I'm having a hard time understanding Professor Summers presumption that teaching evolution is analogous to teaching a definition of antisemitism. The former is inviting discussion and dispute from anyone who might care to try. The latter (as the IHRA definition shows) is designed, at least in part, to preclude discussion. It might not even teach anything. It's clearly designed to stifle expression to stifle thought, specifically about public issues (e.g., religion, public policy, foreign relations).
All too often, the label "antisemitism" is used to silence criticism of the conduct of public officials, not only in Israel, but even in the U.S. The U.S. sends billions of dollars in aid to Israel annually. I think that merely to make a show of solidarity with Israel, our president very recently violated our Constitution with the rash and dangerous unilateral decision to go bomb Iran. But some people who favor Israel act like we cannot criticize our own public servants for supporting Israeli policies or practices.
Labels like "antisemitism" shouldn't be permitted to stifle or silence our own discussion of public issues. More than 80 years ago, in one of the most famous and most powerful SCOTUS opinions opposing unconstitutional repression of expression, SCOTUS unanimously emphasized that the use of labels promotes and facilitates repression. In N.A.A.C.P. v. Button in 1963 SCOTUS emphasized the precise problem: all too often, "mere labels" are abused to “foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights.”
That was re-emphasized by SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. "In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet ‘libel’ than we have to" any other "mere labels." Like "the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." “The test is not the [mere] form in” (or the mere label under) which government “power” was “applied but” whether “such power” was “exercised” constitutionally.
American government can revoke funds to endow to public-funded institutions what elected leadership of the day sees as anti-Freedom. In the same way, I can be fired at will by a private employer for shooting off my mouth in what the employer says is inappropriate to that work place.
I'm having a hard time understanding Professor Summers presumption that teaching evolution is analogous to teaching a definition of antisemitism. The former is inviting discussion and dispute from anyone who might care to try. The latter (as the IHRA definition shows) is designed, at least in part, to preclude discussion. It might not even teach anything. It's clearly designed to stifle expression to stifle thought, specifically about public issues (e.g., religion, public policy, foreign relations).
All too often, the label "antisemitism" is used to silence criticism of the conduct of public officials, not only in Israel, but even in the U.S. The U.S. sends billions of dollars in aid to Israel annually. I think that merely to make a show of solidarity with Israel, our president very recently violated our Constitution with the rash and dangerous unilateral decision to go bomb Iran. But some people who favor Israel act like we cannot criticize our own public servants for supporting Israeli policies or practices.
Labels like "antisemitism" shouldn't be permitted to stifle or silence our own discussion of public issues. More than 80 years ago, in one of the most famous and most powerful SCOTUS opinions opposing unconstitutional repression of expression, SCOTUS unanimously emphasized that the use of labels promotes and facilitates repression. In N.A.A.C.P. v. Button in 1963 SCOTUS emphasized the precise problem: all too often, "mere labels" are abused to “foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights.”
That was re-emphasized by SCOTUS in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan in 1964. "In deciding the question now, we are compelled by neither precedent nor policy to give any more weight to the epithet ‘libel’ than we have to" any other "mere labels." Like "the various other formulae for the repression of expression that have been challenged in this Court, libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment." “The test is not the [mere] form in” (or the mere label under) which government “power” was “applied but” whether “such power” was “exercised” constitutionally.
American government can revoke funds to endow to public-funded institutions what elected leadership of the day sees as anti-Freedom. In the same way, I can be fired at will by a private employer for shooting off my mouth in what the employer says is inappropriate to that work place.