Hello! Based on a previous post you did explaining why you do longer posts with sources because people should never just take someone's word (which I absolutely agree with!), I was wondering if you would be interested in talking about a current situation involving the ACLU. They are currently fighting AGAINST the Antisemitism Awareness Act and the IHRA definition being used as the foundation for antisemitic crimes (at least in places that receive federal funds) and I think its very important people see exactly why you cannot just take anything or anyone at face value, even the ACLU. You're much more eloquent than I and I think you reach more people for such an important topic (well important imo).
Thanks and loving the new pfp and as always keep up the good work!
Background:
The American Civil Liberties Union focuses on defending constitutional rights, especially free speech and due process.
Its role is legal, not moral. It does not exist to decide what is right or wrong. It exists to challenge laws and policies it sees as violating individual freedoms, even when those freedoms are used in ways many people find offensive. That can make its work feel inconsistent or upsetting, but the common thread is a commitment to legal principle, not to political or cultural consensus.
If you want a video instruction, watch this short interview with Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU:
That's the ACLU.
Disclaimer: I generally support the ACLU's mission, even when they protect the rights of loathsome bigots.
So the ACLU has opposed the Antisemitism Awareness Act (AAA) every time it's been introduced not because they support antisemitism, but because they believe it could chill protected speech.
Their argument is that if the Department of Education starts investigating student groups or faculty based on a definition of antisemitism that includes anti-Zionism or harsh criticism of Israel, then dissent itself is at risk.
But that argument only works if you treat antisemitism as a matter of Jewish sensitivity rather than what it is...a form of race-based hate.
It only holds up if you ignore what the IHRA definition actually says.
You can read it yourself here.
The IHRA definition isn't perfect, but it is the global standard. It's been used by the US State Department since 2010 and adopted by over 1,200 governments, universities, and institutions worldwide. It explicitly says that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country is not antisemitic. What is antisemitic, according to IHRA, is demonizing Israel, holding it to double standards, or denying its right to exist.
In other words, it draws a clear line between criticism and hate. That’s a distinction any civil rights organization should be able to make.
The AAA does not create new criminal penalties or restrict protected speech. It says that when investigating civil rights complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (which bars discrimination in federally funded institutions), the Department of Education may consider the IHRA definition when determining if antisemitic discrimination has occurred.
May consider, not must consider. May consider, not may enforce or criminalize.
So what exactly is the ACLU afraid of?
In their 2023 letter to Congress, they call the IHRA definition vague, warn that it is being "weaponized," and argue that it could punish protected political expression. But they don't provide any examples of people being punished for legitimate speech under IHRA. Their entire position is based on a hypothetical risk.
This is the same pattern we've seen in other leftist institutions: absolute protection of speech for everyone except Jews, who are expected to absorb hatred quietly so no one else feels silenced.
The ACLU supports expanded hate crime laws and civil rights protections for nearly every marginalized group. But not for Jews, if the hate is disguised as anti-Israel activism.
That's a double standard.
And it reflects a deeper failure to adapt to how antisemitism operates now. It isn't just swastikas and slurs. It comes cloaked in the language of justice and liberation. It hides behind technicalities and knows how to avoid laws that weren't written with Jews in mind.
Being principled doesn't mean being so consistent that you become negligent. There's a difference between protecting free speech and refusing to recognize when hate speech is repackaged as activism.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act does not criminalize dissent. It helps educators and investigators recognize when language that presents as criticism is actually being used to harass, isolate, or discriminate against Jewish students.
No, we don't need to cancel the ACLU. But we do need to stop treating them as unimpeachable. When they fail to protect Jews using standards they would apply for anyone else, they should be challenged, not excused.
The people most affected by rising antisemitism in schools are not rich lobbyists or foreign governments. They are Jewish kids being targeted, excluded, and threatened for expressing any connection to Israel, or for simply existing as Jews in public.
That's what Title VI is supposed to protect against.
The Antisemitism Awareness Act helps it do that job. If the ACLU can't support that goal, then we should be clear about what they're really defending...and what they're willing to overlook.
