Jerrold Nadler
05/01/2024 | Press release | Distributed by Public on 05/01/2024 16:29
Ranking Member Nadler Floor Statement on H.R. 6090, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023”
Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2024
CONTACT:Matt Jansen (Nadler) 202-494-1278
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
###
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler represents New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan, and serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2024
CONTACT:Matt Jansen (Nadler) 202-494-1278
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
###
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler represents New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan, and serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2024
CONTACT:Matt Jansen (Nadler) 202-494-1278
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
###
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler represents New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan, and serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2024
CONTACT:Matt Jansen (Nadler) 202-494-1278
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
###
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler represents New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan, and serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 1, 2024
CONTACT:Matt Jansen (Nadler) 202-494-1278
WASHINGTON, DC - Today, Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) delivered the following statement on the House Floor, as prepared, in opposition to H.R. 6090, the "Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023":
"Mr. Speaker, I have devoted much of my life to combatting antisemitism, and I am as attuned as anyone to threats and bigotry aimed at Jewish people. I will take lectures from no one about the need for vigorous efforts to fight antisemitism on campus or anywhere else. I am also a deeply committed Zionist who firmly believes in Israel's right to exist as a homeland for the Jewish people.
But, as someone who is also a longtime champion of protecting freedom of speech, I must oppose this misguided bill.
While there is much in the bill that I agree with, its core provision would put a thumb on the scale in favor of one particular definition of antisemitism-to the exclusion of all others-to be used when the Department of Education assesses claims of antisemitism on campus.
This definition, adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, includes "contemporary examples of antisemitism". The problem is that these examples may include protected speech, in some contexts, particularly with respect to criticism of the State of Israel.
To be clear, I vehemently disagree with the sentiments towards Israel expressed in those examples-and too often criticism of Israel does, in fact, take the form of virulent antisemitism. Many Jewish students no longer feel safe on campus and some colleges have not done nearly enough to protect them.
But while this definition and its examples may have useful applications in certain contexts, by effectively codifying them into Title VI, this bill threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech. Speech that is critical of Israel-alone-does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI's ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.
As the ACLU notes, if this legislation were to become law, colleges and universities that want to avoid Title VI investigations, or the potential loss of federal funding, could end up suppressing protected speech criticizing Israel or supporting Palestinians. Moreover, it could result in students and faculty self-censoring their political speech. Even the IHRA definition's lead author, Kenneth Stern, opposes codifying this definition for this reason.
Vigorous enforcement of federal civil rights law does not depend on defining terms like "antisemitism" or "racism". In fact, codifying one definition of antisemitism, to the exclusion of all other possible definitions, could actually undermine federal civil rights law because antisemitism, like other forms of bigotry, evolves over time, and future conduct that comes to be widely understood as antisemitic may no longer meet the statutory definition.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot ignore the context in which this legislation is being rushed to the floor in a cynical attempt to exploit for political gain the deep divisions currently on display at college campuses across the country.
Much of this activity-whether you agree with the sentiments expressed at these protests or not-constitutes legally protected speech and expression.
Some participants-shamefully-have exhibited antisemitic conduct, and the Department of Education will rightfully investigate them, consulting the IHRA definition, and other relevant definitions, in the process. They do not need this legislation to help them with their inquiries.
Some students have even crossed the line into vandalism, destruction of private property and willful disruption of campus life. They, too, will face legal consequences, and nothing in this bill will affect that.
There is no excuse for bigotry, threats, or violence directed at anyone, anywhere, and it is imperative that we confront the scourge of antisemitism. And Congress can help. But this legislation is not the answer.
Instead of engaging in political theatrics that do not do anything concrete to stop antisemitism on campus, we need to put our money where our mouth is.
Last year, the Biden Administration outlined a comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, the cornerstone of which was increasing enforcement actions by the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education. President Biden's budget called for a 27 percent increase in funding for that office.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have fully funded that request. Instead, they bragged about proposing to slash funding by 25 percent and ultimately insisted that funding be kept flat despite the marked increase in complaints.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, we would be considering legislation to codify the National Strategy today instead of fiddling around with definitions.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up after Neo-Nazis in Charlottesville chanted that, quote, "Jews will not replace us."
If my Republican colleagues were serious about antisemitism, they would have spoken up when President Trump declared that there were, quote, "very fine people on both sides" of that rally, or when he said that the Charlottesville rally was a "little peanut" compared to ongoing campus protests regarding the Israel-Gaza war.
We hear nothing from our Republican colleagues when some conservatives repeat antisemitic tropes about George Soros or others.
I say to my Republican friends, for too long, your selective silence on these matters has been deafening.
If you mean what you say here today-if you believe that the threats and vitriol that Jewish students face on college campuses is unjust and that combating antisemitism is more than a convenient talking point in your politically motivated crusade against institutions of higher education-then I beseech you: Please move beyond pointless gestures and posturing and actually help us protect Jewish students.
Fully fund the Administration's efforts to counter antisemitism and other forms of discrimination. Our Nation's students deserve no less.
By contrast, this legislation threatens freedom of speech, one of our most cherished values, while doing nothing to combat antisemitism. For these reasons, I urge Members to oppose the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time."
###
U.S. Representative Jerrold Nadler represents New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes parts of Manhattan, and serves as the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee.