Groups fighting for Palestinian rights are praising a new fact sheet on religious discrimination from the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, because of what it left out.
The document does not include a definition of antisemitism written by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
Former President Donald Trump issued an executive order in 2019 requiring federal agencies to consider the IHRA definition when investigating Title VI complaints of discrimination.
Lina Assi, advocacy manager for Palestine Legal, said the definition and the accompanying examples conflate criticism of the Israeli state with antisemitism.
"We mostly have seen it with shutting down events and punishing students and professors that speak about life as a Palestinian," Assi recounted. "And we believe that definition not only violates our constitutional right to free speech, but also perpetuates anti-Palestinian racism and discrimination."
In a statement, IHRA said the working definition is non-legally binding, and the organization does not track implementation of it at the state or local level. Last year, pro-Israel attorneys filed a federal discrimination complaint against University of California-Berkeley after student groups passed a bylaw pledging not to host Zionist speakers.
Assi noted last March, the student government at Arizona State University questioned an event with a pro-Palestinian poet and journalist before ultimately allowing him to speak.
"A student government committee first attempted to condition the approval of the event to say that the speaker needs to refrain from criticizing Israel," Assi pointed out. "Student government officials stated falsely that the university and the federal government had adopted IHRA and that they were required by law to adhere to the definition."
The pro-Israel Brandeis Center has called for the IHRA definition to be codified into a formal rule.
Meanwhile, 17 civil rights groups wrote to the federal government, asking for the IHRA definition to be excluded from the fact sheet.
get more stories like this via email
Civil rights groups are sounding the alarm about potential threats to American democracy posed by Project 2025, a roadmap created by the Heritage Foundation for the next Republican president.
The 900 page document calls for dismantling key protections against discrimination, access to reproductive health care, and more.
Maya Wiley, CEO of the Leadership Council on Civil and Human Rights, said Project 2025 aims to undo gains made 60 years ago with the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
But she said this agenda isn't new.
"And either we're going to stand on the victory of ending slavery, and of understanding the role of a federal government in ensuring that we all have civil rights, or we will not have a democracy," said Wiley. "And this is a blueprint for ending it."
Donald Trump has recently distanced himself from Project 2025, after praising the Heritage Foundation's plans in 2022.
Heritage says the roadmap - which was co-authored by top Trump advisors - does not speak for any single candidate, it just provides recommendations.
Many of those track closely with Trump's priorities, including removing regulations and checks on presidential power.
AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler said Project 2025 also calls for expanding child labor and rolling back workplace protections under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration or "OSHA" - designed to prevent accidents, injury and death.
"Tell that to a woman who lost her son in a grain silo, that could have been prevented, because he was cleaning it without the proper equipment," said Shuler. "That is OSHA. These fines and these laws are there for a reason."
Project 2025 would ban both abortion and in vitro fertilization nationally, and restrict access to contraception.
Patrick Gaspard, CEO of the Center for American Progress, said he believes the roadmap's creators want to take the nation back not to 1964 but to 1864.
"When men made decisions for women," said Gaspard, "when people who looked like me did not have the full agency and franchise of this great American republic, when huge corporations worked folks like farm animals."
Support for this reporting was provided by the Carnegie Corporation of New York.
get more stories like this via email
Today is Black Women's Equal Pay Day and at 11 a.m. PT, advocates hope to get the topic trending with a "social media storm."
The wage gap is stark. Black women working full-time, year-round make 69 cents for every dollar made by non-Hispanic white men. And the number is 66 cents when you include all full-time, part-time and part-year workers.
Deborah Vagins, national campaign director for the nonprofit civil-rights group Equal Rights Advocates and director of its Equal Pay Today coalition, explained the day is intended to spark debate.
"Black women have to work all the way into July of this year to make what white non-Hispanic men would have made in 2023 alone," Vagins pointed out. "It's an acknowledgment of that pay gap."
Advocates are pressing Congress to pass the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would protect all workers against retaliation for discussing their pay. It would also ban the use of prior salary history when setting wages and require the federal government to collect pay data from employers, making it easier to root out disparities.
Vagins noted the fight for equal pay for equal work is more complex than the battle against racial and gender discrimination.
"It's also the lack of pay transparency in the workplace," Vagins emphasized. "It is setting salaries based on your prior salary history rather than on your qualifications for the job. It's jobs failing to have protections against harassment or pregnancy discrimination."
Vagins also cited the segregation of Black women into poverty-level minimum-wage work, particularly tipped jobs in the restaurant industry using a subminimum wage.
get more stories like this via email
In a blow to free speech and the right to assemble, the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case involving the rights of protest organizers in Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas.
McKesson v. Doe stemmed from protests over the 2016 police killing of Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. A protest organizer faced charges after a police officer was injured by the actions of an unknown protester.
Cicley Gay, board chairwoman of the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, said an opinion by the Fifth Circuit now stands, allowing an organizer to be held liable for the individual actions of others at a protest based on negligence.
"This case without question infringes upon all of our First Amendment rights," Gay contended. "It's incumbent upon us to reject its premise and its intention, which is, frankly, to scare champions of justice and organizers away from mass protest."
The Fifth Circuit covers Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, and Gay noted the First Amendment still protects the right to assembly. Black Lives Matter protests have attracted diverse groups of people and a Harvard study shows 26 million participated in protests in 2020.
Protesting at college campuses across the country has been on the rise, with students complaining law enforcement involvement has made matters worse. Gay argued it is important for Mississippians to remember Martin Luther King Jr. and understand protest is at the core of every successful social movement in this country.
"We want our young people to be able to continue to raise their voices," Gay emphasized. "Oftentimes, protest is not pretty. It is intended to disrupt. And as long as people are doing it peacefully, they should be entitled to do so."
Gay stressed the Fifth Circuit decision essentially eliminates the right to organize a mass protest because organizers could be held financially liable if even one protester commits an illegal act.
get more stories like this via email