Dem
47
GOP
53
Is anti-antisemitism just... semitism? We don't know. Anyhow, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) is, of course, running for president in 2028. And he does not want to be subject to the common criticism of Democrats these days, that the party either doesn't care about antisemitism, or else doesn't care enough about antisemitism. He may be particularly vulnerable thanks to the ugly scenes that unfolded at UCLA last year, under his watch as both governor and ex officio member of the UC Board of Regents. There's not much he could have done to bring order to the campus, short of deploy the National Guard (which could have turned ugly), so it's not terribly fair to blame him for what happened. Still, who said politics is fair?
Consequently, as he busily wages the fight to temporarily restore gerrymandering in California, Newsom also steered a bill through the state legislature that is allegedly meant to combat antisemitism in the state's schools (at all levels). The bill was supported by the Jewish Legislative Caucus and the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, among others, and opposed by the ACLU, the California Teachers Association and The Council on American-Islamic Relations.
The legislation, which has already been signed into law, and will take effect on January 1 of next year, basically has two provisions. The first is that it requires teachers to be "factually accurate" in lessons related to Judaism/Israel, and to uphold "standards of professional responsibility" while avoiding "advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship." The second provision creates an Office of Civil Rights, which will hire an "antisemitism prevention coordinator" to work with schools to prevent antisemitism.
As we wrote just yesterday, we are all-in on combating antisemitism as a general goal. We also have very little idea as to what the best ways to do that would be. However, we know that vaguely worded guidelines, and an additional layer of bureaucracy, are not it. (Z) has vast experience teaching in California at the college level, and knows very well that there is little that one can say about the Middle East, Israel, Zionism, the Six Day War, 9/11, the October 7 attacks, Gaza, Hamas, etc. that is bulletproof to claims of "advocacy, personal opinion, bias or partisanship." After all, a history lecture—aka, an argument—is, by definition, personal opinion. Personal opinion supported by evidence (ideally), but personal opinion nonetheless. And the problem gets more acute at primary and secondary levels, where parents are involved, and administrators are far more likely to meddle.
For any teacher, at any level, who is interested in keeping their jobs and/or avoiding endless headaches, there is only one rational choice here, and that is to never address the subject at all. No books about Israel/Judaism/Islam/the Middle East. No lectures. No essays. No discussions. Questions about anything/everything related to those religions, that nation, and that part of the world cannot be answered. Even if the intent of the bill is somehow noble, the effect here is de facto censorship, not terribly dissimilar to the red states and their anti-LGBTQ crusade. We can't see how anyone is served by inviting Big Brother into the classroom, regardless of whatever subject he is monitoring.
In terms of presidential politics, meanwhile, we can see how Newsom benefits by positioning himself as leader of "the resistance" (say, by suing to try to end National Guard deployments). We can see how Newsom benefits from his self-appointed position as satirist-in-chief, and all those tweets mocking Trump. We can even see how Newsom benefits from high-profile stunts, like debating Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) on Fox. But our sense is that when the Governor dabbles in show-horse stuff like the antisemitism bill, it risks affirming his reputation as a calculating political opportunist, and not someone who is actually guided by any sort of convictions or principles. (Z)