New Kansas antisemitism law takes aim at free speech, does nothing to protect Jewish people
In February, I testified against House Bill 2299, a bill to put the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism into statute, focused on university campuses and punishable by prosecution by the state's attorney general, Kris Kobach. A watered-down version (Senate Bill 44), which took out most of the enforcement provisions, passed at the end of the session.
Both versions were aimed squarely at the University of Kansas, which had a pro-Palestinian encampment last year and which according to some has become a hotbed of antisemitism. The new law focuses on protest (no masks used 'to harass Jewish students') and curriculum (banning 'incorporating or allowing funding of antisemitic curriculum or activities in any domestic or study abroad programs or classes'). Leaving aside the fact that it is impossible to study Western history and not encounter antisemitism, this language is extremely broad and could and probably would be used to suppress pro-Palestinian speech by students, visiting speakers, or in Muslim or Arab studies classes.
This points to the main problem with the IHRA definition of antisemitism: it equates anti-Zionism — opposition to Israel's actions or even Israel itself — with antisemitism, a racialized hatred of Jewish people. This is a popular position among traditional Jewish communal organizations. Kansas City's JCRB/AJC testified in favor of the original bill, which I remind you would have allowed Kobach to identify and prosecute 'antisemitism.'
Anti-Zionism and antisemitism can and do overlap — people could hide their antisemitism behind expressions of anti-Zionism, for instance, or they can accuse random Jews of being responsible for Israel's actions — but they are not the same. The many young Jews who took part in campus protests last year can attest to that.
(For the rest of this column I will refer to politicized accusations of antisemitism as 'antisemitism.' Actual antisemitism — hatred of Jews — will remain without quotation marks.)
The bill raised two questions. First, why didn't it address the explosion of antisemitism from the political right, from the poisonous discourse on the former Twitter to neo-Nazis at the Jan. 6, 2021, riot (now pardoned, of course) to white supremacists in close proximity, or even in the Trump administration (including, of course, Donald Trump himself).
Second, why is antisemitism on college campuses so unique and terrible that it requires special legislation addressing it, when allowing anti-Black racism on college campuses is practically a MAGA platform plank? This question was raised on the floor of the House, but it wasn't answered.
Criminalizing speech critical of Israel in this way has become a significant problem. Campus protests were suppressed last year. Since the start of the second Trump term, people who have criticized Israel's actions in Gaza — without necessarily attacking Israel's 'right to exist' — have been arrested and set for deportation for political speech, a clear violation of the First Amendment. Two of the most prominent examples are Columbia University's Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of pro-Palestine protests there, and Tufts University's Rumeysa Ozturk, who appears to have only co-written an op-ed in a student newspaper.
Both columns and protests are political speech protected by the First Amendment. Yes, even for noncitizens. There is no evidence that either of these people have been involved in any actual Jew-hatred, and as I will explain in a moment, protesting Israel's actions in Gaza is justifiable.
Accusations of rampant 'antisemitism' in universities is also the cudgel Trump is using to attack their funding and governance.
This crackdown is largely a project of the Christian right, as spelled out in the Heritage Foundation's Project Esther, which focuses exclusively on antisemitism on the left and advocates for increased censorship and suppression of protest. 'Antisemitism' has become today's equivalent of McCarthy-era 'communism' — the accusation itself is condemnatory. No further evidence (or thought) is needed.
That traditional Jewish communal organizations — particularly the Anti-Defamation League and JCRB/AJC — have allied themselves with this effort in the name of protecting Israel should be an embarrassment. This politicization of 'antisemitism' doesn't do Jews any favors. Not only have we consistently voted, by large majorities, for Democrats, but our very place in this society is built on the foundation of liberal democracy, especially freedom of expression and religion.
Jews have prioritized Bill of Rights protections for more than 100 years, including helping found the ACLU. It is a cruel irony indeed that these pillars of Jewish freedom in American society are being dismantled in the name of protecting Jews.
To which I say, no thanks.
Fortunately it appears that (some) people are catching on to the ruse: Several of the main liberal Jewish denominational bodies recently issued a joint statement 'rejecting the false choice between confronting antisemitism and upholding democracy.' It's a good statement, and it doesn't assume the legitimacy of the 'universities are hotbeds of antisemitism' framing. Other, similar statements have been released.
But as the 'Antisemitism Awareness Act' working its way through the U.S. Congress makes clear, this problem will get worse before it gets better. In a moment that pulled back the curtain, a clause was added to that bill that would protect the 'right' to say that 'the Jews' killed Jesus — a calumny that has caused untold injury and death to Jews throughout history and is the very definition of actual antisemitic speech. (Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, R-MAGA, sounded sympathetic last year.)
To be clear: People are criticizing Israel because it is committing significant human rights violations against Palestinians in the West Bank and especially Gaza, and not out of Jew-hatred. Jews are involved in every level of the Palestinian solidarity movement, including encampments. There are already laws to protect people from harassment and violence; Jews don't require special protection. Claiming otherwise has real consequences for real people, including dividing Jews between 'good Jews' who support Israel's actions (and Trump) and 'bad Jews' who don't and should be suppressed.
Where antisemitism exists on the left and in the pro-Palestine movement, it should be criticized and condemned, but we shouldn't deploy state power to slay dragons that aren't really there. Policing Trumped-up, politicized charges of 'antisemitism' is something that Christian nationalists, including Kobach and the Heritage Foundation, should not be empowered to do.
Rabbi Moti Rieber is executive director of Kansas Interfaith Action, a statewide, multifaith issue-advocacy organization that works on a variety of social, economic and climate justice issues. He writes this column in his private capacity. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
27 minutes ago
- CNN
FBI agents are again pulled from their day jobs to address a Trump priority
FBI agents – thrust into yet another role for which they are not trained – have been put on patrol duties with local police as part of President Donald Trump's declaration of a crime emergency in Washington, DC. In the past several months, the agency's rank-and-file, who specialize in complex threat investigations, have been assigned to fulfill a bevy of roles outside their lanes of expertise, spending overnight and weekend shifts poring over old Jeffrey Epstein files looking for necessary redactions, assisting ICE in finding and removing illegal immigrants and now patrolling the streets of the nation's capital. While federal agencies including the FBI often link up with local police departments to help with specific investigations and task forces or to build out certain tools they may need, such as gun tracing, agents are not trained or equipped for community policing, multiple federal law enforcement officials told CNN. FBI Director Kash Patel took office vowing to 'let cops be cops.' But in recent years, the FBI has touted how many new agents don't come from former police backgrounds and instead come from backgrounds in technology, law and other disciplines. One 2024 class of new agents included more than 44% with advanced degrees, according to an internal newsletter. 'FBI agents are not police officers,' Former FBI deputy director and CNN law enforcement analyst Andrew McCabe said Tuesday. 'Most of them don't come to the FBI from a background as a police officer. So they don't have the training and the skillset and the experience of doing that work, which can be dangerous both for them and for the people they would be policing.' For many FBI agents, much of the job is done largely at a desk, and training necessary to de-escalate situations in the field, or what beat cops are looking for when trying to identify threats or potential hostile situations, are not comprehensively part of training for agents. What's more, the FBI use-of-force policy generally has a much lower threshold for when agents are allowed to use their firearms to protect themselves than most police departments – in the case of Washington, DC, officers, have options to use tasers and pepper spray before using lethal force, not standard equipment for agents. Federal agents are also typically only minimally trained in conducting vehicle stops, which remains one of the most dangerous aspects of a police officer's job. Unlike routine police encounters with suspects, which may only involve one or two officers, when agencies like the FBI conduct an arrest, they typically plan out the operation methodically in advance and execute it with a complement of agents that far outnumbers the suspect. Several law enforcement officers told CNN that many agents now tasked with patrolling the streets of DC alongside the Metropolitan Police Department are in a wait-it-out posture, hoping they'll be able to turn their complete focus back to the cases they were investigating previously when Trump's 30-day period of controlling the MPD is currently set to come to an end. 'This isn't hard: If we're doing (policing) we're not covering down on those other threats,' said one person. Other federal agencies involved in the surge of resources to DC, like the Secret Service, US Marshals Service, Federal Protective Service, ICE and Border Patrol have officers with far more experience arresting individuals or conducting more standard, on-the-ground police work than the FBI. The difference in training was an issue that arose most recently in the protests following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. Agents with no significant training in crowd control were thrust into the streets to help protect federal buildings and found themselves outnumbered by protesters. To try to deescalate tensions, some agents took a knee in a symbolic gesture that has since become a flashpoint in the Trump administration's retribution against so-called 'woke' policies associated with political opponents. Under Patel, some of those agents have faced reassignments to less-prestigious jobs and internal disciplinary investigations. The FBI declined to comment on multiple questions from CNN for this story. Since the weekend, FBI agents have been embedding with Metropolitan Police Officers and, according to Patel, were involved in 10 of the 23 arrests that occurred in DC Monday night. It's unclear to what extent FBI agents participated in the arrests. The arrests included unlawful possessions of firearms, DUI warrants, one on a search warrant for a prior murder charge and more, Patel touted on social media. 'When you let good cops be cops they can clean up our streets and do it fast,' Patel wrote on X. 'More to come. Your nation's Capital WILL be safe again.' In 2025, hundreds of FBI agents were reassigned to immigration-related duties, which raised corners at the time among some agents that the switch could hinder important national security investigations, including into espionage by foreign countries and terror threats. At the time of the push for more federal agents to help with immigration enforcement, FBI agents involved were told by supervisors not to document moving resources away from high-priority cases. Behind the scenes, some FBI agents clashed with their immigration enforcement counterparts, with major flashpoints involving the refusal by those agents to engage in what they viewed as racial profiling and other tactics that could violate the Constitution, according to law enforcement sources. While agency leaders have publicly touted a very close and cooperative working relationship between organizations, the situation has at times been much different on the ground, sources said. Then came the files of Jeffrey Epstein, the sex offender and accused sex trafficker who killed himself in prison in 2019 before the case against him could go to trial. FBI agents in March worked tirelessly, sometimes in 12-hour shifts, to review documents and evidence against Epstein in order to make redactions on the Justice Departments failed attempt to cull conspiracy theories and accusations that they were continuing to hide imagined crimes against the rich and powerful. Much of which stemmed from Trump's allies, including those in key leadership positions. Agents were ordered to put aside investigations related to threats from China and Iran, as well as cases in order to complete the Epstein redactions, something every division in the bureau was ordered to supply agents for. 'There is no other entity that does that work if the FBI is not doing it,' McCabe said. 'And that is really important stuff that needs to be done every day in this country by a limited resource of FBI agents. And so every time you distract them into doing something like this, you're doing less of that.' Patel and his deputy director, Dan Bongino, often tout the work of the FBI online, recently highlighting the bust of an alleged human trafficking operation in Nebraska, fentanyl seizures, and other FBI successes. The new reassignments to help patrol DC come days after two senior FBI officials, including the acting-director before Patel was appointed by Trump to lead the agency, along with other agents, were summarily fired following perceived opposition to the administration. The firings, including of former acting director Brian Driscoll after he fought the administration's plans to quickly fire more than 100 mid-level and senior employees in the early days of Trump's second administration, has also spread an air of concern among agents over who could be targeted next or what past actions could land them in trouble with Trump-appointed leadership. Law enforcement sources fear this volatile period inside the FBI could lead to a brain drain amid constantly evolving threats as numerous agents, analysts and professional staff consider departing for other agencies, or into the private sector where their national security and investigative skills remain highly sought. 'Morale is the worst I've seen,' said one law enforcement source. 'The bureau is becoming unrecognizable. Lots of people are weighing really difficult decisions right now.'
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Does Earning $142,000 in New York City Make You Rich?
The most recent drama in the fight for City Hall has centered on a question that might seem absurd in much of the rest of the country but is all too relevant in New York City, one of the most expensive places on the planet. Is someone making $142,000 a year rich? That's the annual salary earned by Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor — an amount that his chief rival, former Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, argues is too much to be living in a rent-stabilized apartment, as Mr. Mamdani does. 'You make $142,000 a year plus stipends, and your wife works too, meaning you together likely make well over $200,000,' Mr. Cuomo said on social media. 'No matter which way you cut it: Zohran Mamdani is a rich person. You are actually very rich.' Mr. Mamdani, who lives in a one-bedroom apartment in Astoria, Queens, has consistently said he considers himself privileged and financially comfortable. Aside from his salary as a state assemblyman, he owns land in Uganda, where he was born, valued at between $150,000 and $200,000. And he has said that he plans to move out of his apartment, which costs $2,300 a month. Earlier this week, Mr. Mamdani joked that he is living 'rent-free' in Mr. Cuomo's head. Mr. Cuomo, who moved into the city less than two years ago after years in Albany and Westchester County, pays about $8,000 a month for his rental in the Sutton Place neighborhood of Manhattan, and earned more than half a million dollars in consulting fees in 2024. His net worth is estimated at about $10 million. Beyond political mudslinging, the debate over what salary makes a New Yorker wealthy has highlighted how warped the citywide conversation about money has become. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
28 minutes ago
- New York Times
Will New York's Governor Endorse Mamdani for Mayor?
Gov. Kathy Hochul might ordinarily relish the king-making power that she wields in New York as its most powerful Democrat. But in the New York City mayor's race, Ms. Hochul pointedly avoided making an endorsement in the Democratic primary and still has not backed its winner, Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. 'I'm having very interesting conversations right now,' Ms. Hochul deflected earlier this month when asked again whom she might support, adding, 'There's no urgency.' The governor is not alone in her hesitancy. Prominent Democrats from New York — including the Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer; Senator Kirsten Gillibrand; and the House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries — have not made an endorsement in the race. Of the 10 House Democrats in New York City, only four have endorsed Mr. Mamdani. Like House Democrats, Ms. Hochul is facing re-election next year, potentially against Representative Elise Stefanik, a top Republican supporter of President Trump. Some political observers think that an enthusiastic endorsement of Mr. Mamdani could hurt the governor in more conservative areas of the state. 'We still have many differences, I don't know how you whitewash that away,' Ms. Hochul said in an interview on Fox News over the weekend. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
