its current leadership) which may have some validity are far too easily turned into, and become, anti-Semitism, either knowingly or unknowingly.
A long time ago I commented on one of DB's post and said that I found it worrying that there was increased partisanship over Israel, and that the government of Israel (aka, you know who) was openly allying with the GOP. Because it had always been a bi-partisan issue. And you definitely didn't want it to become partisan; after all, there is an uncomfortable segment of anti-Semitism that is always present on the right, while the left has generally been better at policing that.
Anyway, there's a lot of complicated issues in there. My only real thoughts are:
1. Anti-Semitism should be removed, root and branch. But unfortunately, it seems like it will always rear its ugly head. History repeating and all that.
2. It should be possible to criticize Israel as a county without delving into anti-Semitism, but it's far too easy for anti-Semites to exploit and conflate this issue.
3. College students, generally, are dumb and think they know a lot more than they do. Bless their cotton socks.
4. This isn't a product of DEI, and it's bizarre and shameful for JB to use this as a launching pad. I do have serious concerns about the erosion of free speech norms among the young and on the parts of the left, but that requires serious conversations, not partisan pwnage.
Yeah none of that is very controversial except in the Internet.
People rarely have to straight-up argue very much about anti-semitism being bad. There tends to be widespread acceptance that it exists, and that it is bad. The subject of Israel is the glaring exception obviously, so most debtate about anti-semitism os focused on whether critics of Israel are anti-semitic.
You don’t get that with other forms of prejudice. Massive right-wing pushback denies or minimises or lies about racism, homophobia, transphobia and misogyny. These are all mocked, derided, ridiculed, dismissed. Nobody’s been doing that about anti-semitism, mainly because the mainstream right likes Israel so much because that’s where the Final Battle will be, and are happy to accuse critics of being anti-semitic (some of them even are anti-semitic.) Never mind the Nazis hanging round the fringes, and turning up at CPAC.
So the people who fight back aganst all the other reactionary crap, rarely have to do so over anti-semitism, exeept that they also often criticise Israel and get accused of being anti-semitic, often by the same people minimising other forms of prejudice. This is not because it’s not taken seriously, it’s just not being besieged by right-wing culture warriors. If anyting it's been appropriated. On the other hand something the right refuses to take seriously or even acknowledge: the Nazis hanging round CPAC.
QANON, like most other conspiracy theories, will sooner or later, if it hasn’t already, lead its adherents to anti-semitism. It’s entire premise is a carbon copy of the Protocols with the numbers filed off. Lizard people, Great Replacement, antivaxxism, people who dig into these things sooner or later find the anti-semitism either at the core or at the end of the trail. Umberto Eco warned about this in Foucault’s Pendulum.
You don't read many of the comments here, do you? There are lots of people who argue for antisemitism by using many of the old (and tired, long-refuted, never-reasonable) arguments. I don't think the narrow-sense blood libel has been invoked in the comments here, but it's still used in the broader world, and it's astonishingly common for people to claim (for example) that they're not really antisemitic and then turn around to say something like "Zionists, they don't deserve to live comfortably, let alone, Zionists don't deserve to live".
‘There are lots of people who argue for antisemitism by using many of the old (and tired, long-refuted, never-reasonable) arguments.’
Yeah, and nobody argues over ‘what they really meant’ when they do or mock people as snowflakes and PC police if they object. As for being mean about zionism, it very much depends on the person saying it. Quite a lot of anti-semites were and are pretty keen on zionism for whatever twisted reasons. Anything you say pro- or anti- about Israel and zionism is something that could also be said by an anti-semite, which isn't the same as those things being anti-semitic. THAT'S where it's debated seriously and bitterly, that intesection of politics and ideology.
The big antisemites, as in 'The Jews control everything and should their death is good' types are largely right-wing: mydisplayname, Affleck, WhitePride, Roger S, Sam Bankman-Fried, Balisane, Aunt Teefa.
One lefty (maybe RAK? I haven't read a comment of his in years),
2 pure trolls
The rest full MAGA.
So really it's you who don't read the comments. Or rather look away.
You're not even trying to be serious. I have several of those people on mute -- are they the ones saying "The Jews control everything and should their death is good", or is that another of your numerous straw men? And you think Aunt Teefa is a right winger?
One lefty and maybe RAK. That was ambiguous, I’ll give you that,
But your ‘I have muted these people, and thus must assume you are lying’ is hilarious.
No, I generally assume you're lying because you usually are. I note that, as usual, you didn't even try to link to a comment that supported what you put in quotes.
Yeah you don’t need me to link to those people being antisemitic, lol.
Maybe you have brain damage but it looks a lot more like bad faith.
If you are just going to piss on my leg and tell me it’s raining what’s the point. I’m just not going to see you for a bit. Stick with other idiots who at least out in some effort.
In the meantime maybe you should learn what DEI means lest you look like an idiot.
Your words were difficult to follow, but if you are accusing me of antisemitism you either oddly mistaken or a liar.
Most of the antisemitism at this blog, like most of the other multihued bigotry presented at this blog every day, is light on argument or reasoning.
Mostly, it's just casual slurs, an assumed shared intolerance toward a disfavored group (transgender people, Blacks, gays, Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, women, immigrants, etc.), or an incoherent rants that does not reach the level of argument or reasoning.
"People rarely have to straight-up argue very much about anti-semitism being bad."
But you do. Nuff said.
I do… in your head. I bet you win all the debates with the anti-semites in your head, because they have the good manners to actually say what you want them to say instead of you having to constantly say it for them.
Josh Blackman -- who operates a white, male, bigot-hugging, conservative blog with a group of fellow wingnuts for a target audience of Republican bigots -- sees plenty of longstanding lefty antisemitism but doesn't mention right-wing antisemitism.
Very fine people, indeed.
Carry on, clingers.
Jews, to their credit, are pervasive in the seats of power, in academia, in the legal profession, and in the media. They are people with power. At least in this country anti-semitism is no more dangerous to Jewish existence than anti-white prejudice is a danger to white existence.
"Jews, to their credit, are pervasive in the seats of power, in academia, in the legal profession, and in the media. They are people with power."
Now where have I heard that before?
You can take that as a true statement (which it is). It is not an insinuation that their influence is nefarious.
In fact I’m very glad for Jewish influence. They have been pro civil rights, pro feminism, pro gay rights. I don’t want their influence to decrease.
It was also true in 1930's Europe. Being a minority with power can come to a screeching halt if the lesser angels of the majority aren't kept in check.
'Look at these few people with lots of money and power' is exactly what the anti-semites were preaching then.
Not how I’d phrase it, but come on.
Europe in the 1930s did not do the ‘to their credit’ bit. Not even as pretext.
Look at these few people with lots of money and power is something antisemites say. But if you're going to condemn it entirely, bear in mind that It is also a huge plank in the GOP populist conspiracy/bullshit engine.
"Europe in the 1930s did not do the ‘to their credit’ bit."
Indeed. I thought about excising that when I quoted it to avoid the distraction from my point, which is: whether captcrisis likes Jews or not[1], being a small minority with money and power doesn't reduce your risk; if anything that extra power and money makes you a juicier target for demagogues.
[1]and I believe he does!
Money is indeed a double edged sword when you are in an outgroup, agreed.
Let me add, that there is no prouder nationality than Jewish. Think of the smallness of their numbers, contrasted with what they have contributed to the human race.
Who can think of the 20th century without Freud and Einstein, who gave us a window into the inner mind and outer universe?
As others have pointed out above, having wealth and power is not always sufficient to protect you from the mob, once it gets going.
I suppose, therefore, it ought to be comforting to Jews that the mob-stirring elements in the US right now seem to have taken on defense of Israel (and, by extrapolation, foreign Jews) as part of their own cause, which could very well prevent Holocaust 2.0.
At least until they decide to focus the mob on the disproportionately rich and powerful Jews in the US. Who knows when or if that change might occur? But if the Nat-C/MAGA-right seizes power again, it probably won't take them very long to figure out who's leading the opposition: the disproportionately rich and powerful Jews in the US.
Soros, the Great Replacement, the biblical Final Battle, all undercurrents around the sudden concern for anti-semitism on the right.