Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
: (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits
: discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national
: origin in programs and activities receiving Federal
: financial assistance.
If the university or any corporate/contracted entity, receiving taxpayer money, fails to properly service a student/customer, because of race, color, origin, differences, you are violating the restraints of the Constitution, and you need to stop that behavior. This is like a regular work environment. I'm not talking about students or customers, just the entity receiving the taxpayer money. Any teachers, or employees of the entity receiving a taxpayer funded paycheck, shall perform their duties without denying proper normal service to a student/customer, or staff-member, regardless of a student/customer/staff-member's race, color, or origin. Whatever they do on their off time is their personal life, and the taxpaying population doesn't care.
While Title VI does not cover
: discrimination based on religion, individuals who face
: discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national
: origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also
: being a member of a group that shares common religious
Here we have a regurgitation, coupled with a simultaneous additional variable. Yes, no student/customer/staff-member, should be denied normal service/to-collect-a-paycheck because of their race, color, or origin, by the staff, because the staff members are receiving the taxpayer funded paycheck. So what? Are they trying to say, or infer, or imply, that other students/customers, or staff-members, can't speak their mind about other students/customers, or staff-members, or curriculum, or current events, or past events? With their use of the word antisemitism, it sure gives that impression. The same type of impressions they rely on for starting wars, and getting the population of a country to do their bidding. What someone chooses to do on their off time from a tax paid for job, and what a student/customer chooses to protest, or discuss on or off premises, is not of taxpayer concern. Unless it interferes with another student/customer's education, by preventing access to classes, facilities, etc. No bullshit about your emotions causing distress and a lack of concentration,etc... If a university teacher chose to express a particular view that some find offensive, that would be ok if that teacher also allowed discussion of opposing views, not only from students, but staff, and anyone of the population that is paying the taxes. When someone comes to the university to give a talk/lecture, it should not be interfered with for the same reasons. As well as a counter-argument talk/lecture. That doesn't mean students/staff can't raise questions. They can. If you receive taxpayer money, you will be restrained by the constitution. Students who are paying for their education do not have to be restrained by the constitution. Staff-members, during their off hours, can be antisemites if they want to. Staff-members can also raise offensive topics during conversation, teaching, studying, etc.. So can student/customers. The duty to perform the job remains. Emotional distress, and/or paranoia, and linking it to race/color/origin discrimination, is bullshit.
: Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a
: Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on
: an individual’s race, color, or national origin.
Taxpayers are not concerned with an individual student/customer/staff-member's religion. The attempt by wording here, is to broadly link paranoia/emotions/feelings to race, color, origin, but that doesn't prevent the student/customer/staff-member from saying things that offend a student/customer/staff-member, as you are still receiving the service being paid for, whether you disagree with the discussion/protest/curriculum or not. And I'll remind at this time, non-taxpayer funded businesses and organizations, are free to speak their minds as they see fit, and do not have to obey government rules, because they are not government, nor do they receive government money for performing a government service. And they can refuse to provide service, as well as have someone removed by force, from their place of business, for whatever reason.
: It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce
: Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted
: in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms
: of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.
Gub'ments Gonna gub'ment.
This executive order, like so many government "laws", are redundant statements of preexisting laws, with semantic innuendo added and designed to confuse the population and staff-members working in government funded entities, to slowly boil the frogs..
These repeated attempts by legalese, to obfuscate the law, is an act of criminality. Its also known as constructive fraud. But when its done to a government that was thrust on a population through belligerent means, none of it means anything. There never has been consent by the population. It should be shrugged off, with force if necessary.
The full text of the executive order,
Executive Order 13899 of December 11, 2019
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Policy. My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world. Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or national origin.
It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI.
Sec. 2. Ensuring Robust Enforcement of Title VI. (a) In enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following:
(i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”; and
(ii) the “Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism” identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent.
(b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations.
Sec. 3. Additional Authorities Prohibiting Anti-Semitic Discrimination. Within 120 days of the date of this order, the head of each agency charged with enforcing Title VI shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying additional nondiscrimination authorities within its enforcement authority with respect to which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could be considered.
Sec. 4. Rule of Construction. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter the evidentiary requirements pursuant to which an agency makes a determination that conduct, including harassment, amounts to actionable Start Printed Page 68780discrimination, or to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law.
Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
? THE WHITE HOUSE, December 11, 2019. Filed 12-13-19; 11:15 am]
[FR Doc. 2019-27217
Billing code 3295-F0-P
Examining Trump’s Executive Order With Chuck Baldwin