A Texas speech pathologist has recently filed suit on First Amendment grounds because a public school that hired her as a contractor asked her to sign a statement mandated by the state’s law against boycotts of Israel. When the incident was first reported in the viciously anti-Israel Intercept, a headline described the statement as a “pro-Israel oath.” Not only is that false, many of the details given in the article itself—which have since been repeated in many media outlets that picked up the story—are misleading or incorrect. David E. Bernstein sets the record straight and explains why the law does not violate freedom of speech:

Texas has a law banning state entities from contracting with businesses, including sole proprietorships, that boycott Israel. As a result, just as local governments require contractors to certify that they adhere to many other state laws—such as anti-discrimination laws and financial propriety laws—they also must certify . . . that their business does not boycott Israel. . . .

Note that, consistent with the language and obvious intent of the law, the school district certification applies to the business [of which the speech pathologist is the sole proprietor]. Contrary to what I’ve been reading all over the Internet, she is not being asked to pledge that she, in a personal capacity, will not privately boycott Israel, much less that she will, e.g., not advocate for boycotting Israel or otherwise refrain from criticizing the country.

[Regarding] the First Amendment issue, [this law is] no different from requiring a contractor to pledge that his business does not refuse to hire Muslims, or Jews, blacks, veterans, or another state-designated group. The sole-proprietor contractor, or the certifying officer for a larger contractor, is still permitted to refuse to invite a Muslim to his house for dinner, or to advocate against Muslims in any way he chooses. The business simply can’t engage in action that the state disapproves of. . . .

As a libertarian, I’m sympathetic that there generally should be a right to boycott, even in the context of government contracting. What I am not sympathetic to, however, is the notion that we should expand antidiscrimination laws and contract constitutional restraints on such laws until, and only until, someone figures out that they could apply these laws to causes and institutions the left doesn’t like, such as the military or Israel, at which time we suddenly invent a broad First Amendment right to boycott. That, in essence, is the position the ACLU has taken for the past twenty years or so, and at best it’s wildly optimistic about how politics actually works, and at worst it’s . . . intellectually dishonest.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.