P.S. The Bluesky embed above is the whole event, which is interesting & worthwhile, but the part I meant to link to is here and should now embed below ... : youtu.be/uNaTmCdzx94?...

And here are some of the slides, meant to capture what the hard question is, what I think the bottom line is, and why the IHRA definition, as it's been construed, is problematic:

The op-ed draws on my co-authored article on "Antisemitism, Anti-Zionism, and Title VI" with @hellmandeborah.bsky.social in the Harvard Law Review Forum, available here: harvardlawreview.org/forum/vol-13... (3/3)

Most glaringly, it treats speech acts (like putting an anti-Israel sign on your laptop) as discrimination against a group if they disproportionately _affect_ that group—no intent needed. This is a form of disparate impact, a linchpin of civil rights that Trump has pronounced unconstitutional. (2/3)

P.S. if somehow I missed what they're actually citing there, I will delete this. But I looked pretty hard before posting this and I really don't see it.

Is it possible OCR turned “As a Muslim woman who wears hijab, I have been spat on and harassed in multiple places on campus” into "reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke"??

If so, that pretty well sums up the seriousness of this investigation. (3/3)

But the only mention of spitting in that part of the report is a complaint by a "Muslim woman who wears hijab." And there are no complaints of spitting anywhere else in the report either (though there's another mention of "spitting at pro-Palestinian demonstrators"). (2/3)

www.hhs.gov/sites/defaul...