 I welcome to our Vermont Institute of Community and International Involvement presentation tonight on a complaint that was made against UVM. And we are going a little bit about the complaint and then why we are discussing it and why we have this constitutional scholar and expert here, Jared Carter from Vermont Law School to speak about the free speech implications that are involved in this complaint. The complaint was filed primarily by the Louis Brandeis Center at UVM alleging that there were anti-semitic incidents at UVM, University of Vermont, which were investigated by the president, Garamella, and he found that those incidents were not necessarily anti-semitic. However, the complaint persists that UVM has had many anti-semitic incidents and that Jewish students, especially there, feel threatened and vulnerable because of these incidents. We are not here tonight to talk about whether or not those incidents are true or not. We are all concerned if Jewish students or any students feel vulnerable and attacked on campus. We are concerned, though, with some of the demands that were made in that complaint. Demands which very well might have implications for our First Amendment rights of free speech because one of the demands has been made of UVM that they change the definition of anti-semitism to a definition that appears to be, and others who have studied the complaint, to be very vague and perhaps could be interpreted that anything critical of the state of Israel could be considered anti-semitic, which should amount to a type of censorship that I don't believe that would help anybody in the state of Vermont or any of our American citizens because that would mean censorship of what is guaranteed free speech under our US and our Vermont constitutions. So we're here tonight not to discuss whether or not those complaints were anti-semitic as much as if the complaints result in the university censoring free speech, that is what we are really concerned with tonight. So we have with us to discuss it and we're hoping for a great deal of audience participation and discussion, both the in-person audience here in the library, but also on Zoom. We're here tonight with Jared Carter, a faculty member at the Vermont Law School of Free Speech and a Constitutional Scholar and Expert, and you were the director of a... Associate. That's, oh, sorry. Associate director of the Free Speech Clinic at Cornell, correct? I was. And that was for a year where he left this wonderful community and moved in Ithaca. So welcome back. Happy to be back. And he's happy to be back, let's not ask why because I don't know what I did. But anyway, so we're here tonight to hear from him on his opinions, his scholarly opinions on the complaint and also on the First Amendment and important, perhaps consequences of this complaint to all of us. And also we're welcoming a community discussion of this very important issue that's affecting our university. I always am saying that this is our university. We don't want them censoring free speech, nor do we want them being light on anti-Semitic behavior or any kind of anti-black or anti-boner group behavior of any kind. So here's Jared. So take it away. Well, thanks, Sandy. And thanks to Vicki and the company for organizing this and welcome everybody that's joining via Zoom. These are difficult issues to deal with. The First Amendment, I think, and I might be biased is first for a reason because I think it really enshrines and protects our ability to execute all of our other constitutional rights. And so when we're thinking about something as important as this issue, I think it's sort of worth starting at the top and remembering why we're talking about the First Amendment at all. You might say, this is a university and it's harassment policies. What the heck does the First Amendment have to do with it? You might say, is the university bound by the First Amendment? And what does that have to do with it? We all hopefully know that the First Amendment, relevant part says, Congress shall pass no law bridging the freedom of speech. Pretty clear on its face. Of course, the courts have whittled away at that and we don't really need no law, but it says Congress. So what does Congress have to do with the University of Vermont its policies and harassment and anti-Semitism? I think the first question asked is, does the First Amendment even apply in this context? That's something we always ask as First Amendment folks when we're trying to figure out what are the First Amendment implications of many things? And the answer is resoundingly yes. Public universities and the Supreme Court has said this on numerous occasions are subject to the protections and the restrictions of the First Amendment. So it's not just Congress that can't impinge on our First Amendment. It's government that can impinge on our First Amendment. So if this was a private college or university, it would be a very different conversation. Many private universities and colleges have adopted First Amendment principles as part of their policies. But the First Amendment generally doesn't apply unless we're talking about government action. And so here we've got state university and it's pretty clear that the First Amendment is gonna restrain what they are constitutionally allowed to do. So I think that's number one. And then in looking at the complaint, I think it's worth sort of walking through and thinking about what are the First Amendment implications of what's being suggested here. Now remember, our starting position is Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And the courts have interpreted different types of speech to be of different value. So for example, political speech has been found to be fundamental to our democracy. And in that vein, the court has said, different speech that offends is protected for the very reason that the First Amendment at its heart is really about preventing sort of orthodoxy from on high, right? From the government, a university coming in saying, this is what you have to think, this is what you have to say. And while in some instances, those First Amendment rights are limited in our educational setting, when it comes to public universities, the US Supreme Court has gone even further and said, not only is this political speech and therefore highly protected or political speech on a university campus in particular is highly protected because of the importance that educational or higher education play in our society. So there's no question in my mind at all that no matter what UVM decides to do, if it decided to amend its policies, if it decided to punish students for any of these activities, that there may well be first amendment implications that they couldn't go beyond what the First Amendment prohibits. And the First Amendment has been, particularly when it comes to political speech interpreted broadly, unless a certain speech fits into one of several narrow categories of exceptions. So you all probably heard, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, right? That's speech. So you might wonder, well, how can that be prohibited if it says no speech may be prohibited? The answer is there are exceptions that the Supreme Court has carved out over time. So as I'm looking at any of these alleged allegations in the complaint or the suggested policy changes, I'm measuring those against default is political speech on a university campus receives the most protection virtually of any other speech that's out there, okay? And then I'm looking to see does any of the speech that's at issue here fit within one of the exceptions? In other words, the exceptions that allow for more limits on speech, okay? And as I look through it, I don't see any that do that would allow the university to, in these instances punish or change their policies or I would have very significant First Amendment concerns if they decided to because I don't think any of this fits into any of those exceptions. So one of the exceptions is defamation, right? You can't defame someone. You can't publish a statement of untrue statement of fact to a third party and cause harm, right? We've all probably heard plenty about defamation in the past several years. That's an exception. I don't think that's something that's at issue here. The government can limit what's called incitement to lawless action. So if somebody speaks in such a way that it incites imminent lawless action and that there's a high likelihood of that happening, then the university or the government can come in and prohibit it. I don't see that here. And these are all, by the way, very narrow exceptions because that default is the answer to offensive or bigoted speech is not less speech, it's more speech. And that's what the court has said time and time again. So we have incitement. There's another exception called the true threat exception. So the government true threat, true threat exception. And under that exception, the government can limit speech that it deems to be a true threat. In other words, when somebody speaks of threat that they subjectively intend to put that person in fear of bodily harm or injury. And what the courts have said is, it's not just a general political hyperbole threat that we're talking about. And the court is upheld, or excuse me, the court has protected speech like, I think it was during the LBJ administration, the classic cases, somebody was prosecuted for saying, if they draft me, the first person I'm gonna get in my sights is the president. If they give me a gun, the first person I'm gonna get in. And that was protected speech as political hyperbole because it wasn't a true threat. And so I think that's a really important point. I don't see that at issue here. So I don't think UVM could limit student speech in that way. I've already mentioned incitement to lawless action, obscenity, well, but obscenity, the way the courts have looked at it appealing to our current interests. So extreme pornography, perhaps you prohibited child pornography may be prohibited in the context of the First Amendment. But outside of that, the government doesn't get to tell us, and this would include the University of Vermont, what we can say when it comes to our political views are the content of our speech, the viewpoint of our speech, except in a very limited and narrow sense. Now you might say, well, what about the stuff in this complaint about people excluding folks from groups? That's also a very nuanced analysis. And truthfully, I think UVM in many ways, respect is left with no good options here. But what the courts have said is that- So there's a complaint that certain Jewish students or Zionist students there is a difference, right? Well, that is a good question. One I don't feel as though I can necessarily answer, but my understanding is yes, although others may disagree with that, yes, there was an allegation that students were being, I believe excluded from a group on campus. And in fact, there is case law out there that says that universities can require recognized student groups who get funding from the university can require them to comply with the university's anti-discrimination policies, whatever those are. But in this instance, it appears that at least some of those groups weren't UVM like organizations. And so it becomes therefore a lot less of an option, I think for the university to mandate what the groups have to look like and that comes from the First Amendment as well, the freedom of association, right? The ability to associate with others, not only to speak, but to work, our political parties are an example of that, right? The parties get to decide who is part of this party or not. Now, there are limits on that. You can't discriminate and there's a whole series of laws in every state called public accommodations laws that prevent discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation in some states. But again, outside of that, groups are generally allowed to reject folks based on their few points. So in other words, a Black Lives Matter organization doesn't have to allow a white supremacist to be part of their group and speak as part of their group. They couldn't say, they probably couldn't say, well, we're not going to allow somebody for particular race to be in our group. But they could say, we don't want this viewpoint as part of our group. Now, a Jewish organization could say the same thing. We don't want neo-Nazi in our group. We don't want that viewpoint in our group. It's not compatible with our views. That's what the First Amendment Freedom of Association is like. And so I think it's very important that the university tread very carefully, particularly if these groups aren't actually groups that are sponsored and funded by the university. Although I don't pretend to know all of the ins and outs of all of the facts, I'm simply laying out what I think are the First Amendment concerns that would be at play if the university moved forward with any of these recommendations. So I think that's very, very important. One thing that I do want to highlight, and I think you mentioned to Sandy at the outset, was a revision of the harassment policy to include a particular definition of anti-semitism. So this is one of the demands that's being made of the university, is a change in the definition of anti-semitism, right? Correct, that's my understanding. This is the change that's being suggested, correct? Well, a change to the equal opportunity education programs and activities and non-harassment policy. So of course, at the end of the week, most institutions has a non-harassment policy because, truthfully, the First Amendment doesn't protect harassment, no doubt about that. You have plenty of instances where harassment can be criminalized, but it has to be very narrow. You can't have a broad definition of harassment and criminalize that. Otherwise, the court is almost certainly to strike it down on the First Amendment grounds. So my main First Amendment concern with the proposal to incorporate this new definition is it is very broad. It is very vague in terms of what is what may be prohibited and what may not. What sort of speech may be considered into semitic, what speech may not. And again, all of this speech that they're concerned about may very well be, it probably is offensive, bigoted, wrong speech that I would never teach my kids to share. But the point I think that is important to remember when it comes to the First Amendment is there's the risk of, if we start defining what is orthodoxy in broad and vague manners, of sweeping up a lot of protected speech that would otherwise be protected. And I think that's a legitimate concern as we're thinking about making these amendments to, or firstly, think about making these amendments to the policy. So I guess with that, I'd love to see what's going on. One of the things that they want to change, too, is an example of the new definition is targeting Israel. What would that mean, exactly? Would that mean that the university should censor groups or speech that is critical of the state of Israel? That's basically my concern. Yeah, and I think if you look at this definition and its examples, which I think are suggested to be incorporated here, I don't think that's an illegitimate reading of what may very well be protected for prohibitive. So one of them, for example, holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. I think any university would run up against pretty difficult First Amendment shoals, if it was to say that one cannot criticize people for the acts of a government. And... What do you mean? What do you mean? Well, in other words, if I were to say, I blame Americans for the Vietnam War, that would be well within my first amendment, you know? And I know that those are not exactly analogous, but I think it's an important point. At the very least, it's a very broad set of examples and definitions. And when we're talking about the First Amendment, the Supreme Court, I said time and time again, that these exceptions to the protection of First Amendment speech must be narrowly constrained. The government must have a compelling interest in limiting speech, and they must be narrowly construed to further that compelling interest. And if they're not, then they're just unconstitutional. Okay, somebody has a question? Yes, Ian. There are two things I'd like to raise relating to the specifics. The specifics of the Brandeis centers complained to the University of Vermont. There are two things I'd like to raise. The first is that the environment that is seen as being a sort of threat like to Jewish students is created because of Jewish students, a large number of Jewish people. So the argument is saying, well, because so many Jewish students are as pathoscientists, wasn't really embedded in them as part of their culture, then the criticism of Zionism and criticism of Israel is inherently criticism of Jewish people or Jewish faiths or events, somebody is anti-Semitic. The other part that I'd like to raise is in the, which I saw when it come up, is the suggested remedies. And one of them, as I think Sandy pointed out, is to, for the university to adopt the definition of anti-Semitism as a Jewish fiber, international Holocaust, remembrance, violence, and that definition. And the examples that are appended to the definition, I remember in my reading there, the definition is sort of reasonable, but the examples are the problem because the examples identified criticism of Israel, but I have to make it somewhat homilical, I'm going to criticize Israel as anti-Semitic. So those are the two points that I raised here. And I think those two issues are, well, indirectly related to free speech. And so I wonder if you could really elaborate on the specifics of those two points on it, from the perspective that you'll take, which is the First Amendment. Yeah, well, I think a couple of things come to mind through unpacking your question. I mean, certainly it's not just the freedom of speech that's in the First Amendment, the freedom to exercise our religion as we keep fit is also part of that. So to the extent any religion has a certain tenets that they believe in and are there a few points as part of that organized religion, that is entirely within their constitutionally protected rights to do so. I think we're, as you pointed out, it gets a bit murkier is where do you draw the line? Because obviously we can't have, if you have a First Amendment right to the freedom of exercise, exercise or religion, then there's obviously a tension there if the government is allowing discrimination in any way based on that free exercise or discriminating based on one's religion, right? That's not going to be constitutionally permissible. On the other hand, as we talked about before, particularly when it comes to the student groups, that the case law is fairly clear that they may decide based on others' viewpoints who they want to invite to speak, participate and if they aren't affiliated with a university, then they have much more flexibility. They're not subject to university discrimination policies specifically to this matter. There is a case, a US report case that dealt with Hastings Law School several years back that looked at the question of whether or not universities could force student groups who are affiliated with them and receive funding from them to comply with their anti-discrimination laws and the US report said yes. But I think it does become, particularly with respect to those examples in the policy that you said, the definition you cited, much more murky as to what is prohibited when it comes to speech. And when it isn't very narrow, when it isn't crystal clear, we're in the world of what we call in the First Amendment an overbreath problem, right? Where a regulation or rule is so raw that it sweeps up otherwise protected speech, right? And so I think certainly much speech that would be critical of Israel or any other country, it's governments and its actions is protected speech. No question about it at the highest level. And so I think there's significant concerns if we go and create policies that in any way chill that speech or sweep up what would be legal speech protected speech with what may be prohibited, say actual harassment or a true threat or incitement to imminent lawless action. And I don't see that those exceptions really applying at least based on the fact I've seen it here. We have questions from the audience on Zoom. So we go to Mahir, could you unmute yourself please and ask your question? Sure, that's me. Can you hear me okay? Great. So I have a couple of points that questions and comments that I wanna make. I teach linguistics at UVM. So I'm deeply interested in issues of language although I don't have the sophistication of law that certainly that you do. One of the things that's coming up for me when I've talked with my students about that I also teach, I wanna say on language and social justice, right? So I'm really very deeply interested in these issues. One of the things is that my students seem to have a broad misunderstanding or a broad conflation of Judaism and Zionism. So they see those two things as the same or they don't have any nuanced difference between them. And so I'm wondering if you have any thoughts about that like as people are using one as synonymous with the other, whether that changes some of the things that we're thinking about. And the other thing, and I don't know if you can answer this but I'm just wondering about sort of differential standards in terms of how the university might view the issue of free speech very broadly or very narrowly depending on the group that is perceived to being targeted, right? So I can imagine, and I don't really, I really try not to sort of pit groups against each other but I'm imagining, for example, at UVM if there were a group of white supremacists who, I'm sorry, I also have a house full of children here and it's dinnertime. But if a student group that was white supremacists that were saying, you know, Africanists cannot be here or something like that. Like I just wonder if you have any thoughts about sort of the differential application of free speech policy. Can I just say a little bit about your first question, Zionism versus the Jewish people? I think Zionism is a political belief that the Jewish people deserve a safe homeland and that's rather a political belief of maybe a lot of people could be Zionists who aren't Jews that believe that all Jews deserve a safe homeland. I'm that kind of a person. I think that because of persecution of Jewish people primarily in Europe and not in the Middle East, primarily in Europe that Jewish people do need as we all need to have safe homes and that are safe from persecution. The Jewish people, however, are different than are not, that's not a political identity. People who regard themselves as Jewish regard themselves as either a religious group or as an ethnic group. But two things that are different and think that Zionism, as I said, is a political belief in a safe homeland for Jews. I might be wrong about that, but historically I think that that's developed in Europe. It developed because of persecution against Jews in Europe and it developed as a belief that all Jews as persecuted people deserve a safe home. On the other hand, the Jewish people have identified as an ethnic or religious group for centuries and it doesn't have to do, I don't think, with the state at all. It has to do with a person's religious I think identity might be wrong about that if we have an expert here. On the other hand, about the free speech issue, I think that white supremacist groups, I mean, I believe that their speech is probably protected speech. We don't like it, we don't like a lot of speech. But I think under the first term, this is democracy. You cannot have a democracy unless you have a free exchange of ideas, thoughts, debates. It seems to me that speech is a lot better. It's a lot better to talk than it is to have a fist fight or to have a war. So I'm a firm believer that all beliefs, even if I find them offensive, should be allowed. That's, I think, what's protected in our First Amendment was very good reason. But maybe you should comment. So a couple of words. Sorry, can I just really quickly just intervene? Thank you so much for that comment. I just wanna make it clear that what I wanna say is that our students at UVM, our student population, do not see that, like do not have a clear difference in their mind between Zionists and someone who identifies as Jewish. And I think that's really super problematic and in part where some of this is coming from. Thank you. I think that many, I mean, maybe, does anybody else have a comment on that? That's my definition of the two. I know, I have a comment on that. Zionism, after this incident, we had a rally in front of Waterman's building and I had the opportunity with what we can become from Montes for Justice and Justice. A chance to talk to many students about this Jewish and otherwise. And there is a serious need of education in this university about the history of Israel and how it started, and what Zionism is doing. This, the idea that the Jewish people should have a Jewish state, to have the right to a Jewish state, well, there are people living in that state. And if they have that state and the people living there in that state that were there as they came in, shouldn't have the right to remain there. And that's not what happened. And that's what Zionism had. 750,000 people were pushed out of Israel and lived in New York City, right alongside me, in refugee camps. So that was, that's Zionism, which was turned as a form of racism by the United Nations in 1971. It was overturned after a lot of pressure from Israel. So many people consider Zionism as a form of racism. And that's why, the other point that I wanted to make because I don't know whether I'm going to get the mic back is that you may have been following this movie, Boycott, it was not 60 Minutes Last Night and I showed it here in Wellington this week. And it is another level of Israel trying to cut off criticism of Israel through making boycotts of Israel. It leads to the point where a teacher in Texas refused to Palestinian, refused to sign her contract because it said you may not criticize Israel. And she was fired. And when ACLU came down and they overturned it, two other cases were overturned. There's 30 states that have this law. The one that's going to be before the Supreme Court is in Arkansas, the Arkansas Times. And this fellow had nothing to say about Israel or anything, but he said, I'm not going to sign this. And now it's going to the Supreme Court. So this is throughout the universities and businesses in this, and that was all introduced by Alec, this Republican kind of same-tank across the states and they tried to bring it into Permanente, I believe. So it's the same thing that is stemming criticism of Israel as a university or through making boycotts illegal. Which, and boycotts are protected under the first thing. Under the first thing. Those are two things. But I would like to say something about something you said, John. And that is that a Zionist believes in a Jewish state. I'm not certain that the original Zionist believed that. I know that they believe in a safe homeland for the Jewish people. I'm not certain of when those two ideas got conflated. It was, Zionism is a modern ideology. Right. Created in 1996 on the bow of Switzerland. So a lot of people, they think, no, and I read it on the letter to UBM, that Zionism is integral part of Judaism. Right. Which Judaism is a faith. Right. If you look at the faith of Judaism, there is nothing. Exactly. Inside the talk about what Zionism talk about. The problem here that the Zionists, the modern Zionists, mainly the leader of Israel, they found that it's a good opportunity. And they are practicing that they are the speaker of the faith, the speaker of the Jews. They are living in Israel or they live in the United States or in Europe. And they are forcing that ideology on them. And they are creating all this problem. They think that they are going to have a good opportunity to create all this problem. They think in UBM, it is a better. It is one example of many happening all across United States campuses and the state's governments too. Because they, by adopting the IHRA, you know, you are making for 33 states a solidarity group for the Palestinians. On those 33 states, they are not allowed to have a contract with the states. Right. Any organization calling for boycott or the investment or sanctions, this is equal anti-Semitism. And they are bringing it here to UBM. And we ask ourselves why it's because the solidarity group at UBM already started actions to boycott Sabra Homus. As an example, Sabra Homus is a product, Israeli product, Israeli company. And the students from Justice in Palestine last year, they briefly did to boycott, to call the cafeteria to boycott that kind of a product from the cafeteria. And that is to bring the attention of the suffering of the Palestinians and what's happening from Palestine over there. That's what I mean to me. Zionist organization in UBM and what happened as I hear from the complaint other 18 national organizations, including Hillen House National Anti-Defamation League and others came in to suppress the right of speech, to suppress the right of boycott. And this is happening. Because Korm has always defined boycotts as free speech, always in the civil rights movement. That's what that film pointed out during the civil rights movement in the south, when black people were boycotting restaurants, white-only restaurants and white-only stores and white-only everything. It was the boycott, the Montgomery bus boycott that brought those white supremacist groups down and the court upheld those boycotts. Now the court is very mixed about that because while it succeeded in Arkansas, I saw the film last weekend while the pro-boycott people succeeded at a lower court level. It isn't successful at this moment and it will probably end up in the Supreme Court. But the court has consistently stated that boycotts are free speech. What else are you supposed to do? Except if you have a problem with something, a peaceful boycott has always been a lot. We have a question. I want to get the question. I do want to just quickly, quickly a couple of things coming to mind. So I don't know. We've been lucky with talking about, and I think one of the questions from the Zoom, from the cloud, talked about like the lack of knowledge about the connections between signage and patriotism and what those overlaps are. I don't know and I don't profess to know where those lines are, but what I will say is that from a First Amendment perspective, the right to debate these very issues that you all are talking about is protected speech. Whether or not these policies are good, bad, or otherwise is protected speech. And so I think the university would be at risk of violating the First Amendment if any of its policies change to prohibit that sort of conversation. And it's unclear to me exactly what that definition and its examples are, because I think it is very broad and vague. And so I think there's at least significant First Amendment concerns at play for all of the reasons. Unless something fits into an exception to the First Amendment, it is protected. All right, we're going to Erica. Erica, yes, go ahead. Thank you for taking my question. And it's very apropos of what you just said, because previously when you read one of the examples and you said that conflating all Jews with Zionists would be protected speech. My question about that is, in that case, it was a group and I understand UVM has no jurisdiction over that group because it was an off-campus group of independent students. And I think that's fine. But if a student, you were talking about freedom of assembly or association, if that student says, I'm not a Zionist, I'm not a Zionist, I'm not a Zionist, I'm not a Zionist. I'm Jewish, but I don't agree with the policies of Israel and I want to be part of your group, then doesn't it become a question of religious discrimination? And I'll just say to introduce myself, I direct the miniscule program of Jewish studies at UVM and I also want to say that I think people should have freedom and people should have faith that at UVM we are not eager to adopt any policies that curtail free speech. I know personally, just for myself, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that, the proposal that the complaint is making for that exact reason. I don't feel like that represents a true intellectual tackling of the questions about Palestine and Israel and Zionism and Judaism. And I feel like on the university campus, that's where we need to talk about these things very importantly. But at the same time, I do feel like there should be some protections for students who are being discriminated against because of their religion. I was just going to say, I'm not sure what UVM's current policies are, but I would suspect that they have policies that prohibit discrimination based on religion and prohibit and as I said, there's at least a law case from years ago that said that schools can enforce those discrimination policies on student groups that are sponsored or organized by the university. So that I think would be certainly well within their power and then if somebody did discriminate based on one's religion, then I think that would be prescribable. In other words, that you aren't allowed in our group because you are Jewish. That would be the UVM could and probably does prohibit that many schools and universities do. So I think that's an important point. The other thing that I think, and I think this gets to your second point about the need for this sort of dialogue on campus. I think a lot of times, and I'm a cheerleader of the first amendment as you might be able to tell, but I think a lot of times we forget that the right freedom of speech is worthless without taking seriously the responsibility to listen to each other. And so I'm heartened to hear of sort of an energy of dialogue and discussion because I think that's so, so important. And to me, that's like what the first amendment followed about. That's why it applies to a place like UVM or any other state institution so that we can make sure we're always allowed to freely have those conversations, solve those problems because to Sandy's point a minute ago, you know, words, discussion, debate, even offensive words of discussion, debate are, I think the byproduct of a free and open democracy. So I'm sure we all have time to feel like that itself may be under attack. Are there questions? I believe something else that's come up is very important. And this is the political distinction between the Jewish people and Zionists or a Zionist. And depending on what your political belief is about Zionism, I'm not certain that either that all Jewish people are Zionists. I just don't think so. Yeah. And I guess that man has hand up. So maybe you could talk a little bit about that. Yeah. I was raised in a Jewish household and I consider myself at least a culturally Jewish background. And I, but I don't see myself as that. So, so I guess on occasion point, not all Jews are really what I do, but there is a portion of the Jewish community that develops the Jewish community. So I guess they're, you know, then diagrams, you know, some, some Jews would be Zionists, some Jews would not be Zionists. And I'm, you know, as is their right under the free exercise clause to believe. From what I understand, what's going on, yeah, it sounds like it may be more like a threat to show the debate about about what the nature of Zion is, which, you know, I think it would be important for that debate to continue to take place. Yeah. Wait. It's also interesting. It's also interesting. I mean, you know, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, Yeah, wait, it's also interesting. It's also interesting that so much of what's a significant part of the leadership of the voices is from Jewish organizations like there's a national organization called Jewish Voice or Heaths, which is has over the years discussed Zionism and finally voted to oppose Zionism and to oppose the current manifestation of Zionism of the state of Israel. So there's an organ, it's not just individuals like we just heard, but there's an organized component of the Jewish people in this country that's hundreds of thousands of members who are considering themselves anti-Zionists and very critical of the state of Israel. And I think that the last people mentioned the thin diagram, it's a little more complicated, as Sandy pointed out earlier, the majority of Zionists in this country are not Jewish, but they're Christian fundamentalists. So it's much more complicated. You can't really identify Zionism, Judaism, and anything from either perspective, whether you're considering the Jewish people or Christian or whoever, it's they're just two separate things. There's the political viewpoint of Zionism that you mentioned, obsequiously support whatever Israel wants to do. It's the government of Israel wants to do. It's the government. It's the government of Israel, not the people of Israel, and then Judaism has to do with a whole lot of things that we grew up with, that many Jews we grew up with, that have to do with the religion. Do you want to say something? No, I mean, I agree fully most, and this was a question to everybody because of the letter to UVM, the letters supposedly to protect Jewish students in this institution we call UVM. The majority of the people who demonstrated with us against us, the one for just as in Palestine, to bring attention to UVM and its administration, not to adopt the new definition of autismism, they were Jewish students. They were the ones who had the courage to come in to the side to decide the cause. They don't identify themselves as Zionists. They are a Jewish student. So the question to the UVM, if they adopted the new definition, who will protect those students who were on the side like, who were demonstrating against the IHRA definition and these examples? And it's very important because they are a Jews too. Well, I would like to know one of the examples that's most troubling to me of the new definition that these groups are demanding that UVM adopt is the targeting of Israel, that they're saying, these groups are saying that the targeting of Israel should be basically censored, correct? And I've heard this argument over and over that if you speak of the human rights abuses of the state of Israel, I'm not talking about the Jewish people, I'm talking about a state with police powers, but any criticism of Israel is often countered by, well, what about China? What about the United States? What about the United States? This is the example, but that also, if someone chooses to talk only about Israel, that's not anti-Semitism. That's just criticism of the state of Israel. That is perfectly within the bounds of free speech, and I guess that would be the response to that argument, right? We have the right to criticize Israel alone without one through a litany of every other... Yeah, it should be, but I'm worried that in particular that part of the big definition is the one they really want. The other question I want to ask is this complaint and its demands a national strategy? Is this going on in other places? Yeah. Yes, I've heard about it in London, New Maryland, and I'm sure it's taking place in other places. And with the definition that you have to put here and there to find other guys. I can't, it was difficult to find. To find out what it is. Yes, it's very, it's very surreptitious, very sneaky, but if I could just add something that may be the well-attentioned faculty that have trouble with students who don't understand the difference between Zionism and Judaism. There is one of many examples that come to my head very easily to understand. You cannot be discriminated against on the basis of nationality. So let's say that UPM has students from countries that the United States doesn't like and students on campus are joining in and criticizing Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and a Cuban, Venezuelan, Nicaragua, Iranian student is offended by that or taken the other way and Ukrainian student is offended by people calling for peace between Russia and Ukraine and UBM students are criticizing what Ukraine does. I think that's a very close spread behind this kind of policy of the new definition of that. I mean, you say students criticize the government of Saudi Arabia, a Saudi student on campus can't deny that speech. Nobody would ever consider that. Are there Eric and Rene? All right, if there are no further discussions, I would urge all of us to look out for this complex of latency, watch this trajectory here at UBM, guard against free speech everywhere. So the only thing that will save us from war is what I think is we are allowed to talk and to especially protect our own university in its ongoing promise of free speech on campus. So thank you all for being here. Thank Eric Añero from Vicky for doing the technology and thank the library for hosting us and we'll see you soon.