Overdose or Just What the Doctor Ordered?

A deeper dive into executive orders, Jews in the attic, antisemitic unions, and more

On January 30, the White House published a summary of the recent actions taken by President Trump against antisemitism titled Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism. And unprecedented they are! The actions include:

• Expanding on his Executive Order 13899, President Trump’s new Order takes forceful and unprecedented steps to marshal all Federal resources to combat the explosion of anti-Semitism on our campuses and in our streets since October 7, 2023.

• Every Federal executive department and agency leader will review and report to the White House within sixty days on all criminal and civil authorities and actions available for fighting anti-Semitism.

• Immediate action will be taken by the Department of Justice to protect law and order, quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.

• The Order demands the removal of resident aliens who violate our laws.

We discussed some aspects of the two executive orders, Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats and Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism, in our last newsletter, but they deserve a deeper dive. Not surprisingly, the strong measures articulated in the orders—such as enforcing Title VI against antisemitic harassment on campus and revoking visas of international students who have participated in illegal protests—have generated heated debates about the implications for free speech on campus and beyond. The concerns can be summarized as “Is the medicine too strong? What will its side effects be? And is the cure worse than the disease?” Below we highlight several opinions on the topic that have caught our eye.

We begin by looking into the spirit of the presidential orders and their context—that is, what problems they are addressing. We will then delve into the details of the orders, looking at whether they are appropriate for achieving the stated goals or whether they open the door to undemocratic governmental overreach.

The Spirit of the Orders and the Context

The orders were issued in response to the rampant antisemitism on American university campuses. Having exploded after October 7, 2023, campus antisemitism has been widespread and pervasive and has manifested in harassment, intimidation, and even acts of violence against Jewish students. We have been writing about specific incidents of campus antisemitism since the inception of this newsletter. For examples specific to USC, see, for example, our posts Report on Campus Climate and Call for Action, Concerns Regarding Campus Climate, Around the Circle: Concerns Regarding Campus Climate, and USC Faculty Senate Releases Kangaroo Report; Provost Responds. If you prefer visuals, have a look at the short series of UCLA-focused documentaries created by a member of the Circle: “Masking Identity,” “What Starts on Campus Spills Into the Streets,” “Peaceful Protests,” “Rabbi Dovid Gurevich's Encounter with Protesters at UCLA,” “Landmark Ruling Against Antisemitism at UCLA,” “Unmasking SJP and BDS,” and “The Week of Rage.” The President framed his orders as an enforcement of civil rights—and indeed, the civil rights of Jewish students have been violated, grossly and repeatedly, as several court decisions have found (for examples, see here, here, and here).

Moreover, what we witnessed last year—illegal occupation of campus spaces, vandalism, hooliganism, disruption of university operations, and hijacking of classrooms for political purposes—have affected the entire academic community, not just Jewish students and faculty. The lawlessness on our campuses, which continued unchecked for weeks and months, caused unacceptable disruptions to university operations. This lawlessness spilled over beyond our campuses—“peaceful protesters” attacked synagogues and blocked freeways. Hence, framing the presidential actions also in terms of enforcing law and order is well justified indeed.

The Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism states:

GOING ON OFFENSE TO ENFORCE LAW AND ORDER AND TO PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS: Immediately after the jihadist terrorist attacks against the people of Israel on October 7, 2023, pro-Hamas aliens and left-wing radicals began a campaign of intimidation, vandalism, and violence on the campuses and streets of America.

• Celebrating Hamas’ mass rape, kidnapping, and murder, they physically blocked Jewish Americans from attending college classes, obstructed synagogues and assaulted worshippers, and vandalized American monuments and statues.

• The Biden Administration turned a blind eye to this coordinated assault on public order; it simply refused to protect the civil rights of Jewish Americans, especially students. According to a December 2024 U.S. House of Representatives Staff Report on anti-Semitism, “the failure of our federal government departments and agencies is astounding.”

We think it would be hard to find rational arguments against these statements. They are factually correct. And it is also clear why strong actions are needed—the antisemitic sickness in our society is pernicious and advanced. Sadly, our institutions and local leadership have failed to effectively combat it on their own. That is the context in which the orders were issued.

The Details of the Orders

The orders announce specific actions to deal with the problems summarized above, and it is the details of these actions that have caused concern. Do the actions violate the First Amendment? Are they an unacceptable overreach by the government? Are they undemocratic? Is the cure worse than the disease? These are important question —indeed, we do not want to replace one set of civil rights violations by another or to further chill campus free speech.

Deportation of Hamas-niks

The most controversial issue has been the proposed revocation of visas of students who participated in pro-Hamas protests, and—more generally—deportation of immigrants supporting terrorist organizations.

The Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and Unprecedented Steps to Combat Anti-Semitism lists this action point:

Deport Hamas Sympathizers and Revoke Student Visas: “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.”

One common—and legitimate—concern is whether such broad language amounts to a political litmus tests. Writing for MSNBC, Sara McLaughlin ponders (Trump’s Threat to Deport Anti-Israel Protesters Is an Attack on Free Speech):

If we open the door to expelling foreign students who peacefully express ideas out of step with the current administration about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we should expect it to swing wider to encompass other viewpoints too. Today it may be alleged “Hamas sympathizers” facing threats of deportation for their political expression. Who could it be in four years? In eight?

FIRE has issued a statement (FIRE Statement on Reports of Forthcoming Executive Order on Student Visas and Campus Protests), which in just 4 short paragraphs nails the issue. They write:

The revocation of student visas should not be used to punish and filter out ideas disfavored by the federal government. The strength of our nation’s system of higher education derives from the exchange of the widest range of views, even unpopular or dissenting ones.

We completely agree. If students express their support of Hamas and other Jihadists organizations in a classroom discussion, on social media (as did our valedictorian), or in legitimate peaceful protests, they should not be expelled or deported.

The FIRE statement clarifies:

Students who commit crimes—including vandalism, threats, or violence—must face consequences, and those consequences may include the loss of a visa.

And this too is exactly right. Unlawful acts should be punished, and expelling and deporting criminals is a legitimate and effective way to enforce law and order. Unfortunately, this was not happening, and even the most egregious violators were treated by the universities with kid gloves.

The FIRE statement concludes:

But if today’s executive order reaches beyond illegal activity to instead punish students for protest or expression otherwise protected by the First Amendment, it must be withdrawn.

Anti-Israel student protest at Columbia University at the anniversary of October 7th massacre (Image via The Free Press, Deporting ‘Pro-Jihadist’ Students: Censorship or Good Governance?)

For a substantive conversation on this issue, we recommend the essay Deporting ‘Pro-Jihadist’ Students: Censorship or Good Governance? in The Free Press, in which Ilya Shapiro (a constitutional scholar from the Manhattan Institute) and Robert Shibley (from FIRE) debate Trump’s executive orders on antisemitism.

Shapiro is in favor of the order, arguing that the federal government has the power to decide who gets to live and study in America. Shibley takes a different view, arguing that these measures will have a chilling effect on speech.

The following is their debate on the topic. Is the executive order constitutionally sound? Will it reduce antisemitism on campus? Will anyone actually be deported? Let’s get into it.

Ilya: It’s odd that I find myself on the other side of a debate over free speech to my friends at FIRE. Usually we are side by side in the fight for the First Amendment. But as with the other rare disagreements I have with them—such as over the forced divestiture of TikTok—it’s because this dispute over President Trump’s executive orders on antisemitism don’t actually have much to do with speech.

Robert: Well, President Trump certainly thinks the orders have to do with speech. The White House’s official fact sheet spells it out: “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests. . . we will deport you. I will also quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never before.” Protests and expressions of sympathy are certainly forms of speech.

Their exchange is rational and illuminating. Both Ilya and Robert bring sound arguments to support their views, and we recommend reading the whole piece.

Anna finds herself in agreement with Ilya on this point:

Ilya: […] It’s properly the job—the duty—of the state to screen out visitors and migrants who would be harmful to our country, including those who reject our values or who are hostile to our way of life. It’s one of the basic functions of government in a free society.

Those whose visas can be denied for being Communists or Nazis or Islamists—when I obtained my green card, and again when I naturalized, I had to affirm that I wasn’t affiliated with those “or any other totalitarian party”—can also have visas revoked. To give another example in a different context, in 2020, a thousand Chinese nationals had their visas revoked after a presidential proclamation deemed them a risk to national security. President Biden defended that action, signed in the first Trump administration, in court, successfully getting a class-action lawsuit against it dismissed.

When I (Anna) applied for U.s. residency and, later, citizenship, I had to answer questions about any past or present affiliations I might have had with the Communist Party as well as whether I had engaged in activities, such as organized crime, prostitution, or gambling, and I did not think it was morally wrong for the government to ask those, like me, who were seeking residency or citizenship whether they had a track record of activities deemed undesirable to the country. For non-citizens, residency in the U.S. is a privilege, not a right, and the government has a responsibility to keep out criminals and hostile elements.

To Title VI or not to Title VI?

Another hotly debated issue has been the deployment of Title VI to quell campus antisemitism. The executive order Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism reinstates the 2019 Executive Order 13899:

Executive Order 13899 provided interpretive assistance on the enforcement of the Nation’s civil rights laws to ensure that they would protect American Jews to the same extent to which all other American citizens are protected. The prior administration effectively nullified Executive Order 13899 by failing to give the terms of the order full force and effect throughout the Government. This order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 and directs additional measures to advance the policy thereof in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, against the people of Israel. These attacks unleashed an unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses. Jewish students have faced an unrelenting barrage of discrimination; denial of access to campus common areas and facilities, including libraries and classrooms; and intimidation, harassment, and physical threats and assault. A joint report by the House Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, Veterans’ Affairs, and Ways and Means calls the Federal Government’s failure to fight anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students “astounding.” This failure is unacceptable and ends today.

The “interpretive assistance” of EO 13899 boils down to a mandate to use Title VI to deal with campus expressions of antisemitism and the directive to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Association (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in this context. We discussed the controversy around the IHRA definition (as well as other definitions of antisemitism) in our last week newsletter. Here we highlight some arguments against using Title VI.

One concern is that Title VI and Title IX have been expanded beyond their original scopes, and that the massive Title VI and Title IX bureaucracies have been routinely weaponized as a means of retaliation, score settling, and worse. In his January 20 letter to President Trump, Greg Lukianoff emphasized the need to address the abuse of campus anti-harassment policies that have eroded free speech. We, too, are concerned about further empowering Title VI by extending the scope of its reach. On the other hand, some mechanism for protecting the civil rights of students is needed, and as long Title VI exists to deal with other types of harassment, it should also cover harassment of Jews.

Another criticism of the EOs was put forward by Lee Jussim. Writing at Unsafe Science (Trump, Science, and Academia), Lee says:

I am a secular Jew. I have published academic articles on, among many other things, anti-Semitism. I have published several Unsafe Science posts on anti-Semitism in the academy, which I believe to be primarily an outgrowth of the academy’s increasing adoption of radical politics. Jews are, in the progressive worldview, a “privileged” “oppressor” group who compound the mortal sin of generally being successful in the democratic west with also generally supporting the settler colonial state of Israel and its ongoing “genocide.” Some have referred to these sorts of ideas as Woke Antisemitism because they unjustifiably demonize Jews.

So you might presume that I think Trump’s anti-Semitism EO is great. I definitely think the feds have a role in combating anti-Semitism when it violates civil rights laws. However, I do not like this EO. I do not like Jews being singled out for special protections. The feds should enforce civil rights laws — which apply to everyone. I doubt that this EO is illegal per se, but, to me, it violates the principle of equal protection. Why special investigations to protect Jews but not Muslims? Or Blacks? Or gays? Or trans people? Or East Asians? Or Hindus? Or White people? White people may sound ridiculous to my progressive readers, but the SCOTUS decision banning use of “diversity” in college admissions was reached, in part, because plenty of White students were, in fact, being discriminated against.

We agree with Lee that the civil rights of everyone have to be protected, but we think that the EO’s focus on Jews is justified by the current extraordinary level of antisemitism, the recent skyrocketing of antisemitic hate crimes (both in absolute numbers and relative to hate crimes against other groups), and by the double standard by which universities have specifically failed to uphold the civil rights of Jews. In other words, the context in which the Orders were issued matters.

A Few Highlights to Reinforce “The Context”

From The Free Press (TGIF: Mar-a-Gaza, February 7, 2025)

→ The Jews should have hid in the attic, says Cooper Union: A lawsuit filed by a group of Jewish students against Cooper Union can continue, says a district court judge, which dismissed the college’s attempt at getting the suit thrown out. You may remember this, but: After October 7, a group of pro-Hamas protesters held one of their many days of solidarity with Hamas’s war effort. Pro-Israel counterprotesters came to do their counterprotest thing. Later, a handful of those Jewish, pro-Israel students were in the school library, and the protesters got wind of it. They got past security and began pounding and shaking the locked library door, screaming “Palestine will be free.” Cooper Union security suggested the Jewish kids hide in the attic, which Cooper Union put in their legal defense. Like, surely that makes us look good? Where else are you supposed to keep Jews? It would take too long to get them under the floorboards since we installed the wall to wall last year!

Here’s the judge: “The court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI.”

Cooper Union, I’m as baffled as you are.

Mr. Trump, Investigate My Campus (Steven Solomon for the Wall Street Journal, February 2, 2025; archived version here)

Last week two female Jewish students told me they are in a required comparative-literature class that mandates they attend one of a list of lectures to earn a grade higher than a B. One of the lectures, “Feminist and Queer Solidarities With Palestine,” is scheduled for Feb. 11, sponsored by the Gender and Women’s Studies Department, and moderated by Paola Bacchetta, the department’s vice-chairman of research. Here is the abstract:

“Some of the more important accomplishments of feminism include the insistence on ‘believing women’ who come forward with accusations of sexual assault, and the awareness of increased sexual violence during militarized conflicts. Yet these achievements are currently being turned against real feminist concerns in Palestine. This talk will look at how Zionism has weaponized feminism, so as to serve Israel’s genocidal intent, by upholding debunked accusations of systematic Hamas mass assault, while ignoring documented reports of Israeli abuses.”

Professor Bacchetta is within her rights to hold such viewpoints and to air them on campus. However, the legitimacy of forcing this speaker on a captive audience of students in a classroom can and should be questioned. While academic freedom protects the right to teach controversial topics and to present one-sided arguments, it does not protect classroom speech that is not germane to the class subject matter. Why is Gaza relevant in a comparative literature class? Why are gender studies departments more worried about Zionism than Sharia Law? (As a side note, the Gender Studies department at USC does indeed consider the Israel-Palestinian conflict to be an important feminist issue). Academic freedom also does not protect classroom speech that is not “professionally competent.” For example, presenting Flat Earth-ism as a legitimate scientific theory in a geoscience class fails the competence test. Likewise, exhorting Holocaust denial in a history class or denying the documented sexual violence of October 7 in a journalism class may fail the professional competence test as well. (Anna has discussed academic freedom and its boundaries in this essay).

Solomon documents the lack of response from the university to this and other incidents, making the case that strong medicine is indeed necessary:

This isn’t an isolated incident. Students have reported to me that professors, even in nonpolitical subjects like computer science, have launched into antisemitic diatribes against Israel during class. Federal enforcement of Jewish students’ rights was lax under the Biden administration. Mr. Trump’s executive order promises to change that, using “all civil and criminal authorities or actions” available. I invite Washington to make an example of my campus.

New Report on Campus Antisemitism

From the AEN Newsletter:

On January 30, ADL, Hillel International, and College Pulse released a report, “Campus Antisemitism One Year After the Hamas Terrorist Attacks,” detailing the results of a campus climate survey they collaboratively conducted in the Fall of 2024. Among other unsettling trends, the survey found that 83.2% of Jewish college students had experienced or witnessed some form of antisemitism since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.

A highlight from the report:

Antisemitism coming from faculty members has been an increasing concern on campuses across the country, with numerous reports of professors violating campus policies by cancelling classes for students to attend anti-Israel protests, problematic rhetoric about Jews and Israel making its way into the classroom and extra credit being offered for student participation in anti-Israel protests. When paired with student-directed antisemitism and when one takes into consideration the unequal power differential between faculty and students, such activity from trusted professors contributes disproportionately to an unsafe and hostile environment for Jewish and non-Jewish students alike.

On Friday, February 14, from 11 a.m.–12 p.m. ET, AEN, ADL, and Hillel International will co-host a webinar—geared specifically toward faculty and staff—discussing the report’s findings and their implications for creating more welcoming and inclusive campus environments.

Is it Fair for Students to be Compelled to Pay Dues to Antisemitic Unions?

In his post on Why Evolution Is True, Jerry Coyne revisits the issue of Labor Unions using their power to advance an antisemitic agenda:

Using the University of Chicago as an example, the National Review discussed the issues posed when grad students are forced to pay dues to a union that espouses political positions they find repugnant.

Jay Kaplan walked through the Gaza solidarity encampment at the University of Chicago wearing a “Bring Them Home Now” dog tag supporting the Hamas-held hostages, protesters followed and filmed him. “Antisemitism abounded” at the encampment, said Kaplan, a doctoral candidate in molecular engineering. But his graduate student union championed the cause in emails and on social media, offering to help members facing university discipline. The union also committed itself to the BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) movement, whose co-founder Omar Barghouti rejects the Jewish people’s right to self-determination in Israel, their ancestral home. According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), “the BDS movement doesn’t seek a two-state solution; it aims to dismantle the Jewish state.”

Kaplan was required to join the graduate union, with its $648 yearly dues, or forgo membership but pay it an equivalent amount as an “agency fee.” That’s because of an Obama-era National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that in 2016 turned graduate students like Kaplan into employees. It makes them subject to unionization and payment of dues as a condition of their academic positions in private-sector institutions, except in 26 states with right-to-work laws that make union membership or payments voluntary.

If he bucked the requirement at UChicago, Kaplan would be terminated from his program. “The thought of paying money to a union that actively trashes my homeland and my beliefs made me sick,” Kaplan, who is Jewish, told me. His religious identity is tied to the land of Israel, which is deeply embedded in Jewish text, prayer, and ritual practice. He requested and eventually received a religious exemption under Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act, which allows private-sector employees to divert their union dues or agency fees to charities, as it protects “all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief.”

With the number of graduate student unions across the U.S. increasing dramatically following the NLRB decision, more who are dedicated to their faith have turned to Title VII. Like Kaplan, they view the religious-objector route as a way of limiting their association amid a surge in union activism for ideologies that are irreconcilable with their deeply held beliefs.

But despite Title VII’s broad view of religion — lack of ritual observance is not necessarily a disqualifier, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations stipulate — exemption-seekers are hitting hurdles as the urgency to disengage from their unions intensifies.

Christians are objecting too, with one arguing that ““We really value the relationship that God, as described in the Bible, has with the people of Israel, and the belief in the one true God, that’s what we base our whole faith on.”

As one of my colleagues said, “Unions clearly don’t follow Kalven principles [of institutional neutrality]. Indeed, one of the most important roles that unions play is as political lobbyists. They are not a University of Chicago affiliate, so they have that right. And, if students choose to be members of the union, they are accepting that reality. What’s offensive is that all graduate students have to pay the agency fee to fund a union that some see as anti-Semitic, even if they do not join the union.” And the National Review agrees:

Just as unions are free to agitate for positions that stray from core concerns of wages and work conditions, it stands to reason that employees whose faith conflicts with those ideologies likewise should be free: from funding, and in any way associating with, unions promulgating them.

Here is a link to the lawsuit brought by a group Graduate Students for Academic Freedom against the union and its local representing students at the University of Chicago. It looks like a winner to me.

We agree! We discussed the unholy alliance of labor unions with antisemitic causes here, here, and here. The brazenly open support of jihadists and lawlessness on campus by the unions reveal their alignment with terrorist organizations. Should they continue to be allowed to operate on our campuses?

Members of local labor unions rally for a cease-fire in Gaza in downtown Oakland on Dec. 16, 2023. (Image via The Jewish News of Northern California)

Chicago students are not alone in their fight against the unions. According to a press release by the Fairness Center, an Israeli postdoc at Berkeley is suing the union representing graduate students for antisemitism and harassment.

Israeli Postdoc at UC Berkeley Files Lawsuit Against Her Union, Alleging Bias (Gabe Stutman for The Jewish News of Northern California, January 27, 2025)

In a 105-page complaint filed Friday in federal court in San Francisco, plaintiff Karin Yaniv paints a picture of a union engaged in pro-Palestinian activism that has intensified since Oct. 7, 2023, and become openly hostile toward pro-Israel union members. …

Yaniv, a microbiologist, came to Berkeley in 2022 to study how bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics.

Her lawsuit describes how she and other Israeli and American Jewish union members were taken aback by a statement that the union’s executive board released one week after the attack on Oct. 7, 2023. “We mourn the tragic loss of both Palestinian and Israeli lives this week,” the union statement read, “and we unequivocally condemn the decades-long violent occupation of Palestine that has led to this escalation of horrific violence.” …

According to the complaint, union officials participated in campus encampments, approved anti-Israel resolutions, chanted anti-Israel slogans and withheld information from Jewish union members given to other members.

In one incident, the complaint alleges, an Israeli union member who had family members kidnapped by Hamas on Oct. 7 was ridiculed during a union meeting.

“While she was speaking, Union members laughed, interrupted her, and wrote ‘LMFAO’ (slang for ‘laugh my f***ing ass off’) in the meeting’s Zoom chat,” the complaint alleges.

We salute the postdoc, microbiologist Karin Yaniv, for her bravery. Fight, not flight!

Karin Yaniv, an Israeli postdoc at UC Berkeley, is suing her her graduate student union, alleging it discriminates against Israeli Jews. (Courtesy of The Fairness Center)

Trump Administration Opens Antisemitism Inquiries at 5 Colleges Including Columbia and Berkeley (Collin Binkley for Associated Press, January 3, 2025)

Students with the Gaza Solidarity Encampment block the entrance of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University after taking over it, April 30, 2024 in New York. (Image by Marco Postigo Storel ,via Associated Press)

The Education Department has launched investigations into antisemitism at five universities—UC Berkeley, Columbia, Northwestern, University of Minnesota, and Portland State University.

A statement from the Education Department criticized colleges for tolerating antisemitism after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel and a wave of pro-Palestinian protests that followed. It also criticized the Biden administration for negotiating “toothless” resolutions that failed to hold schools accountable.

Meanwhile, a separate probe by the Department of Health and Human Services is targeting several east coast medical schools.

Stopping Anti-Semitism Goes Hand-in-Hand with Stopping Crime (Tal Fortgang for City Journal, January 29, 2025; archived version here)

The article reviews the current open support for terrorist groups and the heightened level of incidents and hate crimes targeting Jews for being Jews—and makes a simple recommendation on how to combat them. Just enforce the law!

Amid open support for terrorist groups on campuses and city streets, violence against Jews has risen once again. The latest piece of evidence is the New York Police Department’s 2024 hate crime data, which show a decline in prejudice-driven crimes overall but a seven-percentage-point increase in anti-Jewish crimes compared with 2023. While Anti-Jewish hate crimes had been a plurality in past years, in 2024 they were a majority, accounting for 345 of 641 total hate crimes. It’s no wonder that Jewish life in America is migrating away from the five boroughs and toward the friendlier climes of South Florida….

Educational efforts to reduce anti-Semitism may succeed someday, but for now, we have little indication that anti-anti-Semitism training is anything better than counterproductive. That is unlikely to change as long as such trainings get subsumed within DEI efforts that foster resentment of groups perceived as successful, law-abiding, and pro-Western, like the Jews.

The good news is that for every elusive -ism there are less elusive -ites. We cannot drum the hatred out of anti-Semites, but we can put them in prison when they commit crimes. (Indeed, we can imprison more criminals, regardless of which citizens they victimize.) In the end, good anti-anti-Semitism policy is just good criminal justice policy: stop being kind to the cruel.

A Dose of Weekly Humor, Courtesy of the Babbling Beaver: Columbia Hamas Vandals Discover How to Stop Woke Mind Virus Spread

America has long been seeking ways to stop elite Ivy League universities from spreading the Woke Mind Virus into the nation’s mental water supply. In a startling act of karmic justice, pro-Hamas protesters at Columbia University have found a solution.

Pour cement into the toilets.

In a video and manifesto supposedly anonymously submitted to activist group Unity of Fields by vandals, the alleged perpetrators revealed that they flushed concrete down the toilets in Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs to cement “the sewage lines of the entire building, forcing them to shut down business-as-usual.”

Eureka!

Hitler immediately issued his 347th Executive Order demanding that any university with an endowment of over a billion dollars must have cement poured down all their toilets. DOGE Czar Elon Musk tweeted out “Hahaha. Now all that crap will have no place to go.”

Secretary-in-waiting of Health and Human Services RFK explained the importance of composting anything that has passed through the alimentary canals of Ivy League professors before it is properly disposed of in a hazardous waste dump.

The Washington Post immediately condemned the move as being racist, transphobic, and insulting to the brave Hamas freedom fighters without which the twelve people who still read that once-respected newspaper would have no place to seek the truth.

In other news the Woke Mind Virus vaccine that candidate Trump announced last April has entered clinical trials.

This satirical piece is based on real recent events at Columbia. Follow the links to find out more.