By Donald H. Harrison
Donald H. Harrison
Congresswoman Sara Jacobs
SAN DIEGO — Congresswoman Sara Jacobs (D-San Diego) voted in the minority against a bill on Wednesday, May 1, that is called the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. She said the measure “would stifle and restrict free speech in an effort to combat the rise of antisemitism” The measure passed the House by a vote 320-91.
Seventy Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against the measure. The New York Post quoted another Jewish Democrat who opposed the measure, Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, as saying: “Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination. It is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism and Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.”
The legislation’s lead sponsor, Mike Lawler, a Republican who is Christian, commented: “Some of my colleagues on the left are allowing electoral politics to get in the way of doing what is right. “[It] is absurd to oppose this on the grounds that it somehow limits free speech. Calling for death to Jews is not protected speech.”
Identifying herself as the youngest Jewish member of Congress, Jacobs commented, “I’ve experienced antisemitism all my life. I’ve been called a kike while I was waiting for a drink at a bar when I was at college. I’ve heard too many ‘jokes’ to count about my frizzy hair and my big nose. I remember my classmates who thought it was funny to say people were ‘being Jewed’ when someone was being frugal. I know the hatred and ignorance that lie behind all these comments, and how they can quickly escalate into violence – and I’m deeply concerned about the rise of antisemitism in San Diego and across the country.
“But I do not believe that anti-Zionism is inherently antisemitism. I support Israel’s right to exist, but I also know many people who question whether Israel should exist as a Jewish state who are deeply connected to their Judaism.
“Today, I voted against H.R. 6090, because it fails to effectively address the very real rise of antisemitism, all while defunding colleges and universities across the country and punishing many, if not all, of the non-violent protestors speaking out against the Israeli military’s conduct. Conflating free speech and hate crimes will not make Jewish students any safer. This bill would stifle First Amendment rights to free speech and free assembly. And it would distract from real antisemitism and our efforts to address it.”
Other Democratic Jewish members of Congress, in addition to Jacobs and Nadler, who voted against the measure included Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, Becca Balint of Vermont, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois.
The San Diego delegation to Congress, with the exception of Jacobs, voted in favor of the bill: Republican Darrell Issa, and Democrats Mike Levin, Scott Peters, and Juan Vargas.
Here is the text of the bill, H. R. 6090, as it was introduced on Oct. 26 in the House of Representatives by a bipartisan group of 11 members of Congress, including three who are Jews: Congressmen Josh Gottheimer (D-New Jersey), Jared Moskowitz (D-Florida,) and David Kustoff (R-Tennessee).
The bill’s stated purpose was “to provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of Federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes.”
It read:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023”.
SEC. 2. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance;
(2) while such title does not cover discrimination based solely on religion, individuals who face discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics do not lose protection under such title for also being members of a group that share a common religion;
(3) discrimination against Jews may give rise to a violation of such title when the discrimination is based on race, color, or national origin, which can include discrimination based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics;
(4) it is the policy of the United States to enforce such title against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in antisemitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by such title; and
(5) as noted in the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism issued by the White House on May 25, 2023, it is critical to—
(A) increase awareness and understanding of antisemitism, including its threat to America;
(B) improve safety and security for Jewish communities;
(C) reverse the normalization of antisemitism and counter antisemitic discrimination; and
(D) expand communication and collaboration between communities.
SEC. 3. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Antisemitism is on the rise in the United States and is impacting Jewish students in K–12 schools, colleges, and universities.
(2) The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (referred to in this Act as the “IHRA”) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism.
(3) On December 11, 2019, Executive Order 13899 extended protections against discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to individuals subjected to antisemitism on college and university campuses and tasked Federal agencies to consider the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when enforcing title VI of such Act.
(4) Since 2018, the Department of Education has used the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism when investigating violations of that title VI.
(5) The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.
(6) The White House released the first-ever United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism on May 25, 2023, making clear that the fight against this hate is a national, bipartisan priority that must be successfully conducted through a whole-of-government-and-society approach.
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act, the term “definition of antisemitism”—
(1) means the definition of antisemitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the IHRA, of which the United States is a member, which definition has been adopted by the Department of State; and
(2) includes the “[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism” identified in the IHRA definition.
SEC. 5. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964.
In reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics, the Department of Education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent.
SEC. 6. OTHER RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.
(a) General Rule Of Construction.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed—
(1) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Education;
(2) to alter the standards pursuant to which the Department of Education makes a determination that harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or
(3) to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law that is in effect as of the date of enactment of this Act.
(b) Constitutional Protections.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
*
Much of the controversy over the bill deals with the IHRA definition of antisemitism and the appended examples helping to explain its meaning.
That document read: “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.”
“To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:
“Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.
“Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
“1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
“2. 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.
“3. 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.
“4. 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).
“5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
“6. 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.
“7. 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.
“8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
“9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
“10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
“11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.
“Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).
“Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.
“Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.”
*
Donald H. Harrison is publisher and editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via
