Universities face cuts if they reject antisemitism definition

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...they-reject-antisemitism-definition-95zfbtp7c

Johnsons promised he would make it illegal to criticise Israel during his election Campaign and that is what this is for - following a Campaign where the Jewish Chief Rabbi in the UK told the public they had better vote for the Tories as Labour and their leader were antisemetic - the Labour Leader having fought against racism and antisemitism all his life.

Previously the Tory Party had told councils it was illegal to engage in BDS. This was taken to court and the court maintained that given we were a democracy political freedom exists and it was not illegal to follow that.

Last I learnt there was only 32 countries which were using this apparently 'International' definition of Antisemitism.

Another interesting thing is that the Tory Party itself has not accepted this definition of antisemitism though they did force the Labour Party to do so while they were engaged in their smear campaign against the Labour Party.

It is also worth saying that the number of Jewish Organisations worldwide who contacted the Labour Party at this time telling them not to accept the IHRA definition was massive. This is not about antisemitism which every Jew is against. This is about criticism of Israel.

I heard of this through Jeffry Sachs

https://twitter.com/JeffreyASachs/status/1222572728500260866

From an academic point of view this comes after the EU similar one which was written in the US behind closed doors was rejected. Some years ago our academic community decided to end this definition as it made free study and discussion of Israel impossible. Since then there have been a number of tries through English courts to bring it back in. On every occasion the English courts have denied this as we are a democracy and in a democracy freedom of political thought is a right.

The man who wrote the IHRA has said he was disgusted with the way it has been misused.

So now we find the attempt by the Tory Government to do this by starving councils of funds. I would expect there to be a massive fight on about this. The Tory Government is wanting to stop councils having the money to engage in statutory services like protecting children because of their political views.

Here are a couple of legal opinions on forcing people to accept this definition

https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.or...bertson-legal-opinion-of-the-ihra-definition/

https://freespeechonisrael.org.uk/ihra-opinion/#sthash.cLkSzwzD.dpbs


Are we moving into total political repression in the West?

 

With no freedom of speech in the UK, their hate speech laws will keep expanding. Canada isn't far behind.

 

That sounds like a dubious claim.

 

Yes, we need something like the Palestinian style of democracy
- you can say whatever you like, but you could be killed for it.

 

What we need to see, particularly in the USA, is a constitutional amendment
to the effect that teaching institutions must not be politicized.
How to fix it - ensure that text books in the social sciences and politics have
been approved by both parties. This way we won't have the situation where
uni students don't know what Capitalism is, have never read books like the
Gulag Archipelago or Animal Farm and think slavery, the KKK and Jim Crowe
were caused by Republicans/whites/Americans instead of Democrats.

 

So you’re opposed to politicisation and you’re blaming it all on Democrats? I guess American students still aren’t about irony either.

How about excluding all the partisan political extremists of your “two parties” entirely and leave normal people to sort out things like text books and curricula? If you can’t approach these questions without attacking your (perceived) political enemies you’re part of the problem.

 

No, I said free of bias. If the Left has an issue, the same rule could be used against the Right.
As it is though, the clear bias in Western unis is on the Left - fewer and fewer conservatives
are found in the humanities.

To have people "sort out text books" is rather obtuse when the people are just kids and
the choice of history books is slowly being constricted to a Left wing bias (ie the issue
I mentioned above - Democrat involvement in American racism.)

 

No, you said they shouldn’t be politicized. Letting “left” and “right” play off each other is politicisation. The “left” and “right” you’re talking about aren’t two entire halves, they’re merely the extreme wings, with most people not really being either. Everyone has a whole set of mixed beliefs and opinions and most can’t really be pigeonholed in to one of two distinct categories. As long as you perceive this as a simplistic "us against them", you will remain wrong.

I didn’t mean the kids, I meant the academics and publishers who already sort them out. It is only after that where you get the partisan political extremists sticking their noses in (from all directions) so all you’d need to do is eliminate that second step.

 

Truer words were never spoken:

“If you would know who controls you see who you may not criticise.”


― Tacitus



https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/654209-if-you-would-know-who-controls-you-see-who-you

 

In the US today, in 20+ states it is a criminal offense to exercise one's First Amendment rights by boycotting Israeli products. It is a criminal offense to participate in the Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS) activity against Israel.

Last year there was a federal effort to do the same. I'm not sure of its status at present.

 

Simple solution—end public education at all levels. They either make it in the free market, or they’re tossed into rejection trash bin of private enterprise.

 

Your claims are inaccurate.

 

This "sorting out" by academics. I challenge you to find a university text book in America
which openly looks at the role played by the Democrats in American slavery, the KKK,
the lynchings and the segregation.
For instance at the time of the Civil War no Republican owned a slave in America. And
only two or three KKK members were ever Republican.
I use this race thing as an example of how history is slowly being politicized. The Nazis
openly burned books - the American academic Left quietly rewrite them. Soon, like the
New York Times, Americans will see their history as an experiment wholly in racism.

 

Find an American text book that properly covers slavery at all. I'm not claiming they're not biased, I'm saying your approach will fail to resolve the bias, indeed, you're not really proposing to change how the system already works, though you're clearly imagining a situation where the bias

If you really want to eliminate politicisation, why are you pushing so hard to present "Republicans" as shining heroes and "Democrats" as the source of all evil? I guarantee that the reality wasn't anything like as clear cut as you'd like to believe and, of course, you're ignoring the fact that the political parties of that time are in no way reflective of those parties today. Talking about a long and complex period of history in the context of simplistic binary divisions is just wrong regardless of which way you choose to spin them.

It isn't slow, it's stagnant. They've always been
politicised, influenced by whichever groups have the political power at the time. You're just seeking to become next in the long line.

 

No, not "next in line"
I said I believe that both conservatives AND PROGRESSIVES should agree on education text books.
Note "agree"
At the moment we have a progressive history, you know - white racists slaughter Indians and bring over
slaves.
And, I would just like to see the Democrats FESS UP TO THEIR DOMINANT ROLE IN AMERICAN RACISM.
My own family was staunchly Democratic, staunchly pro-slavery (had lots of their own) and to this day still
hate that Republican Lincoln.
If I was a Republican I would urge the Left radicals to pull down ALL the Civil War statues, educating them
that they are mostly of Democrats. I am sure they would stop in their andalizing tracks.

 

You can't agree, that's why you've divided yourselves in to such strongly opposed groupings. Why should either of you be involved at all? Again, you don't represent a majority, even together. Most people aren't on either political extreme (though a lot of people are easily (mis)led).

You also have American-centric history. You don't learn much of anything good or bad about foreign societies. "Progressives" aren't the only problem of political intervention in the curricula. A more complete and rounded view of these periods of history would be fine but your "Democrats are all evil" rhetoric doesn't achieve that either.

The Democrats involved at that time can't confess to anything because they're all long dead. What you say here suggests that you have at least as much responsibility for that period in US history as members of the current Democratic party does. See, you're still looking to play modern politics with the history which is exactly what all politicisation should be eliminated. Why does it even need to be split on simplistic political party lines? Why not accept it as the American history it is and acknowledge the consequences of all your predecessors actions?

 

We don't need "parties"
What we need is a consensus, or compromise on text books.
Universities want the right to chose their syllabuses and texts
and use the term "academic freedom." But a lot of academics
in the humanities are straight out Marxists - either of the old
economic style or the new Frankfurt School style identity
politics.
A comprosmise would be thus - "You want to teach Marx
then fine, but add Adam Smith to the syllabus so students
at least know what is the foundation of their standard of
living and freedom."
Universities, after all, rely upon the tax payer.

 

The problem is that all the talk of progressives vs conservatives or left vs right or Democrat vs Republican are essentially just synonyms for the same thing. However you choose to label them, there is no reason why those divisions need to be involved in this process at all.

Sure, but a consensus of the professionals in the relevant fields, not politicians

And the opposite? Any University teaching about Adam Smith would be forced to give equal consideration to Marx?

You also have to deal with the fuzzy distinction between teaching about a concept and teaching the concept itself. You wouldn't just be determining the topic areas but you'd have to get in to the specifics of how those topics are presented. Would you expect equal credence be given to every alternative or would you accept a professional consensus on their relative merits, even if that concludes that one is measurably "better" or "more significant" than the other?

Consider the mess that is the whole creationism debate in the US education system. Again, I don't see how the political extremes would ever agree on a consensus or compromise. If they could do that, they wouldn't be political extremes in the first place.

 

For sure. You can't compromise on pure science.
But the humanities don't deal with science, other than to teach hapless students
there are "other truths" than just science. And of course, science is explained as
being an indispensable tool for Capitalism.
I believe that all students should be well grounded in history - real history, not
Marxist history of power hierarchies and racism.
And students who wish to learn Marxism need to be grounded in economics.
Teach the foundation first - reading, writing, arithmetic, history, economics etc.
and if people want to learn the radical things then go for it. As it is you get a
lot (majority) of students who have no idea of how their own society works.
Imagine teaching kids about the dangers of vaccination without grounding
them in the history of vaccines first.

 

It doesn't matter what the subject is, you can't compromise full stop. You're not offering compromise here, you're making definitive statements about exactly what should and should not be taught.

Rubbish, there is plenty of science, hard and soft, in the humanities. There are elements of interpretation and opinion involved too, but that can be the case in even the hardest of sciences. There are plenty of the same kind of partisan political controversies around what is taught in science, such as climate change, evolution and sex education.

Who determines what is "real history" though. You? You've also not addressed the distinction between teaching about a concept or philosophy and essentially preaching it. I'm sure you'll assert that the latter is happening with "Marxism" and maybe it is, though I wouldn't be surprised it that doesn't sometimes happen with things like "market capitalism", "republicanism" or "monotheism" too. They'd all be equally wrong.

The concept of establishing that core grounding is important, including the positives and negatives that literally every concept entails (and that should happen long before the option of University too). I don't see that as a political question though and I think politics unduly influences your opinions of what is core and how that should be presented. Again, I see no reason why all this shouldn't be determined and agreed by the professionals in the relevant fields, entirely independent of any political influences.

 

No they are not.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/246/text

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/anti-bds-legislation

 

Nobody has suggested criminalizing those that criticize Israel. Why do you invent this bullshit?

 

What is wrong with teaching Marx? He is arguably one of the most influential philosophers in history and his works and ideas are largely misunderstood by the general public. Adam Smith is already taught as well he should be.

Neo-liberal economic policies such as those espoused by Friedman and others should also be put under the microscope and examined in the clear light for their impact on modern economies.

I got such a laugh when Greenspan admitted he may have got a few things wrong after 2008.
Why should we not examining the impact of his policies honestly in the sphere of public education?

 

Yes, Marx was "influential" and many millions of very intelligent people gave his ideas
credence. But Marx was also dead wrong .Worse he strove to create division. He did
not live to see the impact of his work. Today we have identity divisions.
But my point is that today people don't know much about the foundations of their
liberal, Capitalist democratic society. Classic literal, philosophy, religion, history
etc are also downplayed. There's the smell of the Chinese Cultural Revolution
about it all - and in that tragedy the Marxists targeted the past, religion, private
property, culture and business. Things that are the target today, actually.
Yes, Greenspan "got a few things wrong" but Marxists get it all wrong.
One thing Greenspan and the Democrats and Clinton got badly wrong was "helping"
poor people get their own homes, forcing the institutions to take on bad loans. The result
was the sub-prime lending crisis which was blamed on Capitalism. No, that was old Marx
himself at work.

 

Certainly Marx was wrong on occasion but his main thesis was to critique capitalism of the the day (mostly conditions in industrial Britain) and to dare to suggest that workers control their own means of production.

To say that Marx was always wrong is to dismiss completely his observations on working class conditions. Saying that many have misinterpreted Marx in order to create flawed ideological governments certainly is a valid argument but I think you have to hold capitalist regimes throughout history up to the same lens.

Lenin was profoundly undemocratic and so were his followers but that says more about Lenin than it does of Marx.

Yes there have been many failed attempts to put Marxist ideas into practice but so to has capitalism had it's failures. Bringing up Mao or Pol Pot all the time is a well-worn tactic but it is to completely ignore all the vicious right-wing regimes throughout history and to deny that capitalism always tends to concentrate wealth and political power in the hands of a small minority without regulation and social policies to counter it's radical contradictions.

2008 had nothing to do with Marx. Criminal bankers through deregulation sold highly risky mortgages and then packaged them as assets which then infected the global banking system. They new exactly what they were doing and did it anyway for their own profit and greed.

It was a ponzi scheme that occurred because of deregulation and lack of oversight.