Hyperbole and a Half

Richard Silverstein, opening a post titled "The European Anti-Semitism Hoax.":

Despite hyperbolic claims like this, “these are the worst times since the Nazi era” ... there is not even a serious, widespread attack on the Jewish community in Europe.

Richard Silverstein, closing that very same post:

To be a Jew in the world has never been more dangerous since World War II.

Clearly, holding even a simple thesis over the course of a single blog post is beyond the capacity of some.

On the degree to which Israeli policies correlate with anti-Semitism abroad, I of course refer back to this post. But I also think this is a rather stark exemplar of my Innocent Until Proven Nazi theory. Silverstein declares it a "hoax" to characterize attacks on Jews worldwide because they do not appear to present an imminent threat of global elimination. Which, while probably true, sets the bar rather low in my view. And indeed, even when we're talking about people who do seem to desire such extermination ("Jews to the gas!"), it's still unfair to consider it a form of anti-Semitism because the motives are so, so different. Arab and Muslim attacks on Jews are simply a response to Jews allegedly being implicated in the oppression of Palestinians. This is distinct from classical anti-Semitism, which contended ... oh wait:

Anti-Semites weren't - aren't - just people who think they're better than Jews. They're people who think they're being oppressed by Jews.

Wasn't the Holocaust really just an overzealous response to Jews oppressing German businesses (Google this event if you want to vomit)? It is ever so important, as Silverstein reminds us, to be absolutely scrupulous in placing "these expressions in a historical and political context."

Double-Counting RECs

Today I wrote a guest-post at the Legal Planet blog (a joint UC-Berkeley/UCLA project) about an interesting challenge before the FTC on how Vermont's Green Mountain Power makes renewable energy claims.

When a generator produces renewable electricity, the power company is entitled to a "Renewable Energy Credit" (REC) (typically 1 megawatt hour of renewable electricity equals one 1 REC). RECs represent the electricity's renewable attributes. These RECs can be bundled or unbundled from the associated electricity. If they're bundled (kept together), then the consumer of the electricity also receives the electricity's renewable attributes -- effectively, the customer is getting green power. But the electricity can also be unbundled from the REC, with different consumers receiving each product. In that case, the consumer who receives the electricity is not actually receiving "clean" electricity -- only the recipient of the REC is (basically, the REC recipient is off-setting dirty power she consumes from another provider).

The FTC petition claims that while Green Mountain Power claims to supply renewable energy to its consumers, it actually sells the associated RECs to other entities elsewhere in New England. This is misleading, since once the RECs are unbundled the electricity consumers are not actually receiving renewable power.

I go into some more detail in my guest-post. If you're interested, I encourage you to check it out.

Homeland Seasons 1-3

Jill and I have been urged by many, many people over the past few years to watch Homeland. We finally cracked last week (it was a trade with my Aunt, who promised to watch Inception) and binged the first three seasons. Thoughts below (possible mild spoilers, depending on how broadly one defines the term):

* For me, this show epitomizes "better than the sum of its parts." I think Homeland is good, albeit not great. But even that positive evaluation is pretty impressive given its raw materials. Three seasons'-worth of plot were driven by a ludicrously forced love story between two characters with almost no chemistry and whose motives were, to say the least, opaque. And both Brody and Carrie distinguished themselves by making awful and inscrutable decisions over, and over, and over again. Literally the only reason I ever rooted for them as a couple was so Morena Baccarin could hook-up with that Captain guy guilt-free.

* Speaking of Morena Baccarin, it is credit to her as an actress that there were very few moments in the series where I found myself squealing about Inara. Jill and I both agree that it is probably good for her that -- following Firefly, Stargate SG-1, and V -- she got a prominent role in a non-Sci-Fi show (though how big a step away "Spy Thriller" really is from her norm is up for debate).

* With apologies to Damian Lewis and his character, this show was far, far, far better whenever Nicholas Brody was locked in a box on another continent.

* Morgan Saylor did a great job as Dana. Dana, on the other hand, did a terrible job as Dana. Also, what is with shows featuring a family with two children, the younger of which is basically a non-entity? Mad Men (pre-Gene), Masters of Sex, I'm looking at you.

* Jill says she's more of a Claire Danes type. I personally favor Morena Baccarin (Inara! Sorry, couldn't help it). But we're both in agreement regarding Mandy Patinkin. I bet he's called "The Bear" all the time.

* Also -- Mandy Patinkin was Inigo Montoya? That's incredible and incredibly awesome.

* Has there ever been a series where "Stand down, acknowledge!" has been used so often, to so little effect? And it only took the show three seasons to become self-aware of that particular running joke.

* Homeland also confirms one my favorite tropes about lawyers on television. To wit, if you're a lawyer in a show about law -- well, I wouldn't call the portrayal accurate, per se, but it has some bearing on what lawyers do if what they did was browbeat potential witnesses by day and have sexual trysts by night. But if you're a lawyer in a show that isn't about law -- you're basically a superspy. At the very least you'll be a crack shot with multiple weapons, and you'll probably be proficient in running a high-stakes kidnapping ring, extortion racket, or intelligence-gathering operation. It's as if Hollywood thinks all law schools offer a mandatory 1L course in wetwork operations. Chicago does, but that's because human life and death can efficiently be reduced to a market transaction.

Behind the Mule

Urging attacks on America, ISIS calls Barack Obama "mule of the Jews". Quick, somebody inform the Greeks!

Oddly, while the ISIS statement asks for attacks against Americans, Canadians, Australians, and the French, it does not appear to mention Israel (at least as summarized in this article). A certain (former) Labor candidate in England must be very disappointed indeed.

South African Jews Meet With South African Leadership

I've done a lot of depressing blogging recently about the state of South African Jewry (no I mean a lot), so it's good to provide some positive news for once. Top members of the South African government, including President Jacob Zuma, met with Jewish community leaders to discuss rising anti-Semitism and to work on ways to promote a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The community leaders seem to think the meeting was very successful, so I'm happy too.

Hamas Arrests Mortar Team

Hamas has reportedly arrested a cell which fired a mortar into Israel yesterday, breaching an agreed-upon ceasefire between Israel and Gaza. And hey, good for them. I know I should have some snarky comment, or at least some cynical statement about how they're just biding their time yadayada, but you know what? We can't ask them to do things like this and then grope for reasons why it doesn't matter when they follow through. I'll curse their sudden-but-inevitable betrayal when it happens, but for now? Good on them.

UPDATE: ... or not?

Word of the Day: Dysphemism

Today, I discovered the word "dysphemism." To be more precise, I thought I coined the term only to discover that the word already existed. Sad for me, although a good sign at my ability to properly match up Greek roots.

In any event, a dysphemism is the opposite of a euphemism -- it replaces a positive or neutral term for a person, concept or activity with one that is negative -- for example, calling a mental hospital a "loony bin" or referring to welfare recipients as "strapping young bucks." I'm intrigued by it because dysphemisms often hold the potential to both conjure up an explicitly negative picture of a given group while allowing the person to claim plausible deniability that this was their intent. For example, when people talk about "young thugs" they are often using a dysphemism for young Black men. Certainly, they are trading on that image which inevitably is conjured up when they make the reference. Yet call them out on it, and they'll immediately cry foul -- who said young Black men? I certainly didn't. Are you saying all thugs are Black people? Who's the real racist now? A similar move gets made with respect to "Zionist" -- it's often a dysphemism for "Jew" that also allows the speaker to disclaim that they're at all talking about Jews.

In any event, yes, there is a word for this. The more you know!

The Bender Theory of Anti-Discrimination

The Bender Theory of Discrimination, named for the loveable Futurama robot who identified it, is that the worst (or in the strongest form, only) form of discrimination is "the kind against me."



Though not canonical, I've often suspected that there was a correlate Bender theory of anti-discrimination. As a society, we have no clear understanding of what constitutes "discrimination" or what steps are required to oppose it. But there is one unifying thread I've identified to all theories of anti-discrimination:

No theory of anti-discrimination is credible if it targets me.

Simply put, any theory of discrimination which encompasses Jane's activities will be rejected as facially ridiculous by Jane. Whatever anti-discrimination entails, it certainly does not entail any critique of my behavior. If it does, the theory is facially invalid and must be thrown out.

The Boycott of South African Jewry Begins

Last month, I noted statements by a prominent South African official calling for a boycott of the South African Jewish community (through its umbrella organization, the South African Board of Jewish Deputies). Today, we see that boycott begin in earnest, as an African National Congress official pulled out of a SABJD conference "Celebrating 20 years of South Africa’s Freedom." The move was praised by various BDS leaders in the South African community (a movement which of course absolutely positively does not target Jews qua Jews) and comes on the heels of a joint statement by the ANC, Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the South African Communist Party, and the South African National Civics Organization which described Israel as "a state founded on the basis of apartheid, which ... is a crime against humanity."

I suppose we can be thankful that they have not (yet) followed up on the other half of their official's "boycott" call, which suggested that members of the South African Jewish community be massacred in "eye for an eye" justice for Gaza civilians. But I suppose we'll have to see what develops.

Oh the Shame!

Grad students at the City University of New York (CUNY) are voting on boycotting Israeli universities. The vote is scheduled for the start of Shabbat, because of course it is (update: it has now been rescheduled). And what did Israeli universities do to deserve such unique sanction? To quote from the resolution:

"Israeli professors and students at Israeli universities who speak out against discriminatory or criminal policies against Palestinians are ostracized and ridiculed if not publicly shamed, or worse."

Ostracized? Ridiculed? Shamed? Say it ain't so! Put aside the complete lack of citation, or notation of the quite robust debate over Israeli policies that occurs regularly in Israeli universities -- with the possible exception of being "ostracized", depending on what that means, how is this different from run of the mill academic disagreement? As Liel Leibovitz observes, the resolution seems intent on constructing a monolithic Palestinian and Israeli civil society -- the former uniformly favoring boycotts, the latter parroting the Israeli governmental line in mindless lockstep. Perhaps they should reread their Said.

"Asajews" and Superstanding

As usual always, David Hirsh knocks it out of the park:

Jews who worry about antisemitism are written off as tribal and self-interested; they are constructed as ‘Zionists’ and hence not as antiracists, intellectuals or legitimate members of the left. This hostile, external construction of Jews is in sharp contrast to the eager self-definition of the ‘as-a-Jew’ critics, who parade their Jewishness in order to discredit, in the eyes of the onlooking world, the fears of their fellow Jews.

The ‘as a Jew’ preface is directed at non-Jews. It tempts non-Jews to suspend their own political judgment as to what is, and what is not, antisemitic. The force of the ‘as a Jew’ preface is to bear witness against the other Jews. It is based on the assumption that being Jewish gives you some kind of privileged insight into what is antisemitic and what is not; the claim to authority through identity substitutes for civil, rational debate. Anti-Zionist Jews do not simply make their arguments and adduce evidence; they mobilize their Jewishness to give themselves influence. They pose as courageous dissidents who stand up against the fearsome threat of mainstream Zionist power.
Ironically, this positioning by the tiny minority tends to set the boundaries of civil discourse in such a way as to exclude and silence the legitimate concerns of the majority. It characterizes antisemitism as a right-wing issue and it teaches antiracists to recognise talk of antisemitism as an indicator of racist apologetics.

We need to agree that antisemitism is serious and that it is real; it is not only a threat to Jews but it is also a threat to the labour movement, to intellectual culture and to wider society. Of course we need then to be able to present and discuss arguments and evidence as to what is antisemitic and what isn’t; how we define it and how we recognise it are rightfully up for democratic discussion. The phenomenon which most definitely closes off the possibility of civilized discourse is the claim that Jews raise the issue of antisemitism, knowing that they’re lying, in order to stifle free speech and criticism.

Emphasis added. And note that the "asajew" formulation is hardly unique to Jews either. Derrick Bell's theory of superstanding identifies the same problem: Blacks who talk about racism and Black issues will be viewed "with a grain of salt" if they're taken seriously at all, but Blacks who criticize other Black people or rally to the defense of White people aggrieved by Black claims will be given enhanced standing and greater credibility.

Their Strongest Light

On occasion of the 7th Circuit opinion in Baskin v. Bogan striking down gay marriage bans, and this afternoon's 9th Circuit arguments on the same question, I got to thinking about the types of arguments were seeing in court by defenders of such bans. Other than generic arguments favoring deference to democratic decision-making -- which could be made about any law -- most sophisticated opponents of gay marriage that I know tend to feel that their strongest argument is a sort of souped-up complimentarianism argument advanced by Robert George and his cohorts Sherif Girgis and Ryan Anderson. I've never found much to that argument -- as far as I can tell, it asks the question "how many moral philosophers does it take to spot a naturalistic fallacy" and answers it with "more than three" -- but if you talk to people who oppose gay marriage but want very much to disassociate themselves from crackpots, that's the argument they make.

The reason I bring this up is because that argument really hasn't made much of an appearance, as far as I can see, in the legal briefs filed by the states defending the bans. While friendly amici have raised their claims, I have found only two merits brief that raises this argument: the defendants' motion for summary judgment in Kitchen v. Herbert (D. Utah), and the appellants' brief in DeLeon v. Perry (5th Circuit, challenging Texas' ban). Courts don't feel compelled to respond -- a quick Lexis search did not find a single gay marriage case where George's work was cited in the actual opinion, and indeed the brief in DeLeon spends some time complaining that the district court did not "read some of the many reasoned defenses of traditional marriage--none of which the court so much as acknowledged (let alone refuted)."

Of course this was a quick read, and it's quite possible more states are making this argument (but just not attributing it to George or his colleagues). Nonetheless, and DeLeon notwithstanding, it seems to be the case that the argument that gay marriage bans are justified because marriage inherently and naturally must only encompass a particular type of complimentary bodily union between a man and a woman is not a major part of the defense proffered by the states. Instead, we're seeing contentions that seem to actively degrade the institution, such as Indiana's assertion that marriage is a necessary prison for heterosexual men who would otherwise recklessly impregnate women and flee to their next one-night stand.

Why is this? One answer is that the states have bad lawyers. But that seems unlikely; and in any event this argument is being spoon-fed to them by very well-connected and vocal amici -- it seems odd that they wouldn't jump on it. Another is that they have such confidence in their other arguments that they don't want to resort to more abstract philosophizing -- a possibility that would be more realistic if the arguments they are raising, such as the "prison for heterosexuals" claim, were not being laughed out of court. A third reason is that, whatever its theoretical merits, the argument does not track well to current legal doctrine. It is seemingly dependent on essentialist notions of sex roles, and courts will immediately recognize the tension between adopting such an argument and adhering to the requirements of the equal protection clause as applied to gender. A fourth argument is that the lawyers for the states find the argument of George and his colleagues no more credible than I do -- relying on a bevy of logical leaps and belied by public experience with gay marriage.

The fact that the courts have not felt at all compelled to respond to George's contention lends some credence to hypotheses three and four. Either they don't find it to have any legal purchase, or they don't find it to make any particularly significant normative points, or both. A third option, obviously, is that they are consciously ducking the strongest case that could be made in favor of gay marriage bans so as to artificially buttress their own position. Maybe, but it seems unlikely -- Judge Posner is hardly one to shy from a fight, and it seems to me that if he thought there was any credibility to the complimentarian argument, he'd have addressed it.

Interpretations are what they are, but the fact is that what conservatives take to be their best argument against gay marriage simply isn't getting any traction. It's not capturing the imagination of lawyers, it's not capturing the imagination of judges, and it's not capturing the imagination of the public. As I noted in my own appraisal of George's work, the main goal of his argument is probably not to persuade, but to keep the issue in the realm of "reasonable disagreement", so that 50 years from now, we won't utterly condemn anyone who adhered to a position that it is becoming more and more evident every day is utterly indefensible. The failure of it to gain purchase indicates that it will not succeed even in this more modest effort.

UPDATE: I watched the 9th Circuit oral arguments today in the Idaho gay marraige case. It in some ways verified the above -- the attorney for the state of Idaho started to gesture in the direction of the complimentarian argument, but quickly backed away when pressed; instead, he relied on a theory of "child bonding rights" which allegedly required them to have both their mother and father in their life (coupled with a claim that gay marriage "sends a message" that fathers and/or mothers don't matter and thus will degrade heterosexual marriage). It was obvious he was drawing dead (the panel was Reinhardt, Berzon, and Gould -- one couldn't ask for a better one if you favor gay rights), and it's always interesting to watch someone gamely make their argument when they know they're doomed.

It's All Political

As I predicted, the D.C. Circuit will rehear Halbig en banc. Again, I don't think this decision was either compelled or foreclosed by FRAP 35, because I don't think that there is any real standard regarding whether to grant rehearing en banc other than "if the court feels like it" (though the persistance with which some commentators skate past "resolving a circuit split" as a reason for en banc review astounds me, given that it is one of the more common rationales for such review).

Of course, it is widely predicted that the full D.C. Circuit will be more favorable to the government's interpretation of the Affordable Care Act than was the three-judge panel. This fact makes opponents of the ACA sad. Or, in the case of Michael Cannon, it causes them to fulminate about how the decision to rehear is "political". Here is his rationale:

(1) Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster on most judicial nominations primarily so they could seat President Obama’s nominees to the D.C. Circuit; (2) President Obama and Senate Democrats then “packed” the D.C. Circuit with their judicial nominees; (3) the Halbig ruling was written by a judge supported by President Obama when he was a senator and praised by Democrats for his fair-mindedness; (4) President Obama nevertheless appealed the Halbig ruling to a panel where, thanks to the elimination of the filibuster on most judicial nominees, Democratic appointees now outnumber Republican appointees by 8-5; (5) D.C. Circuit court Judge Harry Edwards made political arguments both during oral arguments over Halbig, when he shouted at plaintiffs’ counsel that they were trying to “gut the statute,” and in his dissent, where he questioned the plaintiffs’ motives; (6) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the Halbig ruling vindicates the decision to pack the D.C. Circuit; (7) the president’s supporters urged him to appeal the Halbig ruling to the full D.C. Circuit, (8) this move is consistent with the Obama administration’s strategy of delaying this litigation as long as possible, which would tend to prejudice the courts because delay further entrenches the subsidies that the Halbig ruling declared illegal, and increases the disruption that will be caused by eliminating those subsidies; and (9) granting en banc review is a highly unusual move for the D.C. Circuit, in large part due to the influence of Edwards, who has argued at length against en banc rehearings because they consume considerable resources and threaten comity among the judges on the circuit.

You'll note that, nine subdivisions notwithstanding, there are not in fact nine different reasons here. Most of them are various building blocks on the claim made in #2, that the D.C. Circuit was "packed" with Democratic nominees after the elimination of the filibuster. Erm, no. "Packing", as in FDR's notorious Court-packing plan, occurs when one increases the number of slots on a judicial (or other) body so as to give oneself more opportunities to make appointments. "Filling preexisting vacancies", by contrast, is not "packing" the Court under any definition -- otherwise every judicial nomination is a form of packing. When I began my clerkship on the Eighth Circuit, for example, that court's composition of active judges was split 9-2 in favor of Republicans (it's now 8-3). That's not because it was "packed", it's because President Bush was fortunate enough to see seven vacancies open up on the Court during his tenure (President Clinton saw two, President Obama so far has seen one). The imbalance is because he filled vacancies; it would be absurd to say he "packed" the court.

What else? Well, #6-8 seem to all assert that it's "political" for supporters of the ACA to want to win in court, rather than just giving up. Oh, and then we have the idea in #5 that saying that the Halbig challenge would "gut the statute" is a "political argument." Put aside the fact that it's, you know, true -- what's "political" about this argument? This is perfectly legal in nature -- the upshot of accepting the Halbig challenge is that a central component of the Affordable Care Act would, legally, cease to function. The political angle is that lots of people would cheer said outcome because they want the ACA to collapse -- but that doesn't make the descriptive observation any less legalistic.

But as bad as all of this is, it pales in comparison to the mutilation of Chevron that we see at the end of the piece:

I do not see the outcome of en banc review as a foregone conclusion. Consider: even though the Obama administration’s record in these cases is 3-1, the government has lost ground as Halbig and King have moved through the federal courts. At the district-court level, the government won twice, once at Chevron Step One (Halbig) and once at Chevron Step Two (King). At the appellate-court level, only one out of six judges found for the government at Chevron Step One. Four Democratic appointees lent some weight to the plaintiffs’ argument that the Obama administration is violating the clear language of the PPACA.

For those of you who aren't versed on administrative law, Chevron is the case that governs judicial review of agency interpretations of federal statutes (as we have here). "Step one" asks if the statutory text is clear and unambiguous. If it is, that resolves the case (either the agency is or is not following the clear and unambiguous statutory command). By contrast, if the text is ambiguous, then we go to "step two" and ask if the agency's interpretation is a "permissible" one (which is to say, not "the best one" or "the one the court would adopt", but one that acceptable). Functionally speaking, most of the action occurs at step one, because if the court agrees that the text is ambiguous it will be pretty hard to persuade them that an agency interpretation of said ambiguity is ludicrous on its face.

Cannon, you'll note, seems to have this all backwards. The government winning at step two does not "len[d] some weight to the plaintiffs' argument that the Obama administration is violating the clear language of PPACA." To the contrary, it stands for the proposition that the statutory language is not clear at all but the government's read of it is a perfectly valid and permissible one. Now Cannon is right that it is "better", in a sense, for the challengers to lose at step two rather than step one -- but that's just because it's deeply embarrassing for a challenger to ever lose at step one. Whereas a loss at step two occurs simply out of deference to the government, a loss at step one means the court is affirmatively declaring that the plaintiffs' position is unambiguously incorrect as a reading of the statute. To say that the Obama administration is "losing ground" reminds me of Anthony Lane's immortal response to fans who proclaimed that Star Wars Episode III was an improvement over the other two prequels: "True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion."

The Text and the Context

On twitter I flagged this post by my former colleague Rob Kar as a truly superb piece of work on the Steven Salaita controversy. I wanted to place that endorsement here as well, because it earned it. And in addition to being stellar on its own merits, it also is a great exemplar of how someone can write a piece I endorse without reservation even where I don't actually agree with all of its points. As should be clear by now, I absolutely agree with Kar's analysis of the academic freedom issues and I think he has a lucid and empathic take on the motivations of all the various players. Since I have taken the position that some of Salaita's tweets are anti-Semitic, while Kar disagrees, that is the topic of this post -- but I don't want that in any way to detract from my admiration for what Kar wrote here or the points he is making (in fact, if I didn't want to have an excuse to praise Kar I probably wouldn't even be using his post as an example -- in the blogosphere no good post goes unpunished, I'm afraid).

Rob's analysis with respect to anti-Semitism focuses considerably on the need to read Salaita's words "in context", agreeing "that reading these [tweets] alone, and out of context, did give me some cause for concern." He is joined in this refrain by, among others, Scott Lemieux ("[W]e should not read the tweet in isolation but in the context of his other writings.") and Dan Filler (Salaita's tweets "must be read in context, rather than individually, if one wants to claim any insights into what he is thinking...."). I am pro-context. I agree with these statements. Though perhaps in context I do not, because I do not have a clear sense about what the speakers mean by the word "context."

Typically, when folks say Salaita needs to be read in "context", they have been contending we must read all (or a representative sample) of Salaita's tweets, not just those that seem to be him in a worst light. At a superficial level this could be read as the anti-discrimination version of the proverbial plagiarist who seeks to defend himself "by showing how much of his work he did not pirate." But I take the exponents of this argument to actually be saying that the meaning of Salaita's tweets should be inferred by reference to his other statements (especially those which immediately surround the offending ones), which cast light upon how best to interpret other such utterances. For example, seeing that Salaita has found certain Jews praiseworthy, has condemned anti-Semitism (albeit in broad strokes, and without any acknowledgment that Jews might have a privileged or even particularly useful understanding of what anti-Semitism entails), and has stated that he views "anti-Semitism" (as he understands it, rather than as Jews do) to be a very grave wrong indeed, should color our read of his tweet contending that "anti-Semitism" (in quotes) has become honorable.

This argument is correct, as far as it goes. All of those facts should be taken into account. I agree that they do imply that Salaita is talking about "false" or "erroneous" charges of anti-Semitism; specifically, his belief that the typical or paradigm case where something is called "anti-Semitic" (at least by a Zionist) is false or erroneous. And I agree that Salaita probably views whatever narrow instances of anti-Semitism he concedes to be "true" charges to be grave sins (though in terms of specifics we basically have ... Macklemore). Yet even with all of that "context", it hardly compels the conclusion that Salaita's statement is unproblematic and that any read of it which views it as anti-Semitic is nonsense. Everyone at least proclaims opposition to various -isms; the existence of such statements is at this stage such a platitude that it scarcely seems relevant, much less dispositive, regarding any analysis into whether a given set of statements implicates a particular -ism. And even taken on pro-Salaita terms, the formulation he used -- which functionally accuses the overwhelmingly majority of Jews of being such pathological liars with respect to their purported oppression that people should be honored if we claim to feel threatened by them -- is problematic in its own right and is utterly toxic to the possibility that any Jew (outside the narrow band that Salaita deems acceptable) who wants to have a serious discussion about the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism will get a fair hearing.

For this, too, is context. Part of the context of Salaita's tweet is a context in which "as usual, Jews are lying/suppressing free inquiry/insane" is considered a valid response to literally any rendition of anti-Jewish hate or violence, anywhere, in any circumstances. What the argument misses, in other words, is that context is not limited to that which Salaita himself creates. Being aware of the salience of the context I mentioned but consciously choosing to ignore it (if not actively trade on it) is a valid consideration in appraising whether something is hateful or not. Indeed, since I don't think the fundamental inquiry here is whether Salaita has a bad heart; I would suggest that it is actually irrelevant whether Salaita was aware of that context (though in this case I think there is little doubt that Salaita is aware of, and agrees with, the prominent trope that Jews routinely make false accusations of anti-Semitism to "silence" all criticism of Israel).

"There is no outside-text", as the deconstructionist mantra goes -- or as I prefer it: "there is no text, only context". The call for context tends not to actually take itself that seriously -- it does not actually want the totality of context to come into play, it wants to arrogate to Salaita and his supporters (political supporters, that is; obviously I am a "supporter" in the limited sense that I think his offer should be reinstated) the exclusive right to define the relevant reality and exclude competing counter-narratives. We are obligated to accept as "context" not just what Salaita says about himself, but what he says about the majority of world Jewry. Context does matter, and it matters when it provides evidence that Salaita does not conceptualize himself as a Jew-hater and does not view his project as one that is designed to demonstrate antipathy towards Jews. But that's not the only context that matters and it is not the only context that is relevant. Equally meaningful is the cultural meaning of what Salaita says -- social contexts which deny that Jewish voices are credible, social contexts which may be perfectly polite to good Jews, respectable Jews, so long as they remain good and respectable and approved by folks like Steve Salaita.

Silence and Salaita

I've pretty much said what I wanted to say about the case of Steven Salaita: Yes I think some of his statements were anti-Semitic; and no, that doesn't mean the withdrawal of his job offer isn't a violation of academic freedom. That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

But with the news that Salaita's appointment may in fact be forwarded to the Board, I got curious as to what major Jewish organizations were saying about that matter. After all, we all know that his un-hiring was the result of their devious influence and their reckless desire to squelch all dissent, right? Ready? Here we go:

ADL: Nothing.

AJC: Nothing.

AIPAC: Nothing.

ZOA (surely I can rely on them to be embarrassing): Nothing!

A whole lot of nothing.

Now, this doesn't mean that "pro-Israel" politics had nothing to do with Chancellor Wise's decision. It would hardly surprise me if some donor who considered him or herself to be pro-Israel made a fuss, and Wise thought that bringing Salaita on would be more headaches than it was worth. If that was her reasoning, of course, she gravely miscalculated. But even if she hadn't, the job of a Chancellor is to endure "headaches" such as that. Universities can survive a few loons on their faculty, but they can't survive donors interfering with their academic mission.

In any event, I bring up the silence of various prominent Jewish organizations not because they're owed any cookies -- maybe one thinks that they had an affirmative obligation to intercede on Salaita's behalf (though given that Salaita has queried whether the ADL should be labeled a hate group, it's doubtful whether he'd appreciate their backing). I only mention it because if Salaita's un-hiring stands, it won't be attributable to the "Israel Lobby" unleashing its terrible power. And by contrast if the decision is reversed, then it won't be a crippling blow to the previously indomitable Israel Lobby either. This is a fight that pro-Israel forces, at least in an institutional capacity, did not get involved in.

Respectability Politics and the Causes of Anti-Semitism

The civil rights leaders were saying to the country: “Look, you guys are supposed to be nice guys, and we are only going to do what we are supposed to do. Why do you beat us up? Why don’t you give us what we ask? Why don’t you straighten yourselves out?” For the masses of black people, this language resulted in virtually nothing.

-- Stokely Carmichael & Charles Hamilton (1967)

I've been doing some more thinking about Rev. Shipman's letter about which I posted on earlier. The letter posited that the best thing Jews (or "Israel's patrons") could do to stop anti-Semitism abroad would be to lobby for changes in Israel's policies. Many people, myself included, lambasted Rev. Shipman for victim-blaming.

The primary defense of Rev. Shipman has been to assert that his was a mere descriptive observation that anti-Semitism spikes when Israel takes actions that anger others (in a semi-apology Rev. Shipman refers to it as a "correlate"). See, for example, the comments here or Phoebe Maltz Bovy's interlocutors. What's so objectionable about noting a correlation? The first answer is that his letter wasn't just a descriptive observation but actually focused on a normative prescription -- objectionable Israeli acts correlates with anti-Semitism, therefore, people should object more strenuously to objectionable Israeli acts. The description does not lead to the prescription -- if such a correlation exists, the prescription could just as easily be objectionable Israeli acts correlates with anti-Semitism, therefore, people should be exceptionally vigilant against and display zero-tolerance towards those who target Jews writ large under the guise of "objecting to Israeli policies". It may or may not be true that female alcohol use "correlates" with sexual assault; nonetheless, the right prescriptive response is to take a stronger stand against those who would exploit vulnerable women, not "women shouldn't go to bars."

But I also want to unpack the alleged correlation on its own terms a bit, because I think doing so leads to some interesting observations. The argument is basically one of "respectability politics" -- that the way for a group to overcome prejudice against it is to act in ways that earn the respect and esteem of their fellows. And on the one hand, there's a degree to which the descriptive claim is true to the point of banality -- Jews are less likely to be disliked if prominent Jewish actors don't take actions that people dislike. The problem is that this framework enforces anti-Semitic impulses in that it tacitly accepts the entitlement of non-Jews to dictate Jewish behavior. When a group is forced to tailor its behavior to match the preferences of dominating outsiders, the outsiders will be very likely to view such acquiescence as its birthright and be more incensed if and when the dominated group does take independent and disapproved actions. This, as I argued recently, lies at the core of modern anti-Semitism and its linkage to Israel:

It is a unique feature of the past 60 or so years that . . . . sometimes, in some contexts, Jews can criticize Christians without the automatic specter of a massacre looming. Or -- and this I suspect is worse than Jewish criticism -- Jews can sometimes ignore Christian criticism without immediate and obvious consequence. For people who view their power over Jews as an entitlement, this I think is what really rankles: there is an entity, that is Jewish, that Christians criticize, that sometimes does not listen.

If being seen as an equal requires acting as if one is an equal, a huge part of that is not adhering to the demands and mores of the dominant group but rather (when appropriate, not for its own sake) making conscious decisions to sometimes disregard them. This was a key part of the argument that Zionism would reduce anti-Semitism over time -- like the picked-on kid who stands up for himself and thus earns the respect of the bullies, the existence of Israel places Jews in a historically near-unprecedented position of political and social agency akin to that enjoyed by various gentile majorities through much of history. Expressing that agency and autonomy places Jews on the same plane and therefore creates a descriptive equality which (the hope goes) will change attitudes to match. The call -- from non-Jews at least -- for "respectability politics" is really just a call for Jews to revert to the subordinate state of affairs where they do, as a matter of course, listen to gentile demands.

Put another way, it probably is the case that a non-Jew is less likely to punch a Jew in the face if he perceives Jews (as a group) as largely behaving in ways he sees as salutary. But that does not mean there is necessarily less anti-Semitism in such a state of affairs, if this view is transformed into an entitlement to such agreeability from Jews. That's just anti-Semitism in a different form; the "safety" it provides to Jews purchased at the price of their independence. Anyone can have positive attitudes towards groups who behave in ways they like; the true test of egalitarianism is respecting the minority when it behaves differently than how you'd want it to.

I don't mean to minimize the difficulties here -- there might be no more nettlesome problem facing pluralists than deciding when we must defer to alternative political practices we find distasteful versus when we're obliged to speak out against them. I don't take the view that people from one group can never criticize those of another -- including members of traditionally privileged groups vis-a-vis their historic subordinates. But respect for pluralism means there must be that basic acknowledgment of the right of differentiation, the right of the other to make choices different from those which we imagine we would make were we in their shoes. And perhaps more difficult than that, due accord for history means being appropriately skeptical that the dominant group has it right in every case where majority and minority disagree (even passionately) about important normative questions:

Privilege -- gentile or otherwise -- means that one can always choose to maintain the primacy of one's own perspective on matters affecting the marginalized group. A very large part of anti-oppression analysis is about convincing the privileged to at least suspend that outlook and recognize that it is possible -- maybe even likely -- that the marginalized person is epistemically more credible on the subject, and that our own view -- even if honestly arrived at, even if fervently held -- may be suspect after all. Persons consistently unwilling to engage in that "quietude" towards Jewish voices cannot claim any presumption of egalitarian views vis-a-vis Jews.

It is precisely because we have the duty to hold these things together -- our right to be critical of others, our duty to respect difference, and our obligation to be mindful of our privilege -- that I have asserted the need to foreground discussions of anti-Semitism when discussing Jewish institutions. It ensures that the positions we take about Jews "seriously grapple with the ways in which historical and present anti-Semitism implicate the positions that [we] hold and how [our] arguments account for the actual facts of Jewish existence and what they need to exercise their individual and collective rights as a people." Such grappling, I suggest, is a prerequisite to thinking about Jews well.

As for me, I tend to doubt both the respectability politics position (that if Jews behave well, people will like us and anti-Semitism will go away) and the muscular Zionist counter (that if Jews vigorously demonstrate their independent agency, people will respect us and anti-Semitism will go away). In many ways, I view anti-Semitism as a constant -- I'd like it to disappear, of course, but I don't think Jewish political energies are best spent trying to convince non-Jews to "straighten yourselves out." Zionism is important not because Jewish agency makes people respect us but because it makes it matter less if they do or not -- they can fulminate all they want about how much they hate Jews, because unlike years past we've got some big fucking tanks backing us up. And in turn, I don't support Palestinian equality and national aspirations because I think being nice to Palestinians will make people like Jews more. I do it because, well, the whole point of being an autonomous agent is that we get to make the choices, and I want to choose to do the right thing. People who say that we can't create a Palestinian state because of this or that thing Palestinians do or refuse to do drive me nuts: what's the point of Zionism if Jews are going to sit on their hands and complain while waiting for someone else give us permission to make a decision? (You may sense the roots of my support for unilateral withdrawal). As the black nationalist saying goes: "do for self."

The Tan Man

Let's be real: That was an ugly-ass tan suit. That being said, Rep. Michael Kors Peter King (R-NY) seriously needs to get a grip:

"There's no way any of us can excuse what the president did yesterday," King said on NewsMaxTV on Friday. The interview was flagged by Buzzfeed. "When you have the world watching … a week, two weeks of anticipation of what the United States is gonna do. For him to walk out —I'm not trying to be trivial here— in a light suit, light tan suit, saying that first he wants to talk about what most Americans care about the revision of second quarter numbers on the economy. This is a week after Jim Foley was beheaded and he's trying to act like real Americans care about the economy, not about ISIS and not about terrorism. And then he goes on to say he has no strategy."

You're not trying to be trivial? Try harder. Geez.

More On Christian Contributions To Combating Anti-Semitism

Responding to Deborah Lipstadt's column on the rise of anti-Semitism and "why Jews are worried", Episcopalian Reverend Bruce M. Shipman (affiliated with Yale University) had this to say:

Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.

The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.

As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.

Institutional Christianity continues to display its unrivaled expertise in the field.

H/T (among others) Paul Horwitz.

Thinking Critically About "Uncritical"

One hears the refrain thrown out repeatedly, even casually -- the great mass of Jews (or perhaps most Americans, but mainly Jews) who are "uncritical supporters of Israel." Often times it comes from Jews who claim to have been blind before they learned to see. Here's Antony Lowenstein:

Although support for the Jewish state has been an unofficial second religion for Jews for decades – in my own family it was simply expected that Israel would be uncritically backed in times of war and peace, with Palestinians demonised as unreasonable and violent – times are changing.

And here's Bonnie Honig: "Too many of us are too committed to being uncritical of Israel."

It comes in academic tomes -- Laurence Silberstein's chapter on "American Jewry's Identification with Israel" uses variations on the word "uncritical" (or synonyms) four times in its first page. It comes in pleas that I might generally support, such as in this letter from Israelis for a Sustainable Future: "The belief that being “pro-Israel” means uncritically supporting the actions of the Israeli government and military does not help the Israeli people."

And so it is that Gil Troy, responding to (natch) Joseph Palermo calling him "an uncritical booster of Israel", writes the following:

Calling me “an uncritical booster” suggests I am more propagandist than analyst, more cheerleader than thinker. It plays into stereotypes of pro-Israel types as monolithic and blind to any Israeli faults – an absurdity considering the many passionate debates constantly roiling the Zionist community. It legitimizes the delegitimization of Israel through a perverse reverse projection. While escalating every Israeli imperfection into proof that Israel should not exist, delegitimizers project their absolutist all-or-nothing attitudes onto Israel’s supporters. Underlying this is an unfair singling out of Israel as a country on probation, acceptable only if it behaves well. The charge also reflects an anti-Zionist prejudice assuming that thinking people can only support Israel by bypassing logic.

Contrary to Palermo’s caricature, I have publicly criticized Prime Minister Bibi Netanhyau for failing to lead boldly, charging him with acting like a Chicago ward heeler rather than a statesman. I have said that Israeli leaders should be driving the peace train rather than Barack Obama or John Kerry, tapping Israel’s world-famous creativity to find solutions. I criticized anti-Arab violence long before the horrific revenge killing last month. I have criticized the chief rabbinate for being too rigid.

In short, just like a patriotic American criticizes the United States – while still loving it; just like a devoted wife criticizes her husband while still loving him; I criticize Israel – without questioning Israel’s right to exist. To support Israel one need not mortgage one’s soul or override one’s critical faculties. In fact, democratic Israel invites thoughtful supporters, loving critics, ardent advocates for different solutions to the country’s various problems.

He's right of course. But there's something deeply pathetic about this laundry list of times he's criticized Israel -- as if this will at all alter the refrain; as if proof that Jews (and not just the Naomi Klein fans of the bunch) criticize Israel on a regular basis is even relevant to the belief in question.

Because on face, the idea that there is any significant subset of Jews who are "uncritical supporters of Israel" is not just untrue; it's transparently ludicrous. Anybody who's had an opinion on Israel is critical of it, at least some of the time -- the odds that multi-million person sovereign nation would always in all cases map on precisely to anyone's idiosyncratic policy preferences (much less somehow managing to unite the entire Jewish community writ large in "uncritical" support) is obviously absurd.

"Israel critic" is an incredibly broad term that probably encompasses every single person who has ever had an opinion on the subject -- including Israel's defenders. I am a defender of Israel, I am also a critic of Israel. Caring about something means having opinions about it, it would be a remarkable coincidence if my opinions about Israel (or any other country, or institution, or person) perfectly tracked Israel's actions. ZOA is a critic of Israel, as it has every right to be. The point being, first and foremost, that those who adopt the mantle "critic of Israel" are in reality a narrow and provincial subset of the class, who should not be allowed to insist that the vast majority of Jews are mindless zombies "incapable of criticism of Israel."

When they say "uncritical of Israel", they mean "not criticizing the things I want criticized, in the manner I want to see them criticized." But that Jews reject particular forms of criticism does not make them "uncritical", that's an exercise of critical faculties.

Simply put, I'm sick of hearing about this mythical sector of uncritical Israel supporters. It doesn't exist. But the people who partake in the refrain are people who seemingly can't make the, dare I say critical, distinction between disagreeing with a specific criticism and being incapable of criticism.

Blurring the DREAM

Rand Paul has just come out in favor of deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented Latinos who came to America as children. But he also traveled to Guatemala to give medical examinations to some lucky locals. Jon Chait smells a new policy:

The 2016 hopeful opposes universal health insurance, and he wants to deport half a million people who grew up in America. But Rand Paul will personally provide every deported immigrant with a free eye exam. Call it compassionate paleolibertarianism.

That youth support is around the corner!