The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Not In Our Name": Tablet on the Antisemitism Awareness Act
A Jewish journal argues the problem is not the Act's definition of antisemitism, but the larger anti-speech bureaucratic edifice.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2023 by an overwhelming margin. Some critics of the law are concerned about its definition of what constitutes antisemitism. My co-blogger David Bernstein thinks such criticisms are overblown, while Eugene Volokh fears the definition could chill legitimate (and non-antisemitic) criticism of Israel.
The editors of Tablet have a slightly different take. They are not concerned about the act's definition of antisemitism, but are concerned about how this definition could be utilized within larger bureaucratic structures to suppress speech, both within universities and elsewhere. A taste:
Our objection, however—and it is an important one—is to the broader edifice of speech-policing of which this bill is a part. . . .
In a world in which people with minority opinions are increasingly subject to the full force of "the whole of government" or "the whole of society" being brought against them by a narrow group of powerful people, we have an existential interest as a people in supporting free speech and constitutional rights for others—on the historically sound principle that they will soon be coming for us.
There are those who argue that the old speech regime isn't coming back, and like any other group we have to optimize around the one that actually exists. It makes no sense for Jews, they say, to unilaterally disarm in a war that isn't ending anytime soon or probably ever, so we might as well ask for our own protections, demand our own diversity officers, start our own affinity clubs, and so on.
In addition to killing our souls, this direction also has the disadvantage of not actually working. The government can—and usually does—twist any new office or power it receives such that it permanently serves the opposite of its original purpose, and that these offices never, ever go away, turning your brilliant temporary solution into a source of permanent hostility. . . .
This means that we must reject all proposals, even from well-meaning sources, that seek to empower government to address the issue of speech on our behalf—like when New York Congressman Ritchie Torres introduced a bill that would allow the Department of Education to subject universities that receive federal funding to "third-party antisemitism monitors." Torres is a courageous and smart lawmaker, and no one here doubts that his heart is in the right place. But this is lunacy. No one should support it.
The essay also directs particularly pointed criticism at universities for "abandoning the principles of free inquiry" and "turn[ing] themselves into factories for conformity and increasingly bizarre, divisive, and hateful doctrines held by the loudest (and often smallest) factions of their faculty." This is particularly problematic because many universities themselves have abandoned any principled defense of free speech. As the authors note, this could be a reason to abandon universities. It is no reason to abandon free speech.
The essay ends:
The freedom and successes that Jews have enjoyed in America have been due to the protections afforded by our Constitution, and the respect for individual rights that became part of our culture. The most legitimate tax we owe—to each other, to our fellow citizens, and to those who fought for our right as Americans to say whatever the fuck we want—is the work we are asked to put in, day in and day out, to protect that freedom.
That's where our strength lies. Don't lose sight of it.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
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
Knowing what we know about who has the real power in this country, we’ll see the Department of Anti-Semitism with constitutional supremacy and no accountability, long before we’ll see that one racist nutjob’s Department of Anti-Racism with constitutional supremacy.
Morris Dees comes to instant mind.
These words ring true even thirty years later.
https://archive.md/mgil3
“The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” Andersen said in refusing to lift a ban he imposed last month.
“This is particularly problematic because many universities themselves have abandoned any principled defense of free speech.”
Unless you are talking about Wheaton, Regent, Liberty, Grove City, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, Ave Maria, and a hundred other conservative-controlled campuses, what the fuck are you talking about, and do you regard your lack of self-awareness as a problem?
The failure to address that point indicates partisan polemics rather than respectable argument.
Carry on, clingers.
An excellent essay with a message I fully support! Many of its observations (including that universities have become “factories for conformity and increasingly bizarre, divisive, and hateful doctrines held by the loudest (and often smallest) factions of their faculty”) are helpful, but the overall message is resounding: “Not in our name.”
The answer to the Jewish Blood Libel is to simply explain what it is and 99.9% of the population is going to say You Have Got To Be Kidding…
Same thing with Jewish Space Lasers — a laser hitting the moon is four miles wide — from space it wouldn’t be that spread out but still — even if it were possible to have a laser strong enough to light a forest fire, how would you find the electricity to power it?
Truth will prevail over falsehood in a free and open encounter.
No, 99% of the population would be going “Oh, that’s not really ‘libel’ if it’s true, now is it?”
We’ve seen how free speech has been criminalized in Canada and the UK. This is how it would start in the US.
from Prof. Bernstein’s National Review article:
[S]ome civil libertarians who should know better, such as Reason’s Robby Soave, express the more general concern that the law would criminalize “offensive speech.”
Let’s start with the easiest and most obvious corrective. This bill has nothing to do with criminal law, does not “ban” anything, and thus does not criminalize speech.
I am glad to see a Jewish magazine publish an opinion in favor of free speech, but most of the censorship in the USA today comes from Jews. Look at those who were banned from YouTube, Twitter, bank accounts, etc, and most of it is for criticizing the Jews.
This House bill is a good example. No other ethnic group gets such protection from criticism.
You are lying.
In fact, it’s quite the opposite: On college campuses today, Jews are the only minority whom you are allowed to “offend” with impunity.
As Prof. Bernstein put it in his National Review article:
It has recently become acceptable to accuse Israelis of war crimes. But otherwise, no criticism of Jews is allowed.
I see you are careful to say “minority”. White are criticized all the time, and much more than Jews.
When Jews come out in favor of free speech, let me know.
When a group of Jews have an opinion that doesn’t really align with the right’s efforts on their behalf, what you get from previously vociferous conservatives so eager to insult Democrats on behalf of the Jews? Silence.
Plus some antisemites on the right peeking out.
Kinda shows what’s actually going with a lot of the concern the right is evincing on this issue.
People (including many Jews) who object to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians seem to be good people.
People (including many Jews) who do not object to Israel’s treatment of Palestinians — especially those who embrace Netanyahu and his cabinet of bigots and terrorists — seem to be lousy people.
Whether they are Jewish doesn’t seem to be relevant.