Antisemitism

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US public school officials push back in congressional hearing on antisemitism

      by

      Some of America’s top school districts rebuffed charges of failing to counteract a surge of antisemitism on Wednesday in combative exchanges with a congressional committee that has been at the centre of high-profile interrogations of elite university chiefs.Having previously grilled the presidents of some of the country’s most prestigious seats of higher learning in politically charged settings, the House of Representatives’ education and workforce subcommittee switched the spotlight to the heads of three predominantly liberal school districts with sizable Jewish populations.The hearing was presented as an investigation into how the authorities were safeguarding Jewish staff and students in an atmosphere of rising bigotry against the backdrop of Israel’s war in Gaza.Calling the need for the hearing “a travesty”, Republican member Aaron Bean from Florida said 246 “very vile” antisemitic acts had been reported in the three districts – in New York City, Montgomery county in Maryland and Berkeley in California – since last October’s attack by Hamas on Israel.“Antisemitism is repugnant in all its forms but the topic of today’s hearing is pretty troubling,” he said. “It’s hard to grasp how antisemitism has become such a force in our kindergarten-through-12 [high] schools.”He cited instances of students marching through corridors chanting “kill the Jews”, a pupil caught on a security camera imitating Hitler and performing the Nazi salute, and Jewish children being told to pick up pennies.The three districts insisted in response that they did not tolerate antisemitism in their schools. They said they had taken educational and disciplinary steps to combat antisemitism following the 7 October attack, which led to an Israeli military offensive in Gaza that has triggered a wave of demonstrations on university campuses and beyond.However, the districts gave divergent answers on whether teachers had been fired for actions deemed antisemitic. Each district has received complaints over their handling of post-7 October allegations of antisemitism.David Banks, the chancellor of the New York City school system, engaged in a testy exchange with Republicans over an episode at Hillcrest high school, whose principal had been removed following a protest against a pro-Israel teacher but had been reassigned to an administrative role rather than fired.The Republican representative, Elise Stefanik – noted for her pointed questioning of three university presidents over free speech at a previous hearing last December – sparred with Banks and accused the school leaders of paying “lip service”.Banks stood his ground and appeared to challenge the committee, saying: “This convening feels like the ultimate ‘gotcha’ moment. It doesn’t sound like people trying to solve for something we actually solve for.”He added: “We cannot simply discipline our way out of this problem. The true antidote to ignorance and bias is to teach.”Banks said his district had “terminated people” over antisemitism.Karla Silvestre, president of Montgomery county public schools in Maryland – which includes schools in suburbs near Washington – said no teacher had been fired, prompting Bean to retort: “So you allow them to continue to teach hate?”Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley unified school district in California, said her authority’s adherence to state and federal privacy laws precluded her from giving details on disciplinary measures taken against staff and students.“As a result, some believe we do nothing. This is not true,” she said.“Since October 7, our district has had formal complaints alleging antisemitism arising from nine incidents without our jurisdiction. However, antisemitism is not pervasive in Berkeley unified school district.”Echoing previous hearings that featured the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Columbia, Bean asked all three district heads whether they considered the slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” antisemitic.Each said yes, although Silvestre and Morthel qualified this by saying their affirmation was dependent on whether it meant the elimination of the Jewish population in Israel – an interpretation disputed by many pro-Palestinian campaigners. Bean said tersely: “It does.”Responding to the three opening statements, Bean said: “Congratulations. You all have done a remarkable job testifying. But just like some college presidents before you that sat in the very same seat, they also in many instances said the right thing. They said they were protecting students when they were really not.”The subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon, accused Republicans of being selective in their stance against antisemitism, singling out the notorious white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, whose participants chanted “Jews will not replace us”. The then president Donald Trump later said the rally included some “very fine people” .She described one of those who took part, Nick Fuentes, as a “vile antisemite … who denied the scope of the Holocaust”, but noted that Trump hosted him at his Mar-a-Lago retreat in Florida in November 2022.“I will offer my colleagues on the other side of the aisle the opportunity to condemn these previous comments,” Bonamici said. “ Does anyone have the courage to stand up against this?”When committee members remained silent, she said: “Let the record show that no one spoke at this time.” More

    • 138 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican candidate loses US House primary in victory for pro-Israel lobbyists

      by

      Republican John Hostettler has lost his House primary in Indiana, delivering a victory to pro-Israel groups who sought to block the former congressman from returning to Washington. The groups attacked Hostettler as insufficiently supportive of Israel at a time when criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has hit new highs because of the war in Gaza.When the Associated Press called the eighth district primary race at 7.49pm ET, less than an hour after the last polls closed in Indiana, Mark Messmer led his opponents with 40% of the vote. Messmer, the Indiana state senate majority leader, will advance to the general election in November, which he is heavily favored to win because of the district’s Republican leanings. The victor will replace Republican congressman Larry Bucshon, who announced his retirement earlier this year.The primary concludes a contentious race in which pro-Israel groups poured millions of dollars into the district to attack Hostettler, who served in the House from 1995 to 2007. The groups specifically criticized Hostettler’s past voting record on Israel and some comments he made that were deemed antisemitic.In a book that he self-published in 2008 after leaving Congress, Hostettler blamed some of George W Bush’s advisers “with Jewish backgrounds” for pushing the country into the war in Iraq, arguing they were distracted by their interest in protecting Israel.Those comments, combined with Hostettler’s vote opposing a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in 2000, after the start of the second intifada, outraged groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) and United Democracy Project (UDP), a Super Pac affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, UDP spent $1.2m opposing Hostettler while the RJC Victory Fund invested $950,000 in supporting Messmer.One UDP ad attacked Hostettler as “one of the most anti-Israel politicians in America”, citing his vote against the resolution in 2000. The CEO of RJC, Matt Brooks, previously lambasted Hostettler for having “consistently opposed vital aid to Israel [and] trafficked antisemitic conspiracy theories”.But the groups’ interest in a Republican primary is a notable departure from their other recent forays into congressional races. So far this election cycle, UDP has largely used its massive war chest to target progressive candidates in Democratic primaries. UDP spent $4.6m opposing the Democratic candidate Dave Min, who ultimately advanced to the general election, and the group has also dedicated $2.4m to supporting Democrat Sarah Elfreth in Maryland, which will hold its primaries next week.Aipac and its affiliates reportedly plan to spend $100m across this election cycle, so UDP may still get involved in other Republican congressional primaries. However, the groups will likely remain largely focused on Democrats, as Republican lawmakers and voters have generally indicated higher levels of support for Israel since the start of the war in Gaza.A Guardian review of the statements of members of Congress after the start of the war found that every Republican in Congress was supportive of Israel. Even as criticism of Israel’s airstrike campaign in Gaza has mounted, one Gallup poll conducted in March found that 64% of Republicans approve of Israel’s military actions, compared with 18% of Democrats and 29% of independents who said the same.Other polls have shown that most Americans support calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, and hopes for a pause in the war did briefly rise this week. Hamas leaders on Monday announced they would accept a ceasefire deal, but Israel soon dashed hopes of peace by launching an operation to take control of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt. More

    • 113 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Pro-Israel groups target Republican House candidate they deem antisemitic

      by

      Pro-Israel groups are wading into a Republican congressional primary, marking a departure from their recent focus on attacking progressive candidates and offering the latest test of the pro-Israel lobby’s strength as the war in Gaza weighs heavily on voters’ minds.The former Indiana congressman John Hostettler, who served in the House from 1995 to 2007 and will compete in a crowded primary on Tuesday, is looking to return to the chamber to represent the state’s eighth district. Hostettler’s allies praise him as an “America first conservative” who will help terminate financial aid to Ukraine, so his primary will also test Republicans’ embrace of isolationism, which has gained popularity in the party amid the rise of Donald Trump. But Jewish groups have criticized some of his past comments about the start of the Iraq war as antisemitic.Hostettler’s victory is far from assured, as seven other Republicans have launched primary bids and outside groups have already poured millions of dollars into the race.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission, the United Democracy Project (UDP) Super Pac, which is affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has spent $1.2m against Hostettler. The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) Victory Fund has also spent about $950,000 supporting one of Hostettler’s top rivals, the Indiana state senate majority leader, Mark Messmer.Those figures dwarf Hostettler’s own fundraising numbers, as his campaign has reported bringing in $40,635 in donations across the election cycle to date. Messmer brought in nearly 20 times as much, reporting $763,290 in contributions so far.The UDP ad attacks Hostettler as “one of the most anti-Israel politicians in America”, excoriating his past voting record in the House. Both the UDP and the RJC have specifically criticized Hostettler for his vote opposing a resolution expressing solidarity with Israel in 2000, after the start of the second intifada, as well as the comments he has made about the origins of the Iraq war.In his self-published book, Nothing for the Nation: Who Got What Out of Iraq, Hostettler criticized former president George W Bush for relying on foreign policy advisers “with Jewish backgrounds” in the lead-up to the war, arguing those officials were too focused on the fate of Israel. One review, published by the Jewish Standard in 2008, accused Hostettler of perpetuating “age-old slanders of Jewish disloyalty to their countries”.“We are deeply troubled by John Hostettler’s past record, and RJC is committed to ensuring he does not get back to Congress,” the group’s CEO, Matt Brooks, said last month. “Hostettler has consistently opposed vital aid to Israel, trafficked antisemitic conspiracy theories and voted against a 2000 resolution which supported Israel.”The UDP’s investment in Hostettler’s race marks a notable shift in its spending this election cycle, as the group has largely focused on Democratic primaries so far. In California’s 47th congressional district, the UDP spent $4.6m opposing the Democratic candidate Dave Min, who ultimately advanced to the general election. The group has also spent $2.4m backing the Democrat Sarah Elfreth in the third district of Maryland, which will hold its primaries later this month.The UDP ad against Hostettler also differs from those against progressive candidates such as Min, as it focuses on Hostettler’s approach to Israel. In Democratic primaries, UDP ads have largely highlighted progressive candidates’ personal weaknesses, such as Min’s drunk-driving arrest last year.The choice to highlight Hostettler’s voting record on Israel reflects how Republican voters generally view the Netanyahu government in a more favorable manner than Democrats and independents do. A Guardian review of the statements of members of Congress after the start of the war found that every Republican in Congress was supportive of Israel. According to one Gallup poll conducted in March, 64% of Republicans approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, compared with 18% of Democrats and 29% of independents who said the same.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAlthough Hostettler faces an onslaught of spending from pro-Israel groups, other outside organizations have come to his aid in the primary. Two Super Pacs – the American Leadership Pac and the Protect Freedom Pac – have spent more than $790,000 combined to promote Hostettler’s candidacy.But other outside groups have rallied around his opponent Mesmer; the America Leads Action Super Pac has spent roughly $2m opposing Hostettler and more than $100,000 supporting Mesmer. A campaign ad from America Leads Action accuses Hostettler of advancing reckless fiscal policies during his time in Congress.America Leads Action is backed by the wealthy conservative donors Jay Faison and Rob Walton, who is a son of the Walmart founder, Sam Walton. The group has previously spent millions opposing other Republican primary candidates viewed as potential liabilities in a general election, such as Mark Harris of North Carolina and Brandon Gill of Texas.Both Harris and Gill went on to win their primaries anyway. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US House votes to pass antisemitism bill in response to campus protests

      by

      The US House of Representatives has voted to pass an antisemitism awareness bill, a controversial measure sponsored by a New York Republican amid controversy over pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses in Manhattan and across the US, as Israel’s war with Hamas drags on.The bill passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support.Mike Lawler’s bill will “provide for the consideration of a definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws concerning education programs or activities, and for other purposes”.Democrats opposed it as a messaging bill meant simply to boost Republicans on a hot-button issue and trap Democrats into taking politically awkward votes.The American Civil Liberties Union opposed the bill, telling members: “Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities.“[The bill] is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism.”The Foundation for Middle East Peace (FMEP), which “works to ensure a just, secure and peaceful future for Palestinians and Israelis”, has defined the shifting meaning of “antisemitism” in US political discourse.“Traditionally,” the FMEP says, “‘antisemitism’ has meant hostility and prejudice toward Jews because they are Jews – a scourge that has imperiled Jews throughout history, and is a source of resurgent threats to Jews today.“In recent years there has been an energetic effort to redefine the term to mean something else. This new definition – known today as the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s ‘working definition of antisemitism’, is explicitly politicised, refocusing the term to encompass not only hatred of Jews, but also hostility toward and criticism of the modern state of Israel.”In the House on Tuesday morning, the Illinois Republican Mary E Miller acted as speaker pro tempore to oversee debate on the Republican antisemitism awareness bill.As a choice, it was not without irony. Miller made headlines in 2021, when as a newly elected member of Congress she was forced to apologise after saying in a speech at the Capitol: “Hitler was right on one thing. He said, ‘Whoever has the youth has the future.’ Our children are being propagandised.”Representatives for Miller did not respond to a Guardian request for comment.Introducing the bill with Lawler sitting beside her, Michelle Fischbach, a Minnesota Republican, said: “Jewish college students have faced increasing antisemitism. And since 7 October there has been an over 300% increase in incidents on campuses.”More than 1,100 people were killed on 7 October, when Hamas attacked Israel. More than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza during the subsequent Israeli offensive.Fischbach continued: “Students are supposed to be protected from harassment. But it has been made abundantly clear that the leaders of these institutions are not going to do anything to stop it. Instead, they are allowing large-scale harassment to reign, forcing Jewish students to stay home. Since these institutions refuse to protect their students, it is time for Congress to take action.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTeresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat from New Mexico, spoke in answer to Fischbach. She quoted Thomas Massie, a rightwing Republican from Kentucky, as saying the bill was “a political trap … designed to split the Democrat [sic] party and get them stuck” on an issue over which the party is divided.Leger Fernandez also said a different bill should be considered, to “designate a senior official at the [US] Department of Education to combat antisemitism on college campuses”.In his own remarks, Lawler listed alleged outrages on college campuses and said: “We must give the Department of Education the tools to identify and prosecute any antisemitic hate crimes committed and hold college administrators accountable for refusing to address antisemitism on their campuses.”Democrats, he said, were “tripping over themselves because of electoral politics” in states with large Muslim populations which traditionally vote Democratic.Debate then descended into back-and-forth over whether the bill was necessary to defend Jewish students, as Republicans claimed, or an illegitimate attack on free speech, however abhorrent that speech might be, as some Democrats said.In closing, Leger Fernandez said: “We need to remind everybody we all condemn 7 October. We all have condemned Hamas as a terrorist organisation.“We have taken up these resolutions over and over again. And once again, our Republican colleague [Massie] has spoken the truth when he has said that these are sticky resolutions simply intended to divide the Democrats.“Let’s not work on division. Let’s come together in love, and in belief, and [use] our individual strength to push back against the hatred that we see, and to do it in a manner that is not partisan.” More

    • 175 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      The culture war in North Carolina is playing out in the race for governor

      by

      In front of a conservative talkshow host two weeks ago, Mark Robinson, North Carolina’s Republican candidate for governor, was grousing a bit about being snubbed by the state’s Democratic governor on a matter of race.“He talks a lot about diversity, equity and inclusion, but apparently the line for diversity, equity and inclusion stops at the Republican party,” Robinson told Lockwood Phillips. “Roy Cooper has had several chances to congratulate me on the accomplishment of being the first Black lieutenant governor, and he has never taken it.”Phillips, who is white, chuckled, then re-introduced Robinson to the audience, “who by the way is African American, Black, whatever. But, frankly, you don’t wear that. You really do not wear that in our entire conversation.”For a conservative speaking to a Black candidate, this is a compliment. For others, it is a jarring illustration of Robinson’s comfort with accommodating the racial anxieties of white Republicans and with the problematic – and at times inflammatory – rhetoric of the far right.But sitting for interviews and being perceived at all as a Black candidate is a different universe compared to the relative obscurity of Robinson’s life six years ago, before a viral video created his fateful star turn into the conservative cosmos. The former factory worker is now a national name, and drawing national attention, for his flame-throwing slurs against the LGBTQ+ community, antisemitic remarks and derision of other Black people.“The same people who support Robinson are the people who support Trump,” said Shelly Willingham, a Black state legislator from Rocky Mount. “It’s a cult. It’s not necessarily citizens supporting a candidate but following a cult leader.”Robinson’s political career began in an inspired four-minute flash in 2018 in front of the Greensboro city council, as he argued against the city’s effort to cancel a gun show in the wake of the Stoneman Douglas high school shooting in Parkland, Florida.“I’ve heard a whole lot of people in here talking tonight about this group, that group, domestic violence, Blacks, these minorities, that minority. What I want to know is, when are you going to start standing up for the majority? Here’s who the majority is. I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen and I’ve never shot anybody,” he said.Robinson, now 55, invoked images of gang members terrorizing people who have given up their weapons under gun-control laws. He said he was there to “raise hell just like these loonies on the left do”.The speech became a social media hit after being shared by Mark Walker, the former North Carolina representative. Robinson drew the attention of the NRA, which was under fire for its callous response to the Parkland shooting and looking for champions.Born into poverty and working in a furniture factory while attending college, Robinson quit his job and dropped out of school to begin speaking at conservative events. (Robinson, if he wins, would be the first North Carolina governor without a college degree elected since 1937.)Robinson beat a host of competitors for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor in 2020, winning about a third of the primary vote. He faced the state representative Yvonne Holley, an African American Democrat from Raleigh. Holley’s campaign focused on North Carolina’s urban territory while largely ignoring rural areas of the state, while Robinson barnstormed through each of the state’s 100 counties. He won narrowly but outperformed Trump’s margin over Biden by about 100,000 votes.View image in fullscreenAt a rally in Greensboro in March before the state’s primary election this year, Trump endorsed Robinson, referring to Robinson as “Martin Luther King on steroids”. But try to imagine King saying something like: “Racism is a tool used by the evil, to build up the ignorant, to try and tear down the strong,” as Robinson wrote in 2017.That sentiment helps explain his initial appeal to white conservatives in a political moment in which rolling back racial justice initiatives has become central to the Republican brand. The right had found the face of a man who could not be easily accused of bigotry, at least not until people began to pay attention to what he said.“He should not be governor of North Carolina or any other place,” said Shirl Mason, who was attending a Black fraternity invocation and scholarship ceremony by Omega Psi Phi for her grandson in Rocky Mount. Her nose wrinkled and her posture shifted at the thought, as she fought for composure in a way people conversant in the manners of church folks would recognize.“He really should not be a politician. Anybody who can say that race did not play a part in the political arena, they should not be in politics at all,” Mason said.Like Trump, Robinson has a litany of provocative outrages in speeches and on social media that have been resurfacing, from referring to school shooting survivors advocating for gun control reforms as “prosti-tots” and “spoiled little bastards”, to describing gay and transgender people as “filth”.Robinson has shared conspiracist comments about the moon landing and 9/11. He has attacked the idea of women in positions of leadership. His swipes at Black culture and public figures are talk-radio fodder, describing Barack Obama as a “worthless anti-American atheist” and suggesting Michelle Obama is a man.“Half of black Democrats don’t realize they are slaves and don’t know who their masters are. The other half don’t care,” he wrote in one Facebook post. He described the movie Black Panther in another as the product of “an agnostic Jew and put to film by satanic marxist”, and wrote: “How can this trash, that was only created to pull the shekels out of your schvartze pockets, invoke any pride?”, using a derogatory Yiddish word to refer to Black people.View image in fullscreenThe antisemitism of that comment is not singular. He has repeated common antisemitic tropes about Jewish banking, posted Hitler quotes on Facebook and suggested the Holocaust was a hoax. “There is a REASON the liberal media fills the airwaves with programs about the NAZI and the ‘6 million Jews’ they murdered,” wrote Robinson, with scare quotes around the figure.Robinson’s campaign has pushed back on accusations of antisemitism, citing his support for Israel and criticism of protests against the war in Gaza. But his past comments are likely to be revisited throughout the campaign in no small part because his opponent, Josh Stein, could be the first Jewish governor of North Carolina.The two present a sharp contrast in policy, temperament and experience. After graduating from both Harvard Law and the Harvard Kennedy school of government, Stein managed John Edwards’ successful Senate campaign. Stein then served in the statehouse before winning the attorney general’s race in 2016, becoming the first Jewish person elected to statewide office in North Carolina.Stein, 57, is running as a conventional center-left Democrat. At a stump speech in pastoral Scotland county near the South Carolina line, Stein focused on fighting the opioid-addiction epidemic, the state’s backlog of untested rape kits, clean drinking water and early childhood education. But he had some words about Robinson’s rhetoric.“The voters of North Carolina have an unbelievably stark choice before them this November, between two competing visions,” Stein said in an interview. “Mine is forward and it’s inclusive. It’s about tapping the potential of every person so that they have a chance to succeed where we have a thriving economy, safe neighborhoods, strong schools.“My opponent’s vision is divisive and hateful, and would be job-killing. I mean, he mocks school-shooting survivors. He questions the Holocaust. He wants to defund public education. He wants to completely ban abortion. And he speaks in a way that, frankly, is unfitting of any person, let alone a statewide elected leader.”Is Robinson an antisemite? “There are certainly people who are Jewish who feel that he does not like them,” Stein replied.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“He says vile things. He agreed that Jews were one of the four horsemen of the apocalypse. It’s unfathomable to me that someone would hold those beliefs and then feel comfortable saying them out loud.”North Carolina has a relationship with bilious conservatives; this is the state that produced Jesse Helms and Madison Cawthorn. But voters here have a temperamentally moderate streak and a long history of split-ticket voting that also produces the occasional John Edwards or Roy Cooper.In six of the last eight general elections, voters here chose a Democratic governor and a Republican president. Though every lieutenant governor in the last 60 years has run for governor, only three of 11 have won, each a Democrat. The last two attorneys general of North Carolina also have subsequently been elected governor, also both Democrats.But the margins are always maddeningly close. Stein won his first race for attorney general in 2016 – a Trump year – by about 25,000 votes. He won re-election four years later by about half that margin.Cooper, a Democratic moderate, has been a political fixture in North Carolina politics for a generation, and has been able to fend off some of the more radical impulses of Republicans over the years with a combination of veto power and moral suasion.But while Democrats hold the North Carolina governor’s mansion today, Republicans achieved a veto-proof majority in both legislative chambers in 2022 after Tricia Cotham, the newly elected state representative, switched parties shortly after winning an otherwise safely Democratic seat. Since that political shock, Cooper’s vetoes have been routinely overcome by a Republican supermajority.North Carolina’s political maps are also notoriously gerrymandered – manipulated in favor of Republicans – but winning two-thirds of house seats in the legislature is an open question in a year where abortion rights are emerging as a driving political issue. As of 1 May, North Carolina will be the only southern state remaining where an abortion can be obtained after six weeks of pregnancy.Given the stakes, Stein’s campaign hopes to avoid the pratfall of tradecraft that led to Robinson’s victory in the lieutenant governor’s race four years ago. For the moment, the tables have turned on the campaign trail in their favor.In one of Robinson’s three bankruptcy filings, reporters discovered that he had failed to file income taxes between 1998 and 2002. Questions have been raised about personal expenses charged to campaign funds from the 2020 race.His wife shuttered a nutrition non-profit after a conservative blogger began to raise questions about the Robinson family’s financial dependence on government contracts. Reporters later learned that the North Carolina department of health and human services is investigating the firm for questionable accounting.In the hothouse of abortion politics this year, video also surfaced of Robinson at a rally in February calling for an eventual ban on abortion. “We got to do it the same way they rolled it forward,” Robinson said. “We got to do it the same way with rolling it back. We’ve got it down to 12 weeks. The next goal is to get it down to six, and then just keep moving from there.”His campaign spokesperson later re-characterized those remarks as support for a ban beyond the six-week “heartbeat” stage of a pregnancy.Robinson acknowledged in 2022 paying for an abortion for his wife 33 years earlier.The question is whether Robinson’s full-throated anti-abortion stance hinders not just his own candidacy but that of Trump. Planned Parenthood plans to double its spending in North Carolina, to $10m, with an eye on defending the governorship and ending a veto-proof Republican legislative majority. Trump, meanwhile, has backed away from publicly endorsing the most extreme abortion bans.Down in the polls, Robinson has until this week apparently kept a light campaign schedule and stayed away from places where a reporter might pick up yet another unscripted comment. With the exception of an appearance at the Carteret County Speedway on 3 April and the radio interview on 9 April, there is scant evidence that Robinson has been campaigning at all since the March primary. A request to his campaign for a list of his recent campaign stops went unanswered, as did requests for an interview or comment for this story.Stein, meanwhile, has been averaging a campaign stop every two days – 22 events since the March primary – showing up in small towns and rural counties across the state. Stein’s father founded North Carolina’s first integrated law firm, and he spent many years in consumer protection and racial equity roles as a lawyer, a point he raises in rural Black communities.“I think his coming here alone says that he understands that he needs rural communities in order to be successful,” said Darrel “BJ” Gibson, vice-chair of the board of commissioners in Scotland county. “And I say it because so many times we get left out of these gatherings, and state candidates don’t understand that.”The question for both Stein and Robinson is whether the bombast of Robinson’s life as a self-described social media influencer will overshadow substantive policy discussions.When Phillips, the conservative talkshow host, asked Robinson in April about how his approach has changed over time, he described Robinson as more Trumpian than Trump.“My message has not changed,” Robinson replied. “Now, I can tell you clearly that my methods have, because I’ve switched buckets. I’ve gone from social media influencer to advocate, to now elected official. But my heart is still in the same place.” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      What I would have told Congress if i were in Nemat Shafik’s shoes | Francine Prose

      by

      Surely I’m not the only person who has wondered what I would say if I were one of the college presidents who has been summoned to testify before the House committee on education and the workforce. How would I answer their unmistakably hostile questions about how the war in Gaza has been affecting campus life – and about how the university administration is dealing with the divisive and threatening atmosphere that the conflict has created among students and faculty?After two presidents – Harvard’s Claudine Gay and the University of Pennsylvania’s M Elizabeth Magill – lost their jobs this winter, at least partly because of their responses to the committee’s interrogation, I imagined that I might have tried to sound more thoughtful, more human, less lawyered up, more cognizant of the difficulties and complexities inherent in these issues. But both women seemed to be repeating what they’d been instructed to say. They claimed that their response to an openly antisemitic statement would depend on context, a word that – they must have known – was wide open to the misinterpretation, dissatisfaction and mockery it almost instantly engendered. I even imagined appealing to the lawmakers’ decency and intelligence, to their sense that we were all working to find a way to end this brutal war. But, as time has shown, that would have been an absurd idea.Now that the Columbia University president, Minouche Shafik, has been called before the committee to testify about her administration’s handling of campus unrest – disciplining protesters, prohibiting demonstrations, considering whether or not to fire professors who have been accused of being overly zealous in their support of Israel or Palestine – the circumstances surrounding the subject have changed.The war has been going on for months. More than 30,000 people have died as we sign letters and petitions, block roadways, give speeches and post on social media even as we feel (and prove to be) increasingly powerless to end the carnage. So I have come to imagine a somewhat different response to the committee’s questions:“With all due respect, esteemed committee members, let me get one thing straight. The war that you are approving and partly funding is understandably causing division and anguish and a sense of crisis on my campus – and you are blaming me? Are we surprised that the massive bloodletting which the average American citizen feels powerless to staunch might be causing tensions to run high in a community – an academic community – whose members have strong political and religious loyalties and which, as an institution, values free speech?“Is it so hard to imagine that a war that we taxpayers are partly supporting might wind down if our government took a stronger position against it? Again, with all due respect, don’t you think there’s something shameful about using the deaths of more than 30,000 human beings as an excuse to go after our universities and try to exert control over those bastions of the ‘liberal elite’. And aren’t such places – for all their flaws, their expansion plans that have razed low-income neighborhoods, their reprehensible investment policies, their ties to morally sketchy corporate and private donors – nonetheless dedicated to the principles of education, which (at least some of us think) is a good thing.“Excuse me if I can’t remember when precisely the government was authorized to oversee the policies of private universities and determine the punishment of those who offend certain standards determined by politicians.“And while we’re on the subject of professors being censured and possibly fired for making (allegedly) extremist statements” – Shafik has apparently agreed to terminate the contract of a tenured professor accused of being pro-Hamas – “shouldn’t the same standards and penalties be applied to members of this very committee who, in their virulence, have outdone the most outspoken faculty members?“Though he later attempted to amend and explain his statement, the Michigan Republican representative Tim Walberg suggested that the proper response to the war in Gaza might be to simply nuke the territory. ‘It should be like Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Get it over quick.’ Nor was Walberg alone in his suggestion about how to deal with Gaza. Senator Lindsey Graham proposed that we should ‘level the place’.”Meanwhile, the killing goes on, and we – that is, our government – continue to condone and support it. The war has caused every negative aspect of human behavior to bubble to the surface. The rhetoric of rancor and hatred has spiked. Antisemitic incidents have risen at a terrifying rate. Three Palestinian students were shot on the streets of Burlington, Vermont.My ultimate answer to the US representatives currently interrogating Shafik would be this: “Throughout history, wars have begun and ended. This one too will have to end. Leave our educational institutions alone. The conflict in the Middle East is not their fault. Were we to join together in working toward a peaceful resolution to the slaughter and famine in Gaza, I can almost promise you: the rancor, the unrest, the division in academia is not a permanent situation that anyone expects or desires to perpetuate. It’s not conducive to learning. Broker a viable solution to the conflict, and the rage and misery on our college campuses will disappear on its own – as soon, or very soon after, the war ends.”
      Francine Prose is a novelist. Her memoir, 1974: A Personal History, will be published in June More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Columbia president assailed at highly charged antisemitism Congress hearing

      by

      The head of a prestigious US university clashed with members of Congress today in highly charged hearings over a reported upsurge in antisemitism on campus in the wake of Israel’s war in Gaza.Minouche Shafik, the president of Columbia University, appeared beleaguered and uncertain as one Congress member after another assailed her over her institution’s supposed inaction to stop it becoming what one called “a hotbed of antisemitism and hatred”.Wednesday’s hearing follows months of rising tensions between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian demonstrators on the Columbia campus, amid disputes over what constitutes antisemitism and controversy about whether it should encompass anti-Zionism and opposition to Israel as a Jewish state.The hearing of the House of Representatives’ education and workforce committee is being staged under the emotive title of “Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Anti-Semitism.” A group of Jewish academics at the university have denounced the hearing in advance as heralding “a new McCarthyism”.At the hearing Shafik was repeatedly asked to explain the continued presence of one faculty member, Joseph Massad, after he had reportedly praised Hamas’s attack last October that left around 1,200 Israelis dead.In one particularly aggressive line of questioning, Elise Stefanik pushed Shafik to commit to removing Massad as chair of an academic review committee.Stefanik also pressed a harried Shafik, who became Columbia’s president last July, into changing her testimony after she earlier told the Democratic representative Ilhan Omar that she was not aware of any anti-Jewish demonstrations at the university.Pressing relentlessly, Stefanik effectively drove a wedge between Shafik and her three fellow senior Columbia colleagues, David Schizer, Claire Shipman, and David Greenwald – all members of the university’s antisemitism taskforce – by leading them to testify that there had in fact been aggressive and threatening antisemitic statements in campus demonstrations.Earlier, Shafik – trying to straddle between condemning antisemitism and permitting statements that some defined as free speech – struggled when confronted by Lisa McClain, the Republican representative from Michigan over the slogan “from the river to the sea” and support for a Palestinian intifada (uprising).“Are mobs shouting from the River to the Sea Palestine will be free or long live the infitada [sic] …antisemitic comments?” McClain asked.“When I hear those terms, I find them very upsetting,” Shafik responded.“That’s a great answer to a question I didn’t ask, so let me repeat the question,” McClain persisted. Shafik answered: “I hear them as such. Some people don’t.”“Why is it so tough?” McClain pressed. In answer, Shafik said: “Because it’s a difficult issue because some hear it as antisemitic others do not.”She eventually appeared to fold under pressure, answering “yes” and laughing nervously after McClain posed the same question to the president’s fellow Columbia staff, all of whom agreed that it was antisemitic.The hearing was something of a reprise of the committee’s previous cross-examination of the heads of three other elite universities, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, last December.That hearing led to the resignation of the University of Pennsylvania’s president, Elizabeth Magill, after she gave what were deemed to be over-legalistic answers to pointed questions from Stefanik over whether her institution’s rules on free speech permitted slogans that supporters of Israel interpret as calling for genocide.It also intensified the pressure on Harvard’s then president, Claudine Gay, whose responses to Stefanik were similarly criticised. Gay survived the immediate outcry over the hearing but stepped down weeks later over plagiarism allegations.Columbia has set up a taskforce on antisemitism but its members have declined to establish a firm definition.Rightwingers have painted the university as a hotbed of antisemitism, while opponents have accused the institution’s authorities of disproportionately punishing pro-Palestinian students who criticise Israel. The university last year suspended two groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, over their protest activities.Shafik – an Egyptian-born, British-American economist and former deputy governor of the Bank of England – had reportedly prepared assiduously for Wednesday’s event in an effort to avoid the pitfalls of her fellow university heads.Writing in the Wall Street Journal on the eve of the hearing, Shafik said legitimate expression should occur “within specific parameters”.“Most of the people protesting do so from a place of genuine political disagreement, not from personal hatred or bias or support for terrorism,” she wrote.“Their passion, as long as it doesn’t cross the line into threats, discrimination or harassment, should be protected speech on our campus.“Calling for the genocide of a people – whether they are Israelis or Palestinians, Jews, Muslims or anyone else – has no place in a university community. Such words are outside the bounds of legitimate debate and unimaginably harmful,” the op-ed continued.Her remarks appeared aimed at avoiding the criticism drawn by Magill and Gay over their appearance before the committee, when both responded to Stefanik’s questions about theoretical calls for genocide by referring to context.In an effort to bolster Shafik, 23 Jewish faculty members wrote an open letter published in the campus newspaper, the Columbia Spectator, criticising the premise of the hearing.“Based on the committee’s previous hearings, we are gravely concerned about the false narratives that frame these proceedings to entrap witnesses,” they wrote. “We urge you, as the university president, to defend our shared commitment to universities as sites of learning, critical thinking, and knowledge production against this new McCarthyism.”The academics also questioned the credentials of Stefanik – an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump – on antisemitism, saying she had a history of “espousing white nationalist policies”.As Shafik and her colleagues testified, the unrest that has characterized university life over the past six months was on display on Columbia’s campus, where students set up approximately 60 tents on the campus’s south lawn in the early hours of Wednesday. The tents, many of which were covered in signs that read “Liberated Zone” and “Israel bombs, Columbia pays”, were set up to urge the university to divest its ties from Israel.The university perimeters were lined with metal barricades and a heavy police presence, and the campus, which is usually accessible to the public, was restricted to Columbia ID holders.Members of the media were prohibited from entering the university, instead restricted to a barricaded pen near a bus stop outside the campus as student chants could be heard from inside the grounds. “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here,” some students chanted, according to the Columbia Spectator. A handful of protesters also crowded around the university’s main gates, with many shouting: “We say no to genocide!”
      This article was amended on 17 April 2024 to correctly identify the school where Elizabeth Magill resigned as president last year. The school was the University of Pennsylvania, not Pennsylvania University. More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US university presidents face firestorm over evasive answers on antisemitism

      by

      The presidents of three of the nation’s top universities are facing intense backlash, including from the White House, after they appeared to evade questions during a congressional hearing about whether calls by students for the genocide of Jews would constitute harassment under the schools’ codes of conduct.In a contentious, hours-long debate on Tuesday, the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) sought to address the steps they were taking to combat rising antisemitism on campus since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war. But it was their careful, indirect response to a question posed by the Republican congresswoman Elise Stefanik of New York that drew scathing criticism.In an exchange that has now gone viral, Stefanik, a graduate of Harvard, pressed Elizabeth Magill, the president of UPenn, on Tuesday to say whether students calling for the genocide of Jews would be disciplined under the university’s code of conduct. In her line of questioning, Stefanik appeared to be conflating chants calling for “intifada” – a word that in Arabic means uprising, and has been used in reference to both peaceful and violent Palestinian protest – with hypothetical calls for genocide.“If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment,” Magill replied, in a reference to distinctions in first amendment law. “It is a context-dependent decision.” Stefanik pushed her to answer “yes” or “no”, which Magill did not.The backlash was swift and bipartisan.“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” said Andrew Bates, a White House spokesperson. “Any statements that advocate for the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting – and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans.”The White House was joined by several Jewish officials and leaders in condemning the university presidents’ testimony before the US House committee on education and the workforce, at a hearing called by Republicans titled Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism.Josh Shapiro, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the simple response was “yes, that violates our policy.” Speaking to reporters on Wednesday, Shapiro urged UPenn’s board to meet soon, as a petition calling for Magill’s resignation garnered thousands of signatures. According to CNN, Penn’s board of trustees held an “emergency meeting” on Thursday.The liberal Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe noted that he rarely agreed with Stefanik, a far-right Trump ally, but wrote: “I’m with her here.”The Harvard president Claudine Gay’s “hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends”. Tribe added.Republican presidential candidates also seized on the episode, folding it into their broader criticism of the US’s elite institutions as too “woke” and liberal.In an interview with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Thursday, Ron DeSantis, who has led the rightwing crackdown on higher education as Florida’s governor, said the college presidents’ lack of moral clarity was a reflection of the liberal orthodoxy permeating higher education.“I think what this has revealed is the rot and the sickness that’s been festering inside higher education for a long time,” said DeSantis, a graduate of Harvard Law School who is running for president. He continued: “They should not be these hotbeds of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. But that’s what they’ve become.”Amid a surge in youth activism around the conflict, university leaders have struggled to balance the free speech of some pro-Palestinian activists with the fears of Jewish students who say the rhetoric crosses a line into antisemitism. In a number of cases, schools have responded by banning campus groups supportive of Palestinian rights.During their appearances, Magill, Gay and Sally Kornbluth of MIT all expressed alarm at the rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia on college campuses, some of which have triggered federal investigations by the Department of Education. In response, the presidents said they had taken steps to increase security measures and reporting tools while expanding mental health and counseling services. They also said it was their responsibility to ensure college campuses remain a place of free expression and free thought.In a new statement on Wednesday, Gay stated: “There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.”Magill also sought to clarify her remarks to the committee in a video statement, in which she said her response to Stefanik’s question was an attempt to parse the university policies stating that speech alone is not punishable. But in doing so she said she failed to acknowledge the “irrefutable fact” that such speech represents a “call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetuate.“I want to be clear, a call for genocide of Jewish people is threatening – deeply so,” she said, adding: “In my view, it would be harassment or intimidation.”In the video, posted to X, Magill said the university’s policies “need to be clarified and evaluated” and committed to immediately convening a process to do so.Some free speech advocates expressed alarm at the possibility that universities may respond to the backlash by adopting speech-restrictive policies that depart from the protections of the first amendment, which governs government actors including public schools. But the universities at issue in Tuesday’s hearing are all private. Fire, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, called Magill’s comments on re-evaluating Penn’s policies a “deeply troubling, profoundly counterproductive response” to the anger.“Were Penn to retreat from the robust protection of expressive rights, university administrators would make inevitably political decisions about who may speak and what may be said on campus,” it said in a statement. The result of placing new limits on speech, it said, would mean “dissenting and unpopular speech – whether pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, conservative or liberal – will be silenced”. More