The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Bizarre and Ultimately Dishonest Letter Opposing the Antisemitism Awareness Act
Over 800 Jewish professors inveigh against an enemy of their imagination.
A letter, currently with over 800 signatures, has been circulating among Jewish faculty to oppose the Antisemitism Awareness Act, in particular its codification of the use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a factor in determining anti-Jewish intent in Title VI cases. I wrote about the Act here, and explained that much of the opposition has been hysterical and counter-factual. If one had hoped an academic letter would be more reality-based, one would be disappointed.
The letter begins:
Criticism of the state of Israel, the Israeli government, policies of the Israeli government, or Zionist ideology is not – in and of itself – antisemitic.
We accordingly urge our political leaders to reject any effort to codify into federal law a definition of antisemitism that conflates antisemitism with criticism of the state of Israel.
This includes ongoing efforts to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which has been internationally criticized for conflating antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism, however, never says that criticism of Israel, etc., is "in an of itself" antisemitic. Indeed, it specifically says "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic." (my emphasis) The fact that it's been "internationally criticized" for doing what it does not do is irrelevant, especially because many of those critics want to protect antisemitic criticism of Israel from charges that it's antisemitic. (Relatedly, I just saw a letter signed by over half the faculty at a respected liberal arts college. The letter, among other things, referred to Israel and Zionism as "Jewish supremacist." David Duke may have invented, but certainly has been the leading popularizer of, the notion that Israel is "Jewish Supremacist." If you go back a few years, he was pretty much the only person of any prominence using that phrase. May I point out that when you are borrowing memes about Israel from David Duke, it might be tainted with antisemitism?)
The letter continues:
Whatever our differences, we oppose the IHRA's definition of antisemitism. If imported into federal law, the IHRA definition will delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans–among others–who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies. By stifling criticism of Israel, the IHRA definition hardens the dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel's government.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act codifies the IHRA definition of antisemitism with regard to a narrow set of evidentiary issues in Title VI civil rights cases. But note that the Education Department started using the definition on its own initiative in 2018. President Trump signed an executive order in 2019, still in effect, requiring all federal agencies charged with enforcing Title VI to consider the IHRA definition when making or enforcing relevant law and policy.
Not only have Jewish critics of Israel, indeed Jews who don't think Israel should exist, not been silenced, it seems like they never shut up. The latter group is a tiny fringe of the Jewish community, but they appear disproportionately in both mainstream and social media.
And speaking of the media, no one who has been paying attention to any sort of media over the last few months could possibly believe that criticism of Israel has been stifled.
As for the "dangerous notion that Jewish identity is inextricably linked to every decision of Israel's government," this is a ridiculous strawman. I have never met a Jew of any variety who believes this, nor one who is in agreement with every decision of Israel's government. Indeed, many of the most passionate pro-Israel Jews are also the most critical of Israeli government policy, whether from the right or from the left, because they care.
I expect very little from the academy these days, so I'm not surprised to see over 800 signatories on this (at best) hyperbolic letter. I am at least a little disappointed to see some prominent law professors on the list, given that they should at least be cognizant that (a) the Antisemitism Awareness Act would not change the legal status quo; and (b) the legal status quo has not led to any of the parade of horribles predicted in the letter. But maybe I should reduce my expectations of the legal academy, too.
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
What is the IHRA definition though? Presumably Israel is mentioned in some context outside of the criticized-like-any-other-country line (otherwise the line feels odd/just slipped in out of no where).
Interesting times we live in…..
You can find the definition here:
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
The US State Dept. already uses it, and the current bill would enact it into law for certain purposes.
Some of this is indeed First Amendment protected, so while it's a gross exaggeration to say it covers any criticism of Israel, some would be covered.
That said, labelling something anti-semitic is not a violation of the First Amendment, it's only a legal application that might. This is no different than other anti-discrimination law, that sometimes can cover First Amendment protected activity.
Calling for the return of slavery is First Amendment protected, but it's also racist. Could that create a hostile work environment (or hostile learning environment at a school or university)? Maybe.
Presumably Israel is mentioned in some context outside of the criticized-like-any-other-country line...
Yes, there's the one oddball example-within-an-example that I think causes all the problems.
Just get rid of that one wacky clause and it would be fine.
Is the existence of the State of Poland a racist endeavor? Germany? France? No? How come?!
Fucking (lying!) antisemite...
I….I…can’t tell if you are being sarcastic or not…..
Surprisingly, he's not.
"Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis."
This seems problematic to me. If I were to say a piece of contemporary US policy was reminiscent of colonial-Era England would I be un-American? It seems like a common rhetorical device to admonish any group by suggesting they are acting like past acknowledged enemies.
The real problem is the lack of free speech in academia and those who would be calling *you* a Nazi for saying this being silenced.
The solution is more speech and less bullies censoring people.
The ideal response to someone shouting "Kill the Jews" is to chant "Kill her Instead" but at what point does this become criminal threatening? And hence at what point does "Kill the Jews" become criminal threatening as well?
I'm also interested in whether Professor Bernstein offered a mea culpa regarding his denouncing of the Northwestern official. The official was present at a protest and said they were there worried about the safety of the student protestors, Bernstein mocked the idea of concern for safety. Yet UCLA suggests otherwise...
Misplaced
'If one had hoped an academic letter would be more reality-based, one would be disappointed.'
I dont thonk it isn't reality-based to notice that criticising Israel is being treated as anti-semitism by pro-war people, therefore anything related to anti-semitism introduced by these people is going to be used that way to silence and criminalise anti-war critics of Israel.
'The latter group is a tiny fringe of the Jewish community, but they appear disproportionately in both mainstream and social media.'
Speaking of not being reality-based.
'I have never met a Jew of any variety who believes this'
But you've heard of this Trump guy and his supporters, right?
Not only have Jewish critics of Israel, indeed Jews who don't think Israel should exist, not been silenced, it seems like they never shut up. The latter group is a tiny fringe of the Jewish community, but they appear disproportionately in both mainstream and social media.
Jews who think Israel should not exist? That's a pretty tiny straw man. It is not one with as much media salience as Bernstein insists.
Judging just from recent media pieces, unsystematically sampled, I'd say I have seen many, many critiques of Israel's Gaza war from Jews who passionately believe Israel should exist, but is hurting its chances in Gaza. Somehow mainstream media critiques from Jews who say Israel should not exist have escaped me entirely. Not saying they are not there. I know who Bernstein refers to.
But as for mainstream media reports about the Gaza war, not one such source has showed up in media I follow.
mainstream media critiques from Jews who say Israel should not exist have escaped me entirely.
Boy are you out of touch, Allow me to introduce you to Tony Judt https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/tony-judts-final-word-on-israel/245051/
The Christian Old Testament is a translation of the Jewish Talmud or Torah or something, complete with the same names and citations.
Why wouldn't a ban on antisemitism also protect Christians?
Just for info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2016/03/08/views-of-the-jewish-state-and-the-diaspora/pf_2016-03-08_israel-09-17-png/
Would it be antisemitic according to the IHRA definition to make a note of how 48% of Israeli Jews in a 2016 survey agreed with a statement that said that Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel? (Compared to 46% that disagreed)
No
I do hold Israel to higher standards. Israel is surrounded by horrible countries. I only support Israel because I do not want it transformed into a country like its neighbors. If that makes me anti-semitic, so be it.
Also, Israel touts itself as a democracy. Other democracies have a right to be upset that it's besmirching democracy. Similar bad behavior from totalitarian regimes like China, Russia, and Iran is as deplorable, but it isn't as upsetting -- or amenable to protest -- since they're non-western non-democracies. Israel is by far the most evil western democracy, it's not even close.