NYS Democrats kill bill to strengthen protections against college antisemitism
ALBANY – Republican lawmakers are fuming after Democrats moved to block a bill that would give colleges and universities more teeth to combat antisemitism.
The bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Matt Slater (R-Putnam), would update the definition of antisemitism under state education law to match that used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, IHRA.
The change would make it easier to go after colleges and universities that allow hate to fester under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, supporters said.
Advertisement
'The first step in combatting hate is defining it,' Slater told The Post. 'It appears Albany Democrats disagree.
Assembly Democrats effectively killed a bill that proponents say would make it easier to crack down on college antisemitism.
Michael Nagle
'It's shameful they refuse to take a real stand against antisemitism when they have an opportunity to do so, especially given the significant rise in hate crimes across our state since October of 2023,' he added. 'They can denounce hate all they want when it's convenient, but actions speak louder than words.'
Advertisement
The bill was considered in the Assembly's education committee Tuesday but the panel's chairman, Assemblyman Michael Benedetto (D-Bronx) said Democrats were rejecting the bill because they believe interpretation of the Civil Rights Act should be handled by Washington.
Benedetto also took issue with the way Slater's bill was worded.
'The ACLU has concerns about this. Until things are settled federally, I think it's best for us to hold on to this,' Benedetto said.
This drew quick ire from Long Island Assemblyman Ari Brown (R-Nassau) who shot back at Benedetto: 'I completely don't understand anything you said.'
Advertisement
'Isn't New York supposed to be the first when it comes to leadership throughout the country?' Brown said. 'And something so simple to do, isn't it something we should all take pride in and stand up first? Why are we waiting for the ACLU? You know they're going to say the opposite of what's good for the Jewish people.'
Assemblyman Ari Brown (R-Nassau) excoriated Democratic Assemblyman Michael Benedetto (D-Bronx) during an exchange over the bill Tuesday.
New York State Assembly
The chairman said he said the original wording was intended to 'maybe be a guidepost' and not to set a standard definition.
That sparked Brown to ask Benedetto to point out what specific wording he took issue with. After waiting a few seconds while a staffer spoke with the chairman, Brown then quipped,' I thought so.'
Advertisement
The education committee ultimately voted to table the bill, effectively killing any chance of it moving forward before Albany wraps its regularly scheduled legislative session next month.
Slater's bill isn't the only one that would put the IHRA definition into statute. Assemblyman Sam Berger (D-Queens), has a similar piece of legislation which would apply to all state agencies, including SUNY.
Berger defended Heastie and Assembly Dems' move.
'I have seen the Speaker go to bat for the Jewish people time and time again,' Assemblyman Sam Berger (D-Queens) told The Post. 'I believe there are fundamental disagreements with some members in the legislature on how best to tackle antisemitism, but we have a responsibility to meaningfully address the alarming surge of hate in this state.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Nancy Mace said 'due process is for citizens.' Here's who it's really for
In early June 2025, Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina wrote an X post (archived) that read: "Due process is for citizens." Her comment had been viewed more than 2.4 million times as of this writing and had amassed more than 6,500 likes. The same claim has appeared in multiple X posts. In a similar tone, in May 2025, another X user wrote: "Due process is for citizens, not invaders." (X user @NancyMace) In short, due process is the legal principle that the government must follow fair procedures before depriving a person of life, liberty or property. It serves as a safeguard against arbitrary actions by the state, ensuring that people are treated justly under the law. For a more detailed explanation, see our full breakdown in this article on former President Bill Clinton's 1996 immigration law. While Mace's post did not explicitly say that due process protections are, or should be, limited to only U.S. citizens, her replies below the post reinforced that interpretation. However, the U.S. Constitution protects all "persons," not just citizens, under the due-process clauses of the Fifth and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that these protections apply to anyone physically present in the United States regardless of citizenship or immigration status. An MSNBC article on the topic similarly concluded that Mace's "implication … that noncitizens don't get that protection" was "incorrect." The South Carolina representative doubled down on her stance in the replies below her post, suggesting that noncitizens should not be entitled to due-process protections in the U.S. For example, when one X user wrote, "The Constitution doesn't say 'only citizens.' Due process applies to persons — that includes non-citizens. That's settled law," Mace replied by saying: "Skip due process coming in, don't expect it going out. Citizens first!" Other replies further suggested she believed only U.S. citizens should be entitled to such protections (archived, archived, archived). (X users @FJBIDEN_22 and @NancyMace) These exchanges were not the first time Mace commented on due process. In late May 2025, she weighed in on the principle in response to a federal judge's decision to block the deportation of eight noncitizens convicted of violent crimes. The day before U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a 17-page order in which he emphasized that "the Court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories. But that does not change due process," Mace criticized the ruling, telling Fox News (archived): "They didn't want due process on their way in illegally, they shouldn't get due process on their way out." However, the representative's comments about due process contradicted remarks she made about the principle in the past. In February 2023, Mace wrote on X (archived): "Everyone deserves the right to due process. Even those we vehemently oppose." (X user @NancyMace) Snopes has reached out to Mace for comment on whether she maintains that due-process protections should apply only to U.S. citizens and how she reconciles that view with her 2023 statement. We will update this article if we receive a response. The U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process appears in the Fifth and 14th amendments, both of which state that no person should be deprived "of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." As shown, the language uses "person," not "citizen," with regard to due-process protections. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted that due-process protections apply to everyone within U.S. borders regardless of citizenship or immigration status. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei (1953) the Court emphasized (Page 212) that "aliens who have once passed through [U.S.] gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness-encompassed in due process of law." Similarly, in cases such as Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) and earlier decisions dating back more than a century, the Supreme Court made clear that the government cannot detain or deport people arbitrarily. In the 2001 case, the Court underscored that "the Due Process Clause applies to all persons within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent." In simple words, noncitizens must be given fair procedures, such as notice or a "credible fear interview," before being deprived of their liberty. The Supreme Court expressed the same view in the case of Reno v. Flores (1993), stating: "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings." This was not the first time Snopes addressed a claim regarding Mace. For instance, in late May 2025, we investigated a rumor that she ordered staffers to create burner accounts to promote her online. Meanwhile, earlier in June 2025, we also fact-checked a rumor about whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, signed by Clinton, allowed deportation without due process. "327K Views · 15K Reactions | Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments That Illegal Immigrants Convicted of Heinous Crimes Deserve Due Process after a Judge Blocks a Deportation Flight to South Sudan | 'They Didn't Want Due Process on Their Way in Illegally, They Shouldn't Get Due Process on Their Way Out.' Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) Responds to Arguments... | by Fox News | Facebook." 2022, Accessed 6 June 2025. "U.S. Constitution - Fifth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 15 Dec. 1791, Constitution Annotated. "U.S. Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment | Resources | Constitution Annotated | | Library of Congress." 9 July 1868, Deng, Grace. "Did Nancy Mace Order Staffers to Create Burner Accounts to Promote Her Online? Here's What We Know." Snopes, 30 May 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Dunbar, Marina. "Court Halts Trump Administration's Effort to Send Eight Men to South Sudan." The Guardian, The Guardian, 23 May 2025, Gabbatt, Adam. "Group Stranded with Ice in Djibouti Shipping Container after Removal from US." The Guardian, The Guardian, 6 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. " 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)." Justia Law, Rubin, Jordan. "Due Process Is Not Limited to Citizens, Contrary to Nancy Mace's Claim." MSNBC, 4 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. Wrona, Aleksandra. "Bill Clinton Did Not Sign Law in 1996 Allowing Deportation without Due Process." Snopes, 5 June 2025, Accessed 6 June 2025. "Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)." Justia Law,
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress
Most Democrats disapprove of how their party's lawmakers in Congress are handling their jobs, according to a new national poll. Fifty-three percent of Democrats questioned in a Quinnipiac University survey released Wednesday gave their party's congressional members a thumbs-down, while 41% approved of their performance. According to the poll, conducted June 5-8, just 21% of all voters approved of the way Democrats in Congress were handing their jobs, with seven in ten disapproving. Head Here For The Latest Fox News Polling The 21% approval is the same as in Quinnipiac's February national poll, matching "an all-time low since Quinnipiac University first asked this question of registered voters in March 2009." The survey indicates 79% of GOP voters approve of the way congressional Republicans are handling their job, with 13% disapproving. Read On The Fox News App Where Trump Stands In Fox News Polling 100 Days Into His Second Term Among all voters, 32% approved of how GOP congressional members were performing their duties, while just over six in ten disapproved. Overall approval for Republicans in Congress has dropped eight points since Quinnipiac's February poll, with disapproval jumping nine points. The Democratic Party has been in the political wilderness since November's elections, when Republicans won back control of the White House and the Senate and defended their fragile House majority. And Republicans made gains among Black, Hispanic and younger voters, all traditional members of the Democratic Party's base. Since President Donald Trump's return to power earlier this year, an increasingly energized base of Democrats is urging party leaders to take a stronger stand in pushing back against the president's sweeping and controversial agenda during the opening months of his second administration. And their anger is directed not only at Republicans, but at Democrats they feel aren't vocal enough in their opposition to Trump. And that's fueled a plunge in the Democratic Party's favorable ratings, which have hit historic lows in several surveys the past couple of months. The new poll from Quinnipiac also indicates a decline in Trump's approval ratings among voters nationwide. Thirty-eight percent of those questioned in the survey said they approve of the way the president is handling his duties, down three points from Quinnipiac's early April poll. Fifty-four percent in the new poll gave Trump a thumbs-down for his handling of his job as president, down one point from the April survey. Trump's approval ratings were mostly above water as he returned to the White House in late January, but his numbers soon slid underwater in many national surveys and remain in negative territory nearly five months into his second article source: Poll: Majority of Democrats give thumbs-down to their leaders in Congress
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
David Hogg won't run again after DNC votes to redo vice chair elections
David Hogg will not seek reelection to his Democratic National Committee leadership position after the party announced Wednesday that members had voted to redo the vice chair contests he and Malcolm Kenyatta won in February. 'Ultimately, I have decided to not run in this upcoming election so the party can focus on what really matters,' Hogg said in a statement. Hogg's decision not to run again ends a monthslong intraparty fight between the young gun control advocate and much of the national committee that has distracted from the party's efforts to rebuild after devastating 2024 election losses. The outgoing vice chair has accused party leaders of attempting to oust him from his position over frustration with his plan to primary 'ineffective' Democratic incumbents in safe seats through his PAC Leaders We Deserve. DNC members have argued that Hogg has mischaracterized the vote. The initial challenge to how the committee handled the February 1 vote for two vice chair positions was made in late February, months before Hogg announced his primary initiative. Still, members' feelings toward Hogg and his ongoing, public dispute with party leaders loomed large over the vote. The proposal to hold a new election passed 75% to 25% with 89% of DNC members participating. DNC chairman Ken Martin praised Hogg for his work on the committee. 'I commend David for his years of activism, organizing, and fighting for his generation, and while I continue to believe he is a powerful voice for this party, I respect his decision to step back from his post as Vice Chair,' Martin said in a statement. 'I have no doubt that he will remain an important advocate for Democrats across the map.' Had Hogg run again, he would have faced Kenyatta in an election for a position which, under the DNC's gender parity rules, must go to a man. 'I'm grateful to the overwhelming support I've received in this reelection from DNC members and I look forward to getting back to work electing Democrats up and down the ballot,' Kenyatta said in a statement. 'I wish David the best.' Voting for the other vice chair seat will run from Sunday morning through Tuesday afternoon. Three female candidates who were in the running in February will be eligible: Kalyn Free, an Oklahoma Democratic activist who filed the challenge, as well as Kansas state party chair Jeanna Repass and Washington state party chair Shasti Conrad. Separately, the DNC is also weighing a new proposal put forth by Martin that would officially require elected party leaders to stay neutral in primaries. The DNC is expected to vote on that measure at an August meeting. This story has been updated with additional details. CNN's Arlette Saenz contributed to this report.
