Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 58,537
- 11,116
- 2,140
- Thread starter
- #1,361
The document claims that āconservative politicians have justified restrictive legislation under the guise of protecting studentsā and argues that the wording of the definition conflates political critiques of Israel with Judaism.
It further asserts that academic and intellectual freedom is threatened by the IHRA definition because the definition regards Palestinian activism as a form of discrimination, thus āskewing the social and legal meaning of equality.ā
The IHRA definition states that criticism of Israeli politics should not be regarded as anti-Semitic per seāonly those critiques that involve a clear double standard. When asked if it recognizes double standards as a form of anti-Semitism, the AAUP offered no comment.
In response to the AAUPās policy document, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA)ās David Litman said āonly by ignoring the actual text of the IHRA definition, which clearly states that ācriticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semiticā and that overall context matters, is the AAUP able to make its allegation that the definition says the opposite of what it actually says.ā
CAMERAās International Campus director Aviva Rosenschein said āhaving deceptively edited the IHRA definition, the AAUP statement goes on to shamefully impute nefarious, conspiratorial motives to the mainstream Jewish community, which the statement then equates with the racist āfar-right.ā ā
Miriam Elman, executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, highlighted the growing number of Jewish students who increasingly feel āthe need to disavow their Zionism in order to fit in and succeed on campus.ā
āInstead of silencing speech or infringing on academic freedom,ā she said, āthe definition helps to encourage a robust discussion of the multifaceted nature of contemporary anti-Semitism, including when itās disguised as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist animus.ā
Elman repudiated the AAUPās claim that the adoption of the IHRA definition is āstate interference with academic freedom, thereby undermining the public mission of higher education.ā
āThe IHRA definition, in fact, promotes free speech by ensuring that Jewish students can openly express the Zionist components of their identity and participate in campus life without being shunned, ostracized or harassed,ā she said.
(full article online)
www.jns.org
It further asserts that academic and intellectual freedom is threatened by the IHRA definition because the definition regards Palestinian activism as a form of discrimination, thus āskewing the social and legal meaning of equality.ā
The IHRA definition states that criticism of Israeli politics should not be regarded as anti-Semitic per seāonly those critiques that involve a clear double standard. When asked if it recognizes double standards as a form of anti-Semitism, the AAUP offered no comment.
In response to the AAUPās policy document, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (CAMERA)ās David Litman said āonly by ignoring the actual text of the IHRA definition, which clearly states that ācriticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semiticā and that overall context matters, is the AAUP able to make its allegation that the definition says the opposite of what it actually says.ā
CAMERAās International Campus director Aviva Rosenschein said āhaving deceptively edited the IHRA definition, the AAUP statement goes on to shamefully impute nefarious, conspiratorial motives to the mainstream Jewish community, which the statement then equates with the racist āfar-right.ā ā
Miriam Elman, executive director of the Academic Engagement Network, highlighted the growing number of Jewish students who increasingly feel āthe need to disavow their Zionism in order to fit in and succeed on campus.ā
āInstead of silencing speech or infringing on academic freedom,ā she said, āthe definition helps to encourage a robust discussion of the multifaceted nature of contemporary anti-Semitism, including when itās disguised as anti-Israel and anti-Zionist animus.ā
Elman repudiated the AAUPās claim that the adoption of the IHRA definition is āstate interference with academic freedom, thereby undermining the public mission of higher education.ā
āThe IHRA definition, in fact, promotes free speech by ensuring that Jewish students can openly express the Zionist components of their identity and participate in campus life without being shunned, ostracized or harassed,ā she said.
(full article online)
![www.jns.org](https://cdn.jns.org/uploads/2021/03/shutterstock_1035753562.jpg)
Largest organization of university professors attacks IHRA definition of anti-Semitism
The AAUPās policy document postulates that academic and intellectual freedom are threatened because the definition regards Palestinian activism as a form of discrimination.
![www.jns.org](https://cdn.jns.org/images/android-icon-192x192.png)