BLOG

Selective enforcement of the law

After the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, attention from around the world was drawn to that conflict, where the causes had been largely hidden for decades. Pro-Palestinian protests erupted in a number of universities, including Columbia University. Some of the peaceful protesters were attacked by violent pro-Zionists, and I noticed that the mainstream media failed to tell the public the truth about where the violence was originating. They merely made statements that the protests had turned violent, giving the false impression that it was the pro-Palestinians who were attacking Jews. The media also claimed that the pro-Palestine protesters were “pro-Hamas,” thereby mislabeling them for propaganda purposes.

Anyway, President Biden opened up an investigation, which went nowhere. But now President Trump has cut off $400 million in grants to Columbia University, blaming the university for allowing “antisemitism.” The charge is based primarily on the idea that to be anti-Zionist is to be antisemitic—another false label, designed for propaganda.

https://dnyuz.com/2025/03/07/trump-administration-cancels-400-million-in-grants-for-columbia-university/

The Trump administration on Friday announced that it would cancel approximately $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University “due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.”….

First, in 2023, the Department of Education opened investigations into Columbia and six other colleges and universities for potential violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Last May, the Education Department again launched an investigation into Columbia, that time looking into anti-Palestinian discrimination.

The Trump administration is pursing this case based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “national origin.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark civil rights and labor law in the United States that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,^[a] and national origin.

The idea is that all Jews have a national origin in the Israeli state. Again, this assumes that all Jews are Zionists, which is far from true. In fact, I noticed that the pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University included many Jews, and that there were even Hanukkah celebrations at the camps alongside of Muslim prayers.

So if “national origin” is to be applied to Jews in general, what about Russian, Iranians, and others that have been banned or harassed in America since 2014? Remember the Russian ballerinas and sports figures who were discriminated against simply because or their national origin?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russian-artists-athletes-banned-protest-ukraine-war/

Venues across the West are shunning Russian musicians, ballet dancers and films in protest of the war in Ukraine. A Russian cellist, who performed with a Ukrainian pianist and denounced the invasion as "horrifying" and unjustified, said organizers canceled her Switzerland concert, citing her nationality.

"I find it so controversial and so not necessary. I mean, what would this cancellation change in terms of global situation?" musician Anastasia Kobekina told CBS News.

In sports, Russians have also been sidelined. The country's teams are banned from international soccer and hockey tournaments and the Paralympics. Russian tennis players were also barred from participating in the Wimbledon tournament Wednesday.

Sporting events inside Russia, like racing and tennis, have also been canceled by organizers.

The government loves to reinterpret and enforce laws selectively in an unprincipled manner. It seems to me that the US government is opening itself to some huge lawsuits for its boycotts and sanctions policies—most of which are a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if this is how one is to apply that law.

I have never been a fan of government supporting universities, because the net effect of this is to support high salaries of the staff. In every other profession, people are paid according to their market value. But to use government subsidies as a weapon to enforce compliance is the wrong way of handling it. This is a good example of why a department of education should not be in the hands of the federal government.

I am old enough to remember Nixon’s “Revenue Sharing” policy that began in 1972. It is now called the New Federalism.

https://journals.library.wustl.edu/urbanlaw/article/8036/galley/24869/view/

Revenue sharing sounded like free money being handed out, but it was a trap to usurp control over the states. It simply meant that the federal government would increase taxes so that it could give back a certain percentage of the money to the states, as long as they did what they were told. This was a giant leap into power that the Constitution was designed to prevent. The Constitution was not written to give rights to the people. It was written to limit the rights of government and to force the government to recognize that the people’s rights came from God alone.

Today we are a long way from the original idea of limited government. It would be nice to go back to the first principles, but in reality, we will be moving forward into the Kingdom of God.