Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Religion, Society

New York Senate Approves Sweeping Ban On Funding of Student Groups Supporting Israeli Boycott and Other Forms of “Intolerance”

Seal_of_New_York_svgWe have been discussing the arrest of people in other countries for participating in protests to boycott Israel and other measures. These actions raise serious free speech issues. Some states have created laws barring contracts with companies that join the boycott of Israel. Now, a controversial measure has passed the New York Senate that bars the funding of any student groups that encourage boycotts of Israel and other allies as well as those groups involved in “hate speech” and “intolerance.” However, the bill introduced by New York state Senator Jack M. Martins (R-Nassau County) is so ambiguously worded as to defy definition of the underlying violations — a critical flaw under first amendment analysis. However, over the objections of various groups, the bill has garnered growing support among politicians.

The bill bars state universities, city universities, and community colleges from funding any student organization that “promotes, encourages, or permits” boycotts against certain nations or permits “intolerance” or “hate speech.” So, if a group is deemed as encouraging intolerance, it is enough to violate the law. The result is an enormous chilling effect as schools seek to avoid violations. Moreover, with the rise of the ill-defined “micro aggression” claims, the definition of what constitutes “intolerance” is difficult to discern. Finally, there are already controversies over the unequal treatment of some speech by protesters on and off campus.

The proposed law states in relevant part:

The [State University of New York (SUNY), City University of New York (CUNY), or state community colleges] shall adopt rules that any student group or student organization that receives funding from [SUNY, CUNY, or community colleges] that directly or indirectly promotes, encourages, or permits discrimination, intolerance, hate speech or boycotts against a person or group based on race, class, gender, nationality, ethnic origin or religion, shall be ineligible for funding, including funding from student activity fee proceeds.

[…]

“Boycott” shall mean to engage in any activity, or to promote or encourage others to engage in any activity, that will result in any person abstaining from commercial, social or political relations, with any allied nation, or companies based in an allied nation or in territories controlled by an allied nation, with the intent to penalize, inflict, or cause harm to, or otherwise promote or cast disrepute upon, such allied nation, its people or its commercial products.

The bill further defines “allied nation” as including any “member” of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), any signatory state of the Southeast Asia Treaty of 1954, any signatory state of the Rio Treaty of 1947 (except Venezuela), Ireland, Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

In the meantime, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo recently issued an executive order creating a statewide blacklist prohibiting funding to organizations that “promote others” to engage in a boycott of Israel.

So student groups that generally support boycotts of Israel or Japan (over things like whaling) would now be barred from funding. It is a clear return of content-based regulation of speech. Rather than simply allow the different viewpoints to be heard on our campuses, these politicians seek to sanction any groups that merely agree with the need for a boycott – a view shared by a wide array of academic, public interest, and international organizations. I am not arguing in favor of such views but our universities and colleges must remain forums for free speech — places where opposing views can be heard and considered.

This bill is so vague and ill-defined that it would allow for the sanctioning of a wide array of groups that are deemed intolerant or hostile to various groups, religions, and countries. It defies any cognizable limits to foster free speech on our campuses. Faced with such ambiguity, school administrators are likely to avoid any risk when presented with objections that a group is intolerant or violative under the law.

What do you think?

Here is the bill: S8017

50 thoughts on “New York Senate Approves Sweeping Ban On Funding of Student Groups Supporting Israeli Boycott and Other Forms of “Intolerance””

  1. Ralph,

    1. Who is supporting Clinton in this thread?
    2. Clinton is not a liberal. She is an authoritarian corporatist.
    3. Clinton is a strong supporter of Israel.

    Many powerful people around the world, to include the those in the Israeli govt. and USG are subverting free speech. You should care about that, whether in China or Israel or in the US (or anywhere).

  2. I’m sure that everyone appreciates the disinformation rubbish from Islamonazi-patriot or Communazi-patriot, and loves to hypocritically obsess over “free speech” while they fervently support leftist candidates who abhor free speech, the real issues of civil rights are, of course, totally ignored. So, meanwhile, back in reality, may I suggest you consider some real news regarding civil rights: “China Imposes Blackout on Hong Kong Bookseller’s Revelations.” https://www.yahoo.com/news/china-imposes-blackout-hong-kong-091931850.html?nhp=1 Don’t any of you Clinton supporters find it ironic that you support Hillary Clinton when she is funded by, and fervently supports, China, with its abominable record on civil rights? (Clinton is also heavily funded by, and supports, Saudi Arabia, with its similarly abominable record on civil rights.) As I’ve said repeatedly, hypocrisy is a core characteristic of limousine liberals like JT and other leftists and their ilk.

    This concludes today’s sermon. You may now exit the reality zone, and return to your hypocritical observations and discussions.

  3. Israel is no different than any other nation. Many good people live there. It’s government has also committed atrocities. This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of fact. The same may be said of the US. The same may be said of Saudi Arabia and so on. The fact that authoritarians in positions of power basically want to mind wipe people of actual knowledge and the ability to protest is terrifying.

    People have every right to know the truth, to state the truth and to take peaceful action (such as a boycott) to protest what they feel is wrong. Even if people are mistaken in their beliefs, they have a right to hold those beliefs and take peaceful action based on them.

    This action shows several things, none of them good. The US is profoundly totalitarian towards its own citizens. Our rights have been stripped away. In their place is the raw power of authoritarianism.

    What is it with Israel and the US? We outsource a great deal of our spying about our own citizens to this nation for collection, storage and “analysis”. (See James Bamford for a discussion on this issue.) USG works with their govt. on many, many nefarious actions. If anything needs criticism, it is the USG’s alliance with Israel to commit unlawful acts.

    The powerful people around the world seem to be united in stamping out criticism of their illegal and immoral deeds. This is quite dangerous and it is wrong. The illegal and totalitarian actions of the powerful need criticism and they need opposition. The powerful prevent this because they can. It will take multiple acts of courage to go ahead and criticize and/or peacefully protest their acts of injustice.

  7. Israel & Zionist Jews are guilty of 9/11
    HenryMakow.com: “When you find that every one of the key people involved in the 9-11 cover-up and deception are Jewish Zionists, then it is rationally compelling to conclude that the crime they are covering up is, in fact, a Jewish Zionist crime.”

    Suspected 9-11 Criminal Co-conspirators
    http://911justicecampaign.org/suspected-9-11-criminal-coconspirators/

    Israel did 9/11
    Former Director of Studies, Professor at U.S. Army War College Dr. Alan Sabrosky;
    “Israel did 9/11. It is 100% certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation period.”
    The 9/11 Commission Report is a 571-Page Zionist Lie
    The U.S. military knows Israel did 9/11
    We must break the Zionist Jew grip on the U.S.
    https://youtu.be/H0v7_O53J0k

  8. I am all for any legislation that attacks the enemies of civilization, including the leftists, the Nazis, the Islamonazis, the Communists, and the Communazis. The argument that the bill is against free speech carries no water whatsoever. Plus, to attack the bill on free speech merits is completely hypocritical because by their very nature, leftists, Nazis, Islamonazis, Communists, and Communazis hate free speech. Of course, hypocrisy is also an underlying characteristic of all leftists, Nazis, Islamonazis, Communists, and Communazis. The poster above who, in Orwellian fashion, call himself “patriot,” demonstrates precisely why such bills are necessary.

    British commentator Pat Condell explains in simple terms, for even the most mindless of leftists, Nazis, Islamonazis, Communists, and Communazis:

  11. I read that Sen. Joe Manchin believes “Due Process” is killing us. It was in context with the terrorist that had been investigated but not charged or prevented from legally buying firearms. It would appear that all levels of government are going for the “utilitarian” approach to governance for two primary reasons: 1. the constitutional approach has that whole Bill of Rights thingy in the way. 2. Incumbents get reelected at a 90% rate.

    If the federal and state governments want to threaten entities with a loss of funding then take them up on it and divest. Stop begging to get your tax dollars back and fight back. Identify those in government that want to strip away your constitutional rights and destroy their careers in government. DO NOT REELECT THEM!

  14. Sorry, Darren, but the politicians “get it” just fine. The bill is almost a parody of what violates the first amendment. But they see that. They don’t care what the courts do, they’ll be re-elected twice before it gets struck down. Unconstitutional? Just as long as it gets votes.

    But the interesting issue is Cuomo’s exec order. He can get away with it if there’s no proof that anyone was denied a contract just because they supported the boycott. How can they prove that was the reason?

  15. I agree with Jim22. Thank God almighty I am not a NY resident.

  16. As a NY taxpayer, I’m all for banning funding of all of these groups. Fund yourself or shut up and go to class and get a degree that is useful to the taxpayers.

  17. The student groups lose their funding: ==> standing.
    The students allege a violation of free speech ==> judgment for the plaintiff students.
    State and politicians appeal verdict ==> district court decision upheld by court of appeals ==> free speech victory that foils politicians and sets precedent ==> Politicians still don’t get it and craft new laws ==> back to square one again.

    That, succinctly, is the case history for the next three years.

    Perhaps it is better to hit them where it hurts. Boycott campaign contributions: the best angiogenesis inhibitor to starve nutrients to cancerous laws.

    1. Darren – if they do it like the IRS did with the Tea Party, they may lose in the end but they have stopped their funding for 3-6 years.

  20. I do like that it is aimed at groups and not individuals, so microaggressions don’t count. It will put a crimp in BLM.

Comments are closed.