Even more relevant to the Lebanon fighting is the "reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, and/or conviction of Hizballah key leader Ibrahim Aqil" offered by the State Department in April 2023. As noted in the "reward offer", "Aqil was a principal member of Hizballah’s terrorist cell the Islamic Jihad Organization, which claimed responsibility for the bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, which killed 63 people, and the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in October 1983, which killed 241 U.S. personnel."
Aqil was killed by Israel on 20 September in the fighting that Secretary Blinken thinks should be stopped.
If we had a proper campaign for president, each candidate would be asked an opinion on the campaign against Hizballah.
Some may quibble that Ira Stoll referred to Virginia Foxx in different places as "Chairman" and "Chairwoman" of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The writer, Adam Redfield, commenting on an op-ed, noted that "The professor is incorrect to assume that "man" as a suffix denotes the male gender. "Man" used this way is genderless and precedes the use of "man" in a gender-specific way by centuries. In Old English or Anglo-Saxon, the word "man" was universal and referred to all humans equally. The word for a male human was "waepman," and the word for a female human was "wifman." The use of "man" as a suffix can thus be seen as gender neutral, and it was applied this way throughout the language. This gender-free meaning is operative in such words as "chairman." As English evolved, the prefix to wifman was altered, and the prefix to waepman was dropped. This created a new gender-specific word for adult males that is, incidentally, identical to the original gender-free word in spelling and pronunciation. But, this only adds a word to English. It should not, and until recently did not, corrupt the meaning of the original word."
Does Title VI apply to discrimination against Jews?
The head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Virginia Foxx, says yes. Foxx suggested that Harvard had failed "to provide a safe learning environment for Jewish students, a violation of Harvard’s responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".
In contrast, an op-ed on Tuesday in the WSJ Marco Rubio and Paul Clement seems to say no. The wrote (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/congress-can-protect-jews-on-campus-extend-title-vi-civil-rights-act-antisemitism-64db1375) "Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally-funded institutions of education. But it doesn’t specifically prohibit discrimination against Jews, and unlike the sections of the act that govern employment and housing, Title VI doesn’t cover religious discrimination... The Preventing Antisemitic Harassment on Campuses Act, which Sen. Rubio will introduce this week, would extend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to cover religious discrimination (with an exception for religious institutions). It would also explicitly prohibit harassment or discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived Jewish ancestry or actual or perceived Jewish religion.”"
One might have expected these different interpretations to be litigated in the antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard. Instead, as noted in a 6 August opinion by the judge in the case, Richard G. Stearns (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-mas/116457922.html), "The parties agree that Title VI protects Jewish students from harassment, and discrimination based on actual or perceived Israeli identity is of course discrimination based on national origin."
Why did Harvard concede on this legal point? As explained to me by a lawyer in a personal communication, "The courts have pretty uniformly held that Jews constitute a race for purposes of federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI".
Then why is Senator Rubio's bill needed? The same lawyer opined that "Title VI has consistently been interpreted to include Jews as a “race” (or ethnic group), except, as I noted, when the issue is religious practice only, but it certainly can’t hurt to make it explicit or to include penalties, as Rubio’s bill would do."
Even more relevant to the Lebanon fighting is the "reward of up to $7 million for information leading to the identification, location, arrest, and/or conviction of Hizballah key leader Ibrahim Aqil" offered by the State Department in April 2023. As noted in the "reward offer", "Aqil was a principal member of Hizballah’s terrorist cell the Islamic Jihad Organization, which claimed responsibility for the bombings of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, which killed 63 people, and the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in October 1983, which killed 241 U.S. personnel."
Aqil was killed by Israel on 20 September in the fighting that Secretary Blinken thinks should be stopped.
If we had a proper campaign for president, each candidate would be asked an opinion on the campaign against Hizballah.
Some may quibble that Ira Stoll referred to Virginia Foxx in different places as "Chairman" and "Chairwoman" of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Both terms are correct, and their juxtaposition illuminates the history of the words man and woman, as detailed in a 22 November 1991 letter in the New York Times titled "In Linguistic Eden, the Sexes Were Equal" (https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/06/opinion/l-in-linguistic-eden-the-sexes-were-equal-182591.html).
The writer, Adam Redfield, commenting on an op-ed, noted that "The professor is incorrect to assume that "man" as a suffix denotes the male gender. "Man" used this way is genderless and precedes the use of "man" in a gender-specific way by centuries. In Old English or Anglo-Saxon, the word "man" was universal and referred to all humans equally. The word for a male human was "waepman," and the word for a female human was "wifman." The use of "man" as a suffix can thus be seen as gender neutral, and it was applied this way throughout the language. This gender-free meaning is operative in such words as "chairman." As English evolved, the prefix to wifman was altered, and the prefix to waepman was dropped. This created a new gender-specific word for adult males that is, incidentally, identical to the original gender-free word in spelling and pronunciation. But, this only adds a word to English. It should not, and until recently did not, corrupt the meaning of the original word."
Does Title VI apply to discrimination against Jews?
The head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Virginia Foxx, says yes. Foxx suggested that Harvard had failed "to provide a safe learning environment for Jewish students, a violation of Harvard’s responsibilities under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964".
In contrast, an op-ed on Tuesday in the WSJ Marco Rubio and Paul Clement seems to say no. The wrote (https://www.wsj.com/opinion/congress-can-protect-jews-on-campus-extend-title-vi-civil-rights-act-antisemitism-64db1375) "Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally-funded institutions of education. But it doesn’t specifically prohibit discrimination against Jews, and unlike the sections of the act that govern employment and housing, Title VI doesn’t cover religious discrimination... The Preventing Antisemitic Harassment on Campuses Act, which Sen. Rubio will introduce this week, would extend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to cover religious discrimination (with an exception for religious institutions). It would also explicitly prohibit harassment or discrimination “on the basis of actual or perceived Jewish ancestry or actual or perceived Jewish religion.”"
One might have expected these different interpretations to be litigated in the antisemitism lawsuit against Harvard. Instead, as noted in a 6 August opinion by the judge in the case, Richard G. Stearns (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-dis-crt-d-mas/116457922.html), "The parties agree that Title VI protects Jewish students from harassment, and discrimination based on actual or perceived Israeli identity is of course discrimination based on national origin."
Why did Harvard concede on this legal point? As explained to me by a lawyer in a personal communication, "The courts have pretty uniformly held that Jews constitute a race for purposes of federal civil rights statutes, including Title VI".
Then why is Senator Rubio's bill needed? The same lawyer opined that "Title VI has consistently been interpreted to include Jews as a “race” (or ethnic group), except, as I noted, when the issue is religious practice only, but it certainly can’t hurt to make it explicit or to include penalties, as Rubio’s bill would do."