On 16 August 2022, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed “Executive Order 2023-118: Adopting Working Definition of Antisemitism.” The E.O.’s second paragraph states, “Jewish people continue to be a targeted minority in the United States and New Mexico; for instance, data shows [sic] that Jews are consistently the most likely of all religious groups to be victimized by incidents of hate, and that such incidents are increasing at an alarming rate.”
Although I am a Jew not insensitive to antisemitism and know that Jews and Jewish institutions are occasional targets of antisemitic attacks in the United States and New Mexico, I am unaware that they are a prevalent or proliferating risk. The numbers of attacks are small, the rates of occurrence are low, and the consequences are limited.
According to Claudia Silva, The Santa Fe New Mexican (14,15 May 2022), “Report: New Mexico has few antisemitism incidents, sees decline.” The data reported by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) show no such incidents between 2002 and 2015, a spike to 15 in 2017, and a slide thereafter, and from 8 in 2020 to 6 in 2021. The current ratio of incidents to population is miniscule, about three in one million. A spike during the Trump administration is no surprise (another spike in another Trump administration will be no surprise).
So what is the problem? Nothing obvious. Not headline-grabbing “incidents of hate” like attacks on worshippers or fire-bombing of synagogues. Not police blotter incidents of paint thrown on synagogues, gravestones overturned, Jews mugged on the street. Not lack of coverage under “The New Mexico Human Rights Act,” to which the E. O. refers; its provisions already cover discrimination in many matters on the basis of religion. Yet the E.O. orders and directs the use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, which provides a long and detailed list of examples.
Notably missing from that list, however, are subtle kinds of antisemitism, including denial of or quotas on admission to educational institutions; denial of admissions to social clubs, business organizations, the professions; housing and residential restrictions; different treatment under the law, including denial of rights or perfunctory police services; among others. Some of my family members were affected. My father could not join a business club until his associates spearheaded a revision of its by-laws. My father-in-law had to conceal his Jewish identity to become an architect and urban planner.
I, too, have been affected. The Las Cruces Police Department and the City Attorney either did not take my complaint of an officer’s antisemitic motive for five phony code violations seriously or took it so seriously that they chose to ignore them. The IA officer questioned the code officer about that motive. He had two answers. The first was a flat denial, which the IA officer accepted at face value. The second was the claim, which the IA officer also accepted at face value, that all other code officers would have done as he had. Although the IA officer had concluded that the charges lacked proof or evidence, he accepted the implication that all code officers would have charged me with five phony violations without any antisemitic motive. Quite an admission—all code officers hand out phony charges—made to avoid addressing antisemitism appropriately.
Ignored locally, I filed a complaint with the NM Attorney General, Hector Balderas; I received no reply. I wrote to NM Governor Grisham about his failure to respond; I got no reply. I filed a second complaint with Balderas; I got no reply. After this E.O. came to my attention, I contacted Grisham’s office but, after the usual one-and-done call if one misses a return call from the legal office which invites a call-back, I called back but have had no return call. So who really cares? LCPD? City Attorney? Balderas? Grisham?
Even if this E.O. is intended to supplement “The New Mexico Human Rights Act,” the facts about diminishing antisemitic attacks make it odd that Grisham has singled out Jews. Many explanations are possible. One is that antisemitism is so poorly understood that some pointed reference to an official definition and characterization of it is needed to educate state, county, and local officials. Another is that it responds to complaints about antisemitism by officials at various governmental levels. If my experience is any indication, it will do nothing to address antisemitism in a local government pervasively antisemitic. So a third is that the E.O. is a political act to neutralize complaints about antisemitism during her term in office, in her administration, or in her. If the latter, it suggests that “the lady doth protest too much.” Of course, it may be both instruction and protection. Whatever, it opposes antisemitism—a good thing. Still, the timing of its release at the start of the election season makes its good faith suspect.
No comments:
Post a Comment