IS "ANTI-SEMITIC" UNIV. OF CALIFORNIA A LAWBREAKER?
By Rev. Ted Pike
9 Oct 12
As I related in my previous article, (See California Legislature Condemns Criticism of Israel on Campus) the U of C is defying compliance to a non-binding resolution by the California Legislature that condemns as anti-Semitic virtually all criticism of Israel on California’s tax-funded campuses. Yet UC may also be found guilty of violating a binding 2010 decree by the U.S. Department of Education asserting that any U.S. educational institution that allows protests against Israel that cause anxiety to Jewish students could be subject to loss of federal funding.
The Los Angeles Times reports that the USDE’s Civil Rights Division is in fact investigating allegations that UC Berkley officials created such a hostile campus by allowing pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel demonstrations.
Especially irked by free speech in American universities, Jewish groups have been pressuring the US Department of Education (USDE) to outlaw “anti-Semitism” on campus. They scored a major victory in 2010 by persuading Arne Duncan, Secretary of Education, to issue detailed guidelines “that in effect applies Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the protection of Jewish students from anti-Semitism on campus.”
Just as the federal hate crimes law added homosexuality to special favored protection from hate crimes under the same Civil Rights Act, and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) would have added the same protection to gays and transgenders, the USDE now considers all members of the Jewish race in US public education to be protected from “anti-Semitic” criticism. What does that mean? The guidelines say negative generalizations about Jewish behavior or ethnic characteristics on campus are now illegal!
What if "anti-Semitic" generalizations are true? Consider these true statements about most American Jews. They …
1) Are predominantly liberals, favoring abortion, homosexual rights, evolution, banning Christian symbols in public places, etc.
2) Support Israel’s policies of oppression against Palestinians.
3) Oppose virtually all aspects of the Christian/conservative political agenda, including incorporation of Christian moral values in government.
4) Tend to gravitate towards positions of power and influence, avoiding military service.
5) Reject Jesus Christ and the need to repent and trust in Him in order to find spiritual fulfillment.
USDE directives prohibit “anti-Semitic" harassment in public education as if the term’s definition is so obvious it doesn’t need to be spelled out. Webster’s New 20th Century Dictionary gives its Zionist-friendly definition. It says anti-Semitism is “disliking or fearing Jews or Jewish things” [i.e. Israel]. Clearly, USDE bases its criminalization of free speech on such skewed, PC definitions. This makes anti-Semites out of anyone who dislikes or fears the persecutive military might of Israel!
According to USDE, it is now “anti-Semitic” and illegal to make such general statements on campus. Any institution of public education allowing such “hate” can lose federal funding. They can even face federally sanctioned lawsuits and indictment.
Rep. Brad Sherman said, “The policy is now clear: colleges and universities will no longer be permitted to turn a blind eye when Jewish students face severe and persistent anti-Semitic hostility on their campuses.” The guidelines also state that if any publicly supported school allows “hostility” against matters Jewish (Israel’s siege of Gaza or flotilla attack?) it can be forced to create a reeducation program for the entire school, to “eliminate” such anti-Semitism.
Will Congress Uphold USDE Decree?
Of course, Duncan's decree is unconstitutional. However, the USDE's Civil Rights Division has power to enforce the Civil Rights Act, making federal hate criminals out of UC "anti-Semitic" students and faculty. But for the USDE decree to be most effectively enforced and to repel Constitutional challenge, it must be enshrined in federal law by an act of Congress. That is why lovers of freedom must make absolutely sure that a previous bill, introduced into Congress in 2010 by the ADL, HR 6216, which I dubbed the “Don’t Criticize Jews and Muslims Bill,” is not resuscitated and passed. (See 'Don’t Criticize Jews and Muslims' Bill Enters Congress)
Already, with the recent California legislature’s resolution condemning anti-Israel agitation as “anti-Semitic,” we see the beginning of organized attempts to outlaw criticism of Talmudic Judaism and Israel, not just in public education but everywhere. With ADL’s federal hate bill passed, it could be a small step under the Civil Rights Act to ban “discrimination” or criticism of Jewish issues in all businesses of 20 or more employees, possibly including churches. Such censorship could progress, as happened in ADL hate law countries, to outlaw “hateful speech” in society at large. At that time, America will be under the jackboot of a "civil rights" speech crime gestapo with no regard for First Amendment free speech guarantees.
What is Discrimination?
Under ADL hate laws worldwide, you don’t have to deny housing to a homosexual or fire a black person to be guilty of “discrimination.” You can face this charge simply for causing “emotional distress” by criticizing them. When HR 6216 sponsor Rep. Brad Sherman says “severe and persistent anti-Semitic hostility” will not be tolerated in schools, he is not talking about physical violence or even bigotry but persistent criticism of Israel. Since “anti-Semitism” is now defined by the U.S. State Department's Office of Global Anti-Semitism as “strong criticism of Israel,” Sherman is really telling us the USDE “harassment” guidelines already cast a chill over all publicly supported US campuses from grade school through grad school, forcing administrators to end free speech about Israel. (See The Real Motive Behind the "Department of Global Anti-Semitism")
ADL has been strongly promoting “anti-bullying” bills on the federal and state level. They were withstood in 2009 when the National Prayer Network led the charge, stimulating Republican House Judiciary rejection of ADL’s cyber-bullying and AWARE bills as unconstitutional. (See Media Mocks Cyberbullying Bill) Since then, ADL has doggedly bypassed the need for legislation and simply persuaded the USDE to enforce ADL's program of banning criticism of homosexuality in US public schools. The League invaded the Dept. of Education with its “anti-bullying” agenda against “homophobic” Christians in school and now has persuaded USDE to aggressively ban criticism of Jewish issues as well. (The USDE guidelines, ostensibly issued by Arne Duncan, reek of the writing style, twisted definitions and arguments of ADL director Abe Foxman.)
Special Protection for Islam
In his 2009 Senate testimony, Attorney General Holder indicated that, while most violent “hate criminals” will face triple penalties under federal hate crimes law, Muslim criminals will not. (Watch Holder Admits: No Equality Under Hate Bill) They must be indicted as common criminals on the state level. Under the USDE ruling, Muslims will also receive the privilege of non-criticism concerning their ethnic characteristics.
Most Christians will be untroubled by the USDE investigation of UC Berkley because it could criminalize what they believe God also hates: criticism of His chosen people. Yet they should be aware that, in allowing possible prosecution of UC, they will be empowering a “speech crime” agenda designed to end free speech for themselves. Already, under USDE guidelines, any student is subject to discipline and possible prosecution if he or she continues to make negative statements against Islam. This could include the following:
1) Islam was birthed in violence. Its Qu’ran advocates such violence toward infidels.
2) Islam aspires toward world dominion.
3) Islam wants to enforce Sharia law worldwide.
Already, under hate law bills in Canada, France, England, Holland, etc. local Islamic councils take full advantage of ADL-inspired hate laws to bring vengeance on their critics, seeing them harassed, fined, and threatened with prison (Watch Hate Law Jihad: Criminalizing Islam's Critics).
Rep. Louis Gohmert warned that pastors, talk show hosts, and publishers, whose speech might be construed as inspiring hate crimes, will also be indicted (under the Civil Rights Act’s Title 18, Section 2a). Under HR 6216, those critical of Muslims could face similar federal prosecution just for allegedly stimulating others to act violently.
Members of Congress need to know that Americans, including their pro-Israel supporters, strongly oppose the USDE edict.
If UC is successfully punished by the Dept. of Education, such a blow will reverberate to every college campus in America. A federal judge recently rejected a suit by two Jewish UC students who claimed verbal harassment by Muslim students. He said much of the alleged harassment, even if factual, was protected political speech that UC Berkley was not obliged to end. Let’s vocally stand behind this courageous judge and the anti-Zionist students and faculty of UC Berkley as well as UC President Mark Yudof as they affirm the rights of everyone to speak up in defense of oppressed Palestinians and resist further loss of free speech to placate the Zionist lobby.
*Adapted from my November 16, 2010 article, 'Don’t Criticize Jews and Muslims' Bill Enters Congress