[News] A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a Pro-Israel Oath — so She Lost Her Job
Anti-Imperialist News
news at freedomarchives.org
Mon Dec 17 16:58:21 EST 2018
theintercept.com
<https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/>
A Texas Elementary School Speech Pathologist Refused to Sign a
Pro-Israel Oath, Now Mandatory in Many States — so She Lost Her Job
Glenn Greenwald - December 17, 2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_A children’s speech pathologist_ who has worked for the last nine years
with developmentally disabled, autistic, and speech-impaired elementary
school students in Austin, Texas, has been told that she can no longer
work with the public school district, after she refused to sign an oath
vowing that she “does not” and “will not” engage in a boycott of Israel
or “otherwise tak[e] any action that is intended to inflict economic
harm” on that foreign nation. A lawsuit on her behalf
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631742-Bahia-Amawi-s-Lawsuit-Against-Texas-Over-Israel.html> was
filed early Monday morning in a federal court in the Western District of
Texas, alleging a violation of her First Amendment right of free speech.
The child language specialist, Bahia Amawi, is a U.S. citizen who
received a master’s degree in speech pathology in 1999 and, since then,
has specialized in evaluations for young children with language
difficulties (see video below). Amawi was born in Austria and has lived
in the U.S. for the last 30 years, fluently speaks three languages
(English, German, and Arabic), and has four U.S.-born American children
of her own.
Amawi began working in 2009 on a contract basis with the Pflugerville
Independent School District, which includes Austin, to provide
assessments and support for school children from the county’s growing
Arabic-speaking immigrant community. The children with whom she has
worked span the ages of 3 to 11. Ever since her work for the school
district began in 2009, her contract was renewed each year with no
controversy or problem.
But this year, all of that changed. On August 13, the school district
once again offered to extend her contract for another year by sending
her essentially the same contract and set of certifications she has
received and signed at the end of each year since 2009.
She was prepared to sign her contract renewal until she noticed one new,
and extremely significant, addition: a certification she was required to
sign pledging that she “does not currently boycott Israel,” that she
“will not boycott Israel during the term of the contract,” and that
she shall refrain from any action “that is intended to penalize, inflict
economic harm on, or limit commercial relations with Israel, or with a
person or entity doing business in Israeli or in an Israel-controlled
territory.”
The language of the affirmation Amawi was told she must sign reads like
Orwellian — or McCarthyite — self-parody, the classic political loyalty
oath that every American should instinctively shudder upon reading:
isa-1544881457-tint-1545064635
That language would bar Amawi not only from refraining from buying goods
from companies located within Israel, but also from any Israeli
companies operating in the occupied West Bank (“an Israeli-controlled
territory”). The oath given to Amawi would also likely prohibit her even
from /advocating/ such a boycott given that such speech could be seen as
“intended to penalize, inflict economic harm on, or limit commercial
relations with Israel.”
Whatever one’s own views are, boycotting Israel to stop its occupation
<https://twitter.com/TravisMannon/status/1074323469268123648> is a
global political movement modeled on the 1980s boycott aimed at South
Africa
<https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2016/02/bds-movement-lessons-south-africa-boycott-160223072813078.html>
that helped end that country’s system of racial apartheid. It has become
so mainstream that two newly elected members of the U.S. Congress
explicitly support it
<https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/rashida-tlaib-endorses-bds-movement-1006656677>,
while boycotting Israeli companies in the occupied territories has long
been advocated in mainstream venues by Jewish Zionist groups such as
Peace Now
<https://www.jpost.com/National-News/Peace-Now-launches-boycott-of-settlement-products> and
the Jewish-American Zionist writer Peter Beinart
<https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/to-save-israel-boycott-the-settlements.html>.
This required certification about Israel was the only one in the
contract sent to Amawi that pertained to political opinions and
activism. There were no similar clauses relating to children (such as a
vow not to advocate for pedophiles or child abusers), nor were there any
required political oaths that pertained to the country of which she is a
citizen and where she lives and works: the United States.
In order to obtain contracts in Texas, then, a citizen is free to
denounce and work against the United States, to advocate for causes that
directly harm American children, and even to support a boycott of
particular U.S. states, such as was done in 2017 to North Carolina
<https://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/27/bathroom-bill-to-cost-north-carolina-376-billion.html> in
protest of its anti-LGBT law. In order to continue to work, Amawi would
be perfectly free to engage in any political activism against her own
country, participate in an economic boycott of any state or city within
the U.S., or work against the policies of any other government in the
world — except Israel.
That’s one extraordinary aspect of this story: The sole political
affirmation Texans like Amawi are required to sign in order to work with
the school district’s children is one designed to protect not the United
States or the children of Texas, but the economic interests of Israel.
As Amawi put it to The Intercept: “It’s baffling that they can throw
this down our throats and decide to protect another country’s economy
versus protecting our constitutional rights.”
Amawi concluded that she could not truthfully or in good faith sign the
oath because, in conjunction with her family, she has made the household
decision to refrain from purchasing goods from Israeli companies in
support of the global boycott to end Israel’s decadeslong occupation of
the West Bank and Gaza <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kUSihH-M9M>.
Amawi, as the mother of four young children and a professional speech
pathologist, is not a leader of any political movements: She has simply
made the consumer choice to support the boycott by avoiding the purchase
of products from Israeli companies in Israel or the occupied West Bank.
She also occasionally participates in peaceful activism in defense of
Palestinian self-determination that includes advocacy of the global
boycott to end the Israeli occupation.
Watch The Intercept’s three-minute video of Amawi, as she tells her
story, here:
Video by Kelly West
When asked if she considered signing the pledge to preserve her ability
to work, Amawi told The Intercept: “Absolutely not. I couldn’t in good
conscience do that. If I did, I would not only be betraying Palestinians
suffering under an occupation that I believe is unjust and thus, become
complicit in their repression, but I’d also be betraying my fellow
Americans by enabling violations of our constitutional rights to free
speech and to protest peacefully.”
As a result, Amawi informed her school district supervisor that she
could not sign the oath. As her complaint against the school district
<https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5631742-Bahia-Amawi-s-Lawsuit-Against-Texas-Over-Israel.html>
explains, she “ask[ed] why her personal political stances [about Israel
and Palestine] impacted her work as a speech language pathologist.”
In response, Amawi’s supervisor promised that she would investigate
whether there were any ways around this barrier. But the supervisor
ultimately told Amawi that there were no alternatives: Either she would
have to sign the oath, or the district would be legally barred from
paying her under any type of contract.
Because Amawi, to her knowledge, is the only certified Arabic-speaking
child’s speech pathologist in the district, it is quite possible that
the refusal to renew her contract will leave dozens of young children
with speech pathologies without any competent expert to evaluate their
conditions and treatment needs.
“I got my master’s in this field and devoted myself to this work because
I always wanted to do service for children,” Amawi said. “It’s vital
that early-age assessments of possible speech impairments or
psychological conditions be administered by those who understand the
child’s first language.”
In other words, Texas’s Israel loyalty oath requirement victimizes not
just Amawi, an American who is barred from working in the professional
field to which she has devoted her adult life, but also the young
children in need of her expertise and experience that she has spent
years developing.
_The anti-BDS Israel oath_ was included in Amawi’s contract papers due
to an Israel-specific state law enacted
<https://forward.com/fast-forward/370725/texas-becomes-17th-state-to-pass-law-countering-boycotts-of-israel/>
on May 2, 2017, by the Texas State Legislature and signed into law two
days later by GOP Gov. Greg Abbott. The bill unanimously passed the
lower House by a vote of 131-0, and then the Senate by a vote of 25-4.
When Abbott signed the bill in a ceremony held at the Austin Jewish
Community Center, he proclaimed
<https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Being-anti-Israel-is-anti-Texas-says-Gov-Greg-11114838.php>:
“Any anti-Israel policy is an anti-Texas policy.”
The bill’s language is so sweeping that some victims of Hurricane
Harvey, which devastated Southwest Texas in late 2017, were told that
they could
<https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/recovering-from-harvey-texas-suburb-hit-with-hurricane-israel-1.5459316> only
receive state disaster relief if they first signed a pledge never to
boycott Israel.
<https://www.aclu.org/news/texas-city-tells-people-no-hurricane-harvey-aid-unless-they-promise-not-boycott-israel> That
demand was deeply confusing to those hurricane victims in desperate need
of help but who could not understand what their views of Israel and
Palestine had to do with their ability to receive assistance from their
state government.
The evangelical author of the Israel bill, Republican Texas state Rep.
Phil King, said at the time that its application to hurricane relief
<https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/author-of-texas-anti-bds-bill-calls-aid-incident-misunderstanding-1.5459450>
was a “misunderstanding,” but nonetheless emphasized that the bill’s
purpose was indeed to ensure that no public funds ever go to anyone who
supports a boycott of Israel.
At the time that Texas enacted the law barring contractors from
supporting a boycott of Israel, it was the 17th state in the country to
do so. As of now, 26 states have enacted such laws — including blue
states run by Democrats such as New York, California, and New Jersey —
while similar bills are pending in another 13 states.
This map compiled by Palestine Legal
<https://palestinelegal.org/righttoboycott/> shows how pervasive various
forms of Israel loyalty oath requirements have become in the U.S.; the
states in red are ones where such laws are already enacted, while the
states in the darker shade are ones where such bills are pending:
The vast majority of American citizens are therefore now officially
barred from supporting a boycott of Israel without incurring some form
of sanction or limitation imposed by their state. And the relatively few
Americans who are still free to form views on this hotly contested
political debate without being officially punished are in danger of
losing that freedom, as more and more states are poised to enact similar
censorship schemes.
One of the first states to impose such repressive restrictions on free
expression was New York. In 2016, Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an
executive order directing all agencies
<http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/06/nyregion/cuomo-new-york-israel-boycott-bds-movement.html> under
his control to terminate any and all business with companies or
organizations that support a boycott of Israel. “If you boycott Israel,
New York State will boycott you,” Cuomo proudly tweeted
<https://twitter.com/nygovcuomo/status/741352188945928192>, referring to
a Washington Post op-ed he wrote that touted that threat in its headline.
As The Intercept reported at the time
<https://theintercept.com/2016/06/06/andrew-cuomo-and-other-democrats-launch-severe-attack-on-free-speech-to-protect-israel/>,
Cuomo’s order “requires that one of his commissioners compile ‘a list of
institutions and companies’ that — ‘either directly or through a parent
or subsidiary’ — support a boycott. That government list is then posted
publicly, and the burden falls on [the accused boycotters] to prove to
the state that they do not, in fact, support such a boycott.”
Like the Texas law, Cuomo’s Israel order reads like a parody of the
McCarthy era:
What made Cuomo’s censorship directive particularly stunning was that,
just two months prior to issuing this decree, he ordered New York state
agencies to boycott North Carolina
<https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/29/472268519/n-y-governor-bans-most-state-travel-to-north-carolina-over-lgbt-law>
in protest of that state’s anti-LGBT law. Two years earlier, Cuomo
banned New York state employees
<https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-bans-non-essential-state-travel-indiana>
from all nonessential travel to Indiana to boycott that state’s
enactment of an anti-LGBT law.
So Cuomo mandated that his own state employees boycott two other states
/within his own country/, a boycott that by design would harm U.S.
businesses, while /prohibiting/ New York’s private citizens from
supporting a similar boycott of /a foreign nation/ upon pain of being
barred from receiving contracts from the state of New York. That such a
priority scheme is so pervasive — whereby boycotts aimed at U.S.
businesses are permitted or even encouraged, but boycotts aimed at
Israeli businesses are outlawed — speaks volumes about the state of U.S.
politics and free expression, none of it good.
Following Cuomo, Texas’s GOP-dominated state legislature, and numerous
other state governments controlled by both parties, the U.S. Congress,
prodded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
<https://www.aipac.org/learn/legislative-agenda/agenda-display?agendaid={B499D12C-C5ED-4CA6-93CF-61266D842328}>,
began planning its own national bills to use the force of law to punish
Americans for the crime of supporting a boycott of Israel. In July of
last year, a group of 43 senators — 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats
— supported a law, called the Israel Anti-Boycott Act (S. 720),
introduced by Democratic Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, that would
/criminalize /participation in any international boycott of Israel
<https://theintercept.com/2017/07/19/u-s-lawmakers-seek-to-criminally-outlaw-support-for-boycott-campaign-against-israel/>.
After the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement vehemently
condemning
<https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-senate-opposing-israel-anti-boycott-act> Cardin’s
bill as an attack on core free speech rights, one which “would punish
individuals for no reason other than their political beliefs,” numerous
senators announced that they were re-considering their support
<https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/congress-democrats-rethink-anti-bds-bill-in-wake-of-warning-1.5433561>.
But now, as The Intercept reported last week
<https://theintercept.com/2018/12/04/israel-anti-boycott-act-lame-duck/>,
a modified version of the bill is back and pending in the lame-duck
session: “Cardin is making a behind-the-scenes push to slip an
anti-boycott law into a last-minute spending bill being finalized during
the lame-duck session.”
The ACLU has also condemned this latest bill because “its intent and the
intent of the underlying state laws it purports to uphold are contrary
to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment guarantee of freedoms of
speech and association.” As the ACLU warned in a recent action advisory
<https://action.aclu.org/send-message/protect-right-political-expression?ms_aff=NAT&initms_aff=NAT&ms=181210_freespeech_boycottban_blog&initms=181210_freespeech_boycottban_blog&ms_chan=web&initms_chan=web&af=##sb_query_string_encrypted##>:
While that “new version clarifies that people cannot face jail time for
participating in a boycott,” the ACLU insists that “it still leaves the
door open for criminal financial penalties” for anyone found to be
participating in or even advocating for a boycott of Israel.
_More dangerous attacks_ on free expression are difficult to imagine.
Nobody who claims to be a defender of free speech or free expression —
on the right, the left, or anything in between — can possibly justify
silence in the face of such a coordinated and pure assault on these most
basic rights of free speech and association.
One common misconception is that the First Amendment’s guarantee of free
speech only bars the state from imprisoning or otherwise punishing
people for speaking, but does not bar the state from conditioning the
receipt of discretionary benefits (such as state benefits or jobs) on
refraining from expressing particular opinions. Aside from the fact
that, with some rare and narrow exceptions, courts have repeatedly held
that the government is constitutionally barred
<https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2618&context=caselrev>
under the First Amendment from conditioning government benefits
on speech requirements
<https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1656&context=clr> —
such as, say, enacting a bill that states that only liberals, or only
conservatives, shall be eligible for unemployment benefits — the
unconstitutional nature of Texas’s actions toward Bahia Amawi should be
self-evident.
Imagine if, instead of being forced by the state to vow never to boycott
Israel as a condition for continuing to work as a speech pathologist,
Amawi was instead forced to pledge that she would never advocate for
LGBT equality or engage in activism in support of or opposition to gun
rights or abortion restrictions (by joining the National Rifle
Association or Planned Parenthood), or never subscribe to Vox or the
Daily Caller, or never participate in a boycott of Iran, North Korea,
Venezuela, Cuba, or Russia due to vehement disagreement with those
governments’ policies.
The tyrannical free speech denial would be self-evident and, in many of
those comparable cases, the trans-ideological uproar would be
instantaneous. As Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle
East Peace, warned
<https://medium.com/@LFriedman_FMEP/u-s-politicians-are-backing-a-free-speech-exception-for-israel-creating-a-template-for-broader-ebe406fdf3b7>:
“[T]his template could be re-purposed to bar contracts with individuals
or groups affiliated with or supportive of any political cause or
organization — from the political Left or Right — that the majority in a
legislature or the occupant of a governor’s office deemed undesirable.”
Recall that in 2012, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel tried to block zoning
permits allowing Chick-fil-A to expand, due to his personal disagreement
with the anti-LGBT activism of that company’s top executive. As I wrote
at the time in condemning the unconstitutional nature
<https://www.salon.com/2012/07/26/rahm_emanuels_free_speech_attack/> of
the mayor’s actions: “If you support what Emanuel is doing here, then
you should be equally supportive of a Mayor in Texas or a Governor in
Idaho who blocks businesses from opening if they are run by those who
/support/**same-sex marriage — or who oppose American wars, or who
support reproductive rights, or who favor single-payer health care, or
which donates to LGBT groups and Planned Parenthood, on the ground that
such views are offensive to Christian or conservative residents.”
Those official efforts in Chicago (followed by mayors of other liberal
cities) to punish Chick-fil-A due to its executive’s negative views on
LGBT equality were widely condemned even by liberal commentators, who
were horrified that mayors would abuse their power to condition zoning
rights based on a private citizen’s political viewpoints on a
controversial issue. Obviously, if a company discriminated against LGBT
employees in violation of the law, it would be legitimate to act against
them, but as Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum correctly noted
<https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/07/rahm-emanuel-needs-back-chick-fil/>,
this was a case of pure censorship: “There’s really no excuse for
Emanuel’s and [Boston Mayor Thomas] Menino’s actions. … You don’t hand
out business licenses based on whether you agree with the political
views of the executives. Not in America, anyway.”
The ACLU of Illinois also denounced the effort by Chicago against
Chick-fil-A
<https://www.aclu-il.org/en/press-releases/statement-chick-fil-matter>
as “wrong and dangerous,” adding: “We oppose using the power and
authority of government to retaliate against those who express messages
that are controversial or averse to the views of current office
holders.” That, by definition, is the only position that a genuine free
speech defender can hold — regardless of agreement or disagreement with
the specific political viewpoint being punished.
Last week, the ACLU’s Senior Legislative Counsel Kate Ruane explained
why
<https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/rights-protesters/congress-trying-use-spending-bill-criminalize-boycotts-israel-and>
even the modified, watered-down, fully bipartisan version of the Israel
oath bill pending in the U.S. Congress, and especially the already
enacted bills in 26 states of the kind that just resulted in Amawi’s
termination, are a direct violation of the most fundamental free speech
rights:
This is a full-scale attack on Americans’ First Amendment freedoms.
Political boycotts, including boycotts of foreign countries, have
played a pivotal role in this nation’s history — from the boycotts
of British goods during the American Revolution to the Montgomery
Bus Boycott to the campaign to divest from apartheid South Africa.
And in /NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware/, the Supreme Court made clear
<https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/458/886.html> that the
First Amendment protects the right to participate in political boycotts.
The lawsuit which Amawi filed similarly explains that “economic boycotts
for the purposes of bringing about political change are entrenched in
American history, beginning with colonial boycotts on British tea.
Later, the Civil Rights Movement relied heavily on boycotts to combat
racism and spur societal change. The Supreme Court has recognized [in
Claiborne] that non-violent boycotts intended to advance civil rights
constitute ‘form[s] of speech or conduct that [are] ordinarily entitled
to protection under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.'”
_Who can justify_ that — as a condition for working with speech-impaired
and developmentally disabled children — Amawi is forced by the state to
violate her conscience and renounce her political beliefs by buying
products from a country that she believes (in accordance with the U.N
<https://www.un.org/press/en/2016/sc12657.doc.htm>.) is illegally and
brutally occupying land that does not belong to it? Whether or not you
agree with her political view about Israel and Palestine, every American
with an even minimal belief in the value of free speech should be
vocally denouncing the attack on Amawi’s free speech rights and other
Americans who are being similarly oppressed by these Israel-protecting
censorship laws in the U.S.
As these Israel oath laws have proliferated, some commentators from
across the ideological spectrum have noted what a profound threat to
free speech they pose. The Foundation for Middle East Peace’s Friedman,
for instance, explained
<https://medium.com/@LFriedman_FMEP/u-s-politicians-are-backing-a-free-speech-exception-for-israel-creating-a-template-for-broader-ebe406fdf3b7>
that “it requires little imagination to see how criminalizing Americans’
participation in political boycotts of Israel could pave the way for
further infringements to Americans’ right to support or join
internationally-backed protests on other issues.” She correctly
described such laws as “a free speech exception for Israel.”
The libertarian lawyer Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Cato
Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies, similarly warned
<https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/senates-israel-anti-boycott-act-has-good-intentions-bad-results>:
“It is not a proper function of law to force Americans into carrying on
foreign commerce they personally find politically objectionable, whether
their reasons for reluctance be good, bad, or arbitrary.”
--
Freedom Archives 522 Valencia Street San Francisco, CA 94110 415
863.9977 https://freedomarchives.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20181217/67570a88/attachment.htm>
More information about the News
mailing list