Good analysis. It's tempting to get behind the legislation because it validates that antisemitism is a problem, but it's clearly in violation of the First Amendment.
I like your proposed solutions, but I would add that one of the most powerful ways to fight antisemitism is simply to enforce existing laws. In the case of campus protests, much of the activity was illegal - vandalism, harassment, trespassing, assault. Prosecute students and agitators who break the law and revoke VISAs for any foreign nationals involved. Nearly all the "consequences" that college administrators doled out were reversed, and progressive DAs declined to prosecute actual crimes.
So, how can we get colleges to follow their own stated rules and local governments to enforce the law? There does need to be some cudgel, whether it's federal funding, tax-exempt status for endowments, personal liability, or massive lawsuits for Title VI violations.
This is a very thoughtful, well organized, and scholarly exploration of an important topic. The best among many great points is, for me at least, “anti-Semitism is common to so many different groups; applying intersectionality to anti-Semitism just results in a much more potent anti-Semitism.”
I have long thought over this problem, but failed to come up with such a concise understanding. Fabulous!
Here's the problem with this kind of analysis of the issue. The Hamsniks and radical leftists on college campuses are smart enough to know exactly how to create an environment that is extremely unwelcoming and uncomfortable for Jewish students without crossing the line into any direct threats or speech that would violate the Davis standard. Same goes for faculty, like the Columbia deans texting about Jewish privilege and puke emojis during a panel discussion on antisemitism. Not targeted at an individual, not "severe and pervasive", but nonetheless it all contributes to a culture that is toxic for an identifiable group of students. How can schools implement policies to address this kind of activity while taking such a liberal approach to free speech?
As a retired community college prof, I taught human physiology, EMS, and religion. I fought internally with the “Student Activities” folks who wanted to prevent posts on the campus bulletin boards, and they were immensely unaware of the concept of free speech on campus. Selecting “winners and losers” is not the role of the government.
"without crossing the line into any direct threats"
For example?
"a culture that is toxic for an identifiable group of students"
That one's FEELINGS are 'hurt' by what others think and say does not give one OWNERSHIP over those others - ie one does not get to dispose of those others as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires (in this case, the desire NOT to be 'offended' or the like).
This isn't about "hurt feelings." We're not talking about a few Jewish students complaining that their roommates are mean to them. We're talking about large numbers of Jewish students that are made to feel unwelcome on campus. Students that have to hide their identity in order to participate in campus life. And yes, in some cases, students who have felt physically threatened by angry mobs.
Where did I say anything about ownership over others? This is about the responsibility of schools to provide a learning environment that is safe and open to all students equally.
You say that, and then proceed to confirm that "this" IS precisely about "hurt feelings": "feel unwelcome" - ie you're simply *repeating* your prior statement about them feeling 'unwelcome and uncomfortable'. (And doing so without answering the question I asked, I might add.)
Put simply, contrary to your premise here, the *number* of people involved ("few" vs "large numbers") doesn't change the fact you're demanding - at the point of a government gun - that people not be "mean", ie you're demanding the State stop people from EXERCISING their rights because others don't LIKE those people's rightful words and actions (aka because those others' FEELINGS are hurt).
"physically threatened by angry mobs"
That would qualify as "direct threats" aka "crossing the line".
"Where did I say anything about ownership over others?"
Where you demanded government "policies" to forcibly stop people because their words hurt others' FEELINGS.
"This is about the responsibility of schools to provide a learning environment that is safe and open to all students equally."
But it is NOT about violating anyone's rights - including their rights of free speech. Yours is the old 'sacrifice freedom for supposed safety' rationalization of all those who try to justify violating the rights of others. THAT is the treatment of such individuals as your property, to be disposed of as you see fit, to satisfy your desires aka "ownership over others".
I think that the fact that the intersectional left is so soft on anti-semitism speaks broadly to "metaphysics of wokeness", i.e. the drive to divide people into groups based on race (basically skin colour, since all European cultures are referred to as "white"), gender and sexuality, followed by a second drive urge to designate each such group as oppressor or victim. Regardless of historical facts, or current realities, Jews are seen as members of a white ruling class in both America and Israel. Hence they are oppressors. Needless to say, this narrative is ridiculous. That's why DEI bureaucracies can't solve the problem: it's like asking a religious fundamentalist to embrace atheism.
Great article as usual, however, it's beyond time for Greg Lukianoff to walk back his perpetrating the myth that Donald Trump called Nazis "very fine people" at Charlottesville as he does in his book on page 91. Greg, you're ridin' with Biden on this one and he's senile.
The issue isn’t the formal definition of antisemitism: that’s what this legislation does. It’s that the Dept of Education can go after universities for *any* speech that creates a “hostile learning environment”. The legislation just means that calling for the elimination of Israel is treated the same as calling for the murder of blacks.
"just means that calling for the elimination of Israel is treated the same as calling for the murder of blacks."
Of course, they are NOT the same. For instance, calling for the elimination of the Soviet Union was NOT the "same" as calling for the murder of communists (or anyone else). Thus treating them as if they were the same is the violation of the individual's right of free speech. It is NO different than treating sex and r@pe as if they were the same. It is eviI.
I’m reasonably sure that nobody calling for the end of the USSR wanted to replace it with a Ukrainian or Polish state. Criticizing the Israeli government isn’t antisemitic under the IHRA definition, any more than criticizing Hamas is anti-Palestinian. Double standards for Israel and calling for Jews to be removed from the land, however, *is* antisemitic, and that’s what the act says.
Additionally, as I mentioned in my original comment, Greg’s issue is that the legislation criminalizes free speech. It doesn’t. What it *does* do is define antisemitism, something the State Department has done for some time. Here, once again, the problem is that something done for other minority groups by the DOE’s enforcement of Title VI (shutting up speech those groups don’t like under the guise of “hostile environment”) isn’t OK when it’s applied to Jews. FIRE should oppose such actions by the Dept of Education in *all* cases involving free speech, not just when they involve Jews.
" calling for Jews to be removed from the land, however, *is* antisemitic, and that’s what the act says"
Of course, as identified, that is NOT the same as calling for the MURDER of Jews, as you tried to suggest.
And, as the article points out, speaking "anti-antisemitism"/"anti-zionism" thoughts is *not* the VIOLATION of the individual's rights, but the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. As such, the "policies" are the VIOLATION of the individual's rights.
"FIRE should oppose such actions by the Dept of Education in *all* cases involving free speech, not just when they involve Jews."
Yes it should. But that is the OPPOSITE of what *you* demanded.
You indeed DO want the 'criminalization of free speech' - you just want it to be an 'equal' criminalization. That's the same as declaring (out of some bizarre definition of 'fairness') you want *all* sex to be criminalized as if it were r@pe instead of just *some* sex being criminalized - rather than declaring sex should NEVER be criminalized and fighting ALL attempts to do so.
While I have great respect for Greg Lukianoff on issues of this sort, in this case, he is fundamentally wrong. There is a huge difference between law in theory and practice. This same failure to appreciate that policies must be designed for those who live in the real world rather than theoretical pseudo-realities in which almost no one lives accounts for FIRE's sadly very limited ability to actually address many of the real threats to free speech one encounters in the real world. To stick to the example of whether or how to regulate/restrict Antisemitism, however, we have to rememeber something very important. Free speech and the first amendment generally, is not a right that exists in isolation from other constitutional rights and OBLIGATIONS. Universities and governments must also weigh and address those rights and values even if that results in some speech being limited in its time, place or manner. A university cannot regulate "free" speech. It can however bar expressive activity, including speech, that disrupts the educational mission of the university, the health and safety of faculty, staff and students of the campus community or the academic institutions obligations to seek, express and distinguish TRUTH from demonstrable falsehood. Antisemitic expressions on campus in support of the ahistorical and demonstrably FALSE Palestinian narrative violate the rights of other members of the campus community are not protected speech. That they are demonstrably false means the university can place limits on when, where and IF they may e expressed in the same way that a faculty member CAN be denied tenure or appointment for producing demonstrably false scholarship. (As in the case of the UNC Trustees decision to deny Nicole Hannah Jones a tenured position, FIRE failed to recognize that there is no obligation to reward FALSE speech with the same status as true speech and that the university trustees obligation to the TRUTH outweighs its obligation to afford a platform for expression for a particular point of view.) So to be blunt, providing a working definition for antisemitism and barring the expression of the lies upon which it is based is entirely within the authority and duty of universities in the same way that a university can bar faculty teaching that 2+2 = 5 or that a religion that practices human sacrifice IS NOT protected by the First Amendment. Those who seek to spread hate via lies have plenty of venues to do so. Universities need not provide them a platform.
The only way to uphold the 1st Amendment protections is to prohibit actions, not words. I fully agree; so many I follow/read/know, who usually complain about the stifling effect of progressivism on speech, are far too willing to ignore the chill on speech rampant in the Bill. So many cannot distinguish the difference between unrestrained speech and harassment (or actionable, preventative speech) and how the former must be protected at all cost. The United States is the only place on Earth where the freedom to have unpopular opinion is sacrosanct, and we cannot give an inch to censorious tyrants or we'll soon find ourselves in the same straits as the UK, where men are banned from contacting their children while they serve their 2 year prison sentence for legal yet "mean" words or being fined for teaching their pet a trick. We live in harrowing times. We must stand strong.
I'm not all together convinced that eve the Davis standard meets constitutional muster.
Let's imagine Johnny Hitler enrolls at UC Berkeley and has created a religion whose primary tenant is that God wants you to kill the Jews. Johnny publicly preaches his religious faith but no one joins him, in fact he becomes the subject of intense protests.
As he's the only target it's targeting him as an individual. And let's say the school even applies time and manor restrictions so he is left alone in his dorm and his classes aren't disrupted. But every other student on campus refuses to speak to him except to critisize and frequently protest his views. That certainly effectively denies him an education if anything does -- he can't study with anyone, all the other students ignore what he says during class, he's frequently the subject of protest.
Yet short of denying the other students the ability to express themselves -- indeed without compelled speech the university can't hope to satisfy Davis.
Greg, I've been cancelled by social media and they admitted that it was done in error by a "cancelling robot"... I emailed the details to Komi.Frey's prompt:"Faculty are invited to email us at ....@thefire.org at any time should they have any questions or comments."
I'm guessing this proof would be interesting to you or Haidt?
So where is the freedom to use racist language on campuses?There really is none. If universities can ban such speech they can define antisemitism and then ban it or have a consequence for it. There is no more a first amendment issue here for campuses than there is when they ban racist speech. If the courts have held these speech codes constitutional for universities then this act is constitutional as well.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the one used by the US State Department and Deborah Lipstadt who is appointed to fight antisemitism. Defining antisemitism is the first part of getting rid of it. If you can't define how do you know what it is? It's not pornography.
The solution to hateful and unfounded anti-Israel, antisemitic and, fundamentally, anti-Enlightenment thinking on campus is in addressing the pedagogy, curriculum and teachers that created the problem, not by stifling the speech which is the effect of failed education.
Recently, a radical activist at Cornell offered a course on Gaza that the acting university president noted was distorted and one-sided. Exactly the material to incite antisemitism, of dubious value, but the faculty member has tenure.
Our universities are monoculture, groupthink centers that replace scholars with activists and churn out radical ideology against everything from capitalism to Columbus (dear to Italian-Americans) to Zionism.
The solution to speech we don’t like is more speech. Schools and universities can hire scholars, provide platforms or create new centers for viewpoint diversity. They can change the faculty hiring and tenure process as well as student admissions criteria. The marketplace of competition and school choice and vouchers will pressure reforms.
Curious if you (Greg) can expand on this claim "applying intersectionality to anti-Semitism just results in a much more potent anti-Semitism". Seems to me the sticking point is "whiteness", which in itself is purposely limiting concept. Is that all?
What's laughable is that half the country feels entirely comfortable with denigrating Trump and his supporters. They feel that persecuting them is not just a right but a necessity, to "Save democracy".
People say that we are too inclined to compare things today with the Nazis, but, hey! Many people are unaware that Hitler was a progressive and the Nazi party was part of the progressive movement.
"Illiberal Reformers" by Thomas C Leonard is an eyeopener concerning the true origins of progressivism. The 'ideology' is centered around racism and elitism. When you think about it, it still is. Progressives still think of blacks as socially and mentally inferior. I find their condescending consideration of blacks to be extremely offensive, and I'm not even black.
Mainstream academic understandings of the history of these social movements may be less exciting to people with fringev politics, but it's a better bet if you care about accuracy.
Good analysis. It's tempting to get behind the legislation because it validates that antisemitism is a problem, but it's clearly in violation of the First Amendment.
I like your proposed solutions, but I would add that one of the most powerful ways to fight antisemitism is simply to enforce existing laws. In the case of campus protests, much of the activity was illegal - vandalism, harassment, trespassing, assault. Prosecute students and agitators who break the law and revoke VISAs for any foreign nationals involved. Nearly all the "consequences" that college administrators doled out were reversed, and progressive DAs declined to prosecute actual crimes.
So, how can we get colleges to follow their own stated rules and local governments to enforce the law? There does need to be some cudgel, whether it's federal funding, tax-exempt status for endowments, personal liability, or massive lawsuits for Title VI violations.
This is a very thoughtful, well organized, and scholarly exploration of an important topic. The best among many great points is, for me at least, “anti-Semitism is common to so many different groups; applying intersectionality to anti-Semitism just results in a much more potent anti-Semitism.”
I have long thought over this problem, but failed to come up with such a concise understanding. Fabulous!
Excellent! Though it seems counter-intuitive, the suppression of speech always results in more injury than encouraging speech from all viewpoints.
Here's the problem with this kind of analysis of the issue. The Hamsniks and radical leftists on college campuses are smart enough to know exactly how to create an environment that is extremely unwelcoming and uncomfortable for Jewish students without crossing the line into any direct threats or speech that would violate the Davis standard. Same goes for faculty, like the Columbia deans texting about Jewish privilege and puke emojis during a panel discussion on antisemitism. Not targeted at an individual, not "severe and pervasive", but nonetheless it all contributes to a culture that is toxic for an identifiable group of students. How can schools implement policies to address this kind of activity while taking such a liberal approach to free speech?
As a retired community college prof, I taught human physiology, EMS, and religion. I fought internally with the “Student Activities” folks who wanted to prevent posts on the campus bulletin boards, and they were immensely unaware of the concept of free speech on campus. Selecting “winners and losers” is not the role of the government.
"without crossing the line into any direct threats"
For example?
"a culture that is toxic for an identifiable group of students"
That one's FEELINGS are 'hurt' by what others think and say does not give one OWNERSHIP over those others - ie one does not get to dispose of those others as one sees fit, to satisfy one's desires (in this case, the desire NOT to be 'offended' or the like).
This isn't about "hurt feelings." We're not talking about a few Jewish students complaining that their roommates are mean to them. We're talking about large numbers of Jewish students that are made to feel unwelcome on campus. Students that have to hide their identity in order to participate in campus life. And yes, in some cases, students who have felt physically threatened by angry mobs.
Where did I say anything about ownership over others? This is about the responsibility of schools to provide a learning environment that is safe and open to all students equally.
"This isn't about "hurt feelings."
You say that, and then proceed to confirm that "this" IS precisely about "hurt feelings": "feel unwelcome" - ie you're simply *repeating* your prior statement about them feeling 'unwelcome and uncomfortable'. (And doing so without answering the question I asked, I might add.)
Put simply, contrary to your premise here, the *number* of people involved ("few" vs "large numbers") doesn't change the fact you're demanding - at the point of a government gun - that people not be "mean", ie you're demanding the State stop people from EXERCISING their rights because others don't LIKE those people's rightful words and actions (aka because those others' FEELINGS are hurt).
"physically threatened by angry mobs"
That would qualify as "direct threats" aka "crossing the line".
"Where did I say anything about ownership over others?"
Where you demanded government "policies" to forcibly stop people because their words hurt others' FEELINGS.
"This is about the responsibility of schools to provide a learning environment that is safe and open to all students equally."
But it is NOT about violating anyone's rights - including their rights of free speech. Yours is the old 'sacrifice freedom for supposed safety' rationalization of all those who try to justify violating the rights of others. THAT is the treatment of such individuals as your property, to be disposed of as you see fit, to satisfy your desires aka "ownership over others".
I think that the fact that the intersectional left is so soft on anti-semitism speaks broadly to "metaphysics of wokeness", i.e. the drive to divide people into groups based on race (basically skin colour, since all European cultures are referred to as "white"), gender and sexuality, followed by a second drive urge to designate each such group as oppressor or victim. Regardless of historical facts, or current realities, Jews are seen as members of a white ruling class in both America and Israel. Hence they are oppressors. Needless to say, this narrative is ridiculous. That's why DEI bureaucracies can't solve the problem: it's like asking a religious fundamentalist to embrace atheism.
Great article as usual, however, it's beyond time for Greg Lukianoff to walk back his perpetrating the myth that Donald Trump called Nazis "very fine people" at Charlottesville as he does in his book on page 91. Greg, you're ridin' with Biden on this one and he's senile.
Even left-leaning Snopes has debunked this lie: https://nypost.com/2024/06/23/us-news/fact-checker-admits-trump-never-called-neo-nazis-very-fine-people/
The issue isn’t the formal definition of antisemitism: that’s what this legislation does. It’s that the Dept of Education can go after universities for *any* speech that creates a “hostile learning environment”. The legislation just means that calling for the elimination of Israel is treated the same as calling for the murder of blacks.
"just means that calling for the elimination of Israel is treated the same as calling for the murder of blacks."
Of course, they are NOT the same. For instance, calling for the elimination of the Soviet Union was NOT the "same" as calling for the murder of communists (or anyone else). Thus treating them as if they were the same is the violation of the individual's right of free speech. It is NO different than treating sex and r@pe as if they were the same. It is eviI.
I’m reasonably sure that nobody calling for the end of the USSR wanted to replace it with a Ukrainian or Polish state. Criticizing the Israeli government isn’t antisemitic under the IHRA definition, any more than criticizing Hamas is anti-Palestinian. Double standards for Israel and calling for Jews to be removed from the land, however, *is* antisemitic, and that’s what the act says.
Additionally, as I mentioned in my original comment, Greg’s issue is that the legislation criminalizes free speech. It doesn’t. What it *does* do is define antisemitism, something the State Department has done for some time. Here, once again, the problem is that something done for other minority groups by the DOE’s enforcement of Title VI (shutting up speech those groups don’t like under the guise of “hostile environment”) isn’t OK when it’s applied to Jews. FIRE should oppose such actions by the Dept of Education in *all* cases involving free speech, not just when they involve Jews.
" calling for Jews to be removed from the land, however, *is* antisemitic, and that’s what the act says"
Of course, as identified, that is NOT the same as calling for the MURDER of Jews, as you tried to suggest.
And, as the article points out, speaking "anti-antisemitism"/"anti-zionism" thoughts is *not* the VIOLATION of the individual's rights, but the EXERCISE of the individual's rights. As such, the "policies" are the VIOLATION of the individual's rights.
"FIRE should oppose such actions by the Dept of Education in *all* cases involving free speech, not just when they involve Jews."
Yes it should. But that is the OPPOSITE of what *you* demanded.
You indeed DO want the 'criminalization of free speech' - you just want it to be an 'equal' criminalization. That's the same as declaring (out of some bizarre definition of 'fairness') you want *all* sex to be criminalized as if it were r@pe instead of just *some* sex being criminalized - rather than declaring sex should NEVER be criminalized and fighting ALL attempts to do so.
BIG difference!
THAT is what I was objecting to about your posts.
While I have great respect for Greg Lukianoff on issues of this sort, in this case, he is fundamentally wrong. There is a huge difference between law in theory and practice. This same failure to appreciate that policies must be designed for those who live in the real world rather than theoretical pseudo-realities in which almost no one lives accounts for FIRE's sadly very limited ability to actually address many of the real threats to free speech one encounters in the real world. To stick to the example of whether or how to regulate/restrict Antisemitism, however, we have to rememeber something very important. Free speech and the first amendment generally, is not a right that exists in isolation from other constitutional rights and OBLIGATIONS. Universities and governments must also weigh and address those rights and values even if that results in some speech being limited in its time, place or manner. A university cannot regulate "free" speech. It can however bar expressive activity, including speech, that disrupts the educational mission of the university, the health and safety of faculty, staff and students of the campus community or the academic institutions obligations to seek, express and distinguish TRUTH from demonstrable falsehood. Antisemitic expressions on campus in support of the ahistorical and demonstrably FALSE Palestinian narrative violate the rights of other members of the campus community are not protected speech. That they are demonstrably false means the university can place limits on when, where and IF they may e expressed in the same way that a faculty member CAN be denied tenure or appointment for producing demonstrably false scholarship. (As in the case of the UNC Trustees decision to deny Nicole Hannah Jones a tenured position, FIRE failed to recognize that there is no obligation to reward FALSE speech with the same status as true speech and that the university trustees obligation to the TRUTH outweighs its obligation to afford a platform for expression for a particular point of view.) So to be blunt, providing a working definition for antisemitism and barring the expression of the lies upon which it is based is entirely within the authority and duty of universities in the same way that a university can bar faculty teaching that 2+2 = 5 or that a religion that practices human sacrifice IS NOT protected by the First Amendment. Those who seek to spread hate via lies have plenty of venues to do so. Universities need not provide them a platform.
The only way to uphold the 1st Amendment protections is to prohibit actions, not words. I fully agree; so many I follow/read/know, who usually complain about the stifling effect of progressivism on speech, are far too willing to ignore the chill on speech rampant in the Bill. So many cannot distinguish the difference between unrestrained speech and harassment (or actionable, preventative speech) and how the former must be protected at all cost. The United States is the only place on Earth where the freedom to have unpopular opinion is sacrosanct, and we cannot give an inch to censorious tyrants or we'll soon find ourselves in the same straits as the UK, where men are banned from contacting their children while they serve their 2 year prison sentence for legal yet "mean" words or being fined for teaching their pet a trick. We live in harrowing times. We must stand strong.
I'm not all together convinced that eve the Davis standard meets constitutional muster.
Let's imagine Johnny Hitler enrolls at UC Berkeley and has created a religion whose primary tenant is that God wants you to kill the Jews. Johnny publicly preaches his religious faith but no one joins him, in fact he becomes the subject of intense protests.
As he's the only target it's targeting him as an individual. And let's say the school even applies time and manor restrictions so he is left alone in his dorm and his classes aren't disrupted. But every other student on campus refuses to speak to him except to critisize and frequently protest his views. That certainly effectively denies him an education if anything does -- he can't study with anyone, all the other students ignore what he says during class, he's frequently the subject of protest.
Yet short of denying the other students the ability to express themselves -- indeed without compelled speech the university can't hope to satisfy Davis.
Greg, I've been cancelled by social media and they admitted that it was done in error by a "cancelling robot"... I emailed the details to Komi.Frey's prompt:"Faculty are invited to email us at ....@thefire.org at any time should they have any questions or comments."
I'm guessing this proof would be interesting to you or Haidt?
So where is the freedom to use racist language on campuses?There really is none. If universities can ban such speech they can define antisemitism and then ban it or have a consequence for it. There is no more a first amendment issue here for campuses than there is when they ban racist speech. If the courts have held these speech codes constitutional for universities then this act is constitutional as well.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is the one used by the US State Department and Deborah Lipstadt who is appointed to fight antisemitism. Defining antisemitism is the first part of getting rid of it. If you can't define how do you know what it is? It's not pornography.
The solution to hateful and unfounded anti-Israel, antisemitic and, fundamentally, anti-Enlightenment thinking on campus is in addressing the pedagogy, curriculum and teachers that created the problem, not by stifling the speech which is the effect of failed education.
Recently, a radical activist at Cornell offered a course on Gaza that the acting university president noted was distorted and one-sided. Exactly the material to incite antisemitism, of dubious value, but the faculty member has tenure.
Our universities are monoculture, groupthink centers that replace scholars with activists and churn out radical ideology against everything from capitalism to Columbus (dear to Italian-Americans) to Zionism.
The solution to speech we don’t like is more speech. Schools and universities can hire scholars, provide platforms or create new centers for viewpoint diversity. They can change the faculty hiring and tenure process as well as student admissions criteria. The marketplace of competition and school choice and vouchers will pressure reforms.
The First Amendment applies differently on campuses, a fact you don't engage with and don't consider. Legal analysis there differs.
Your Kenneth Stern discussion about IHRA's intent is not only false, but actively disproven and harmful. The actual authors published a letter explaining how wrong his claim is, and that IHRA is being used as it is intended when used like this. It is not just for "data" purposes. See here: https://engageonline.wordpress.com/2021/01/20/ken-stern-isnt-the-only-author-the-ihra-working-definition-of-antisemitism/
Curious if you (Greg) can expand on this claim "applying intersectionality to anti-Semitism just results in a much more potent anti-Semitism". Seems to me the sticking point is "whiteness", which in itself is purposely limiting concept. Is that all?
What's laughable is that half the country feels entirely comfortable with denigrating Trump and his supporters. They feel that persecuting them is not just a right but a necessity, to "Save democracy".
People say that we are too inclined to compare things today with the Nazis, but, hey! Many people are unaware that Hitler was a progressive and the Nazi party was part of the progressive movement.
Second paragraph needs citations and is almost certainly unjustified
There's this: "Hitler the Progressive."
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/09/hitler-the-progressive
"Illiberal Reformers" by Thomas C Leonard is an eyeopener concerning the true origins of progressivism. The 'ideology' is centered around racism and elitism. When you think about it, it still is. Progressives still think of blacks as socially and mentally inferior. I find their condescending consideration of blacks to be extremely offensive, and I'm not even black.
That has little resemblance to real history, and it's by a fringe author who's wrong on almost everything.
OK, got it. You're one of THOSE people. Whatever you don't want to accept, you reject. Facts and truth aren't what matters to you.
So, what's your opinion on cognitive dissonance?
Mainstream academic understandings of the history of these social movements may be less exciting to people with fringev politics, but it's a better bet if you care about accuracy.
You do realize, don't you, that you have yet to make any specific, fact-based statement whatsoever.