Interesting article. It is unfortunate that the defense towards Shrier's attack was to say, "Don't worry, UTLA is ok with Israel committing genocide!" The simplest, and only necessary, refutation to Shrier needed is as follows: criticizing what Israel does is not, and has never been, and never will be, "anti-semitism".
You did an excellent job of showing how Shrier overstated her case. Your defense of the actions by teachers to facilitate student activity was also welcome, and I hope it is read widely by people outside the profession. I also loved your comment about how you couldn't get a group of teachers to show up even if you offered free pizza and beer. That was on point.
However, I do not agree the Human Rights Committee was wasting dues by meeting or trying to move UTLA's leadership. Our city, state, and federal government are not passively watching events in Gaza (also, the West Bank, occupied territories, Lebanon, Syria, et cetera). They are actively supporting Israel's actions and have been for several decades. Therefore, I would argue that it does affect us if only, in the most cynical manner, financially. As a consequence, the committee should have met to discuss the issue as citizens.
Thank you for your article. I think anything that will get me to spend time on a Sunday afternoon to write a comment is a great read. I appreciate your writing.
I don't know if you read my earlier piece but in that one I do address the fact that it's unclear at least to me that supporting Palestine is automatically antisemitic, and that the parent lawsuits seem to be saying that it is.
The HRC is meeting on the union members dime, and I'm just not in favor of any employment group taking stands on non-employment related topics. But I agree that, given the UTLA's penchant for involvement in all sorts of issues I don't like, there's nothing uniquely conspiratorial about this particular cause.
Interesting article. It is unfortunate that the defense towards Shrier's attack was to say, "Don't worry, UTLA is ok with Israel committing genocide!" The simplest, and only necessary, refutation to Shrier needed is as follows: criticizing what Israel does is not, and has never been, and never will be, "anti-semitism".
You did an excellent job of showing how Shrier overstated her case. Your defense of the actions by teachers to facilitate student activity was also welcome, and I hope it is read widely by people outside the profession. I also loved your comment about how you couldn't get a group of teachers to show up even if you offered free pizza and beer. That was on point.
However, I do not agree the Human Rights Committee was wasting dues by meeting or trying to move UTLA's leadership. Our city, state, and federal government are not passively watching events in Gaza (also, the West Bank, occupied territories, Lebanon, Syria, et cetera). They are actively supporting Israel's actions and have been for several decades. Therefore, I would argue that it does affect us if only, in the most cynical manner, financially. As a consequence, the committee should have met to discuss the issue as citizens.
Thank you for your article. I think anything that will get me to spend time on a Sunday afternoon to write a comment is a great read. I appreciate your writing.
I don't know if you read my earlier piece but in that one I do address the fact that it's unclear at least to me that supporting Palestine is automatically antisemitic, and that the parent lawsuits seem to be saying that it is.
The HRC is meeting on the union members dime, and I'm just not in favor of any employment group taking stands on non-employment related topics. But I agree that, given the UTLA's penchant for involvement in all sorts of issues I don't like, there's nothing uniquely conspiratorial about this particular cause.
Glad you liked the article!