However, our objection—and it is a crucial one—is to the broader structure of speech regulation that this bill is a part of. . . .
In a world where individuals with minority viewpoints are increasingly targeted by a select group of influential individuals wielding the full power of “the whole of government” or “the whole of society,” we, as a society, have a vested interest in upholding free speech and constitutional rights for all—based on the valid principle that we could be the next targets.
Some argue that the previous speech regulations will not return, and as a community, we must adapt to the current reality. They suggest that it is illogical for minorities, such as Jews, to disarm themselves in an ongoing conflict that shows no signs of ending soon or ever. Therefore, they propose advocating for our own protections, requesting our own diversity officers, establishing our own affinity groups, and so forth.
However, this approach not only diminishes our values but also proves to be ineffective. The government has a tendency to manipulate any new authority or position it acquires in a way that contradicts its original purpose, and these entities tend to become permanent fixtures, transforming a temporary solution into a lasting source of animosity. . . .
As a result, we must oppose all suggestions, even those from well-intentioned sources, that aim to authorize the government to regulate speech on our behalf—such as the bill proposed by New York Congressman Ritchie Torres that would permit the Department of Education to assign “third-party antisemitism monitors” to universities receiving federal funding. Despite Torres being a courageous and astute legislator with genuine intentions, this proposal is irrational and should not be endorsed by anyone.
