"Trump Targets Anti-Semitism and Israeli Boycotts on College Campuses" [NYT Headline]

President Trump plans to sign an executive order Wednesday that defines the Jewish people as a nationality for purposes of federal civil rights law, an effort to step up enforcement against episodes of anti-Semitism on college campuses, two administration officials said.

This news resulted in an uproar suggested by some of the comments at this blog (the NYT article that first announced it is linked there). The main post highlights the concern that it will interfere with free speech. As the NYT article (both articles are helpful to provide context, so I link both) notes:

The order will effectively interpret Judaism as a race or nationality, not just a religion, to prompt a federal law penalizing colleges and universities deemed to be shirking their responsibility to foster an open climate for minority students. In recent years, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions — or B.D.S. — movement against Israel has roiled some campuses, leaving some Jewish students feeling unwelcome or attacked.

Just to toss it out there, the Education Department already broadly interprets the rules here, so (as is usual with these executive orders from the Trump White House) the true reach, apart from symbolism, of the order is unclear.  Anyway, there really is antisemitism out there (or discrimination against Jews, for those who want to generally coyly say others are Semites), but at universities specifically, there is a lot more baggage involved here.

Note the usage of "some" as well. As the articles note, this splits Jews and others, thus various Democrats have support this.  As noted in a reply to my blog comment, this doesn't mean it is a good thing. Democrats support misguided things.  It just shows the complexity involved here. The fact an official statute to put this into law was rejected is also notable to some significant degree but does not settle things. Using "sex" in federal civil rights law to cover sexual orientation and gender identity can be correct even if new clearly phrased law covering them has yet passed.

We are right to be wary that Trump supports this, including given comments he made that are antisemitic, putting aside things like saying white supremacists are good people pretty clearly does that too.  To be clear, the idea here is that existing law does not cover religion, so there is a need to use "race" and "nationality" to do so. Cases like Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb already have treated Jews as a "race" as applied to an old civil rights law.  In theory, the very concept isn't horrible. So, supporters can again show various people (including Obama) who have supported some form of the reported executive order.

But, various Jewish people (including those I respect on Twitter) being appalled is a serious red flag. The basic sentiment: I'm an American, damn you!  Treating Jews as others has historically been a serious problem and this is seen by Jews and others as a means to label them not American but "Jewish" as if that is akin to being Italian or something.  Like Muslims, Jews come from variety of nations and Jewish Americans are just that: Americans that are Jewish.  Though for some the reason might be benign, pursuant to existing law, the message sent is dangerous.

The complexity of things are helpful to understand but this doesn't mean they are benign and dismissive in simple blunt terms.  Both can be true and this seems to be such a case.

[Updated from here on.] The Washington Post, which followed the other's lead, cited two administration officials as noted in the opening.  A Slate article, first taking the first article at face value, had a mea culpa, putting the blame on one paper.  But, any mistake here -- and it is a mistake to assume before you see executive orders since as I said Trump's orders repeatedly are of marginal importance -- was shared. There is a general teachable moment here that outrages often are a bit more complex when you deal with the specific details. Also, raw data can be risky.

The order is linked in the article. It notes that "religion" is not specifically covered but in specific cases discrimination against Jews can also fit into the existing categories.  Concerns about free speech are to be weighed and the First Amendment not violated.  And, further study to be made and the findings reported.  Also, a nod to concern for antisemitism as much as anything else. In general, the whole thing sounds bland, like any number of his executive orders.  Whatever the paper was told.

I'm wary.  It very well might be that some "draft" had more and the negative feedback resulted in the more weak language. Maybe not. The general background, including legitimate protest (even if you think the boycotts etc. are bad on the merits) being targeted very well might still be something to be wary about given the messenger.  Who knows exactly what happened.

(The order is officially up and overselling it brings the usual reactions.  For instance, the text holds that antisemitism should be determined by "considering" various things including hatred of Jews and Jewish institutions, which literally can mean opposition to let's say their settlements. But, that by itself would not mean discrimination by "race" or "national origin" unless one selectively does so only when Jews are involved and do so in a way no only involving protected speech.

One can see how that can be misused but what does the order add to what was already there? Thus, the op-ed cited appears overblown especially given existing law. We can't have people both saying "nothing to see here" and now say that this is some big move on Trump's part. The spin is part of the point though.)

And More ... 

The White House put out a fact sheet on the executive order that is mostly a matter of bona fides regarding the Administration's fight of antisemitism and "confronting hate" (while not inflicting it, including petty potshots at the teenage girl chosen as the person of the year by Time).

But, it also specifically labels as "antisemitic" the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement and calls out "18 Democrats" for supporting a resolution supporting it.  The resolution (in response to one voted on by over 300 members against BDS), co-sponsored in part by John Lewis, is one that generally supports the right to protest (citing various examples, including against Nazis, that is the "comparison" cited in the "fact" sheet).

The fact sheet is basically symbolic since it is basically an executive signing statement, if that, so should not have much legal effect as compared to the actual executive order.  But, it might have some informative effect, let's say, when people carry out the official order.  It also shows that people concerned that the order is really a backhanded slam on free speech and protest were not really too wrong even if the whole Judaism as a nationality thing was somehow confused.  The headline is on point.