Tolerance for Anti-Semitism Could Cost Universities Federal Funding

On Saturday—less than a week after her shameful performance at congressional hearings about campus anti-Semitism—Liz Magill resigned from her position as president of the University of Pennsylvania. This outcome suggests that there are tangible consequences for the behaviors that have allowed for the corruption of the universities, and made them incubators of hostility to Jews. Another sort of tangible consequence can come from the application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Michael A. Helfand explains:

Title VI prohibits institutions receiving federal funding—including indirect funding—from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” Universities are subject to these requirements because they typically receive various forms of federal funding, including benefiting indirectly from federally subsidized student loans.

Importantly, the antidiscrimination rules of Title VI prohibit more than just direct discrimination. They also prohibit schools from acting with “deliberate indifference” to “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” harassment, including peer-to-peer harassment. So, a university would be in violation of Title VI if it is aware of—and fails to address adequately—harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origins that is so severe that it prevents the victim from accessing the range of educational opportunities available to all other students.

All told, given the broad interpretation of Title VI across multiple administrations, we are likely to see a wave of complaints filed against universities for failing to address severe and pervasive anti-Semitism on campuses.

Read more at 18Forty

More about: Anti-Semitism, Israel on campus, University

 

Israel Just Sent Iran a Clear Message

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.

Read more at Jewish Chronicle

More about: Iran, Israeli Security