COLLEGE UNRESTFeds Should Leave Campus Unrest to Others
The federal government should not inject itself into debates largely occurring in civil—free—society. It is not the proper federal role, and it threatens to reduce rather than promote harmony. Some of the things said during the pro-Palestine protests might well be horrible, inaccurate things to say. Those who say them might have antisemitic motives. But it is extremely dangerous to put such speech off limits.
Watching the events in Israel and Gaza—the horrors of war inflicted on both sides—it is impossible to not be moved. Watching the anger and, sometimes, violence on college campuses across the country also, understandably, spurs powerful emotions, including in the halls of Congress. But understandable feelings do not mean that the federal government should inject itself into debates largely occurring in civil—free—society. It is not the proper federal role, and it threatens to reduce rather than promote harmony.
On Wednesday last week, the House of Representatives took its most concrete action to date, largely spurred by the scenes on college campuses across the country. It passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would require the US Department of Education to “take into consideration” the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) “working definition of antisemitism” when investigating schools for civil rights violations. Essentially, the department would judge if an incident was driven by antisemitism, and presumably if a college were allowing antisemitism to exist on campus.
The problem is that the definition includes all kinds of speech, most of which is not inherently threatening. Government punishment for such speech would be a fundamental violation of First Amendment rights.
IHRA “examples of antisemitism” include:
· Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
· Denying the Jewish people their right to self‐determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
· Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
· Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
These might well be horrible, inaccurate things to say. Those who say them might have antisemitic motives. But it is extremely dangerous to put such speech off limits. For instance, if someone says Israel should not occupy the West Bank, but does not condemn the United States for occupying Native American land, is that antisemitism? If they say checkpoints controlling ingress and egress of Gaza is a “fascist” tactic, should government be able to punish them?
