Texas Governor Orders Campuses To Address Antisemitism, Drawing Free Speech Criticism
The order affirms support for free speech, but not all are convinced
The governor of Texas issued an Executive Order on Wednesday, March 27, addressing campus antisemitism, including “antisemitic speech.” The order quickly drew the ire of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum.
The March 27 order directs institutions to “[r]eview and update free speech policies to address the sharp rise in antisemitic speech and acts on university campuses.” Institutions must further “establish appropriate punishments, including expulsion from the institution,” for violations.
Muslim civil rights and civil libertarian groups CAIR and FIRE condemned the order on free speech grounds. Conservative commentators Matt Walsh and Christopher Rufo criticized the order for creating “safe spaces” and resembling DEI policies that privilege certain groups while excluding others by omission.
The order singles out two pro-Palestinian groups, mandates one definition of antisemitism
Under the order, institutions must “[e]nsure that these [updated] policies are being enforced on campuses,” including against student groups like the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which the order mentions by name.
“As students we know we are constitutionally protected by our First Amendment,” SJP Houston told Legal Insurrection.
“We will not capitulate,” SJP Houston continued, “to the racist, Islamaphobic, and anti-Palestinian/anti-Arab racism of Greg Abbott’s Executive Order and we call on others to join us in rejecting this blatant attempt to suppress free speech.”
“We condemn the racist campaign being launched in violation of our state and federal constitutions and reaffirm our commitment to fight for the liberation of Palestine on our campuses and communities,” the University of Texas at Dallas PSC told Legal Insurrection in a joint statement with Texas SJP chapters also posted to Instagram.
The order requires institutions to “[i]nclude the definition of antisemitism” adopted by Texas in their updated policies as guidance “on what constitutes antisemitic speech.”
Texas’s definition of antisemitism incorporates examples of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
The IHRA definition lists examples of antisemitism like Holocaust denial, “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” and “[a]ccusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group.”
The order affirms support for free speech, but not all are convinced
“Texas supports free speech, especially on university campuses,” the order reads, but “such speech can never incite violence, encourage people to violate the law, harass other students or other Texans, or disrupt the core educational purpose of a university.”
Texas’s stated support for free speech, however, did not allay the fears of groups like CAIR-Texas or FIRE.
“This executive order . . . dangerously encroaches upon the rights of students and university communities to engage in open dialogue,” argued CAIR-Texas.
“State-mandated campus censorship violates the First Amendment and will not effectively answer anti-Semitism,” argued FIRE.
Conservatives criticized the order as a conservative DEI measure
Rufo compared the order to “DEI programs promising to prohibit ‘anti-black speech'” while failing to mention “anti-white speech”:
I am committed to the fight against antisemitism on campus, but I am concerned about the highlighted provisions in Governor Abbott's executive order, which instructs universities to "update free speech policies" to prohibit "antisemitic speech."
How is such a policy different… pic.twitter.com/Cb7ZHMrCcT
— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) March 27, 2024
Walsh criticized the order for trying “to ensure that ‘college campuses are safe spaces'”:
"Establish appropriate punishments for antisemitic rhetoric on college campuses."
There should not be any laws forbidding any kind of "rhetoric" on college campuses. There especially shouldn't be laws to ensure that "college campuses are safe spaces." Haven't we spent the last… https://t.co/q8QDDudNQA
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) March 29, 2024
Texas State University, the University of North Texas (UNT), and the University of Houston (UH) told Legal Insurrection they are reviewing the order to ensure compliance.
UNT and UH highlighted their existing commitments to preventing discrimination, with UH reaffirming its commitment to free speech.
Executive Order No. GA-44:
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Isn’t it funny how the left cries foul when you use their own idea’s against them. Hey Lefties, you started this “Hate Speech” thing so now suck it up and deal with it.
The left?! FIRE, Matt Walsh, and Chris Rufo are not the left!!!!
Justice Millhouse, not quite sure where you’re going with your reference to Walsh and Rufo but I’m pretty sure these two are most definitely not out there campaigning to restrict everyone’s free speech who opposes their views.
Did you even bother reading the post before commenting?! This post is about opposition to Abbott’s order on free speech grounds, by CAIR, FIRE, Walsh, and Rufo. Of those four, three are definitely on the right, with a long and easily verified record of genuinely caring about the freedom of speech. And CAIR is an arm of the Nazi-affiliated Moslem Brotherhood, so not a friend of civil liberties, but also not on the left. Thus comments that pretend this criticism is coming from the left are wrong.
No those 3 are not left but they have always spoke up to defend free speech, for all. The left have not and orgs such as cair are left, they are also vile. The left which includes cair and other islamic terrorist groups seek every day to silence those who oppose their evil and their tactics have included violence and oppression thru the law to achieve their ends. “hate speech” laws were by the left to silence those who oppose them.
Yes, but they are not the only ones and the largest number of detractors are on the left.
I do disagree that FIRE is on the right, FIRE is all about Free Speech and will take cases from either side. It just seems lopsided because their main focus is education which is, unfortunately, run by the left at this point.
I do agree it is interesting to hear so many negative opinions from the left, but since it is a Republican Governor and “protects” a class they hate it also kind of makes sense.
I have no idea who Christopher Rufo is so I can’t speak to him.
Matt yes on the right.
CAIR while not leftist themselves they are supported by the left so same difference to me.
The left has never had a problem limiting the speech of others.
Indeed it hasn’t. Censorship is the left’s home ground. Which is exactly why this order is raising concern on the right.
It’s worth it to notice that the ANTIFA and CAIR idea of “free speech” runs to slander, blood libel, threats and assault, all of which are already illegal in this country.
Our schools could handle these antics under ordinary bullying and criminal behavior policies, if they so desired.
“This executive order . . . dangerously encroaches upon the rights of students and university communities to engage in open dialogue,” argued CAIR-Texas.
Since when has CAIR (and SJP) been interested in dialog? It’s been my observation that their only interest is in silencing anyone who disagrees with them – or fails to support them enthusiastically enough.
Good for Governor Gregg Abbott. Too bad that Gontox and other LI commentators here think and post that he is just part of the liberal, GOPe, communist Republican Party. Sad.
They should focus on the FBI visiting peoples homes because of something innocuous they posted online. That is a real free speech violation, it is also intimidation and election interference.
These the same lefties who said free speech is what dictators want? lol
No, these are not leftists at all. FIRE, Matt Walsh, and Chris Rufo are all very much not left.
As long as it’s a battle of who is more oppressed, it’s idiotic. It’s a battle of posturing. I”m not sure you can hope for better from the soap opera crowd that funds the news business by watching it.
There are moral points to be made but they’re economic, namely both sides benefit from trade whether they hate each other or not, and Hamas is actively preventing trade by shooting it up, whenever Israel tries to open it.
Let me preface this by saying I think Abbott’s EO is likely overly broad…and I suspect a court would say the same thing if it’s challenged. But, I would point out that MANY of the most vocal, militant antisemitic voices on college campuses (and elsewhere) belong to people who aren’t even citizens of this country.
The Court has held that people in the US on visas do NOT enjoy the same kind of 1A protections that citizens have, like they did in United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy (1950), for example. Maybe it’s time to more aggressively enforcement those 1A distinctions….as soon as Trump is president again.
That is not true. On the contrary, the courts have ruled over and over and over again that all persons who are in the USA, regardless of how they got here, are equally protected. And the case you cited doesn’t even mention the question, let alone express the opinion you falsely ascribe to it.
Lol. First, that is but one case of MANY on the subject. Can people on visas in the US contribute to political campaigns? No they can’t (Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F.Supp.2d 281 (D.C. Cir. 2011). But, why if you’re correct and ALL people in the US are ‘equally protected?’ Because they’re not. People on visas in the US do NOT enjoy the full protection of the First Amendment. They can, in fact, be ejected from this country for speech, speech – certain kinds of political speech, in particular – that would NOT be otherwise actionable against a US citizen. (Turner v. Williams, 194 U.S. 279 (1904)).
No, it is not on the subject at all. It’s not only not one of many, it’s not even one of one.
Next: Bluman v. Federal Election Commission (a district court decision that SCOTUS affirmed summarily) does not support your contention at all. On the contrary, it accepts that aliens are protected by the first amendment to the exact same extent as citizens, and therefore that laws restricting their speech must satisfy strict scrutiny, just like laws restricting citizens’ speech. The court found that the law in question does satisfy strict scrutiny. I disagree with that conclusion, and I think the decision was wrong; but right or wrong, one thing is clear, that strict scrutiny is needed, which means the first amendment applies.
With Turner v. Williams you’re back to your old tricks. This decision simply does not say what you claim it does. Aliens can not be ejected for their speech, and certainly not for political speech. The case doesn’t involve any such thing. The speech in question was not the grounds for deportation at all; it was merely quoted to provide evidence that the plaintiff had entered the country illegally, and thus could be deported.
Well that piece of schiff biden put out an executive something or other making Easter tranny day and had the audacity to add “In the year of our Lord” (standard I know, but highly insulting) to his proclamation.
All presidents, for decades if not centuries, have routinely issued proclamations designating “national days” of this and that, often several on one day. Biden has the same right to do so as any other president. The transsexual movement has been observing some kind of event on March 31 for at least ten years, and Biden has been recognizing it every year since he came into office. There was no reason he should have skipped it this year; on the contrary, doing so would have been a clear statement privileging one religion over others and over this whatever-it-is day, and thus would have risked infringing the establishment clause.
And “the year of our lord” is not a religious term, or it would be illegal to use it in official proclamations of the United States.
Sexual immorality is not something any President should be celebrating, ever.
That is your private opinion, with which the president disagrees. The constitution does not require a president to celebrate it, but it rejects any notion that he ought not to. It’s entirely his decision, as it would be if you were president.
This particular instance goes too far in preventing free speech. For the 1st Amendment to have any effective real world meaning it must apply to unpopular/offensive speech. Protecting uncontroversial speech is easy b/c it is unnecessary.
That doesn’t mean unpopular speech accompanied by direct threats of violence towards specific individuals is protected. Nor does it mean prohibition on harassment, stalking, assault and the like can hide behind the 1A simply b/c slogans were being shouted.
Exactly.
And the government is entitled to adopt a viewpoint of its own, namely that antisemitism is bad, and to promote that viewpoint. It is entitled to insist that its employees, when on the job and speaking on its behalf, promote that viewpoint and not express any contrary view.
But it’s not entitled to force its viewpoint on other people, or to penalize them for being f***ing nazis. This is America, where if someone wants to be a horrible person they have the right to be one.
Also, while the law regards state high school teachers as speaking for the school, and thus the government, and therefore may be compelled to speak the government’s opinions rather than their own, it regards college professors as speaking for themselves, and therefore may not be penalized for speaking their minds, even in the lecture hall.
The Left is always for “free speech” when you agree with them on an issue/topic, but not so much when you disagree. The test is when you take whatever they are saying about a given group and claiming it is “free speech,” and then substitute “Black” or “Muslim” and see what they say about “free speech” then.
Very true that the majority of leftists don’t actually have bedrock principles. Your test hypothetical of simple substitution of whom it is applicable to is an excellent way to discover the depth of one’s commitment to a particular principle.
I think leftists do have principles. The freedom of speech just isn’t one of them. Or freedom in general. The whole point of the left is that it is against freedom.
Disagree in that leftists seem to want freedom for themselves but not for everyone else. They don’t offer a coherent blueprint for their societal vision nor seem to have limits on their behavior. All in all the only central thread seems to be opposition to Western Civilization.
No, I don’t think they want freedom for themselves either. They want to be told to do the things that they would do anyway.
Well the left long ago went too far in preventing free speech and have for years been trodding on the rights of those who oppose them. The vile cair , Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), all, are terrorist supporting groups who are working overtime to destroy Israel and silence the voices that oppose them. Sadly , the left have been getting away with it. These groups are anti Semitic terrorists who seek to destroy not just Israel but all western nations and the left have assisted them in their tyranny and oppression of others. Do I understand what you are saying? Yes I do and in the America of yesteryear I would be on board with it, in this new and evil America, it’s war.
It isn’t ‘war’. In war, which I have experienced on three continents, there are multiple parties killing, bombing and otherwise using direct violence. Is it a cultural conflict? Sure. Are some too eager to push and exceed societal boundaries? Yes. Does our current civil society require some adjustments to meet contemporary pressures? Absolutely.
It’s frustrating and definitely unappealing to argue in favor of free.speech for those who would probably seek to impose restrictions if they ever assumed power. It is also necessary b/c either we hold that free speech is a bedrock principle or we abandon it. IMO too many folks are far too willing to abandon what they claim are important principles out of convenience/expedience…..which seems to suggest that they didn’t have any principles to start with.