School Committee candidates respond to my question on free speech

The School Committee deals with a variety of issues, and candidates have answered questionnaires from the Cambridge Progressive Electoral Coalition (which includes the teachers’ union), Cambridge Bike Safety, and perhaps other groups as well (send me links!). It’s worth reading candidate answers, and their websites as well; CCTV also has recording of statements and forums.

I did however have a question which as far as I know wasn’t covered in these. In particular, as a Jew—though not really an American Jew, having grown up in Israel—I was curious about their position on a topic which is likely to impact CPSD because of action on the state and federal levels. While it is certainly less important than many other topics they will decide on, it matters to other people besides me, and more broadly the candidate answers can help give more insight into how they think.

Below I will cover:

• The policy I am asking about, the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism.
• My personal views on the subject.
• The answers I received from School Committee candidates.

The legislative push for the IHRA Working Definition on Antisemitism

The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is being pushed at multiple levels of government:

• On the federal level, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would use it in civil rights enforcement by the Department of Education, whatever that means under Trump.
• On the state level, a recently proposed law would legally enshrine using the definition in Massachusetts.
• The Massachusetts legislature also recently convened a commission for combating antisemitism. Their recommendations for K-12 schools include adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism (see their draft recommendations).

If adopted, any of these policies would likely impact Cambridge Public School District (CPSD) policies. In particular, the last listed policy would push CPSD to directly adopt the IHRA definition.

My take: the IHRA definition should not be adopted by CPSD (or anyone else)

As a Jew I have a very personal interest in fighting antisemitism, but the IHRA definition is not the way to do this. Essentially, this specific definition of antisemitism is being promoted in order to suppress criticism of Israel. Criticism of another country is neither discriminatory nor hate speech, so this is a clear violation of First Amendment rights.

To make clear how absurdly weaponized this definition has become: using it results in declaring many Jews to be antisemitic, including me. Growing up in Israel I went through Israel’s segregated K-12 school system, and I couldn’t marry my wife if I lived there because she’s not Jewish and Israel has the equivalent of anti-miscegenation laws. But if I bring this up and explain that I think the real existing Jewish state is fundamentally racist and a bad idea, that’s antisemitism according to the IHRA definition, because “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is defined as antisemitism. As a result I also find this definition deeply, personally insulting, as I wrote about here.

To give another example, recently a Jewish Israeli journalist compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to her parents’ experience under the Nazis. A similar comparison was made in an op-ed in the Boston Globe by another Jewish Israeli. According to the IHRA definition, this too is antisemitism: “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

This suppression of free speech, and suppression of criticism of Israel, is also why it’s being pushed by the Trump regime. Part of Columbia University’s settlement with the regime has been adopting the IHRA definition. As a result, this Jewish professor of genocide studies is considering leaving Columbia University because the IHRA definition may well make it impossible for her to teach. Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar and professor emeritus at Columbia, was forced to cancel a lecture course on Middle Eastern history, a subject he had taught for 23 years at Columbia.

In short, the IHRA definition is very much not about fighting antisemitism, and very much about suppressing any criticism of Israel.

Adopting this definition in CPSD will impact teachers’, staff’s, and students’ free speech. My daughter (also Jewish) and other students protested against Israel’s attacks on Gazans; if the IHRA definition were in place, they would be violating the district’s policies because this would be “antisemitism” and therefore discrimination or hate speech.

It’s not just me

The lead author of the IHRA definition also feels it is being used for a purpose it was not designed for. From an AP article:

When he first drafted the IHRA definition of antisemitism two decades ago, Kenneth Stern said he “never imagined it would one day serve as a hate speech code.”

At the time, Stern was working as the lead antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee. The definition and its examples were meant to serve as a broad framework to help European countries track bias against Jews, he said.

In recent years, Stern has spoken forcefully against what he sees as its “weaponization” against pro-Palestinian activists, including anti-Zionist Jews.

“People who believe they’re combating hate are seduced by simple solutions to complicated issues,” he said. “But when used in this context, it’s really actually harming our ability to think about antisemitism.”

It’s also opposed by the ACLU and the ACLU of Massachusetts. Together for Inclusive Massachusetts is a local organization fighting against using this specific definition.

How School Committee candidates answered

My question to School Committee candidates was: “When implementing efforts to combat antisemitism, should CPSD use the IHRA definition of antisemitism?” Here are the answers I received, yes/no and additional explanations; my thanks to all the candidates who took the time to respond.

Anne Mathilde Coburn

No.

“Being critical of the state of Israel is not, by default, antisemitism, but it’s conflated as such because it is a Jewish state. Actions against Jewish people are antisemitic, actions against a PLACE or a GOVERNMENT are not the same thing.

In my opinion, this is the problem with combining religion & government in the first place. Because that’s the distinction & the difference — it’s a state AND a religion. My not-actually- Jewish opinion is that Judaism is much bigger than Israel. I also believe that saying that you can’t criticize Israel as a nation-state right now is the antithesis of Judaism.

Because I love and honor the entire mindset behind Judaism – it’s the asking questions religion! – it’s offensive to me to suggest that we should not ask questions that clearly, clearly need answers. And I would fight for anyone seeking to ask those questions.”

Arjun Jaikumar

No.

“Cambridge currently has a zero-tolerance policy for discrimination and harassment, which includes “harmful unwelcome conduct” based on various protected characteristics, including race, ethnicity, national origin, and religion.  https://cdnsm5-ss5.sharpschool.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_3042785/File/departments/administration/legal/nondiscrimination_policy.pdf.  That is a specific and clear policy applied across the board.  Whether it is being enforced fully, or equally among protected groups, is a different question, but the policy itself is sound to me.  

I want all our students, families, and staff to know that they are protected by the same policies and definitions, to the same extent, as all their peers.  Therefore, I support maintaining definitions and policies with universal application, such as those we have in place.  Our job is to make sure that all members of our community feel safe, protected, and loved to the greatest extent possible. 

Moreover, I think that if we want to address anti-Semitism in our community (or, for that matter, Islamophobia or other forms of discrimination), we should not start by adopting new policies and definitions.  Instead, we need to start by enforcing the policies we have in place, which are quite clear: harmful unwelcome conduct based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion is not to be tolerated, full stop.  

Too often, our approach as a district has been to adopt a new policy or curriculum or other initiative to show that we care about an issue, rather than doing the harder work of addressing that issue systematically.  I don’t think that new definitions or policies regarding discrimination are a substitute for the harder work of confronting bias – implicit and explicit – in our school communities.

I do not question that discrimination, including anti-Semitism, persists in our schools and in Cambridge, and we should not be afraid to enforce the policies we have in place.  But that, rather than adopting new definitions, is the first step.”

Caitlin Dube

No.

“While it is absolutely necessary to combat antisemitism and other forms of identity-based hate, adopting the IHRA definition​ wholesale is not the way to do so. The constitutional rights to free speech and the educational mission of our public schools are of paramount importance. Schools are laboratories of democracy, and our policies must protect the freedom of thought and expression that allow students to become thriving members of a democratic society.

Any policy the school committee adopts should be the result of a robust and extensive community involvement process, with input from students, educators, and community members. ​Such a process is a teachable moment, especially for our young people who​, through tackling real-world issues, can think critically ​and complexly about these essential questions.​ (There are certainly aspects of the IHRA definition that may be included at the end of such a process).

Cambridge has a long legacy of anti-bias education and action. Rather than solely relying on a single definition, we should also address the root causes of identity-based hate​ and bias​ by expanding the use of the Learning for Justice Social Justice Standards​ in our curriculum. This gold-standard anti-bias framework provides developmentally appropriate learning in four key areas: Identity, Diversity, Justice, and Action.

These standards are already in place in some parts of our curriculum, but expanding them would more fully serve our mission. This framework provides a comprehensive approach that teaches students and adults how to navigate conflict, practice harm repair, and embody the values we espouse as a community.​ By creating space for different ideas and cultivating the freedoms that allow students to grow, we can ensure that our schools remain places where students feel supported while also learning how to cultivate inclusive, humanistic mindsets that bring good into the world.”

Eugenia Schraa Huh

No.

“The IHRA definition has ceased being useful to oppose antisemitism, transforming instead into a slogan for Trump and Netanyahu for indiscriminate use against anybody who opposes their policies, against our universities and research institutions, and against freedom of speech.

This politicized definition devalues what should be one of the most serious accusations one can make: antisemitism.

Now we need a non-political, truly useful definition of antisemitism that focuses on the real issue: mindless hatred or harassment of Jewish people. This is distinct from criticism, however pointed, of Israel, its laws, and actions.

The School Committee should work with members of the community to adopt a definition that makes the issue clear, so that “antisemitism” isn’t a just a convenient slur, but describes actual bias against Jewish religious and ethnic identities.”

Jane Hirschi

No.

I support the 2020 Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism (JDA) because it is concise, clear, and because, as stated in the Preamble, it is based on the belief that “the fight against [antisemitism] is inseparable from the overall fight agains all forms of racial, ethnic, cultural, religious, and gender discriminations.”

Jess Goetz

No.

“While the text of the basic definition is not, in my opinion, objectionable, some of the related examples are. I do not believe that antisemitism and criticism of Israeli policies are the same thing.

In addition, the reputation this definition carries with it cannot be ignored. Even if one did not object to the wording of the definition, it has been used in bad faith enough to render it harmful.”

Jia-Jing Lee

No.

“Antisemitism has no place in CPSD.

Our district must protect Jewish students and staff—along with all members of our community—from harassment, discrimination, and hate. While the IHRA definition is widely recognized, I do not support adopting it wholesale.

Instead, I support using its clearest elements—those that prohibit hate crimes, harassment, and discriminatory behavior—to create a Cambridge-specific framework. This locally developed policy should be developed with input from Jewish community members, civil rights advocates, educators, caregivers, and age-appropriate student voices to ensure we protect everyone and uphold free expression in our schools.”

Lilly Havstad

No.

“As a Jewish person, I especially appreciate the question you’re asking. I do not support adopting the IHRA definition because it is rooted in a politically-motivated revision of Jewish history to equate the Jewish people with the Israeli state, and thus that to critique the state is akin to hating Jewish people. I also oppose the definition, and am angry that certain powerful Jewish lobbying factions have pushed for it, because I think it only makes Jewish people less safe in the world. Not just here in the U.S. or in Israel, but globally.

I will discourage CPSD from adopting the IHRA if anyone tries to bring it to the table, but will welcome the opportunity for dialogue, which we need. As educators, caregivers, and community members, we are supposed to be supporting our students in becoming free thinkers who are able to read, observe, and make sense of the world they inhabit. Part of getting a strong education that sets young people up for dignified, meaningful, and prosperous lives requires helping them learn how to recognize the relationship between knowledge and power– in order to navigate the world with agency. We all have capacity to make the world a better, less violent, and more equal place. But it requires understanding what breeds inequality and violence, not pretending it’s not there. And I truly believe that as long as the world is such an unequal and violent place– a reality only growing more acute–we will fail in our mission to provide the equitable and empowering education that every child deserves in our diverse, even global, school district.

Some students may find more meaningful sites of debate and learning than this particular issue, so I want to be clear that I don’t expect every student or educator to invest themselves in it. there are many equally important conflicts in the world touching the lives of many right here in Cambridge. What I do expect is that we make every effort to ensure that all of our students and faculty feel safe engaging in real dialogue about this and any other issue that commands their attention. The IHRA definition of antisemitism cuts off any chance for real dialogue in our schools. I’d rather see us invest in creating more meaningful spaces for dialogue for any and all students and families who are being impacted by this particular global conflict, just as I’d like to see this for any other issue of importance to our community, such as the attacks on what it means to teach the history of slavery in the United States, and why we must combat those forces of censorship in our schools.”

Luisa de Paula Santos

No.

“As an active MTA (Massachusetts Teachers Association) member who is running for School Committee in Cambridge, I have attended MTA Annual Meeting and the NEA (National Education Association) Representative Assembly as a delegate representing my fellow union members. In these spaces, I have stood firmly with MTA Rank&File for Palestine and with Educators for Palestine to vote against the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. I have also voted against other Zionist policies such as the NEA partnering with the ADL to provide educational resources. I believe it is antisemitic to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. I have seen educators and students be doxxed for speaking out against the genocide in Gaza. I have also faced retaliation as an educator for speaking out on progressive issues. I am running for School Committee in large part to be able to change this predatory culture against educators who speak out in the name of justice. I vow to fight for freedom of speech, educator autonomy, and due process in our classrooms and schools. I believe education should be liberatory. To quote Paulo Freire, “education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and therefore bring about conformity to it, or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which people deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world.” To me, a liberatory education is one that empowers students to understand and transform the world, not one that shields state power from criticism. For that reason, I will stand firmly against the adoption of the IHRA definition and instead fight for policies that protect the right to dissent and engage in critical thought.”

A bit more

Song of the day: goles-himnen (Diaspora Hymn) by Isabel Frey, Esther Wratschko, and Benjy Fox-Rosen, from לידער מיט פּאַלעסטינע.