4341

I don’t see how this can possibly achieve its ostensible purpose. Religious discrimination is forbidden in the Constitution; isn’t that better than a statutory ban on discrimination against national origin?

4342

There’s a reason why Nazis want to call them a nationality… because if it’s not a religion, you can ignore those protections normally afforded.

4343

who suggest that Jews can’t be real Americans.

This move is a patently bad idea. Trump is taking sides in an identity conflict we have no business with, and should have no official position on.

There is an old split in the Jewish community between zionists, and those who believe in integration.

4344

It’s a woeful policy.

Trump is captive to some of the most counterproductive forces on the Israeli right though.

4345

There seems to be confusion over the NYT story and the language of the EO.
(see edit below for more.)

So the origin of this law is pro-Isreal and anti-Palestine posturing. Why isn’t Trump just adding religion to the law? For the same reason that sex isn’t included as a protected class here; religious and single-sex colleges exist and barring funds to colleges that only admitted, for instance, Christians or women would be tricky. Also, executive orders are very limited. They can’t amend laws, just interpret it and even then the courts have the final word on if that interpretation is correct.

To be clear, Donald Trump is not a good president for minorities, but no President has the power to unilaterally declare something a nationality, full stop. This move is about the executive branch saying they are going to interpret a certain law a certain way to apply to Jewish people, ostensibly to prevent discrimination.

As tempting as it is to assume the worst, the Trump administration is not saying Jews aren’t American, just that this non-discrimination law applies to them as much as it does to Black or Mexican Americans. It’s a narrow and specific thing, and it’s a shame that this one very bad tweet has caused such fear and panic. Trump is so bad, and things are so terrible that we assume the very worst, but we haven’t actually gotten there yet. For many, however, this is a move that has eerie and threatening echoes out of history, and it does not seem to be in service of a positive agenda.

Edit: And here’s another tweet saying the same thing with fewer words:

4346

I’m looking forward to the first Jewish student to sue Oral Roberts University for a hostile environment.

4347

Both of these objections seem to actually confirm the original reporting. For the purposes of Title VI, Trump is declaring Judaism a national origin. Perhaps the application is narrower, but the original report was largely correct. And the goal of the order is to conflate opposition to Israeli national policy in general, and the BDS movement in particular, with anti-semitism; that’s an odious goal.

4348

Yep this.

4349

Furthermore, it blatantly, if implicitly, equates being Jewish to supporting Israeli policy and specific Israeli government actions. Newsflash: many American Jews love Israel but hate the current trend towards right-wing extremism. Many American Jews disagree with Israel over the occupied territories, settlements, etc.

4350

I’m not sure what you’re talking about - the IHRA - which is all this order refers to is the internationally accepted definition of antisemitism. It does not in any way prevent or impede criticism of Israel. It makes it clear that gross distortions which provoke jew hate, some of which have been posted in this very thread, are in fact antisemitic.

EDIT: Removed the personal attack. We argued about it upthread.

4351

Heh, even many Israeli Jews disagree about those. Happy to be one of them.

4352

Ok thanks for clarification. Just seeing a lot of chatter that the language in the EO (which I’ve not seen, and not being a lawyer probably wouldn’t understand anyway) doesn’t do what the NYT said the EO is intended to do.

4353

Damn, you made me read the actual text of the Executive Order.

Previous policy was that anti-semitism (and anti-Islamic discrimination and other things) could be considered in a separate category from the “normal” religious discrimination that the law allows. What’s new about this order is that it incorporates the IHRA standard as the standard for anti-semitism under this law (although not in a legally binding way). You are right that this has nothing to do with making Judaism a national origin.

The potential problem with this is that the IHRA standard, by design, is pretty expansive. It couldn’t be applied as the letter of the law without infringing on academic freedom and First Amendment rights, which the Executive Order implicitly acknowledges. A similarly expansive definition of anti-Islamic discrimination would face the same issues and if strictly applied might have denied a number of universities federal funding for years.

4354

Because, one, Trump has never demonstrated any interest in actually combating anti-Semitism; two, the only thing related to this that he’s shown interest in is supporting Netanyahu and the right-wing policies of Israeli governments; three, colleges already have policies in place that protect Jews and other religious minorities from harassment; and four, the purpose of the action seems directly tied to equating divestment and boycott actions with anti-Semitism. Now, I’m sure some people who support the Palestinian cause and oppose Israeli actions are anti-Semitic, but the two things are not the same at all.

So, yeah, as far as I can see there are no other reasons whatsoever for this sort of action other than to make a political point. Nothing at all about it helps Jewish people in the USA, and in fact almost certainly will ramp up attacks on Jews, not protect them.

4355

I’m sure trumps political point is to support Netanyahu, yes. I do not view this act as a sign of any moral goodness on the part of trump. But the actual EO is unexceptionable, and I think that you have to be careful to distinguish between trumps political acts and the merits of the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

4356

Oh, certainly, it is possible that an action by this administration could, accidentally, end up being benign or even helpful. I just don’t think there is anything in this particular action that is either necessary or helpful. The anti-Semitism I see is mostly from far-right zealots who, oddly enough, are hyper pro-Israel.

4357

So I mostly see antisemitism from far-left zealots who are hyper pro-Palestine (it’s been in the news just a little bit).

I guess what I am asking is that, “as a jew” (hah!), do you think the IHRA definition of antisemitism is either necessary or helpful? Because you posted after two people who believe it is both unnecessary and actively unhelpful, and appeared to agree with them. Forget Trump for a minute.

4358

I think the entire point is to use it against people who say something mean about Israel.

Because fuck the First Amendment.

4359

I think the entire point of opposition to IHRA is to help people who say something mean about jews.

4360

Well I haven’t really dug down into any of this, but I know that passing laws making it basically illegal to criticize Israel has been a popular fad with the GOP of late.

Someone had an article about how this was likely the reasoning behind Trump doing it, but I can’t recall where I read it anymore.