editorials
Keep the Free Inquiry Rule
I n 2020, the Department of Education issued the
Free Inquiry Rule, which requires public and private
institutions of higher education that receive Education
Department grants to uphold free-speech principles
on campus. If a court fi nds a violation of the rule, the
off ending institution is subject to sanctions from DOE,
including possible loss of federal funding.

Many Jewish communal advocates — and particularly
pro-Israel campus advocates — applauded the rule.

They saw it as a means to assure protection for
Jewish students on campus, and particularly pro-Israel
students, who were ostracized, forced out of student
government or otherwise coerced into silence because
of their religious affi liation or public expressions
of support for Israel. Now, with the rule in place,
universities need to be more vigilant and sensitive to
anti-Israel and other biases on their campuses, or risk
losing government funding.

In February, DOE sought public comment on a
proposed revision to the rule that would remove the
added layer of protection for religious student groups
on campus. The stated rationale for the change is that
extra protection for religious groups is not necessary
because universities already have fully compliant and
enforceable free-speech protections in place. And,
proponents of the revision argue, the additional layer
of protection imposed by the current version of the rule
will only generate more litigation.

Among those commenting on the proposed change
is the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a
public interest advocacy group that has represented
Jewish students who claim religious discrimination
on campus. (Brandeis Center is not affi liated with
Brandeis University.) In a fi ve-page letter to DOE, the
Brandeis Center explains why the religious student
group protection under the rule is necessary; how
Brandeis Center has used the rule and its religious
group protections as leverage in representing aff ected
students and groups; and why it makes sense to
hold universities accountable for the First Amendment
protections they promise their students — and liable for
any breach of that promise.

We agree with the Brandeis Center. And we are
puzzled by what is driving the DOE’s concern.

DOE is (or should be) well aware of the disturbing
spike in antisemitic activity on college campuses
and the targeting of pro-Israel student advocates.

DOE should be doing everything it can to stop such
behavior and encourage meaningful responses to
such activities, including insistence on full enforcement
of the rule’s religious protection provisions if that can
be helpful. But DOE seems to be worried that the
rule gives religious groups too much protection. This
begs the question: Is there harm in giving religious
groups enhanced protection on campus? Are there
rights of others that DOE is worried would be infringed
or threatened if Jewish and other religious groups
on campus are protected against infringement of
their First Amendment rights? And shouldn’t it be the
responsibility of universities to protect all their students,
including religious students, who are targeted for their
exercise of otherwise protected speech?
These are not tough questions. DOE should not be
looking to roll back student protections on campus.

It should be fi guring out ways to enhance them. DOE
should retain the Free Inquiry Rule. ■
I n the 75 years of Israel’s existence, the Jewish
state has developed a strong, multi-faceted military
establishment, complete with an army, navy and air
force; a full-service domestic police system, including
riot police and SWAT teams; and a comprehensive suite
of military, security and political intelligence services.

Does Israel also need a national guard to help keep
internal order?
The answer is “yes,” according to the Netanyahu
government, which voted last week to create a national
guard. As part of the move, the Knesset directed that
funding for the guard’s more than 1 billion-shekel budget
be taken from 1.5% of the budgets of all of Israel’s other
ministries. And if things play out the way proponents
have suggested, the national guard will be placed
under the direct command of National Security Minister
Itamar Ben-Gvir, the fi rebrand hard-right leader who
demanded the creation of the guard and explained that
it would deal with “emergency scenarios, nationalistic
crime, terror and strengthening sovereignty.”
The idea for a national guard force has been under
consideration since 2021, when rioting broke out on the
West Bank and in Israeli cities with mixed Arab-Jewish
populations. But the plan was not pursued after the
government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
fell. Now back in offi ce, Netanyahu has moved the plan
forward to keep Ben-Gvir and his Jewish Power party
10 APRIL 13, 2023 | JEWISH EXPONENT
from a threatened withdrawal
from the 64-member governing
coalition and toppling the
government. Ben-Gvir sharply
criticized Netanyahu for putting
a pause on the government’s
divisive judicial overhaul plan,
and something needed to be
done to keep Ben-Gvir happy.

Ben-Gvir seems to have
Prime Minister
National Security Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu
Itamar Ben-Gvir
played his hand well. He is
now poised to be handed what
critics call his own private militia, which could give him not. But, in the meantime, the prime minister quieted
free rein to advance his right-wing agenda and hit hard his most extreme minister and bought himself some
at anti-government Jewish demonstrators, Israel’s Arab time.

citizens and West Bank Palestinians while providing
Netanyahu’s apparent payoff of Ben-Gvir is distasteful.

backup to his fellow settlers.

And if things play out as Ben-Gvir demands, it is also
Netanyahu knows that’s a potential problem. So, he dangerous. The national guard plan has generated
inserted some conditions and further levels of review opposition from both Israeli law enforcement offi cials
in the national guard process. As a result, Ben-Gvir and civilian critics, who warn against the formation of
won’t just be handed the new force — at least not yet. a unit that is independent of the police hierarchy and
It could take months to recruit the guard’s planned under political direction, which could “cause damage to
1,800 members. And even before that, a committee personal safety, waste [of] resources and break Israel’s
composed of all the Israeli security agencies will spend police from within.” These are serious concerns.

90 days discussing what powers the new force will
We trust that the inter-agency task force will examine
have and what its chain of command will be. The result these concerns and address them. Israel needs to keep
could be a dilution of Ben-Gvir’s intended infl uence, or politics out of its police force. ■
Netanyahu: State Department photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain; Ben-Gvir: Photo by David Danberg
A Gift to Ben-Gvir?