logo
I Teach Jewish Studies. There's a Bitter Irony to What the Trump Administration Is Asking of My Campus.

I Teach Jewish Studies. There's a Bitter Irony to What the Trump Administration Is Asking of My Campus.

Yahoo18-03-2025
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to 60 institutions of higher education across the United States, warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not address what the department calls 'the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year.' The small liberal arts college in New York where I teach Jewish Studies was among these 60 schools.
As the sole permanent tenure-track faculty member in Jewish Studies at my school, I would really rather be spending my time helping students pore through complicated legal arguments in old tracts of the Talmud, or evaluating the differences between rationalist and anti-rationalist trends in medieval Jewish thought, or thinking about the knotted course of Jewish emancipation in modern Europe. But in the past year, as our campus has become embroiled in contentious protests about Israel's war in Gaza and debates over our college's responsibility to respond to it, my academic discipline of Jewish Studies has become unavoidably politicized.
Since last fall, when our school had its Gaza solidarity encampment, Jewish students have come to my office to speak about their feelings about the campus climate. My Jewish students, contrary to what the Trump administration would have us believe, hold a broad spectrum of opinions about Israel and Palestine, the current war, and the environment on campus. I have a Jewish student who received disciplinary action from the school for leading the protests, and a Jewish student who felt sufficiently threatened by some of the rhetoric coming from the protesters that they did not want to leave their room for several days. And I have many Jewish students in the mushy middle between those two poles, sympathetic to some criticism of Israel's war while also feeling that some of the anti-Israel rhetoric has gone too far.
But what all my students, Jewish and non-Jewish, share, no matter their feelings about Gaza and campus protests, is disdain for the exploitation of real concerns about antisemitism on campus to fuel a broader crackdown on liberal education in the United States. And that is what they see coming from the Trump administration right now.
When they look at the actions of the Trump administration, my students observe a broad assault on the very concept of a liberal, humanist higher education, an ideal which all of us at this institution share. They see an administration cutting funding for necessary academic research to make examples of universities, even when that will hurt Jewish students.They see an administration detaining a Columbia alumnus with a valid green card for, while he was a graduate student, protesting the actions of the state of Israel, even while the administration admits he was not breaking the law. And they see an administration which entered office with detailed plans to dismantle higher education in this country root and branch, and is now seizing its opportunity to do just that.
My students see all that, and no matter their disagreements over Gaza and campus protests, they are unified in doubting the Trump administration's commitment to genuinely fighting campus antisemitism. When the Trump administration is telling German politicians to abandon their post-Holocaust commitment to keeping far-right extremists out of government, and appointing officials with long histories of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories to high office, my students across the political spectrum doubt that Donald Trump and his administration are serious about fighting antisemitism. Rather, they see a government using the pretext of fighting antisemitism to destroy the foundations of the liberal arts education that all my students, despite wide political differences, cherish and value.
And that, in turn, makes them less likely to want to speak up at all, even when they do have legitimate concerns about antisemitism on campus.
Contrary to what the Trump administration seems to think, I have seen my students in class have productive, sensitive discussions about the complicated histories of the Israeli and Palestinian national movements, and how these histories redound today. I have seen them disagree respectfully, engaging with and learning from each other. But they are less likely to do that if they fear an errant word could be taken up by national politicians and turned against the college as a whole.
Much of my time is spent thinking and teaching about the transformations in Jewish identity that occurred as Europe as Jews gradually left the ghettos and acquired equal rights of citizenship. Though the specific histories differ according to time and place, what my students observe is that there is a reason Jews have tended to support liberal political movements advocating religious freedom, pluralism, and equality under the law. As a long-persecuted minority, Jews tend to do better in such political environments.
Trump, in contrast, is pointing us away from the liberal, pluralist values that have secured Jewish thriving in the United States, and toward an earlier model by which Jews related to sovereign governments: the court Jew, those Jews of Europe who made themselves indispensable to non-Jewish rulers by providing financial services and other support to the crown. In return, these Jews received temporary protection and an improvement in their social status—but these protections were always temporary, always something that could be taken away if times got tough and the ruler needed a scapegoat. Becoming a temporary protected class of the sovereign is always a dangerous position for a minority to be put in.
Earlier this year, our college received another directive from the Department of Education informing us that in the name of fighting 'Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion' initiatives—a right-wing bogeyman that is as universal and as spectral an enemy for Trump now as Communism was for the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s—we are no longer permitted to educate students about implicit biases during freshmen orientation, as we have long done. This directive, however, came with a large asterisk: We are still permitted to educate students about antisemitism. Antisemitism education, in other words, receives a special carve-out from broader anti-DEI policies. Jews get to be the special minority group receiving temporary protection from the government.
Not only does this separate Jews from other groups with which we might stand in solidarity, but it makes it impossible to educate students about the actual forms that antisemitism today takes. Imagine, for example, trying to teach about the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting, the deadliest anti-Jewish violence in American history, but being banned from teaching about the shooter's well-documented hatred of immigrants, which he linked to his hatred of Jews, whom he blamed for bringing immigrants into the United States. The mere thought of teaching about antisemitism this way is absurd, and yet this is precisely what the Trump administration's policy of allowing us to teach our students about antisemitism but banning education about xenophobia and anti-immigrant hatred would accomplish. By making Jews his personal pet minority—his court Jews, so to speak—Trump is making it impossible for us to link antisemitism to other forms of bigotry, and thereby to understand it in its real historical context.
My students learn about this history, and they see parallels between the long history of governments temporarily protecting Jews and how the Trump administration is now instrumentalizing Jews and Jewish safety, turning us into scapegoats for a larger crackdown on higher education across the country. Right now, Trump may say that he is acting on behalf of Jews. But a government that can detain student activists extrajudicially if it does not like their speech is a government that has abandoned its commitment to the liberal values that have made the United States possibly the greatest place for Jews in diaspora over many centuries.
By claiming to be acting on behalf of Jews while engaging in a preconceived right-wing ideological fight against the American university, the Trump administration gets a double win. They can claim to be acting on behalf of a powerful minority group, feeding into antisemitic narratives of shadowy Jewish power behind the scenes, while disguising the true nature of the Christian nationalist influences standing behind this campaign against higher education. Then if people start to actually miss the valuable research being done at these institutions of higher learning, American Jews will be made to take the fall for an assault on higher education that the American right has wanted to undertake since long before Oct. 7, 2023.
There is real antisemitism on college campuses and in American society more broadly, and it deserves to be addressed. But that would mean investing more in education, to learn critical lessons from history. And it would mean having difficult but necessary discussions about Israel and Palestine and their relationship to Jews and Palestinians living in the United States, discussions involving the kind of questions I know my students are fully capable of posing. But my students tell me they are now less likely to speak out, knowing how easily their concerns can be exploited by a hostile administration.
So when the Trump administration sends a letter to our college, turning us into a symbol of the liberal arts education model he is trying to decimate, I want to send them a letter right back, saying: 'Stay away from our campus. Our students deserve better than to be your pawns.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Charlamagne Tha God Brutally Claims Trump Is ‘Losing It As Badly As Biden'
Charlamagne Tha God Brutally Claims Trump Is ‘Losing It As Badly As Biden'

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Charlamagne Tha God Brutally Claims Trump Is ‘Losing It As Badly As Biden'

Charlamagne tha God has claimed that President Donald Trump is 'losing it as badly as [former President Joe] Biden.' The radio host's comments came more than a month after Trump ordered an investigation into his predecessor's aides for allegedly covering up Biden's supposed cognitive decline. 'Is Trump really losing it as badly as Biden? Hmm. Let's run through this official list of dementia symptoms from the Mayo Clinic, all right?' Charlamagne said, referring to the private American academic medical center, while appearing as a guest host on 'The Daily Show' on Tuesday. He continued, 'Now, first, I want to say that doctors warn it's unethical to diagnose someone you haven't actually examined, but I'm not a doctor, OK? So let's fucking go!' The 'Breakfast Club' host, who pulled out the list on a clipboard, went on to point out memory loss as a first symptom of dementia. Charlamagne played a clip of the POTUS declaring he was 'surprised' Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell was appointed, seemingly forgetting that he appointed him in 2017. 'Memory loss, check,' Charlamagne quipped to the audience while dramatically making a check mark on the symptoms list. 'He's stealing Biden's whole flow, word for word, bar for bar. I bet Biden's somewhere watching this, thinking, 'Where am I?'' Naming 'problems with communication' as another symptom, he then played separate footage of Trump mispronouncing the word 'cryptologic.' Elsewhere in the segment, Charlamagne alleged that Trump has no 'coordination and movement control,' another symptom of dementia, while showing a clip of the world leader awkwardly dancing to 'Y.M.C.A.' by the Village People. 'I don't get why Trump chose Y.M.C.A as his signature song. That dance involves coordination and spelling at the same time. Are you trying to kill this man?' he joked. Wrapping up his message, Charlamagne played multiple clips of Trump appearing to become agitated with the press before accusing the POTUS of having 'rage issues.' 'The bad news is, Trump has rage issues,' he added. 'The good news is there's no way he's remembering the nuclear codes, OK? Now, that's my whole checklist, and I've reached my diagnosis. This guy needs to be put into a retirement home immediately.' Watch Charlamagne tha God's appearance on 'The Daily Show' below. Related... Trump Snaps, Abruptly Ends CNN Interview After Being Questioned About New Epstein Photos Supreme Court Allows Trump To Remove 3 Democrats On The Consumer Product Safety Commission The Trump Administration Hopes You Never See These Stories — Which Makes Them More Important Than Ever

Did the state of California turn on In-N-Out, or did the burger chain turn on it?
Did the state of California turn on In-N-Out, or did the burger chain turn on it?

Los Angeles Times

time22 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Did the state of California turn on In-N-Out, or did the burger chain turn on it?

Southern Californians, we have not been betrayed. In-N-Out Burger is not moving its headquarters to another state, despite all the panic and performative outrage over recent comments by the fast food chain's owner and chief executive, Lynsi Snyder. Last week, on the 'Relatable' podcast, Snyder told conservative commentator Allie Beth Stuckey that she's leaving the Golden State for Tennessee. 'There's a lot of great things about California, but raising a family is not easy here. Doing business is not easy here,' said Snyder, who became president of the family-run chain in 2010 at age 27, making her one of the country's youngest billionaires. It must be rough. Her comments set off a disinformation blitz, launching the Double-Double into the middle of a red-state/blue-state culture war where, clearly, nothing is sacred. Anti-Cali factions incorrectly posted, podcast and crowed about yet another business fleeing the West Coast. More proof that Gov. Gavin Newsom's 'failing' state sucks! It appeared that In-N-Out was following Tesla and Charles Schwab, companies that cited regulatory challenges and operational costs among their reasons for relocating. Chevron also fled. Perhaps it was the high gas prices. Many Californians, particularly those in SoCal, felt abandoned and disrespected. They, after all, propped up the chain for 76 years, only to be told by its owner that the place that made her family's business — their home — is no longer to her liking. On X, Oracle Park Seagull posted ''Not easy for In N Out to do business in California…' Said the person who became a billionaire doing business almost exclusively in California. So much so, it was a point of pride for the chain. Gotcha.' Snyder's grandparents opened their first In-N-Out in Baldwin Park in 1948, and for decades, the chain was renowned for serving a magical burger that could only be found in Southern California. Locals felt, and still feel, a sense of pride and ownership in the successful, homegrown business. It's a symbol of West Coast entrepreneurship, its cups and packaging decorated with images of palm trees. And if we're honest, the mere suggestion of In-N-Out leaving the state triggered a primal fear among Angelenos. Where else were we going to sit in a milelong drive-thru line at midnight waiting for a delicious burger and debatable fries? Newsom even chimed in, starting his X post with, 'For those interested in the facts, rather than fiction, In-N-Out is expanding East — creating a second HQ in Tennessee.' In SoCal, the company is shutting down its office in Irvine, consolidating its corporate operations to Baldwin Park. Today, In-N-Out operates in more than 400 locations across eight states. Snyder responded Monday to the kerfuffle in an Instagram post: 'Where I raise my family has nothing to do with my love and appreciation for our customers in California.' It's not the first time In-N-Out has made its stance clear on polarizing issues and politics. The company made news in 2021 when it pushed back against Newsom and California's COVID-era proof-of-vaccination mandates. In-N-Out's packaging also includes Bible verses, a practice started in the late '80s by Snyder's uncle, co-founder Rich Snyder. John 3:16 can be found on the bottom of the In-N-Out soda cup. The milkshake cup features Proverbs 3:5: 'Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.' On your next visit, you can check for a verse in your fries container. That is, if there is a next time. Instead of the memory of a tasty burger, many lifetime In-N-Out loyalists have been left with a bitter taste in their mouths.

Trump's Fed battle is not like his other political tussles
Trump's Fed battle is not like his other political tussles

Los Angeles Times

time22 minutes ago

  • Los Angeles Times

Trump's Fed battle is not like his other political tussles

President Trump is once again floating the idea of firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, ostensibly in objection to excessively high interest rates. But this debate is not about monetary policy. It's a power play aimed at subordinating America's central bank to the fiscal needs of the executive branch and Congress. In other words, we have a textbook case of 'fiscal dominance' on our hands — and that always ends poorly. I'm no cheerleader for Powell. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he enthusiastically backed every stimulus package, regardless of size or purpose, as if these involved no trade-offs. Where were the calls for 'Fed independence' then? And where were the calls for fiscal restraint after the emergency was over? Powell failed to anticipate the worst inflation in four decades and repeated for far too long the absurd claim that it was 'transitory' even as mounting evidence showed otherwise. He blamed supply-side disruptions long after ports had reopened and goods were moving. And as inflation was taking a stubborn hold, Powell delayed raising interest rates — possibly to shield the Biden administration from the fiscal fallout of the debt it was piling on — well past the point when monetary tightening was needed. If this weren't the world of government, where failure can be rewarded — and if there had been a more obvious alternative — Powell wouldn't have been invited back for another term. But he was. And so Trump's pressure campaign to prematurely end Powell's tenure is dangerous. I get why with budget deficits exploding and debt-service costs surging, the president wants lower interest rates. That would make the cost of his own fiscal agenda appear more tolerable. Trump likely believes he's justified because he believes that his tax cuts and deregulation are about to spur huge economic growth. To be sure, some growth will result, though the effects of deregulation will take a while to arrive. But gains could be swamped by the negative consequences of Trump's tariffs and erratic tariff threats. No matter what, the new growth won't lead to enough new tax revenue to escape the need for the government to borrow more. And the more the government borrows, the more intense the pressure on interest rates. One thing is for sure: The pressure Trump and his people are exerting on the Fed is a push for fiscal dominance. The executive branch wants to use the central bank as a tool to accommodate the government's frenzy of reckless borrowing. Such political control of a central bank is a hallmark of failed monetary systems in weak institutional settings. History shows where that always leads: to inflation, economic stagnation and financial instability. So far, Powell is resisting cutting rates, hence the barrage of insults and threat of firing. But now is not the right time to play with fire. Bond yields surged last year as investors reckoned with the scale of U.S. borrowing. They crossed the 5% threshold again recently. Moody's even stripped the government of its prized AAA credit rating. Lower interest rates from the Fed — especially if seen as the result of raw political pressure — could further diminish the allure of U.S. Treasuries. While the Fed can temporally influence interest rates, especially in the short run, it cannot override long-term fears of inflation, economic sluggishness and political manipulation of monetary policy driven by unsustainable fiscal policy. That's where confidence matters, and confidence is eroding. This is why markets are demanding a premium for funds loaned to a government that is now $36 trillion in debt and shows no intention of slowing down. But it could get worse. If the average interest rate on U.S. debt climbs from 3.3% to 5%, interest payments alone could soar from $900 billion to $2 trillion annually. That would make debt service by far the single largest item in the federal budget — more than Medicare, Social Security, the military or any other program readers care about. And because much of this debt rolls over quickly, higher rates hit fast. At the end of the day, the bigger problem isn't Powell's monetary policy. It's the federal government's spending addiction. Trump's call to replace Powell with someone who will cut rates ignores the real math. Lower short-term interest rates will do only so much if looser monetary policy is perceived as a means of masking reckless budget deficits. That would make higher inflation a certainty, not merely a possibility. It might not arrive before the next election, but it will inevitably arrive. There is still time to avoid this cliff. Trump is right to worry about surging debt costs, but he's targeting a symptom. The solution isn't to fire Powell — it's to cure the underlying disease, which is excessive government spending. Veronique de Rugy is a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store