The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has opened an investigation into a complaint submitted by The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law on behalf of Rose Ritch, the University of Southern California (USC) Undergraduate Student Government (USG) vice president, who was the victim of a vicious campaign of anti-Semitic harassment by USC students; they publicly castigated Ritch as a Zionist and sought to exclude her from the USG on the basis of her Jewish ethnic identity. The complaint alleges that USC allowed a hostile environment of anti-Semitism to proliferate on its campus and failed to take prompt and effective steps to end the harassment or eliminate the hostile environment in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a result of the University’s refusal to protect Ms. Ritch from the discriminatory harassment, Ms. Ritch was ultimately forced to resign from the USG in August 2020. “I was harassed and persecuted on campus just for being a Zionist.” Read the op-ed here.
campus antisemitism, Carol L. Folt, Jewish identity, Rose Ritch, University of Southern California, USC, Zionism
Authored by the the Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center, Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. and published by Newsweek on 1/17/23. Dr. Goldfeder cites an academic paper written by Brandeis Center Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus — “Academic Freedom and Political Indoctrination.” Last week, the organization StandWithUs filed a complaint against George Washington University (GW) after a psychology professor repeatedly harassed and demeaned the Jewish students who were required to take her class. When those students reported her actions, the professor, Dr. Lara Sheehi, retaliated by instituting baseless disciplinary proceedings against them. GW’s miserable official response did not deny the claims, but noted that while the university “strongly condemns antisemitism and hatred,” it “also recognizes and supports academic freedom.” No credible theory of academic freedom could, or should, condone this particular professor’s noxious behavior or the university’s indefensible tolerance of it. Academic freedom does not protect discriminatory harassment, indoctrination, or incompetence. First, from a legal perspective, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit succinctly explained in Bonnell v. Lorenzo (2001), “While a professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting, they are not absolute to the point of compromising a student’s right to learn in a hostile-free environment.” Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits institutions of higher education from creating a discriminatory or hostile environment for any student on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Per the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights’ guidance, speech crosses over from protected territory into harassing verbal conduct when it is “sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or privileges provided by a [university].” That is a very high threshold, but the allegations in the GW complaint meet it—and then some. To quote Cary Nelson, president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), “Academic freedom does not mean a faculty member can harass, threaten, intimidate, ridicule, or impose his or her views on students.” That is precisely what happened here, according to the complaint. That brings us to the next point: the difference between education and indoctrination. Per the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure, an instructor who addresses “controversial matters” should present “the divergent opinions of other investigators” and “above all” should “remember that his business is not to provide his students with ready-made conclusions, but to train them to think for themselves, and to provide them access to those materials [that] they need if they are to think intelligently.” The updated 1940 Statement echoed these sentiments, noting that scholars should “show respect for the opinion of others.” And a 2007 AAUP report further warned, “Instructors indoctrinate when they teach particular propositions as dogmatically true.” As former Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Kenneth Marcus has explained, there is a difference between a professor sharing his personal opinion versus presenting that opinion as incontrovertible fact. In Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), the first Supreme Court case to expound upon the concept of academic freedom, the Court wrote: “Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study, and to evaluate…otherwise, our civilization will stagnate and die.” At GW, the professor dismissed the students’ concerns by explaining that her position on what is and is not antisemitic is a “non-negotiable truth,” akin to a “historical fact.” Permitting a teacher to cast biased falsehoods as fact while consistently mocking and shutting down an exploration of alternative viewpoints is to actually violate all that “academic freedom,” properly interpreted, ought to protect. Finally, on a pragmatic level, academic freedom does not protect disciplinary incompetence. In a mandatory class on diversity—specifically, one designed to promote awareness of different cultural identities and experiences and to help students develop comfort in self-exploration—the professor repeatedly demeaned and disparaged students and an entire minority culture, denied their collective experiences, and shut down any attempts to offer a different perspective. Academic freedom does not extend to expression that fails to meet professional standards. Separate from the violation of her ethical duties in this instance, the GW professor also made clear that in her opinion, in order to be a good clinical psychologist, one must be an anti-Zionist—indeed, that anti-Zionism should be a “central working tenet of any clinical praxis that purports to be interested in alleviating the suffering of others.” From an academic integrity perspective, then, the professor is unfit to teach not only this “diversity” class, but any clinical course in which she evaluates students for professional competence. Of course, as happens all too often when Jewish students complain of antisemitism, the GW professor immediately pulled the classic “prejudice pivot,” accusing the very students she was silencing of trying to silence others. This perverse victim-blaming tactic does not happen in instances involving other forms of discrimination, where the general inclination is typically to believe the accuser—or at the very least, to investigate on the assumption that a complaint was made in good faith. GW’s perversion of “academic freedom” to paint away the pattern of harassment makes for a shocking and a shameful new low. The only proper invocation of academic freedom in this context would be for the school to acknowledge that the students‘ rights to academic freedom were repeatedly violated: when they were force-fed indoctrination; when they were denied the opportunity to express themselves; when their opinions were summarily dismissed and shot down; and when they were punished for merely expressing them. GW should immediately amend its statement and its actions to accurately reflect whose freedoms were actually violated here, and to protect the members of its community from bias. Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.
Op-ed authored by Colonel Richard Kemp and published by Jewishpress.com on January 13, 2023. As Jews were hounded out of German universities in the 1930s, where would you have stood? Many of us would like to think we would have found the moral and if necessary physical courage to stand up for our fellow students rather than see them persecuted, bullied, abused and thrown out. Well, now we can actually put our courage to the test as before our eyes we see a re-run of an almost identical pattern of antisemitism — this time at American colleges, with a similar picture at universities in Britain and elsewhere in the West. A new study by the antisemitism watchdog Amcha Initiative documents a pervasive, relentless assault on Jewish identity at US universities. It has been going on for years, but this report paints a stark picture of an increasing, intensifying and carefully coordinated campaign of attacks on Jewish identity at over 60% of the colleges and universities that are popular with Jews, including 2,000 incidents intended to harm Jewish students since 2015. Most of this dark work is being done under the spurious and despicable cover of delegitimising Israel, spreading blatant lies about the Jewish state and conspiring to prevent those lies from being exposed or countered by seeking to ban anyone who dares speak or even show support for the truth. With bloodthirsty cries of “intifada, intifada” (meaning the mass murder of Jews), these activists demand an end to Zionism, which, for the avoidance of doubt, means just one thing: an end to the democratic State of Israel. This itself is antisemitism in any book and is spelt out as such in the US State Department definition of antisemitism, a definition that Jew-hating campus activists do all in their power to resist, distort and discredit. But sometimes even the threadbare “anti-Israel” mask of campus activists slips, as they expose the naked racism behind their campaign with slogans like “Jews control the government and the banks”, “Jews out of CUNY” [City University of New York] and “Jews are racist sons of bitches”. Even without such transparent venom, there is no disguising their anti-Jew agenda. Attacks against any student or professor who supports Israel or Zionism are made in the full knowledge that this means the overwhelming majority of Jews — the Amcha report quotes Pew polling data showing that more than 80% of American Jews view Israel as integral to their Jewish identity. In short, however these campus activists might pretend otherwise, they are attacking Jews. And they do not hold back. A 2021 poll from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law shows college students with a strong sense of Jewish identity and connection to Israel have learnt that to avoid antisemitism they must view their religion as something to hide, not celebrate. According to the Brandeis Center: “Nearly 70% of the students surveyed personally experienced or were familiar with an anti-Semitic attack in the previous 120 days. More than 65% of these students have felt unsafe on campus due to physical or verbal attacks, with one in 10 reporting they have feared they themselves would be physically attacked. And roughly 50% of students have felt the need to hide their Jewish identity”. As their oppressors freely and openly express their own religious or cultural beliefs in words, actions and symbols, many Jewish students are forced to keep quiet about theirs, discarding their skullcaps, hiding Star of David pendants under their shirts and even thinking twice about placing a mezuzah on the doorposts of their residences. They know better than to give any hint of a connection with Israel on social media, which is obsessively monitored and screen-shot by the jackals that want to abuse, exclude and cancel them. Some courageous students — and it’s incredible that courage is needed for this in 21st Century America — are unwilling to conceal their beliefs or abrogate their right to freedom of speech, and so stand up to the intimidation they face on campus. I pay tribute here to educational groups like Club Z, Stand With Us and the UK Pinsker Centre who, among others, work hard to help strengthen such individuals. Yet some Jewish students feel the need to switch sides to secure their safety and find acceptance in a hostile environment. This has significantly contributed to the growth of Jewish anti-Zionist organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and is a tremendous prize for the Jew-haters. According to the Amcha report, the presence of these groups on campus more than doubles the likelihood of antisemitic incidents involving the distortion or denigration of Jewish identity. It is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole to say that the sustained campaign against Jews at US universities in the 21st Century could have been modelled on Jew-hate at German universities in the 1930s. It is a popular belief that the total exclusion of Jewish students and faculty at German universities by late 1938 was the work of the Nazi government bureaucracy and therefore an entirely different phenomenon that should not be compared to antisemitism on American campuses today. Uncomfortably for many, that is not true. In reality, German non-Jewish students, who had pioneered antisemitism on campus before 1933, not the government, led the charge against their Jewish fellow students in the early Nazi years, bullying and intimidating them and pressuring the authorities to expel them. In other words, virtually the same phenomenon as we see today in America and elsewhere in the West. A German student journalist at the time wrote that students themselves made an important contribution to the creation of the Nazi university in the Third Reich. (Source: Die Bewegung, 47 (1938), Bundesarchiv (BA) Koblenz, ZSg 129/152.) Under assault from their fellow students, as in American universities now, many Jews then found it prudent to conceal their ethnicity and religious beliefs, years before the ultimate fate of the Jews in Germany could be foreseen. Jews were excluded or expelled from the German Student Federation and other student groups not because of any state edict but because of pressure by other students. The same thing is happening today at American universities, with recent examples of Jewish students being voted out from student councils and excluded from community groups, specifically because they are Zionists, for which read Jews. Just as Jewish fraternity groups were targeted and physically attacked in 1930s Germany, so the Amcha report documents systematic actions including physical assaults against Jewish fraternities and student groups on campus today, including Alpha Epsilon Pi (AEPi) and Hillel, as well as vitriolic condemnation for participation in pro-Israel projects such as Birthright. Despite expending so much energy against their fellow students, German Gentiles had plenty left for their Jewish professors. Unsatisfied with Nazi race regulations restricting Jewish faculty, students boycotted the classes of those who were exempt under the race laws and pressured university authorities to dismiss them. The result was that every Jewish professor who was still legally allowed to teach had resigned by 1935. As in 1930s Germany, Jewish professors feel the heat in today’s America, suffering abuse and attacks against them by fellow faculty members and students, with some abandoning their kippahs for a quiet life. According to a report by the Israel on Campus Coalition, pro-Israel scholars are often frozen out by university authorities, in true Third Reich style, and faculty members are hesitant to engage in public or even private support for Jewish students or to take on their colleagues. Illustrating the toxic atmosphere on some campuses, in January last year, six CUNY professors filed a lawsuit against their faculty’s professional union, accusing it of antisemitism. The Amcha report characterises the situation on US campuses today as a crisis for American Jews. It is much more than that. It is a crisis for us all that one section of our student body is bullied, abused, intimidated and cast down by their fellow students, and often abandoned by their professors and faculty authorities. Will we rise to defend our Jewish brethren in their persecution or will we sit back and silently wring our hands as before? Perhaps we should follow the example of German Gentile students Hans and Sophie Scholl and their fellows in the White Rose, a student resistance group, who in the 1940s stood up and spoke out against Nazi tyranny and the persecution of Jews. Their fate was the guillotine. It is high time for the federal government, under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to withdraw its funding from all universities that participate in bigotry such as that.
Writing in Newsweek, Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus points out that “close observers” of the Dept. of Education Office for Civil Rights (OCR) “noticed a significant breakthrough…in the Biden administration’s first public embrace of IHRA within a domestic context.” Marcus’s successor at OCR, Assistant Secretary Catherine E. Lhamon wrote that the Biden administration “affirms OCR’s commitment to complying with Executive Order 13899 on Combating Antisemitism.” Biden Is Failing to Deliver in the Fight Against Anti-Semitism Op-ed by Brandeis Center Founder and Chairman Kenneth L. Marcus in Newsweek, January 9, 2023 Imagine you have waited all year for a holiday present that was promised to you. But Christmas and Hannukah come and go, a new year is celebrated, and you get nothing. Not even an explanation or apology. Another week passes, and you get a card. You tear open the envelope and pull it out. You read the card, and the blood drains from your face. The message is trite. Then it hits you. You look again at the envelope, and you get it. The envelope is the present you have expected. It’s a much more modest version of what you were promised. And then you read that the real present will arrive in a year. This is what just happened to the Jewish community. The Biden White House had announced last spring (and even before that), that the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) would deliver an important proposed regulation in December 2022. The regulation is supposed to implement the Executive Order on Combating Antisemitism, which former President Donald Trump had signed in 2019. This order had been a major milestone, codifying important rules under which Jewish students receive civil rights protections in American colleges and schools. Significantly, it also directed federal agencies, including OCR, to use the “gold-standard” IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. December came and went, but no regulation arrived. On Wednesday, the Biden administration announced that the proposed regulation would be delayed another 12 months, until December 2023. This should not have been a shock. The regulation had been repeatedly delayed since it was first announced, while I still served as head of OCR. But this time it was surprising.President Biden had spoken repeatedly about the need to address the rapid and alarming rise in antisemitism in the United States. And my successor at OCR, Catherine Lhamon, has acknowledged how bad this problem has become in schools and on college campuses. Furthermore, the Biden administration had repeatedly emphasized the importance of the IHRA definition, which has now been embraced by nearly 40 nations and, in one form or other, by more than half the states. And yet the administration was still not ready to unveil a regulation that has been pending longer than Joe Biden has been in office.In its place, Assistant Secretary Lhamon offered a “fact sheet” on ethnic discrimination. Specifically, she issued “Protecting Students from Discrimination Based on Shared Ancestry or Ethnic Characteristics,” which is intended to explain how Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) covers Jewish and other religious students. To address anti-Semitism, this guidance offers only a single, obvious example regarding a student who is made to feel unsafe by other students who place notes with swastikas on the student’s backpack, perform Nazi salutes, and make jokes about the Holocaust. While administrators need guidance to explain hard cases, this sort of example is too self-evident to be helpful.OCR’s new fact sheet is so weak that Palestine Legal, which routinely opposes efforts to fight antisemitism, offered Lhamon their congratulations. “We are reassured to see @EDcivilrights do the right thing: #RejectIHRA, and focus on rising threats of bigotry & racist attacks by white supremacists,” the group gloated in a Tweet. Short of an endorsement from Kanye West, it is hard to imagine more damaging praise.Jewish professionals were initially perplexed, and anti-Israel activists gleeful, that this new guidance failed to address the sort of cases in which Jewish students and faculty have been marginalized, stigmatized, and excluded on campuses from the University of Vermont, the State University of New York at New Paltz, and Brooklyn College, to Berkeley, Stanford, and the University of Southern California.And yet close observers noticed a significant breakthrough that the Israel-haters either misunderstand or willfully mischaracterize. In a statement accompanying the fact sheet, Lhamon acknowledged that the “rise in reports of antisemitic incidents, including at schools, underscores the critical importance of addressing” this discrimination. More importantly, she emphasized the tools that are available to address this problem.In the Biden administration’s first public embrace of IHRA within a domestic context, Lhamon wrote that Trump-era guidance (prepared under my direction) “affirms OCR’s commitment to complying with Executive Order 13899 on Combating Antisemitism” and remains available on OCR’s online compendium of active policy documents. In other words, Lhamon has commendably indicated that this administration continues to view the Trump order as an active component of Biden civil rights policy—and emphasizes OCR’s “commitment to complying” with it. This includes, significantly, the IHRA definition and its guiding examples relative to Israel.The importance of Lhamon’s statement is that it signals to the higher education community that OCR will continue, under this administration, to evaluate campus antisemitism under the same internationally agreed-upon standard that was used during the last administration. Eleven months is too long to wait to formally codify rules to combat the surge in antisemitic incidents in schools and on college campuses, however we should not fail to recognize the important commitment the Department of Education has made to IHRA. For those campus administrators who have defied the IHRA definition, or denigrated it as merely political, this is an important statement that the Biden administration stands by this definition. The IHRA Working Definition remains the federal regulatory standard for evaluating whether harassing conduct is motivated by antisemitic intent. Colleges, universities, and public schools who ignore IHRA do so at their own risk.
Op-ed published 4/12/23 by the Jewish Exponent editorial board. In 2020, the Department of Education issued the Free Inquiry Rule, which requires public and private institutions of higher education that receive Education Department grants to uphold free-speech principles on campus. If a court finds a violation of the rule, the offending institution is subject to sanctions from DOE, including possible loss of federal funding. Many Jewish communal advocates — and particularly pro-Israel campus advocates — applauded the rule. They saw it as a means to assure protection for Jewish students on campus, and particularly pro-Israel students, who were ostracized, forced out of student government or otherwise coerced into silence because of their religious affiliation or public expressions of support for Israel. Now, with the rule in place, universities need to be more vigilant and sensitive to anti-Israel and other biases on their campuses, or risk losing government funding. In February, DOE sought public comment on a proposed revision to the rule that would remove the added layer of protection for religious student groups on campus. The stated rationale for the change is that extra protection for religious groups is not necessary because universities already have fully compliant and enforceable free-speech protections in place. And, proponents of the revision argue, the additional layer of protection imposed by the current version of the rule will only generate more litigation. Among those commenting on the proposed change is the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a public interest advocacy group that has represented Jewish students who claim religious discrimination on campus. (Brandeis Center is not affiliated with Brandeis University.) In a five-page letter to DOE, the Brandeis Center explains why the religious student group protection under the rule is necessary; how Brandeis Center has used the rule and its religious group protections as leverage in representing affected students and groups; and why it makes sense to hold universities accountable for the First Amendment protections they promise their students — and liable for any breach of that promise.We agree with the Brandeis Center. And we are puzzled by what is driving the DOE’s concern. DOE is (or should be) well aware of the disturbing spike in antisemitic activity on college campuses and the targeting of pro-Israel student advocates. DOE should be doing everything it can to stop such behavior and encourage meaningful responses to such activities, including insistence on full enforcement of the rule’s religious protection provisions if that can be helpful. But DOE seems to be worried that the rule gives religious groups too much protection. This begs the question: Is there harm in giving religious groups enhanced protection on campus? Are there rights of others that DOE is worried would be infringed or threatened if Jewish and other religious groups on campus are protected against infringement of their First Amendment rights? And shouldn’t it be the responsibility of universities to protect all their students, including religious students, who are targeted for their exercise of otherwise protected speech? These are not tough questions. DOE should not be looking to roll back student protections on campus. It should be figuring out ways to enhance them. DOE should retain the Free Inquiry Rule.
Op-ed by Adam Kissel & Jason Bedrick for the Washington Examiner — April 3, 2023 American interests require experts on international subject matter. We need diplomats, analysts, and spies with expertise in particular languages and cultures. But Congress made a mistake when it entrusted U.S. universities with millions of dollars to produce these experts—people who are supposed to be trained to serve U.S. interests but who often end up working against them. Congress must exercise greater oversight over these federal dollars or, even better, discontinue them altogether. The core mistake was failing to realize that area studies programs tend to attract people who prefer the foreign countries they study over the United States. Additionally, centers studying the Middle East are funded by Middle Eastern countries and their agents. The same goes for programs focused on other regions. And instead of promoting diverse perspectives , too many programs reflect the leftward biases of their universities—some even going so far as to promote antisemitism . These programs are funded under Title VI of the Higher Education Act and are known as the International and Foreign Language Education programs. Congress created these programs to support the “security, stability, and economic vitality of the United States in a complex global era.” But they are not achieving this goal. Reports from the National Association of Scholars in 2022 and the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law in 2014 describe the lack of effective oversight by the U.S. Department of Education, especially in Middle East Studies Centers. The Brandeis Center report cites a study of Title VI-funded Israel-related public events presented between 2010 and 2013 at the University of California at Los Angeles. The study found “bias against Israel” in 93% of the events. The 2022 report shows how “foreign governments took advantage of … academics’ ideological commitment over the decades to propagandize Americans.” The report also finds that even without foreign funding, professors’ biases do the job. “Many of the faculty at [Middle East Studies Centers] support or are affiliated with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement (BDS), which advocates for an aggressive economic embargo against Israel.” The problems are not limited to bias against Israel and are not limited to Middle East Studies Centers, but these instances are the best documented so far. The first development to address the problem came in a March 8 letter to the Department of Education from 15 members of the U.S. Senate led by Sen. James Risch of Idaho. The letter described the senators’ “grave concern” that the department “has been allowing taxpayer-funded antisemitism to take place on college campuses throughout the United States,” particularly in Middle East Studies Centers whose “obsessive negative focus on Israel and the Jewish people” go far beyond legitimate criticism. The letter cites statistics from the Anti-Defamation League showing that “incidents of antisemitic harassment, vandalism, and assault are rising on college campuses,” noting that 15% of antisemitic campus incidents in 2021 “involved references to Israel or Zionism.” Moreover, such harassment and attacks were significantly more likely on campuses with “faculty who actively support the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement against Israel.” The senators requested that Education Secretary Miguel Cardona respond to a series of questions about the department’s oversight of federally funded programming at colleges and universities. In particular, the senators asked about the department’s efforts—or lack thereof—to ensure the viewpoint diversity required by Title VI of the Higher Education Act. There’s a strong case to be made that the Title VI programs have strayed so far from their intended purpose that they should be discontinued altogether. If that is not politically feasible, then the Title VI regulations at least should be significantly reformed so that funded projects actually serve American interests as intended. A new Heritage Foundation report published earlier this month details how Congress could accomplish this goal. (Adam Kissel, one of the authors of this article, wrote the report.) The report’s proposed regulations shift funding away from area studies centers in several ways. First, they move substantial funding into the Title VI international business programs. To mitigate the potential for teaching that special business interests should get special privileges, the new regulations include a competitive preference for funding projects that teach the role of free markets or collaborate with colleges’ philosophy, politics, and economics programs (known as PPE programs). Second, the proposed regulations prioritize funding of external university partners, including organizations that help rescue oppressed scholars from dangerous countries and give them academic homes in the United States. Third, the proposal recommends using Title VI’s geographical diversity requirement to prioritize funding different centers over the ones that keep getting funded year after year. The proposed regulations also stop prioritizing identity groups and minority-serving institutions , which are ideological priorities that cannot be defended from the stated purposes in Title VI. Indeed, under the proposed regulations, grantee institutions as well as the funded centers and fellows all must certify that they actually intend to serve the statutory mission of the programs—to serve U.S. interests. If a person or a university files a false assurance to the Education Department, significant penalties are available. Along those lines, the proposed regulations would prohibit the use of federal funding for projects that seek to undermine U.S. interests when those projects argue that: The interests of another country should take precedence over the interests of the United States. The United States is fundamentally or irredeemably racist or sexist. American rule of law is primarily a series of power relationships and struggles among racial or other kinds of identity groups. All Americans are not created equal or are not endowed with certain unalienable rights, including, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A government should deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law. Unfortunately, such funding prohibitions are necessary because all too many U.S. colleges and universities have faculty members who teach such divisive things. Academics should, of course, be free to express whatever viewpoints they want—but U.S. taxpayers should not have to fund them through these specialized programs. As described above, the proposed regulations would do much more than address the problem of antisemitism in area studies centers that are funded with U.S. tax dollars and dollars from foreign countries. In fact, the proposal involves all of the International and Foreign Language Education programs, as well as the Fulbright programs that the International and Foreign Language Education office also oversees. The Education Freedom Institute has published the full set of proposed line-by-line edits to the existing regulations in Title VI. These changes are ready to go if a future secretary of education is ready to hold these programs accountable. But rather than rely on government programs, the better way to produce area studies experts is to end these programs and let market forces raise salaries until we have all the experts we need. Even if some subsidy turns out to be necessary, Congress should invest in more trustworthy institutions than U.S. universities, at least until our universities work through their biases.