This is not the right way to confront this problem. It is inconsistent to abolish DEI, which promises racial favoritism, then institute a policy of ethnoreligious favoritism. There should be clear, simple, general rules of conduct that apply equally to all groups. Protect everyone, including Jews, blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Christians, and others. That is sufficient to solve the immediate crisis—an explosion of antisemitism on campus—while retaining a common standard in the long term.
This is not the right way to confront this problem. It is inconsistent to abolish DEI, which promises racial favoritism, then institute a policy of ethnoreligious favoritism. There should be clear, simple, general rules of conduct that apply equally to all groups. Protect everyone, including Jews, blacks, whites, Asians, Latinos, Christians, and others. That is sufficient to solve the immediate crisis—an explosion of antisemitism on campus—while retaining a common standard in the long term.
A few months ago, there was a debate about a DeSantis executive order that supposedly offered special benefits to Jewish students who transferred to Florida public universities. This, too, caused me some concern. But when I looked at the actual order, it was a policy for students of any group that had a "well-founded fear" of religious discrimination. To be sure, it did mention "antisemitism" by name as one form of "religious discrimination," which I think was unnecessary and would have advised against putting in the "therefore" section of the order," but the program was open to individuals of all religions. This is a much better approach.
@realchrisrufo I don't know if Abbott's order is substantially different than Florida because Texas free speech policies already genetically protect anyone from harassment:
@realchrisrufo I don't know if Abbott's order is substantially different than Florida because Texas free speech policies already genetically protect anyone from harassment:
@realchrisrufo Government rules like that always have to be phrased "neutrally" for legal reasons, but that doesn't mean they will be implemented neutrally.
@realchrisrufo I thought the 14th amendment already did that, we just need to insist upon it.
@realchrisrufo Abbott is absolutely right in this case. We have a specific anti-semitism problem and he is addressing that specific problem. You cannot address this acute problem by being too broad.
@realchrisrufo That’s ridiculous. It literally favors a religion.
@realchrisrufo Sorry, didn’t agree then, don’t now. How many times do we have to go down this rabbit hole? The left has hung us with our own laws. Freedom of religion is defined in the constitution. Anything else is redundant.
@realchrisrufo Not every religious group has a “well founded” fear, so it’s still favoritism and allows that discrimination.