SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
u s department of education
Jewish Groups Decry House Passage of Bill Defining Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'
"Antisemitism is a serious problem, but codifying a legal definition could have dangerous implications for free speech," said one campaigner.
May 01, 2024
House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve legislation directing the U.S. Department of Education to consider a dubious definition of antisemitism, despite warnings from Jewish-led groups that the measure speciously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with bigotry against Jewish people.
House members approved the
Antisemitism Awareness Act—bipartisan legislation introduced last year by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the lower chamber and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate—by a vote of 320-91.
Both progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans opposed language in the bill. The former objected to conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, while the latter bristled at labeling Christian scripture—which posits that Jews killed Jesus—as antisemitic.
"Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn't need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places," Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the Jewish-led group Americans for Peace Now, said following Wednesday's vote.
"They aren't interested in protecting Jews," he added. "They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying 'antisemite' at everyone, including Jews" who oppose Israel's far-right government.
"With this disingenuous effort, House Republicans have failed to seriously address antisemitism," Susskind added. "I hope the Senate does better."
The legislation—officially H.R. 6090—would require the Department of Education to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism when determining whether alleged harassment is motivated by antisemitic animus and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance," including colleges and universities.
Lawler's office called the proposal "a key step in calling out antisemitism where it is and ensuring antisemitic hate crimes on college campuses are properly investigated and prosecuted," while Gottheimer emphasized that "the IHRA definition underscores that antisemitism includes denying Jewish self-determination to their ancestral homeland of Israel... and applying double standards to Israel."
Critics say that's the trouble with the IHRA working definition: It conflates legitimate criticism and condemnation of Israeli policies and practices with anti-Jewish bigotry, and forces people to accept the legitimacy of a settler-colonial apartheid state engaged in illegal occupation and a "plausibly" genocidal war on Gaza.
As the ACLU noted last week in a letter urging lawmakers to reject the legislation:
The IHRA working definition... is overbroad. It equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, and enshrining it into regulation would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the Department of Education's legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination. Criticism of Israel and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment. But the IHRA working definition declares that "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," "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," and "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" are all examples of antisemitism.
Jewish Voice for Peace Action
slammed what it called IHRA's "controversial and dangerous mis-definition that does not help fight real antisemitism and is only a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights."
"The Israeli government's bombardment and siege of Gaza has killed over 34,000 people in six months," the group said on social media. "Congress must stop attacking the students and faculty members who are trying to stop this genocide, and instead focus on ending U.S. complicity in Israel's attacks."
Israel's Gaza onslaught has sparked a wave of nonviolent student-led protests across the United States and around the world. Some of these protests have been violently repressed by police, while anti-genocide activists including Jews have been branded "antisemitic" for condemning Israeli crimes or defending Palestinians' legal right to resist them.
Sending in militarized police and snipers to stop students from exercising their First Amendment rights is truly disgusting.
Why are my colleagues and the mainstream media more outraged over these anti-war protests than they are about the over 35,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza? pic.twitter.com/EwLqRrS2we
— Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) May 1, 2024
Americans for Peace Now said that while it is "deeply concerned about the escalating antisemitism in the United States and globally," the legislation "poses a significant threat to free speech and open discourse."
"Equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism is a tactic used to stifle important discussions on Israeli policies and actions, thereby hindering the broader effort to combat true instances of hatred and discrimination against Jewish communities," the group added.
Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Centre for the Study of Hate and lead drafter of the IHRA working definition, warned years ago that "Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently antisemitic and must be suppressed."
"Imagine if Black Lives Matter said the most important thing the [Biden] administration could do to remedy systemic racism is adopt a definition of racism, and that definition included this example: opposition to affirmative action," Stern wrote in 2020.
"Obviously, sometimes opposition to affirmative action is racist and sometimes it is not," he added. "The debate about systemic racism would be changed to a free speech fight, and those with reasonable concerns about affirmative action correctly upset that the state was branding them racist."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Progressives Applaud as Biden Student Debt Relief Tops $143 Billion
"Let's keep fighting until we cancel student debt for EVERY single borrower," said Rep. Ilhan Omar.
Mar 21, 2024
Progressive U.S. lawmakers and campaigners on Thursday cheered the Department of Education's announcement of nearly $6 billion in additional student loan relief—this time for public service workers—as President Joe Biden continues to find ways to work around a Supreme Court ruling limiting how he can eliminate educational debt.
The Department of Education (DOE) said the administration has approved $5.8 billion in student debt for around 78,000 borrowers, the result of adjustments to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The move brings the total amount of student loan forgiveness approved by Biden administration to $143.6 billion for nearly 4 million borrowers.
"Of the estimated 43 million student loan borrowers in America, approximately 20% have either been approved for debt cancellation or have no current repayment obligation."
"For too long, our nation's teachers, nurses, social workers, firefighters, and other public servants faced logistical troubles and trap doors when they tried to access the debt relief they were entitled to under the law," U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement.
"With this announcement, the Biden-Harris administration is showing how we're taking further steps not only to fix those trap doors, but also to expand opportunity to many more Americans," Cardona added. "Today, more than 100 times more borrowers are eligible for PSLF than there were at the beginning of the administration."
Before 2021, only around 7,000 borrowers benefited from PSFL relief. During Biden's tenure, more than 871,000 people have had their student loan debt canceled after the administration updated and fixed key parts of the program, including by introducing a new help tool to simplify navigation of the debt relief process.
"The president gets it. Today, thousands more borrowers are finally able to imagine life after student debt," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair (CPC) Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement.
Jayapal noted that after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the president's student debt cancellation program last June, Biden and Cardona "got to work" and have been "relentless in the pursuit of other avenues to help the millions of Americans burdened by student debt."
"With the administration's fixes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, teachers, nurses, firefighters, and others in public service will see their relief sooner and can finally start putting their hard-earned income towards buying homes, investing in their communities, and taking care of their families," she added.
Student loan attorney Adam Minsky noted this week that "of the estimated 43 million student loan borrowers in America, approximately 20% have either been approved for debt cancellation or have no current repayment obligation."
According to the Education Data Initiative, U.S. student loan debt in the United States currently totals more than $1.7 trillion.
Some advocates reacted to the Biden administration's announcement by calling for more debt relief and even tuition-free higher education.
"Americans have a right to an education, and it should be debt-free," the Student Debt Crisis Center said on social media. "The time to #CancelStudentDebt is now, not later."
Former Democratic Ohio state Sen. Nina Turnerasserted: "The more student debt canceled, the better. "We must keep pushing for more; it's a nearly $2 trillion crisis."
"We must stop saddling our students with this debt to begin with," Turner added. "We need tuition-free college."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Senators Urge Education Department to End Legacy, Donor Preferences in College Admissions
"Colleges and universities are a path towards opportunity, but this opportunity should not be locked behind an ivory tower."
Aug 15, 2023
A trio of progressive New England senators on Monday called on U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona to use his powers "to even the playing field for college applicants by helping to end preferential treatment" for higher education aspirants who are the children of alumni and donors.
"In its June decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the United States Supreme Court once again overturned decades of settled precedent, this time gutting the use of affirmative action in college admissions," Sens. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote in a letter to Cardona made public Tuesday.
"The court's decision strikes a blow against diversity in higher education while keeping intact harmful practices that advantage the wealthy and well-connected," the senators asserted. "The U.S. Department of Education must respond."
The lawmakers implored Cardona to "immediately take steps to mitigate the impact of this Supreme Court decision, including by using your advisory and enforcement authority to help effectively end preferential treatment given to children of alumni—legacy admissions—and donors and help ensure a more even playing field for students applying to college."
The senators say those steps should include:
- Providing resources to colleges and universities to support their transitions away from legacy and donor preferences;
- Aggressively pursuing investigations of complaints regarding legacy and donor preference and other admissions policies that provide preferential treatment;
- Refusing to provide federal funding to universities that continue to preference legacy and donor admissions to disproportionately benefit affluent, white students; and,
- Commissioning a report on the detrimental effects of legacy admissions and donor preference.
"Colleges and universities are a path towards opportunity, but this opportunity should not be locked behind an ivory tower," the lawmakers stressed. "We must ensure that future generations will not be weighed down by the inequities of our past. We must endeavor to give every student the opportunity to fulfill their educational dreams."
The lawmakers' letter follows the launch last month of a Department of Education civil rights probe of Harvard University's legacy admissions program and a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups challenging the elite Massachusetts school's preferential treatment of applicants related to alumni and donors—a policy the litigants say "severely damages and harms" prospective students of color.
A recent study by economists at Harvard revealed that legacy students were nearly four times likelier to be admitted than other applicants with identical test scores.
Last year, U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) introduced the Fair College Admissions for Students Act, which would bar colleges and universities from favoring the children of alumni and donors during the admissions process.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular