The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Downplaying Antisemitism at Columbia
The Trump Administration has announced that it's suspending $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University in response to Columbia's failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination as required by federal law. I think Columbia richly deserves this, but I don't know whether this is lawful, or whether federal law requires hoops to be jumped through before such sanctions can be levied.
In this post, though, I want to respond to some of the left who have seen denying that Columbia has an antisemitism problem to begin with, despite my pointing to a report from the antisemitism task force at Columbia which, after it authors interviewed hundreds of Jewish Columbia students, found that antisemitism was "severe and pervasive."
It's remarkable the extent to which people on the left will wax eloquent about the lived experiences of this or that group, and how we should never question their interpretation of such experiences, but somehow when hundreds of Jewish students at Columbia report experiencing an intensely hostile environment, so much so that some left the dorms to live at home, some transferred, etc., suddenly the same folks will be not just skeptical, but entirely dismissive.
It's also remarkable the extent to which some folks on the left will insist that we understand current controversies over racism, sexism, Islamaphobia, homophobia, and so forth in light of the history of those isms and phobias, and be sensitive to the fact that we aren't starting afresh as if these isms and phobias were not strongly embedded in societal consciousness.
Meanwhile, we are supposed to interpret students openly supporting a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group on college campuses as if it's a natural reaction to Israel's (nonexistent) "genocide" in Gaza, without noting the long history of state-sponsored and popular antisemitism in countries from which many of the protestors originate, without noting the fact that the far left was successfully propagandized with Soviet antisemitism for decades, and without noticing the long tail of Nazi-style conspiratorial antisemitism that is reflected in much of the rhetoric one sees on campus.
In short, when it comes to Jews and Western Christian and Islamic civilization we are apparently supposed to be assuming we are working from an entirely blank slate, whereas with every other minority group we must be exquisitely sensitive to the burdens of history.
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
The situation at Columbia is another example--with a twist since the left and right are for the most part on the opposite side from usual--of the conflict between free expression and anti-discrimination. Pretty much all the anti-Semitism at Columbia has consisted of chants, speeches, social media posts and the like. (Note that Prof. Bernstein doesn't actually mention anything other than expression of ideas, however hateful he thinks them.)
Generally, the Conspirators don't have very consistent solutions to the aforesaid conflict, although Prof. Bernstein is especially notable for his lack of consistency.
That 'pretty much all' isn't an accurate reflection of reality. From the 1st report of the Columbia anti-semitism task force: "Protesters have disrupted classes and events, taken over spaces in academic buildings, held unauthorized demonstrations, and used ugly language to berate individuals who were filming these protests or just walking by. There also have been reports of physical harm to students, including Columbia affiliates who were protesting against Hamas and Columbia affiliates who were protesting against Israel."
I am currently a student at Columbia. There are only two class disruptions that I recall. First, the very recent one, of a class on Israeli history, for which two students have already been expelled (I think one has not been identified). Second, there was a walkout from Hillary Clinton's class last year. Walkouts are mildly disruptive, I suppose, but I never heard of students being disciplined for one. Did anyone demand that the students who walked out of Greg Mankiw's class during the "Occupy" era be disciplined? Is there another disruption I missed?
As for taking over buildings, the only episode I recall is the takeover last spring of Hamilton Hall, The administration called the police in short order, they battered down the door, and arrested a number of people. (I think the DA has mostly treated those students about the way the Trump administration has treated the J6 protesters, but I guess David's point is that taking over a building is much much worse when it's done to protest Israel than to protest a US election.)
And I'm sorry, but unauthorized demonstrations and "ugly language" are speech. I don't recall Sasha Volokh demanding stern action against the Emory students who staged a die-in to support BLM, though I think it was an unauthorized demonstration. It's really hypocrisy all the way down at the Conspiracy.
Is there a significant episode--"ugly language" doesn't count--at Columbia that I missed? Hank or David, please give the date, place, and description of the event in question.
"I think the DA has mostly treated those students about the way the Trump administration has treated the J6 protesters"
They got a pardon only after rotting in jail for four years? Rough!
The Trump admin didn't do that. They called them heroes, no matter what violent crimes they were convicted of.
You cheered that on through a mix of loathing and delusion about liberals.
Americans did not know about the Holocaust as it was happening in part because the Jewish publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Hays Sulzberger, refused to report on it.
On the contrary, while this post was about the perceived the antisemitic environment at Columbia as described by the antisemitism task force, as I noted in a tweet last night, "all Columbia needed to do since October 7 [to avoid violating federal law] was apply its content-neutral rules on student (and faculty) behavior, stop students from breaking criminal laws against violence, trespass, intimidation, and vandalism, and cooperate with Congress's request for information regarding how it was handling Title VI issues. That's it. It didn't have to suppress any speech."
The idea that David believes in content neutral rules is laughable. Just yesterday he advocated deporting students he disagrees with. He has absolutely no respect for free speech the moment he gets offended.
It's actually Federal law:
Any alien who is a representative of a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity is inadmissible.
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim (a3B VII)
That makes most Moslems inadmissable.
Yes, it does...
LOL. That would make David Bernstein inadmissible.
You don't really understand what the term 'alien' means, do you?
or "terrorist activity" for that matter....
As Eugene Volokh has pointed out, virtually everyone who is not a total pacifist supports terrorism to some degree.
Which us why there is a list.
"virtually everyone who is not a total pacifist supports terrorism to some degree"
I find that position to be more of a slogan than an empirically demonstrable claim.
Terrorism is punishing the general population for the temerity of supporting, or sitting idly by, the local powers that be.
While the claim above is possible, I have doubts one must be a little in support of terrorism. Note that's separate from whether it works or not, which relies on the psychological truism that if you want to exterminate a behavior, don't just punish the offender, but those around who allow it to happen.
Krayt,
You're just defining terrorism to make an untenable proposition seem possible.
cannpro...WRT foreign students on visas, are you forgetting the forms they completed for the US State department to come here? These forms have very specific questions regarding support for terror groups, or their ideology. You should think about that.
The forms specifically note that a false statement is perjury.
The bottom line is that support for hamas, a Judeocidal terror group, by foreign students means they lied on their form (perjury); and are subject to deportation. That support can take the form of active participation in hamas rallies, or harassing students simply b/c they are Jewish.
The foreign students can attend all the hamas rallies they want in their home country.
Well, I certainly don't trust the Trump adminstration to make these judgements in a content-neutral manner. (Nor, would I trust the Biden adminstration to do so, to be clear, even if I generally dislike the Trump adminstration a 1000 times more.)
It's called "a list."
Hamas is on the list of designated terrorist groups.
Jews for Jesus is not on the list.
It's really that simple....
Ah, I get it. The government just has to make a list and then their actions aren't limited by the first amendment.
Well, if you think that the PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional (and I'd actually agree with you on some of it), you ought to have challenged it 20 years ago.
I'm a little confused by the reference to Columbia enforcing criminal laws. Columbia does not have a police force (as some universities, like Yale, do) so how would it enforce criminal laws?
The same way everyone else does -- dial 911...
You are just proving DB's point when you dismiss the rampant antisemitic "protests" which included a violent takeover of university building and destruction of property as "chants, speeches, social media posts and the like"
They put one university employ in the hospital.
Now any employee with any job related injury SHOULD go to the hospital and is a damn fool not to because it's much harder to call an ER MD a liar, but still the little darlings did something to somebody.
"They put one university employee in the hospital."
That must have been one hell of a chant.
The university called the police in short order and a large number of the individuals occupying Hamilton Hall were arrested. I commented above in more detail.
At issue here is not what Columbia did, but what you and your group are doing.
DB: the left is downplaying antisemitism at Columbia
y81: there hasn't been anything to be concerned about at Columbia, just some chants
QED
That's some pretty lame straw manning. Maybe respond to what he actually wrote.
You mean something like,
?
I responded to what he wrote - Pretty much all the anti-Semitism at Columbia has consisted of chants, speeches, social media posts and the like
Take the time to read what you are responding to, before butting in and making a fool of yourself.
Your "pretty much all" is equivalent to saying the bullet which kills someone can be ignored because pretty much all the shooter did was twitch his trigger finger.
There is a clear Constitutional rule: a commitment to free expression does not permit disciplining people who advocate hatred or violence absent "incitement to imminent unlawful action."
On private property?!?
You aren't even right about public property...
And "free expression" doe not include encampments and blockades.
Yes, on private property, in this case. Although in general, a property owner can regulate speech on its property (there are exceptions), Columbia, as the owner of the campus, has committed itself to permitting free expression, and, like most universities, is generally guided by judicial expositions of what that means.
I'm curious about what the people complaining about Columbia thought about the president of Emory vowing to use surveillance cameras to identify and punish the people who chalked Trump slogans on the campus in 2016. Emory is private property, just like Columbia, so I guess that's no problem, right?
As long as the Emory Contract (i.e. student handbook) explicity prohibits chalking, finest kind.
As long as there is clear ADVANCED notice to students.
Now as to chalking on the City of Atlanta sidewalks adjacent to campus, Emory has no authority over those.
But you folks have a perverted definition of what constitutes "violence" -- it is NOT "nonviolent" to physically violate the rights of others, and they are not being violent if they use force to stop you.
y81, the phrase "pretty much all" is doing way too much work, and isn't believable.
No amount of task forces or reports will satisfy.
This is a show, and Columbia is the scalp.
The problem is not the amount of task forces, but that Columbia didn't do much to respond to them. For example, the violent and other illegal protest actions at Columbia have involved students who were all or almost all wearing masks to conceal their identity. So why didn't Columbia make a rule banning masks?
Barnard EXPELLED two little darlings for the January incident, and had the NYPD ARREST nine more last Wednesday evening.
Notice how Barnard's $$$ isn't being clawed back.
No words, should have sent a poet.
Barnard is a college at Columbia, not a university in itself. Does it even have grants in its own name? The class that was disrupted was a Columbia class.
Apparently not: https://barnard.edu/campus-access
Note how at DefCon C & D, Columbia Students are not allowed on campus. They couldn't do that if they were part of Columbia, which they aren't.
They are affiliated, but still legally separate.
And Federal funding includes student financial aid.
Indeed, what's needed are not reports or task forces, but action against these antisemitic expressions
Action against "expressions" is exactly what a commitment to free expression prohibits.
taking over a building is not protected free speech nor is vandalism and destruction of property.
And creati g a hostile environment through speech is contrary to Columbia's own code of conduct
And as he's told you like six times, the school took rapid action against the students who took over a building. And what exactly constitutes "creating a hostile environment through speech" is at the heart of the debate here. You are begging the question.
No, what is at issue here is DB's claim that the left, in general, is supportive of claims of various "marginalized groups" based on nothing more than their feelings or "lived experience" of being oppressed- but when Jews make similar claims, that protestors are creating a hostile environment towrd Jews, their claims are discounted and the hostility toward them is downplayed.
And what you and y81 are dong here- downplaying it - just proves his point.
y81, do you think your fellow Columbian Khymani James should be allowed to remain a student member of the community there. As you must know Khymani is the earnest BIPOC person chosen by his peers to be the spokesperson for their encampment and posted to YouTube to rhapsodize about his desire to murder "Zionists." That's "free speech" right, and you would not see him expelled for it, since it isn't legally actionable.
What if Columbia had a bunch of Klansmen on campus, and they set up a "No Niggers Allowed" barricade outside the library and prevented any Black kids to cross it?
It wouldn't be peaceful because the Black kids would cross it anyway -- people would be seriously injured even if you didn't have people showing up with guns, which in NYC you likely would have.
But you are saying that (a) posting "No Niggers Allowed" signs AND (b) preventing Black students from entering is free speech and not a hate crime?!? (Hint: B is the crime, A is the "hate" enhancement.)
And if Columbia nonchalantly permitted this, it shouldn't be held accountable under the antidiscrimination laws?!?
REALLY!?!
"No amount of task forces or reports will satisfy."
Sarcastro gets something right!
And a welcome one to take.
Well I'm here for that.
Well, that's what antisemitic conspiracy nuts are claiming, anyway.
Maybe it's all true, and this time the Jews really have formed a conspiracy to lie about antisemitism for political gain. Or, maybe, like every other time, the Jew-haters really hate Jews and tell these same absurd lies over and over again.
The reports are how you explain the actions you've taken. But as I said no one is listening.
Read the comments here. This is about dominance of Columbia, a Foe of Trump, and the antisemitism excuse is only that. No facts or posts from those actually at the school matter.
It is a show.
“.antisemitism in countries from which many of the protestors originate”
David in one breath condemns anti-semitism and in the next makes racist judgements about people based on the countries they’re from. I think the lady doth protest too much.
LOL. "Pointing out that people from countries where racism is pervasive are more likely to be racist than other people is racist."
You didn’t say that. You said we are supposed to assume people from certain countries are racist and the government should take action against them based on that. Yes, that is the dictionary definition of racist.
where did he say that?
In David’s whinny post he says “ I think Columbia richly deserves this“ is reference to Columbia pulling funds. Then he goes on to justify this by going on a racist screed about how Columbia has too many students from the wrong countries. How did you not see that.
Give me a quote where he siad "we are supposed to assume people from certain countries are racist ", not your fanciful interpretations of what he actualy said might mean if you twist them
That is a bad assumption. People from certain countries are racist. Maybe even most countries. The better solution is to stop taking in so many people from those countries.
“…or whether federal law requires hoops to be jumped through….”
Hoops to be jumped through?
Are you sure you’re a law professor?
That's the best criticism you've got? I'd hate to see a movie review, you'd probably complain the music credits scrolled by too slowly.
It's remarkable the extent to which people on the right will dismiss the lived experiences of this or that group, and how we should regularly question their interpretation of such experiences, but somehow when hundreds of Jewish students at Columbia report experiencing an intensely hostile environment, so much so that some left the dorms to live at home, some transferred, etc., suddenly the same folks will be not skeptical, but entirely supportive.
I mean, relatedly, some might even write about how anti-discrimination law has gone too far but then when it’s their group discriminated against think differently about that!
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1930865538/reasonmagazinea-20/
Maybe Jews will wise up to the evils of importing Moslems.
What part of "Kill the Jews" do Jews not understand???
Seems pretty clear to me, and yet Jews are at the forefront of pushing for open borders.
Are you alluding to Columbia's Khymani James, the BIPOC spokesperson for the school's encampment who posted a video of themself saying how they would love to murder Zionists? (Not antisemitism because anti-Zionism is a different thing?)
Paging ICE, Paging ICE....
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/ice-arrests-palestinian-leader-of-columbia-s-anti-israel-protests-revoking-student-visa-and-green-card-lawyer/ar-AA1AyTQe
I could say the same thing about Christians, oh, I just did
I am pretty sure that we stopped importing people in 1808.
(1) I haven't changed my position at all on anything I wrote in YCST.
(2) There are three separate but related issues with campus antisemitism. First, should speech be protected vs. claims that speech, as such, creates a hostile environment, including vs. Jews? Yes. (That's basically YCST) Second, can universities be held liable for discrimination for treating Jews differently when they complain of a hostile environment than how they treat other groups? Also yes, because that's a question of equal treatment, not suppressing speech. Third, is the better solution to the latter problem to protect speech equally or to suppress speech equally? Protect speech equally. All of that is perfectly consistent with YCST.
What is "YCST"?
That would be helpful to know.
You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws
"You Can't Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws"
Censorship envy.
If you read the report, you'd see that the hostile environment comes from a lot more than students exercising their civil liberties.
Someday you'll understand the difference between discrimination and harassment and intimidation. Until then you have nothing to contribute.
What nonsense. Groups don't have lived experiences. Individuals do. And every individual who has ever lived has necessarily had lived experiences because of the living thing.
I haven't written any books "about how anti-discrimination law has gone too far." Can I complain about the blatant antisemitic discrimination at our "best" colleges & universities?
"when it comes to Jews and Western Christian and Islamic civilization"
That's not fair David, and what bothers me is that you might not realize it.
Yes history is messy, but my denomination (not just "Western Christianity" also hung Witches on the Salem Common in 1692 and hung Quakers on Boston Common a half century before that -- it's not something I'm particularly proud of.
But in America circa 2024, there is more support for Israel amongst American Christians than there is amongst American Jews.
There are "Jews for Hamas" -- there are not "Christians for Hamas."
There are "peace & love" Christians who would like to see the violence end -- but I suspect the IDF feels the same way. But if you go through rural America -- Protestant rural America -- and you will find more support for Israel than you ever will in Jewish cities. We understand what Radical Islam means by "Little Satan and Big Satan."
Synagogues aren't being burned in Christian America -- they *are* being burned in Post Christian Europe...
FYI - Support for Israel doesn’t mean typing “NUKE GAZA” into the comments section every week or two.
Do you know how we dealt with the Nazis?
The motto was "Make the Rubble Bounce."
We leveled Berlin.
We burnt most of Hamburg.
We burnt Dresden flat.
"Nuke Gaza" is in this tradition.
That phrase was Churchill’s (postwar) explanation of the futility of bombing cities into oblivion, not an endorsement of it.
You really do elevate being wrong to an art form.
Dr Ed the typing horse is doing pretty well, all things considered. Like the dancing bear, the wonder is not that he does it well, but that he does it at all.
It was dogs walking on their hind legs, not dancing bears.
And it's Ed, the Talking Horse's Behind.
Churchill's actual quote was:
"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."
Very different....
Now is the time to reveal something which the discerning and disillusioned reader will probably have guessed already: that is not, in fact, Churchill’s actual quote. The actual quote, describing the Nazi bombing of London and Churchill’s reaction, is
(It’s on page 328 of this edition, if you want to look it up yourself:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Their_Finest_Hour/qGPsVZImDOsC . Make sure to give me credit when you update your dissertation!)
Correct NaS. Dr. Ed is out to lunch.
And support for Palestinians isn't saying 'gas the Jews'. The irony is that pretty much the only source of actual support for Palestinians - rather than thinly veiled antisemitism tagged as somehow supporting Palestinians - is the Jewish community.
I am aware of no groups known as either "Jews for Hamas" or "Christians for Hamas." Are you, or have you made the up for effect?
As to the former, there are some like Jewish Voices For Peace who are so anti-Israel that they might call themselves JFM if all of them were in fact Jews and they were entirely candid about their sympathies. As to the latter, there are huge numbers of those who count themselves Christians while at the same time being generally supportive of Hamas while not marching under the banner you suggest.
Most Jewish people are strongly critical of the current Israeli government, and certain elements in Israeli society.
And there are also groups like JVP who are made up of a) useful idiots who have internalised antisemitic hatreds and come to believe they are true, b) craven, historically ignorant people who believe, contrary to historical evidence that sucking up to the Nazis will keep them out of the gas chambers, and a tiny minority that are c) Jewish grifters willing to take antisemites' cash for helping them spread antisemitic hatred. Whatever the makeup, they are a tiny, tiny minority of Jewish people.
But in America circa 2024, there is more support for Israel amongst American Christians than there is amongst American Jews.
Fallacy of equivocation. The two "Israels" are not the same. American Jews support the Israel that is our homeland, stands for our history, and whose Jewish inhabitants are, pretty much, family. The American Christians support an Israel that puts down Ay-rabs, and that exists so tha ultimately some meshuggener prophecy or whatever concerning the Second Coming of Jesus - and whose Jewish occupants will not be saved because we didn't BELEEEEVE.
Synagogues aren't being burned in Christian America -
No. But they have been shot up - and not only by Muslims. And a JEw was more likely to be the victim of a hate crime in the US than any other minority group, which pattern has persisted for decades, I think - before militant Islam got going here - except for one year recently when Sikhs topped the list, due, no doubt, to crackers not being able to tell one foreign religionist from another.
Maybe Ham-Ass can make up the shortfall for Columbia, or perhaps the Jewish students can "wander" (see what I did there? Jews, wandering?) to a more friendly Campus, like Auburn, Ole Miss, or Florida State
If there's one group of people treated well down south, it's definitely Jewish college kids!
Goodman and Schwerner not available for comment.
If there's one group of people treated well down south, it's definitely Jewish college kids!
Goodman and Schwerner not available for comment.
To some people, it's always 1939. To others, it's always 1964. In point of fact, there is a relatively small but nevertheless significant movement of Jewish students to places like University of Alabama, University of South Carolina, College of Charleston, etc. And the Mothers Against College Antisemitism FB group is full of posts from Jewish parents with one kid somewhere like UMass, the other somewhere like Clemson, and talking about how much better the kid at the latter has it.
I can see why Bernstein would be pleased to see Trump leading the fight against antisemitism.
Perkins Coie has worked with activist donors including George Soros to judicially overturn popular, necessary, and democratically enacted election laws, including those requiring voter identification.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/addressing-risks-from-perkins-coie-llp/
I've always been amused at the demand that, if a financier who pursues multiple evil schemes happens to be of Jewish ancestry, you're somehow not allowed to notice their evil. Totally irrational, of course, but somehow some people still keep making it.
I've always been amused that flagrantly Nazi people like Brett think it carries any weight when they claim to believe classic antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jews are justified.
Ah, but I don't. What I believe is that Jewish financiers are just as capable of being evil as anybody else, even if their being so would conform to an odious stereotype.
Soros would be as widely despised on the right if he were an Anglican or Druze. He's despised for what he does, not his ancestry. We're not responsible for him picking a stereotype and deciding to embody it.
What I believe is that Jewish financiers are just as capable of being evil as anybody else, even if their being so would conform to an odious stereotype.
The problem here is that Soros' "evil schemes" may be "evil" in your eyes, but they are not evil by any reasonable definition. What this amounts to, as usual, is that you don't agree with some of the causes he promotes and, in your usual fashion, refuse to believe he does so with good intent.
I'd be interested to know on what basis you describe him as "evil."
The fact is that the right has conjured up some vision of the guy as the devil - not least, may I say, because he is Jewish - and you, gullible as you are, swallow it.
Sure, it's just a complete coincidence that out of the many billionaires active in Democratic politics, the Jewish one is the one about whom all the conspiracy theories are centered. Also, I was born yesterday, and I am interested in buying the Brooklyn Bridge, which I hear is for sale.
"Sure, it's just a complete coincidence that out of the many billionaires active in Democratic politics, the Jewish one is the one about whom all the conspiracy theories are centered. "
Sure. Just like it's a complete coincidence that out of all the countries fighting terrorists, it's the Jewish state about whom the claims of war crimes are centered.
Did you think you were scoring a point here?
"Picking a stereotype?"
WTF. The guy is Jewish and wealthy. He gives money to causes he believes in. What exactly did he "pick?"
You really are a nasty piece of work.
You know, I almost feel like we should have a 'drink!' comment ticker, for when the Nazi card gets pulled out. Same bunch of progressive losers who do it consistently. They are same losers who scream 'racist, racist, racist' and turned that label into something meaningless. The same is happening with 'Nazi', the epithet will soon lose any meaning.
The fact that Soros is Jew-ish (hyphen intended) and in finance feeds into an ancient stereotype and of course, is like clickbait.
If the shoe fits...
What an ironic thing for someone who keeps denying that the jackboot fits to say...
Jew-ish (hyphen intended)
Jews calling other Jews they disagree with collaborators or not real Jews seems it's own bigotry issue.
The fact that Soros is Jew-ish (hyphen intended)
Who appointed you to decide who is or is not a Jew?
Are you suddenly the Pope of the Jews? Forget it. You're not.
I once heard a rabbi speak about the danger of substituting adherence to ritual for real-life behavior. I think he nailed you.
You could be generous where Brett is concerned and rather than characterizing him as "flagrantly Nazi," you could say that he is totally clueless and doesn't realize that he sounds like someone who is "flagrantly Nazi."
Or you could realize that you're picking signifiers that are irrelevant to whether somebody is a Nazi to decide who "looks like a Nazi".
I literally do not care if Soros is a Jew. Because I don't care, I'm not going to pretend he's not doing bad stuff, just because he's a Jew.
"I'm not going to pretend he's not doing bad stuff, just because he's a Jew."
No, the reverse. You're going to pretend he _is_ doing bad stuff, just because he's of Jewish descent.
Exactly.
All this "I'm not an antisemite, but Soros is terrible," is stupid bullshit.
You want to criticize Madoff, go ahead. No one will say that's antisemitic, but what has Soros done, other than support some things you don't like (hence, in your mind, evil things).
Do you think that the Central European University was "evil?" Maybe you do, because, after all, Orban - one your (and Trump's) heroes opposed it. I'd say funding it was a good and generous act.
So you contend George Soros is as pure as the driven white snow?
So you contend George Soros is as pure as the driven white snow?
No one, not even you, is "as pure as the driven white snow." What I contend is that Soros has not done anything to justify the opprobrium heaped on him from the right and that, yes, some of that heaping is because he is Jewish.
Hatred of the Jewish financier is hardly a novel phenomenon. The hatred directed at Soros is part of a long and nasty tradition.
"All this "I'm not an antisemite, but Soros is terrible," is stupid bullshit."
Not as bad as the, "I'm not an antisemite, but Israel is terrible" stupid bullshit.
No, he's just a straight-up Hitlerite who makes zero attempt to hide it. The kind to dress up in Nazi regalia and do salutes, rather than a suit-Nazi like martinned who goes to great lengths to disguise what he is in order to worm his way into polite company.
"Soros" is, almost everywhere, used as an anti-Semitic dog whistle, repeated by people like Brett who don't hear the whistle.
"repeated by people like Brett who don't hear the whistle."
It's always worth restating: "If you hear the whistle, YOU are the dog." Yeah, in this "dog whistle" metaphor, SRG2, you're the dog. Not me.
"Dog whistles" aren't a secret code people used to communicate. The phrases labeled "dog whistles" are used, by the people who use them, in the words' ordinary meanings, no secret code at all.
The actual nature of a "dog whistle" is that you have two groups in opposition, group A and group B.
Group B is concerned that if their own members actually listen to group A with an open mind, they might be persuaded. So they tell their own members that some phrase commonly used by group A has a secret odious meaning; It doesn't mean what any sensible person would think, but is instead a secret code!
That way if the group B member is listening to somebody from group A, and starts to think, "OK, he's got a point.", along comes a rhetorical landmine that blows up the potential meeting of minds, and keeps the group B member securely in group B.
Meanwhile the group A people are just using the word in its ordinary sense, THEY don't hear any dog whistle.
So, WE object to Soros because he spends his money doing bad things, like helping prosecutors who won't enforce the law get elected. To keep YOU from considering whether this is actually true, you're taught to hear "Jew" anytime we say "Soros", so that we literally can't talk about him without you thinking we're talking about Jews, rather than one specific bad guy who is just incidentally a Jew, a fact we don't give a damn about.
"Dog whistle" cannot be applied literally, obviously. That most people don't hear anti-Semitic dog whistles doesn't mean Jews don't. And the anti-Semites don't really care, because when ordinary people don't hear the whistle, they assume we're over-reacting when we tell them what the whistle means - e.g. Soros
WE object to Soros because he spends his money doing bad things,
By which you mean things you disagree with. Are you completely incapable of understanding that not everyone agrees with you on everything, and that it is possible to disagree in good faith?
And of course you honestly believe that there is not the slightest hint of antisemitism in criticisms of Soros. What a joke.
"By which you mean things you disagree with."
Well, duh. That is literally the stupidest comeback I've seen in weeks.
Yes, I mean he's spending his money to promote causes I think are evil, and because I think they're evil, I disagree with them.
That is literally the stupidest comeback I've seen in weeks.
Read some of your own, and you'll find much worse.
Are you completely unable to understand that disagreement with you is not inherently evil? Apparently so, so your comment is not to be taken seriously.
And what causes is he promoting that are so bad? He tried to establish a university in Hungary, which pissed Orban off. Who was evil in that scenario? Soros, or the Trump idol Orban, who Vance thinks we should emulate?
You're deranged.
Uh, one who observes the behavior of the dogs may recognize that they are responding to a whistle that humans cannot hear. When Ronald Reagan kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign at the Neshoba County fair, near to the site of the murders of James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner, and gave a speech touting his support for "states' rights," anyone who was paying attention could figure out whom he was pandering to, even absent his saying anything overtly racist.
WE object to Soros because he spends his money doing bad things
Brett, the 'if you don't like CU you HATE FREEDOM OF SPEECH' is suddenly real uncertain about certain money as speech, and wants it silenced or at least chilled.
"Rothschild" is a dog whistle, because almost nothing said about the Rothschild is actually true. Soros, by contrast, is the single most prolific donor/financier of the political left, and he has had a huge influence on a range of policy ranging from Israel (he gave JStreet its start up funds, for example), to criminal justice reform (having funded the campaigns of many left-wing prosecutors. He can't be above criticism given his influence, but an influential Jew is certainly also going to attract antisemitic criticism. But it's foolish to think any and all criticism of the single most influential non-politician on the left is antisemitic.
He can't be above criticism given his influence, but an influential Jew is certainly also going to attract antisemitic criticism. But it's foolish to think any and all criticism of the single most influential non-politician on the left is antisemitic.
Of course criticism of the candidates and policies he supports is, or can be, legitimate. But criticism of the man himself has a strong odor of antisemitism.
You know as well as I that the evil Jewish financier is a stock character of antisemitic "thought", going much further back than Shylock, say. That fact makes it easy for criticism of Soros' ideas and actions to edge into antisemitism, which, like it or not, it often does.
What if someone were to mention, say, five Democratic donors, all of whom are Jewish? (And two of which are actually dead.)
https://bsky.app/profile/juddlegum.bsky.social/post/3ljvjb5stk22f
But it's foolish to think any and all criticism of the single most influential non-politician on the left is antisemitic
True but when you hear "Soros prosecutors" or "Soros politicians" describing people who received only modes donations from a Soros source and more from other sources (or indeed, may not have received funds from Soros at all), then that raises the presumption of anti-Semitism.
And "Rothschild" is an ineffective dog whistle nowadays because so few people know who the Rothschilds are - thus creating a void to be filled by "Soros".
SRG2, do you ever hear a dog whistle, yourself?
I'm curious, have you considered whether you respond to a dog whistle, and what that dog whistle is?
What label would it be (antisemitic was your dog whistle label)?
You mean, do I hear dog whistles intended for me? No, because I am no-one's target demographic for them, so no-one is blowing them. Try to devise a dog-whistle that really means, knowledge of science is a good idea, for example. No-one is blowing that one.
Soros does often take a starring turn in antisemitic paranoia, but he is also a real person who really does give real money to real people and organization who are really trying to effect real policy changes, many of which are subject to legitimate criticism. And Martinned2 is about the last person who can be trusted to distinguish between the two.
And why exactly does this describe an "evil scheme?" Because Trump says so?
Are you seriously claiming that going to court to attack laws one thinks are unconstitutional is evil?
It's important to remember that it's not just anti-semitism, Jews are just at the top of the list, they're not the entire list.
Report: Syria’s New Regime is Slaughtering Alawites, Druze, Christians
Israel, to their eternal credit, is protecting the Druze community of southern Syria. Israel is fighting a war for their existence, but found a way to extend their protection over this population.
Lawrence Summers, former president of Harvard, has been outspoken in condemning Harvard for doing too little to combat antisemitism in its midst. By your logic Martinned2, should we infer that Summers "would be pleased to see Trump leading the fight against antisemitism" in exactly the way Trump is doing, and support actions like Trump's against Perkins Cole and other law firms that have offended him for one reason or another? (How does Perkins Cole figure in with respect to the question of antisemitism, or are you just freely associating with no logical thread to it? Can you explain your thinking?)
"hoops to be jumped through"
According to reporting I saw yesterday, the cutoff of funds is not yet a cutoff of funds. The Trump administration presented an ultimatum. The parties have a few weeks to negotiate.
Krasnov is leading the fight against anti-Semitism in academia, not because he isn't one - the evidence is that he is - but because the conspicuous anti-Semites there are also people he doesn't like. If you're an anti-Semite on the right, it's a different matter.
See https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/21/great-replacement-theory-antisemitism-racism-rightwing-mainstream
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2025/03/the-department-of-defense-deputy-press-secretary-is-a-leo-frank-troofer
Shouldn't you at least call him "Apelsin"?
To start, my knowledge about what was/is going at Columbia is based on generalities: harassment, hate, and a few random acts of violence. I don't know anything about specific actions that I that some students, faculty, and staff have done. Enlighten me if I'm missing something.
However, it does seem like the Trump's administration is punishing the private university for not voluntarily taking steps to regulate activity that the government itself can't regulate. Therefore, using the $400mil as a cudgel to get Columbia to root out antisemitism—which it should have done long ago—seems unconstitutional.
The word 'random' in "random acts of violence" is doing a lot of work. In fact, it is wrong.
American Jews in America were specifically targeted, simply because they are Jews and Israel (separate country) is winning a war against Judeocidal terrorists.
It wasn't random at all.
Certainly at my university, the acts were targeted at Jews, not random. The level of fear among a large fraction of Jews was palpable.
Fight antisemitism through collective guilt and punishment without process.
Nonsense, it was the university not students who were punished.
As for the student, the universities have generally let them off easy.
A mild rebuke hardly deserves due process.
By the way, again here again your resort to dishonesty with your "collective guilt and punishment." I realize that you cannot resist, so you're excused.
it was the university not students who were punished.
You claim some knowledge of university research. Want to think this through?
A mild rebuke hardly deserves due process.
That's all this is, you think? Just some money, who needs due process?
It's like you've just met Trump and don't understand what comes next.
Sure, cutting university research grants hurts its education of students, but that is still a punishment directed at the institution.
Your take would allow one to honestly claim that the Trump admin is attaching small children because it will affect the income and well being of Columbia's workers.
"that's all this is, you think?" that is your misinterpretation.
I did not say that Columbia got a mild rebuke, but the almost all of the student antisemites (de facto) only received a mild rebuke from Columbia.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/18/us/nypd-disperses-pro-palestinian-protest-columbia-university/index.html
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/06/israel-gaza-protests-columbia-students-police-violence.html
They sure did try.
And now they're going to further chill speech:
https://prismreports.org/2024/03/20/pro-palestine-student-groups-columbia-suspension/
https://prismreports.org/2025/03/06/barnard-expelled-students-palestine/
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/ice-arrests-palestinian-student-who-helped-lead-columbia-protests-attorney-says
It won't be enough. This is not about antisemitism, it's about targeting universities as the next outgroup after federal workers.
And yes, students will suffer. And yes, you will excuse it.
How many crimes—battery, assault, robbery, stalking, computer fraud, whatever—were directed at Jewish students at Columbia?
Very few. That is what I meant by "random." I admit in hindsight that "isolated" is a more appropriate word.
I have no problem acknowledging that the harassment and hate spewed about against the Jewish students is targeted against them because they are Jewish.
"it does seem like the Trump's administration is punishing the private university for not voluntarily taking steps to regulate activity that the government itself can't regulate. Therefore, using the $400mil as a cudgel to get Columbia to root out antisemitism—which it should have done long ago—seems unconstitutional."
The Trump administration is acting in accord with the authority Title VI provides it to withhold federal funds from schools that don't act to ensure equal protection to members of its community against deprivation of their right to be free from discrimination. That didn't come through to you in what DB and others have written?
I'd like some process re: Title VI determination, not just ipse dixit.
But that's precisely my point. The government has a law that colleges receiving federal funds must regulate hateful speech and actions when the government itself can't regulate those activities.
To be clear, while Title VI does indeed require non-discrimination, it does not empower a president to revoke such funding unilaterally.
Connecting the dots, you said, "The Trump Administration has announced that it's suspending $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University in response to Columbia's failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination as required by federal law. I think Columbia richly deserves this" because "Columbia has an antisemitism problem" according "to a report from the antisemitism task force at Columbia."
As a professor of Constitutional law, do you believe that our Constitution empowered any federal government employee to take any action to retaliate or discriminate against Columbia based on a viewpoint that is clearly political and very likely also religious ("antisemitism")? Do you think that Columbia University as it existed (under a different name) in the 1770's and 1780's did not espouse particular religious and political viewpoints?
"... action to retaliate or discriminate against Columbia based on a viewpoint that is clearly political and very likely also religious"
Yours is an erroneous premise. No action was taken based on a "viewpoint;" the action taken was based on conduct violative of Title VI protections that Columbia failed to ensure its Jewish community. That's a very different matter from what you posit, though you may not appreciate the difference substantial though it is. (And Title VI did not exist in the 1770s and 1780's, nor did the federal government provide Columbia at the time with payments as it does today.) Capishe?
https://apnews.com/article/columbia-university-mahmoud-khalil-ice-15014bcbb921f21a9f704d5acdcae7a8
A Palestinian student who was here on a student visa at the time he was negotiating for the protesters at Columbia, then later got a Green card, was picked up by ICE yesterday outside his Columbia apartment. Presumably that was a prelude to deportation, though it remains to be seen was comes next for him.