Rutgers Faculty Union Announces Opposition To NJ Bill That Will Protect From Antisemitism
- Thread starter NealPageNJ
- Start date
NJ Bill to adopt formal definition of antisemitism. The IHRA definition is globally accepted. The faculty is against the following in NJ according to their statement:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”
Contrary to the faculty statement the IHRA definition document explicitly states :
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
holocaustremembrance.com
“However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
What is antisemitism?
With the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, the IHRA built international consensus around an answer to the question, what does antisemitism mean?
holocaustremembrance.com
The RU Faculty opposes the following actions to be considered acts of antisemitism:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
- Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
- Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
- Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
- 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.
- Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel
Last edited:
It's his signature...
1. Tweets are news
2. At 5:48AM
3. Dispelled by anyone who knows that every free speech advocate, right and left, opposes the "definition" of antisemitism including any criticism of Israel.
Is AIPAC paying for this content at this point?
Do they know Neal posts on a board that continually calls President Biden and his many Jewish family members Nazis? But that is OK. Just can't say that for Israel. Also it's OK to call him racist, but not the Israeli gov.
Who knew the First Amendment had an exception to criticizing Israeli policy?
1. Tweets are news
2. At 5:48AM
3. Dispelled by anyone who knows that every free speech advocate, right and left, opposes the "definition" of antisemitism including any criticism of Israel.
Is AIPAC paying for this content at this point?
Do they know Neal posts on a board that continually calls President Biden and his many Jewish family members Nazis? But that is OK. Just can't say that for Israel. Also it's OK to call him racist, but not the Israeli gov.
Who knew the First Amendment had an exception to criticizing Israeli policy?
I should stay out of this discussion, but . . .
I have looked at the IHRA's definition. Three points:
First, it is not intended to be legally binding, so it is inappropriate for it to be enshrined into law as the New Jersey bill would;
Second, the conduct (that is, conduct as opposed to speech) it is aimed at (e.g discrimination against Jews) is already illegal;
Third, much of what it characterizes as anti-Semitism is speech that is protected by the First Amendment. (Note: America defines protected speech more broadly than most other countries.) Claiming, for instance, that the Holocaust never happened or that Hitler was right is protected by the First Amendment. (I'm not saying it should be, only that it clearly is.) Anti-Semitic speech, as vile as it is, is protected by the First Amendment in all but a very few situations.
The New Jersey bill says it isn't meant to infringe on the First Amendment. That means it basically doesn't do anything because (as I say) almost everything it is directed at is protected by the First Amendment or (as in the case of discrimination or criminal acts) already forbidden by law. All the bill would accomplish is to have a chilling effect on permissible speech.
Here is the definition: https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
The responses are appreciated. Note the IHRA definition clearly explains criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Claiming it does such is false information.
I see this bill as less about legal enforcement in the sense of police coming to arrest someone who engages in an antisemitic act according to the definition. It’s more about protecting workplace, academic, and everyday life culture from antisemitic acts. For example it clearly articulates what is unacceptable in K-12 schools, higher Ed, at the workplace and in other shared spaces. And it is up to the employers or those in charge to build a culture that does not accept antisemitism. Legal and institutional discipline is one step towards improving culture but there are many other steps that can be taken to enforce this bill. Also, public institutions continue to have to report bias instances to the local, state and federal levels. This bill makes it very clear what are bias antisemitic acts. I do agree that it should not infringe on everyday life. But it does take a big step in clearly labeling what is not acceptable in our schools, workplaces and shared living experiences. When bias acts become disruptions it is no longer a free speech issue and this bill makes it much easier to set the threshold for when antisemitic acts are disruptive. For example if one commits an antisemitic or bias act in their own private or public life it won’t get you arrested all the time. Especially if it is a speech issue alone. But it can keep you from returning to a classroom as a teacher or professor or the workplace because the disruption your bias incident created makes one less effective in that role.
I’m not sure why the Rutgers faculty would come out against it. Even the claims they are using are not accurate.
This is a bi partisan bill that is well supported.
I see this bill as less about legal enforcement in the sense of police coming to arrest someone who engages in an antisemitic act according to the definition. It’s more about protecting workplace, academic, and everyday life culture from antisemitic acts. For example it clearly articulates what is unacceptable in K-12 schools, higher Ed, at the workplace and in other shared spaces. And it is up to the employers or those in charge to build a culture that does not accept antisemitism. Legal and institutional discipline is one step towards improving culture but there are many other steps that can be taken to enforce this bill. Also, public institutions continue to have to report bias instances to the local, state and federal levels. This bill makes it very clear what are bias antisemitic acts. I do agree that it should not infringe on everyday life. But it does take a big step in clearly labeling what is not acceptable in our schools, workplaces and shared living experiences. When bias acts become disruptions it is no longer a free speech issue and this bill makes it much easier to set the threshold for when antisemitic acts are disruptive. For example if one commits an antisemitic or bias act in their own private or public life it won’t get you arrested all the time. Especially if it is a speech issue alone. But it can keep you from returning to a classroom as a teacher or professor or the workplace because the disruption your bias incident created makes one less effective in that role.
I’m not sure why the Rutgers faculty would come out against it. Even the claims they are using are not accurate.
This is a bi partisan bill that is well supported.
"I’m not sure why the Rutgers faculty would come out against it. Even the claims they are using are not accurate."
Don't equate the faculty union with Rutgers faculty. Only a tiny proportion of the faculty is active in the union.
The problem is that what it deems "unacceptable" includes speech protected by the First Amendment -- and a public institution like Rutgers cannot in any way penalize protected speech.
Understood and your points make sense to me. As I said before it also emphasizes the burden of a culture absent of antisemitism. There are ways institutions and workplaces can do this other than just penalties for the offenders.
The problem isn't just penalties. The First Amendment requires that the government be viewpoint neutral (to put it the way a lawyer would). Rewarding someone because of the content of their political speech (say, for attacking anti-Semitism) is as barred by the First Amendment as punishing someone for the content of their speech.
Not disagreeing with your 1A points. The bill is still valuable in helping to protect from antisemitism for a number of reasons.
I would be more than happy to support the bill, but I do not see its value. A simple condemnation of anti-Semitism (defining it simply as hatred of Jews) would carry at least as much weight and wouldn't muddy the waters by adopting a definition that conflicts with American constitutional law.
I remember learning about the Skokie case in HS. It is flabbergasting the way most people don't (or won't) understand the 1A.
If people can be penalized for comparing anyone or anything to Nazis one board on this site, wonder which, will go belly up in seconds. Is that not self-evident, or is the intention by some to say some speech, when it's what they like, is OK, but not OK when against their viewpoint...that couldn't be could it?!
I don't understand your second paragraph; perhaps you should edit it.
I lived in the next town over from Skokie when that dispute was going on, and, although the "march" was protected speech, I can well understand the anguish about it in a largely Jewish town with many Holocaust survivors. There was nothing "flabbergasting' about that.
The outrage was justified but the ruling was correct. IMO, the most brilliant aspect of American jurisprudence is on free speech. Skokie and Sullivan in particular should be the rule in any democracy.
My point is very simple. The people who say the Israeli gov cannot be called racist or Nazi like but do exactly the same when it comes to our own government, (including and especially in regards to Jewish American officials) repeatedly and constantly, on this board (which, BTW, isn't the one throwing protesters in jail, closing TV stations, and saying courts can't rule on any of what it does) are the ones demanding Israel's government be above criticism. If people can't criticize the government without being worried about facing arrest or jail, the country isn't a democracy. I could only imagine the reaction if a faculty union said criticizing China was prohibited, which of course is something Xi and his apparatchiks love to push for at Western schools, accusing them of racism if they don't budge.
Speaking as a retired law professor, I would say you have the typical lawyer's fault of hurting your position by overstating it. Who (beside some of the posters on the CE board, which I am careful not to read) is calling our own government racist while saying that Israel can't be criticized on the same grounds? May I add that your parenthetical, which is apparently aimed at Israel, is way overstated.
I would say there's a number of Republicans who claim that Joe Biden or Chuck Schumer is racist but that Israel is above criticism. These are people who call Bernie anti-Semitic. I'm not saying they're smart. They just have a lot of talking points.
Israel is unfortunately a democracy in decline. I say that as an American we're the same people would have us go in that direction, and in fact tried to do so with violence after our SCOTUS ruled against. In Israel they just tried to essentially scuttle their Supreme Court. Really sad all around.
This bill has passed through committee! Even though public comment needed to be virtual for safety.
Yes, it's AIPAC of course. The Jews control all the money. You know this already.
I see your point about it going against constitutional law. However, I think it is fair to note that on college campuses everywhere, there is absolutely no freedom of speech. Can you imagine if a person wanted to give a talk that supported Israel's right to exist? Even if you wanted to criticize Hamas, you would be kicked off campus. If you even attempted to say anything against Hamas, you would be lucky to make it off campus unharmed.
You would get police protection. (I know this because it happens at other universities -- even Berkeley, my alma mater.) If the police refused you protection because of what you were saying, that would be a violation of the First Amendment (as long as you weren't advocating immediate violence). Remember that the First Amendment applies to the government, not to private persons. If you as a private employer want to fire everyone who is pro-Hamas, you could do it. A public employer can't do that.
Since October 7th, it's just not happening. There are many people who support Israel that would like to educate college students on the truth about Israel, but I don't see them ever speaking on campus. Are they not allowed or are they afraid? I don't know, but there's no free speech on campus when it comes to Israel.
They're certainly allowed. They could get police protection if they wanted. It's up to them whether they think that's worth the hassle.
I think it would be more than a "hassle" to give a pro-Israeli talk on campus. Even if you were to convince the school to give you the stage and get police protection, the room would be packed with students screaming at you, not permitting you to talk. Then the campus would be flooded with protesters and encampments calling Rutgers a genocidal university for allowing someone to exercise their first amendment rights. I don't care who you want to blame for this situation, but that's the reality. There's no free speech at Rutgers or any other university.
I don't think you'd have any problem getting the stage or police protection. Still, I understand that what you're describing would be awful. But it doesn't allow the university to punish an individual based on their out-of-classroom speech. Two wrongs don't make a right.
I agree, you shouldn't be punished for out of classroom speech. My only point is that we do not have free speech at universities in America today.
AIPAC has obviously taken sides and unfortunately they've chosen to protect people who think someone invading the Capitol to halt the certification of a free and fair election wearing a "Camp Auschwitz" sweatshirt is a patriot.
It's sickening, but of course, most people realize most Jewish Americans don't support that behavior and most Israelis likely don't either.
Has AIPAC officially come out to support Jan. 6th protesters? I can't find it anywhere.
Right. And surely you could provide an example of an employee or student facing a government-issued consequence for their pro-Israel speech, as the First Amendment would require?
From an Israeli newspaper:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-defends-endorsement-of-republicans-who-questioned-2020-election/
They also endorsed this cow who promoted the anti-Semitic Great Replacement Theory:
Among those candidates endorsed by Aipac is the New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist whose home town newspaper criticised her for “despicable” advertising and “hateful rhetoric” that promoted the racist and antisemitic “great replacement theory”, claiming the US is being flooded with immigrants to outvote white people. The Times Union accused Stefanik of “fear-based political tactics”.
Why pro-Israel lobby group Aipac is backing election deniers and extremist Republicans
The group places support for Israel over all over considerations, endorsing extreme rightwing candidates in the midterm elections
You'll surely recall that Stefanik said that those arrested and jailed for their terrorism on Jan 6 are "hostages." So I understand this right, the guy wearing a Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt who tried to disrupt the election certification is a hostage?
In addition to supporting the Jan 6 terrorists and antisemiites, AIPAC also supports QAnon, homophobia and Islamophobia.
Another candidate backed by Aipac, the Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry, pushed the same theory when he told a foreign affairs committee meeting “native-born” Americans are being replaced in order “to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation”.
Aipac has also endorsed other candidates who have associated with QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory. Among them are the Georgia congressman Buddy Carter, who attended a QAnon-linked rally claiming links between Democrats and child sex rings, and a Florida congresswoman, Kat Cammack, who appeared on QAnon-related channels including Patriots’ Soapbox.
Other Republicans backed by Aipac have appeared on Patriots’ Soapbox. They include the Utah congressman Burgess Owens, who has promoted claims by the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website, including anti-migrant diatribes and false claims of election rigging. Owens distributed an Infowars article that smeared the bereaved Muslim father of a US soldier by pushing an unfounded suggestion that his legal work helped the 9/11 hijackers enter the US.
Aipac has endorsed Rick Allen, a Georgia congressman who refused to debate a fellow Republican at an Islamic community centre, calling it a “suspect venue”.
The hawkish lobby group is also backing candidates known for anti-LGBTQ+ views. They include Mark Green, a Tennessee congressman who once said “transgender is a disease”, as well as members of Congress who denounced the supreme court ruling making marriage equality a right.
Aipac’s approved list includes Steve Scalise, who opposed the end of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in the military, and Randy Weber, who broke down in tears as he begged God to forgive the US for the supreme court judgement.
“Father, oh Father, please forgive us,” he pleaded.
Maybe AIPAC can help me answer this...did we ever have in the US someone shoot up a synagogue after asserting Jewish Americans were helping refugees replace white people?
Oh.
AIPAC has nothing to do with Judaism or democracy. It has to do with promoting far right violence both in Israel and the US, the kind that led to Jewish Americans losing their lives in Pittsburgh.
It doesn't work like that. It's not the government that's restricting free speech, it's the students and faculty.
From an Israeli newspaper:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/aipac-defends-endorsement-of-republicans-who-questioned-2020-election/
They also endorsed this cow who promoted the anti-Semitic Great Replacement Theory:
Among those candidates endorsed by Aipac is the New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik, a Trump loyalist whose home town newspaper criticised her for “despicable” advertising and “hateful rhetoric” that promoted the racist and antisemitic “great replacement theory”, claiming the US is being flooded with immigrants to outvote white people. The Times Union accused Stefanik of “fear-based political tactics”.
Why pro-Israel lobby group Aipac is backing election deniers and extremist Republicans
The group places support for Israel over all over considerations, endorsing extreme rightwing candidates in the midterm electionswww.theguardian.com
You'll surely recall that Stefanik said that those arrested and jailed for their terrorism on Jan 6 are "hostages." So I understand this right, the guy wearing a Camp Auschwitz sweatshirt who tried to disrupt the election certification is a hostage?
In addition to supporting the Jan 6 terrorists and antisemiites, AIPAC also supports QAnon, homophobia and Islamophobia.
Another candidate backed by Aipac, the Pennsylvania congressman Scott Perry, pushed the same theory when he told a foreign affairs committee meeting “native-born” Americans are being replaced in order “to permanently transform the landscape of this very nation”.
Aipac has also endorsed other candidates who have associated with QAnon, the far-right conspiracy theory. Among them are the Georgia congressman Buddy Carter, who attended a QAnon-linked rally claiming links between Democrats and child sex rings, and a Florida congresswoman, Kat Cammack, who appeared on QAnon-related channels including Patriots’ Soapbox.
Other Republicans backed by Aipac have appeared on Patriots’ Soapbox. They include the Utah congressman Burgess Owens, who has promoted claims by the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and his Infowars website, including anti-migrant diatribes and false claims of election rigging. Owens distributed an Infowars article that smeared the bereaved Muslim father of a US soldier by pushing an unfounded suggestion that his legal work helped the 9/11 hijackers enter the US.
Aipac has endorsed Rick Allen, a Georgia congressman who refused to debate a fellow Republican at an Islamic community centre, calling it a “suspect venue”.
The hawkish lobby group is also backing candidates known for anti-LGBTQ+ views. They include Mark Green, a Tennessee congressman who once said “transgender is a disease”, as well as members of Congress who denounced the supreme court ruling making marriage equality a right.
Aipac’s approved list includes Steve Scalise, who opposed the end of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in the military, and Randy Weber, who broke down in tears as he begged God to forgive the US for the supreme court judgement.
“Father, oh Father, please forgive us,” he pleaded.
Maybe AIPAC can help me answer this...did we ever have in the US someone shoot up a synagogue after asserting Jewish Americans were helping refugees replace white people?
Oh.
AIPAC has nothing to do with Judaism or democracy. It has to do with promoting far right violence both in Israel and the US, the kind that led to Jewish Americans losing their lives in Pittsburgh.
AIPAC's primary objective is keep the Jews in Israel from being killed. If a democrat is willing to support a strong Israeli defense, they would support them.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Football VIDEO: College Football 25 Sim -- Rutgers Football versus Virginia Tech- Latest: RU-Choppin-Ohio
-
-
