Legalizing Anti-Semitism in America
By Beverly Newman, Ed. D.
In his revealing article “How Antisemitism Infects the Law” published by the ABA, Law Professor Robert Katz dares to document antisemitism in the legal profession and governmental agencies as “a highly infectious intellectual disease.” Not only is antisemitism in the legal system “highly infectious,” it is epidemic if not pandemic.
In far too many American courts, Jews are denigrated by lawyers before acquiescing judges or even castigated with antisemitic accusations by judges themselves. In South Florida, a judge’s antisemitic litany against a Holocaust Survivor family was profuse with slurs:
- “deliberate callousness”
- “inappropriate”
- “gross indifference”
- “oppositional behavior continued unabated”
- “like nothing this Court has ever seen”
- “bizarre and unjustifiable”
- “callous disregard”
- “egregiousness of these purported actions”
- “vindictive and wholly inappropriate”
- “hyperbolic”
- “abject contempt”
- “gross indifference”
- “abusive”
- “callous and inappropriate”
- “egregious and inappropriate indifference and disrespect ”
- “contumacious disregard.”
In some jurisdictions, it is common knowledge that all antisemitism goes unpunished and continues with impunity unabated in the world of law, as this nation is witnessing on countless college campuses, American streets, and in corporate America, where Jews are often held in contempt by co-workers or management.
Where are the aggressive prosecutions of antisemitic crimes required by Executive Orders?
How Antisemitism Infects the Law
Summary
- Antisemitic stereotypes have infiltrated legal frameworks, as seen in certain EEOC compliance manuals and judicial decisions.
- Such biases can distort legal reasoning and undermine the impartiality of legal institutions.
- Lawyers and legal professionals must develop a profound understanding of antisemitism to prevent its influence on the law.
Historian Paul Johnson described antisemitism as a highly infectious “intellectual disease.” This essay examines three instances where antisemitism infected the intellectual work of otherwise intelligent and well-meaning lawyers.
EEOC Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination
The EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. In January 2021, it published the Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination, which contains a passage designed to illustrate religious discrimination. It presents three examples:
An otherwise qualified applicant is not hired because he is a self-described evangelical Christian. A qualified non-Jewish employee is denied promotion because the supervisor wishes to give a preference based on religion to a fellow Jewish employee. An employer terminates an employee based on his disclosure to the employer that he has recently converted to the Baha’i Faith.
Section 12: Religious Discrimination, 12-I.A.1, Example 1 “Employment Decisions Based on ‘Religion’”
The second sentence in this passage, intentionally or not, reflects the antisemitic trope that Jews are clannish. This stereotype is widely held: According to a 2022 Anti-Defamation League (ADL) survey, 53 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “Jews in business go out of their way to hire other Jews.”
Two parties are responsible for this passage: those who wrote it and those who approved it. The writers presumably started with a simple, non-antisemitic fact pattern that mirrored the Christian and Baha’i examples: “An otherwise qualified applicant is not hired because he is Jewish.” The Christian and Baha’i examples do not provide fact patterns that reinforce stereotypes.
The writers might have similarly provided the “Jewish” example. They instead chose to modify the example in certain telling ways. For example, they made the victim a non-Jew and the victimizer a Jew. They depicted the Jew as engaged in illegal activity, playing into a stereotype that Jews are devious and dishonest. They gave the Jew the power to control the fate of the non-Jew. They depicted the Jew as disloyal to the employer, who desired to promote the most qualified person.
While it seems unlikely the EEOC intended to lend credence to antisemitic stereotypes that Jews are dishonest, devious, disloyal, malevolent, controlling, and give unfair advantages to fellow Jews, the example can clearly be interpreted that way. Asserting or implying that Jews possess these odious qualities is a form of group defamation or hate speech. In some countries, this kind of anti-Jewish propaganda would be actionable.
The people who approved the manual’s publication with this passage also should have known better. Even if this language reflects unintentional or unconscious anti-Jewish bias, it demonstrates the ease with which such bias can infect otherwise sound legal minds. The fact that this appears in an EEOC publication magnifies the problem. If there is any agency that should know better it is the EEOC, an agency charged with fighting discrimination.
©2025 Beverly Newman, Ed. D. All rights reserved.
The post Legalizing Anti-Semitism in America appeared first on Dr. Rich Swier.
This article is courtesy of DrRichSwier.com, an online community of citizen journalists, academics, subject matter experts, and activists to express the principles of limited government and personal liberty to the public, to policy makers, and to political activists. Please visit DrRichSwier.com for more great content.
