Jamie Raskin, a House Democrat and former constitutional law professor, wrote one rack He explains the problems with the bill at length before justifying his “yes” vote with a sort of defeated shrug: “In this moment of fear and confusion about the dangerous wave of anti-Semitism, authoritarianism and racism across the country and the world , it seems unlikely that this meaningless 'gotcha' legislation will do much to help – but it can't do much harm either, and it may now give some people who despair over expressions of anti-Semitism a sense of comfort.” There are few people in Congress I admire more than Raskin, but I disagree that the bill is harmless, and I hope someone in the Senate will stop it.
The bill is based on a definition of anti-Semitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016, which lists several examples that, taking into account the “general context,” could constitute anti-Semitism. These include applying “double standards to Israel,” claiming that the country's existence “is a racist endeavor,” or using “the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (for example, claims that Jews Killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis. .”
Even if you agree that all of these things are signs of anti-Jewish animus, there are serious First Amendment problems with trying to legally classify them that way. Therefore, as I have written forone of the key drafters of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, Ken Stern, has consistently opposed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act.
Stern, who directs the Center for the Study of Hate at Bard College, was the in-house expert on anti-Semitism at the American Jewish Committee for 25 years, where he worked on what would become the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. As he explained, the document was intended as a research tool and not as a basis for legislation. He offered an analogy: Someone studying racism in America, he said, might want to look at opposition to affirmative action, Black Lives Matter and the removal of Confederate statues. However, that is very different from passing a law that declares these attitudes racist. The law should address behavior, not ideas. Therefore, federal civil rights law does not define racism, sexism, or homophobia.
“Once you start defining what speech is good for education, for funding, for all kinds of things, how is that different from what we did in the McCarthy era?” Stern asked. It is true, as Raskin noted, that Donald Trump has already issued an executive order, which has never been rescinded, directing the administration to use the IHRA definition in enforcing civil rights law on college campuses. But Stern argues that including the definition in law, with broad liberal approval, serves to strengthen it.