President Donald Trump, responding to the increase instances of anti-Israeli, pro-“Palestinian” activism on college campuses around the United States, has agreed to reopen a case from seven years ago that involved anti-Semitism at Rutgers University.
And already, the left is howling.
The Los Angeles Times, for instance, in a scathing opinion piece, criticized this White House’s reopening of the case as an example of how far the administration will go to protect Jewish students at the expense of the pro-“Palestinian” factions.
Remember: This is the university with a president that recently suggested anti-Semitism is protected speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM6PNyyWWMc
From the Los Angeles Times:
In response to the rise of pro-Palestinian activism on college campuses, some supporters of Israel have argued that harsh criticism of the Jewish state amounts to anti-Semitism — and even that it violates federal anti-discrimination law. Now the Trump administration, in reopening a 7-year-old case involving alleged anti-Semitism at Rutgers University, seems to have embraced that popular but dangerous view.
It’s dangerous because colleges and universities should be open to robust political discussion, even if offends the deepest beliefs of students. That’s true for public and private universities alike — and public universities are additionally bound by the 1st Amendment. The regents of the University of California realized that in 2016, and that’s why they rebuffed demands that UC declare that “anti-Zionism” was a form of discrimination.
The U.S. Department of Education, however, has now signaled that it is willing to blur the distinction between criticism of Israel and discrimination against Jewish students.
In a letter to the Zionist Organization of America, which long has campaigned against what it claims is anti-Jewish bias on college campuses, Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Kenneth Marcus said that the department would revisit an old allegation that Jewish students at Rutgers, the state university of New Jersey, were charged a $5 fee to attend a pro-Palestinian event in 2011 but that others were allowed to attend without charge.
The allegation was one of several complaints about alleged discrimination against Jews at Rutgers that the Obama administration dismissed in 2014. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federally aided colleges and universities — virtually all of them — may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. (The law has been interpreted to protect groups, such as Jews and Muslims, that are also identified by religion.)
Less significant than the new investigation of the specific facts in the Rutgers case is the fact that Marcus indicated that the Trump administration has decided to embrace a broad interpretation of anti-Semitism contained in statements by the State Department and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Both statements define as anti-Semitic criticisms of Israel that call into question its legitimacy. The 2010 State Department definition cites as an example of anti-Semitism “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, and denying Israel the right to exist.” The IHRA definition, which the State Department has endorsed, is more specific, targeting statements “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
Both definitions also condemn criticism that subjects Israel to a double standard by “requiring of it behavior not demanded of any other democratic nation.” That formulation could brand as an anti-Semite someone who, say, criticized Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians but didn’t assail the U.S. or Britain for violating the rights of minorities.
The Trump administration isn’t alone in seeking to inject the State Department definition into determinations about whether a college is discriminating against Jewish students. That would also be the effect of a bill in Congress called the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018.
But the two definitions are based on false assumptions. While it’s no doubt true that some critics of Israel — and of the political philosophy of Zionism — also harbor hatred of Jews, it does not follow from that that all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites. Opposing Israel’s right to exist or disagreeing with the policies of the Netanyahu government are positions that may be held by many people for many reasons, including people who are not anti-Semitic.
Moreover, even statements that are anti-Semitic are protected by the 1st Amendment, so long as they don’t take the form of threats or face-to-face harassment. That’s the price we pay to live in a country that zealously protects free speech.
Granted, college campuses are also places in which students shouldn’t have to contend with a “hostile learning environment.” A student can’t learn if he or she is subjected to acts of bigotry, subjected to racial or religious epithets or treated differently because of race or religion. The federal government must investigate complaints that colleges allow such misconduct.
But students cannot and should not be hermetically sealed off from speech that offends them. Undoubtedly many Jewish students are made uncomfortable by fellow students or visiting speakers who denounce or demonize Israel, just as Catholic students might be dismayed by a speaker who impugned the teachings of Christianity or lampooned the pope.
But being exposed to opinions one finds offensive isn’t the same as being discriminated against. It’s troubling that the Trump administration apparently doesn’t understand the distinction.
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding. Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
They are aided by the dumb , ignorant Left/Liberal loons coming out of colleges/schools run by pro-jihadi left/liberal loons
And by the time they realise their stupidity they get assaulted , gang raped or murdered like this couple its too late for them https://tinyurl.com/yahupccy
Problem is they enable evil while not able to see evil thanks to pro-jihadi left/liberal indoctrination in schools/colleges where real history of islam and America is no longer taught.
That’s not really accurate. The liberal child doesn’t have her attorney at her side.
Details 😉
Very nice!!!!
OK, cool. Why all of the folderol surrounding a few nooses suspended from campus trees? Or, some banana tossed somewhere, especially if it’s combined with the nooses. Sounds like nothing more than expressions of free speech, doesn’t it?
Let’s open it up, Rutgers ….. posters of mohammed being anally violated by a boar hog …. nooses suspended from trees …. Hey, with a little creative thought … this could REALLY be fun …. the examples of free speech are limitless.
In addition to the poster’s why not have tv screens throughout campus showing that in cartoon form of mohmud. That way, all students could be given the opportunity to witness the free speech, they so adamantly demand.
How about a large blow-up doll … flown over campus 24/7 (less refueling time).
Great idea! They can drop Gefilte fish on the praying mooslimes
You all got to stop monkeying around with such ideas (whoops, that is racist now, right?).
Racism is overrated. We need to pissoff more Liberals by increasing the volume of Racism in America.
It would be better if they dropped pig grease and ham on the Islamonazis.
Lefties hate Jews.
But ironically most Jews are lefties.
yes, and that is the ultimate irony, remindful of all the stupid but ideologically fixated jews (usually from NYC) who supported communism here and abroad one and two generations ago, even as the Soviet Union and its allies did their damndest to hurt israel, punish Jews, and stifle Judaism in the USSR. conclusion: jews are often Smart individually but Stoooopid in terms of survival and security instincts.
Unfortunately I think you are right about that. I find it totally perplexing how a group of people can repeatedly vote against their own self interests.
My husband and I were married by a (Reformed) rabbi and raised our kids as Jewish and took them to Bible study every week. But when O ran for president we were both turned off when the rabbi began to preach support for O in the synagogue. That is when we decided to end our affiliation. Neither of us could understand this love affair with O when he was clearly a flaming Jew hater.
I have been so intrigued by this question that I spent a fair amount of time trying to find how many Jews supported Hitler before they discovered that he wanted to exterminate them. I found a little but not much. But it is interesting because AH was an avowed Socialist whose policies were the same as Obama’s.
Most American Jews are leftists. And most are Liberal Democrats Leftists (LDL’s).
Remember: This is the university with a president that recently suggested anti-Semitism is protected speech.
Freedom of speech does require that a person be able to make anti-Semitic statements. Eg.: “Jews are all beak-nosed, money-grubbing parasites.” (is that offensive enough?). Decent people need to make clear such utterances, and the people who make them, are not part of “acceptable society”.
The LA Times is actually right.
1. On Rutgers—the statute of limitations is 5 years, and even without that to consider, you have the principle of ex post facto that legally blocks such an investigation. While that was wrong, it’s too late to investigate it now. One can only apply the definition to new meanings.
2. S.2940 as mentioned in the article has not been voted on. Definitions for domestic use must be established by law. Trump is attempting to bypass law.
What is likely to happen is that Trump’s authority will be challenged on separation of powers grounds. (International relations are different, as SCOTUS ruled in Zivotofsky v. Kerry.) In short, right now, the executive branch could end up stuck with two different definitions of anti-Semitism.
@liatrisspicata:disqus – anti-Semitism is protected speech, so long as it doesn’t infringe or abridge the rights of others (i.e., violate any Amendment). The Rutgers case would have violated Amendment 14, but the statute of limitations there has expired.
TOO funny. Simply hilarious! First, little aemoreira1981, the federal government could/would not prosecute under New Jersey statutes. Rather, it would be prosecuted under US federal statute(s), such as, 18 U.S. Code § 249 – Hate crime acts, which has a seven year statute of limitations. So, be a good little girl, drag your mommy away from your “uncles” and have her play Make Believe with you. If you insist upon playing “Pretend Lawyer”, she’s the one with which you should play.
“two different definitions of anti-Semitism?” WTF? Anti-Semitism, is Anti-Semitism. Period.
The definition Trump wants to apply is not in statute and thus cannot be enforced domestically, but Trump can apply that to international relations.
Now, little aemoreira1981, be a good little girl, grab your mommy away from your “uncles”, and have her play Make Believe Pretend Lawyer, with you … so you can stop HUMILIATING yourself.
Like Hitler, Jews should be the universal target and then white Christians.
Oddly many wayward Jews also have both as targets.
Bring it on! Here I Am! But don’t expect me to turn the other cheek!
The left doesn’t really care about Jewish people, much less anti-Semitism, except maybe when using either as convenient media tools to attack and demonize conservatives.
The left doesn’t really care about Jewish people, much less anti-Semitism, except maybe when using either as convenient media tools to attack and demonize conservatives.
I dunno know, but if I was charged $5 just because I was a Jew and others were not I would say that is discrimination.
Exactly. So obvious.
The Slimes can GTH
Blurring of vital distinctions is pure stupidity. “Criticism” of Israel means pointing out evidence-based factual situations that need fixing, and suggesting ways to fix it. But Demonization, delegitimization, and double standards applied to Israel is not criticism, it is slander and antisemitism.
And that’s exactly why I also continually ask the folks here on Ms. Geller’s website to make the same vital distinction SHE does, between factual criticism of the flaws in Islamic belief and practice, versus demonization, delegitimization, and double standards applied to Muslims. The first is legitimate and vital calling a spade a spade regarding jihadi violence, Muslim misogyny and homophobia, and so on. The latter is racist bigotry just as bad as antisemitism. Don’t go there, folks. Don’t apply a double standard.
Muslims are have no standards at all.
Palestinians are mange Muslim dogs! Like all Muslims they are the scum of the earth!
The LA TIMES Fish Wrapper, better condemn me as well! Cause I been defending Jews all my life and will never back down, come hell or the LA Times! In fact, “F” the Times!