I thank Bob Skolnik and Wednesday Journal for last week’s well-researched and balanced story about divisions over the Israel-Hamas war at OPRF High School [News, Feb. 14].

I believe the high school does need to define antisemitism for DEI purposes because it needs a yardstick to determine when statements or actions are antisemitic:

•      The DEI policy needs to prohibit hostile acts/speech not only toward individuals who belong to a group subject to discrimination, but also against the group itself. The swastika airdropped onto phones during an assembly in 2018 was an example of the latter.

•      Jews are clearly targets of hostility, along with Muslims, Arabs, racial minorities, and people with disabilities or members of the LBGTQ+ community. According to the FBI, Jews were second only to African Americans as hate crime victims in 2022. Antisemitic acts are up 400% since Oct. 7. What valid reason is there to exclude Jews from OPRF’s written DEI policy?

•      Ironically, those quoted as opposing inclusion of antisemitism in the policy demonstrate why it’s needed. They fear a definition would be weaponized to stifle criticism of Israel. In fact, it can do precisely the opposite because things can get confusing. Criticism of Israel’s government is not antisemitic. Denying the Jewish people the right to national self-determination — denying Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state — is antisemitic. Double standards like this — or including Arabs/Muslims in a DEI policy but excluding Jews — are antisemitic.

The definition and examples of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance make these and other clear distinctions. OPRF would do well to adopt them.

Sources:

Judith Alexander
Oak Park

Join the discussion on social media!