#title vi

Thanks and loving the new pfp and as always keep up the good work!

Background:

The American Civil Liberties Union focuses on defending constitutional rights, especially free speech and due process.

Its role is legal, not moral. It does not exist to decide what is right or wrong. It exists to challenge laws and policies it sees as violating individual freedoms, even when those freedoms are used in ways many people find offensive. That can make its work feel inconsistent or upsetting, but the common thread is a commitment to legal principle, not to political or cultural consensus.

If you want a video instruction, watch this short interview with Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU:

That's the ACLU.

Disclaimer: I generally support the ACLU's mission, even when they protect the rights of loathsome bigots.

So the ACLU has opposed the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) every time it's been introduced not because they support antisemitism, but because they believe it could chill protected speech.

Their argument is that if the Department of Education starts investigating student groups or faculty based on a definition of antisemitism that includes anti-Zionism or harsh criticism of Israel, then dissent itself is at risk.

But that argument only works if you treat antisemitism as a matter of Jewish sensitivity rather than what it is...a form of race-based hate.

It only holds up if you ignore what the IHRA definition actually says.

You can read it yourself here.

The IHRA definition isn't perfect, but it is the global standard. It's been used by the US State Department since 2010 and adopted by over 1,200 governments, universities, and institutions worldwide. It explicitly says that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic. What is antisemitic, according to IHRA, is demonizing Israel, holding it to double standards, or denying its right to exist.

In other words, it draws a clear line between criticism and hate. That’s a distinction any civil rights organization should be able to make.

The AAA does not create new criminal penalties or restrict protected speech. It says that when investigating civil rights complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (which bars discrimination in federally funded institutions), the Department of Education may consider the IHRA definition when determining if antisemitic discrimination has occurred.

May consider, not must consider. May consider, not may enforce or criminalize.

So what exactly is the ACLU afraid of?

In their 2023 letter to Congress, they call the IHRA definition vague, warn that it is being "weaponized," and argue that it could punish protected political expression. But they don't provide any examples of people being punished for legitimate speech under IHRA. Their entire position is based on a hypothetical risk.

This is the same pattern we've seen in other leftist institutions: absolute protection of speech for everyone except Jews, who are expected to absorb hatred quietly so no one else feels silenced.

The ACLU supports expanded hate crime laws and civil rights protections for nearly every marginalized group. But not for Jews, if the hate is disguised as anti-Israel activism.

That's a double standard.

And it reflects a deeper failure to adapt to how antisemitism operates now. It isn't just swastikas and slurs. It comes cloaked in the language of justice and liberation. It hides behind technicalities and knows how to avoid laws that weren't written with Jews in mind.

Being principled doesn't mean being so consistent that you become negligent. There's a difference between protecting free speech and refusing to recognize when hate speech is repackaged as activism.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act does not criminalize dissent. It helps educators and investigators recognize when language that presents as criticism is actually being used to harass, isolate, or discriminate against Jewish students.

No, we don't need to cancel the ACLU. But we do need to stop treating them as unimpeachable. When they fail to protect Jews using standards they would apply for anyone else, they should be challenged, not excused.

The people most affected by rising antisemitism in schools are not rich lobbyists or foreign governments. They are Jewish kids being targeted, excluded, and threatened for expressing any connection to Israel, or for simply existing as Jews in public.

That's what Title VI is supposed to protect against.

by Jaryn Crouson

The House Committee on Education and the Workforce alleged on Monday that Harvard University failed to punish students for their actions during anti-Israel protests in 2023 and instead blamed an Israeli student for provoking the demonstrators.

The committee alleged Harvard “rewarded” two students who assaulted a Jewish student for filming their protest during an Oct. 18, 2023 event. The university is accused of obstructing the district attorney’s investigation into the assault, failing to discipline either of the students, providing one of the attackers with a $65,000 fellowship after the event, and blaming the victim by saying that although the Israeli student “was technically within his rights … [t]he way he was taking videos appears provocative.”

“The Committee is deeply concerned that Harvard is failing to uphold its obligations under Title VI, as an investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services concluded,” the letter to Harvard reads. The committee told the school it is continuing to investigate antisemitism at the university.

Harvard also allegedly told its business school not to send out a community message following the assault, saying “MENA [Middle Eastern and North African] students … will be very upset by it,” according to the letter.

Arthur Jones II at ABC News:

President Donald Trump's administration is launching an investigation into Harvard University's law journal over alleged discriminatory practices, expanding its weeks-long battle over federal funding with the elite institution. The civil rights offices of the Education and Health and Human Services departments announced Monday they are investigating the Harvard Law Review, an independent, student-run organization that promotes legal scholarship. The offices are investigating allegations that the journal discriminates based on race "in lieu of merit-based" standards, in violation of the Title VI anti-discrimination law, according to a release by the two agencies. "Harvard Law Review's article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission," Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary within the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, said in a statement on Monday. The agencies said the Harvard Law Review risks losing federal funding if found to have broken Title VI law.

The Harvard Law Review has been published and edited by students for over 135 years. It aims to be an effective research tool for practicing lawyers and students, according to its website. "Harvard Law School is committed to ensuring that the programs and activities it oversees are in compliance with all applicable laws and to investigating any credibly alleged violations," a spokesperson for the university said in a statement to ABC News, noting that the journal "is a student-run organization that is legally independent from the law school."

The Tyrant 47 Regime launches a politically-motivated investigation into Harvard University's Harvard Law Review for “discriminatory” practices.

See Also:

Good news for American Jews in college - the Department of Education is cracking down on antisemitism in schools.

This was in part influenced by recent events at multiple colleges, including University of Vermont where students threw rocks at the Hillel House where multiple Jewish students lived and a TA was allowed to deduct points from Jewish students’ grades.

See the Dept of Ed’s plan here:

After reviewing the Consortium for Middle East Studies’ curricula, the Department letter warned that it had “little or no relevance” to federal funding:

For example, although Iranian art and film may be of subjects of deep intellectual interest … the sheer volume of such offerings highlights a fundamental misalignment between your choices and Title VI's mandates. Although a conference focused on “Love and Desire in Modem [sic] Iran” and one focused on Middle East film criticism may be relevant in academia, we do not see how these activities support the development of foreign language and international expertise for the benefit of U.S. national security and economic stability. Similarly, the link between the statutory goals and the academic papers referenced in your grant proposal, Amihri Hatun: Performance, Gender-Bending and Subversion in the Early Modern Ottoman Intellectual History, or Radical Love: Teachings from Islamic Mystical Tradition, is patently unclear.

The Department letter further accused the program of projecting and “advance[ing] narrow, particularized views of American social issues” onto the Middle East.  It cites a CMES teacher training seminar that described itself as focusing on “issues of multicultural education and equity to build a culture and climate of respect,” and “serving LGBTIQ youth in schools, culture and the media, diverse books for the classroom and more.”

Just as the CMES proliferates in topics popular on U.S. campuses—but that have no bearing on the realities of the Middle East—so too is there “a startling lack of focus on geography, geopolitical issues, history, and language of the area, as Congress required in Title VI,” the Department letter continues.  As for those two fields that the grant was primarily designed for, “foreign language instruction and area studies advancing the security and economic stability of the United States have taken ‘a back seat’ to other priorities at the Duke-UNC CMES.”

In short, “the Duke-UNC CMES offers very little serious instruction preparing individuals to understand the geopolitical challenges to U.S. national security and economic needs but quite a considerable emphasis on advancing ideological priorities.”

Significantly but not surprising, the letter further accused CMES of “lack[ing] balance as it offers very few, if any, programs focused on the historic discrimination faced by, and current circumstances of, religious minorities in the Middle East, including Christians, Jews, Baha'is, Yadizis, Kurds, Druze, and others.”  Instead,

there is a considerable emphasis placed on understanding the positive aspects of Islam, while there is an absolute absence of any similar focus on the positive aspects of Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion or belief system in the Middle East. This lack of balance of perspectives is troubling and strongly suggests that Duke-UNC CMES is not meeting legal requirement that National Resource Centers “provide a full understanding of the areas, regions, or countries’ in which the modern foreign language taught is commonly used.”

by Esti Heller

When I first met Milagros “Milly” Peña — the president of SUNY (State University of New York) Purchase College — it was in the wake of two incidents involving Jewish safety on campus, both prior to October 7.

In the first incident, a vandalized Israeli flag was adorned with a classic blood libel. In the second, Hillel’s sukkah was intentionally overturned just one day after its construction. 

In response to these incidents, I came prepared to my meeting with a list of ways that President Peña could make Jewish students feel safer on campus, including adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism and establishing antisemitism training. Overall, Peña was incredibly supportive, and I left that meeting hopeful towards the year ahead.

But after zero follow-up and several requests for updates, it became clear that I had received the first of what would be many empty promises.

Now, after having witnessed the turmoil that was unleashed on our campus last semester and Milly Peña’s capitulation to anti-Israel students’ demands, I’ve come to understand that the only way the Purchase administration will address the rampant Jew hatred on campus is if the Federal government orders them to do so.

That’s why on August 20, 2024, I, together with a student and the StandWithUs Saidoff Legal Department, filed a Title VI complaint with the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.

During the last school year, Jewish students and I faced relentless harassment, threats, and intimidation, repeatedly driving us off of our own campus.

Far too many times, Hillel was forced to redirect funds intended for events to cover hotel rooms and transportation for students frightened to stay in their dorms. Although we consistently reached out to administrators to report incidents, we were largely ignored. 

by Izzy Salant

On Oct. 25, 2023, a little more than two weeks after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on Oct. 7, anti-Israel protesters screamed “free Palestine” and pounded on a door at a Cooper Union library, as Jewish students, including two wearing kippahs, hid within. (JNS sought comment from Cooper Union.)

The private school blamed the Jewish students for gathering “in a prominent place in the library where they could be seen by the demonstrators” and for refusing a recommendation to hide “in the windowless upstairs portion of the library out of the demonstrators’ sight,” per the judge’s decision.

Cooper Union also faulted them for not escaping “the library through the back exit,” he added.

“These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be,” the judge said.

“In sum, the physically threatening or humiliating conduct that the complaint alleges Jewish students in the library experienced ‘is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause’” and “was objectively severe,” the judge wrote.

“The court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI,” the judge added.

“The judge was not impressed at Cooper Union’s ‘why couldn’t the Jews just hide in the attic?’ argument,” wrote Jason Bedrick, a Heritage Foundation research fellow.