10 No. 74 JUSTICE from this polarizing, fragmenting speech of which antisemitism is just predictive of the danger. What we should be demanding is transparency, transparency of algorithms, transparency of policies, transparency of the implementation of policies. Here too, lawyers understand that when there are policies that are not expected of an entire industry that is a money-making industry. It is a business. It is a business model. And the understanding that free speech is being appropriated in many ways to cover for what is conduct for what is actually shouting “fire” needlessly in a crowded theater, for what is your fist punching and hitting my nose literally on streets or on university campuses. But what happens online doesn't stay online. It spills over into the streets, and in that sense is very critical in understanding, especially for those of us with legal background and legal education, because it means that there are possibilities for holding people to account by utilizing existing laws. Forget the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. When I meet with university presidents or mayors or police chiefs or legislators around the world, it is about implementing existing legislation, whether it is immigration legislation or policies on university campuses that do not allow the use of megaphones. I am not even talking about the big stuff. You know, I am not even talking about understanding that what we have seen on university campuses, that's not speech, that's conduct, right? Vandalism, harassment, bullying, barring other students or faculty from equal access to research, to education. That's conduct. That's not speech. Forget that − you could say it is a theoretical conversation. I am talking about the application and implementation of existing rules, laws, and policies equally and consistently. Even when it comes to David, who happens to be a Jew, Sally, who happens to be a Zionist, or Fred, who believes that Israel has a right to exist. And that's an entire additional conversation that actually delves into what we have seen in what I call the DEI infrastructure across spaces and places. This merits an entire conversation that lawyers also need to have. Because a DEI infrastructure was created, assuming that it continues to exist, that is not applied to everybody across the board. This includes David, Sally, and Fred. That is not a DEI infrastructure that anybody should be espousing. If it is applied to everybody across the board, then we can talk about how it is − and this is a different conversation I won't delve into now, but I do think it intersects with an understanding of social justice or social injustice − that democratic countries have reached a point that actually in many ways intersects with what we can offer to the rest of the world. We can talk about how it is that we have transitioned from equality and equal opportunity − Martin Luther King's dream that his four daughters would be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin − to an understanding and the use of the word equity that does not mean the same thing as equal opportunity. It actually means equal results. It is a completely different term and we can delve into that too, again, as there are lawyers in the room. Q: Should we still push for more states, more institutions and more entities to adopt the IHRA definition, despite all these difficulties and controversies? Or is it irrelevant? And as you said, we should concentrate fully on demanding that applicable law is being applied? A: I believe that both must happen. The IHRA working definition is the single definition that enables us to identify and combat all strains of what an ever-mutating hate is. And the reason that we have seen that pushback, there was pushback that began long ago. Because the ability to sever the connection of Jews to Zionism, as if it is a political statement, succeeded as antisemitism succeeded in the past: to tell Jews that if you just shed that religious pound of flesh, then you could be a good human being. And that didn't work out so well. IHRA is key for me. And I have met with universities around the world, university presidents, those that have adopted, they must implement. Those that haven't adopted are in no way capable of identifying this strain of antisemitism that is running rampant on their campus, or in their corporation, or in their city, or by their police officers. The understanding is that IHRA is the result of a long democratic process. The only internationally recognized definition of antisemitism and, as with any other hate, because I'm a single standard girl, those of us who experience antisemitism get to define it. No one gets to tell somebody who experiences anti-Black racism, “Yeah, that's not racism.” Well, neither does anyone get to tell those of us who experience antisemitism in all of its strains. That doesn't mean that there are no Jews who say, “I'm an anti-Zionist.” Of course there are. It's the number one question I get in every meeting that I've had with the second gentleman, with university presidents, with mayors. “Oh, I have a Jew who says they're an anti-Zionist.” And I say, “that's their right.” But what's not their right, is to preclude me, or the students at your campus, or the citizens in your city, to self-identify as who they are because Zionist is
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=