House Democrat and former constitutional law professor Jamie Raskin wrote a statement detailing the bill’s problems and justifying the “yes” vote with a kind of defeated shrug. “At this moment of anguish and confusion over a dangerous surge,” given the problems of anti-Semitism, authoritarianism, and racism across the country and around the world, it seems unlikely that this pointless “gotcha” bill will help much. However, it may not cause much harm and may cause anxiety to some people who despair at any manifestation of anti-Semitism. comfort. “While there are few people in Congress I respect more than Mr. Raskin, I do not agree that this bill is harmless, and I hope someone in the Senate will block it.
The bill builds on the definition of anti-Semitism adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, which takes into account the “total circumstances” of several aspects that may constitute anti-Semitism. Examples are listed. Some of them “apply double standards to Israel” and claim that the country’s existence is a “racist act,” and others use “classic anti-Semitic methods to characterize Israel and Israelis.” Some use symbols and images associated with the cause (e.g., claims that Jews murdered Jesus or that it is a bloody libel). ”
Even if we agree that all of these are symptoms of anti-Semitic hostility, there are serious First Amendment issues in attempting to legally classify them as such. That’s why, as I’ve written before, Ken Stern, one of the authors of the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism, has consistently opposed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
Stern, director of Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate, spent 25 years as the in-house expert on anti-Semitism at the American Jewish Committee, where he worked on what became the IHRA’s definition of anti-Semitism. He said the document was intended as a research tool and not the basis for legislation. He gave an example. He said, “Those who study racism in America may want to look at affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, and opposition to the removal of Confederate statues.” But that’s very different from enacting a law that declares these attitudes racist. The law is supposed to address actions, not ideas, which is why federal civil rights law does not define racism, sexism, or homophobia.
“When you start defining what kind of speech is OK in education, funding, all sorts of areas, how is that different from what we were doing during the McCarthy era?” Stern asked. As Raskin pointed out, it is true that Donald Trump has already issued and never rescinded an executive order directing the government to use the IHRA definition when enforcing civil rights laws on college campuses. It is. But Stern argues that writing this definition into law with broad liberal consent will help solidify it.
