This op-ed was originally published in Tampa Bay Times.

It is distressing to see folks suckered by President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s ruse that censorship is needed to protect us from the evils of anti-Semitism.

This is the president who, just last month, told Congress and the world that “I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America.” Notwithstanding the hypocrisy (or outright deceit), college students expressing Palestinian sympathies are the target du jure. Those who are foreign students are being arrested and set for deportation.

But criticism of the government and policies of Israel is not anti-Semitism. Note the people of Israel who regularly take to the streets in the thousands — to save their country from the Netanyahu government.

Trump is crudely pandering to the understandable anxiety of the Jewish community about a rise of anti-Semitism. But the manipulative strategy is designed to achieve the larger goal of control over universities — forcing universities to abandon their role as a forum for airing and examining all ideas.

I come to this discussion as an American Jew who has harbored civil libertarian values for as long as I can remember. Values that crystallized in my first weeks on a college campus.

I recall being drawn to the lawn of the City College of New York by the sounds of a rally of (according to news accounts) 1,000 students protesting a ban on communist speakers.

I reached the rally just as the chair of the Political Science department, who noted that he was also representing the American Civil Liberties Union, condemned the speaker ban by reciting the argument against censorship from John Stuart Mill’s classic essay “On Liberty.”

I was transfixed by the power of ideas.

In less than 10 years, I was teaching Mill’s essay to the next generation of lawyers at a midwestern university. By then, I had found an intellectual home in the ACLU, the nation’s foremost defender of free speech.

A few years later, I am an ACLU state director defending free speech in synagogues throughout Michigan during what, in retrospect, has been called “ACLU’s finest hour” — courageously defending the right of American Nazis to march in the heavily Jewish Chicago suburb of Skokie. The Illinois ACLU lawyer was, not surprisingly, Jewish.

I bear the name of the head of what was the European branch of my family who the Nazis murdered. Yet there I was trying to convince an audience that in America, Jews (and other minorities) ultimately benefit from our system of freedom of expression, in which there may be horrible ideas, but no illegal ideas.

Trump and Rubio are stretching to claim that college student protestors expressing sympathy for the Palestinian cause are “distributing Hamas propaganda” or ”acting on behalf of, in concert with or raising funds for terrorist activities or terrorist organizations.” They are also stretching by using McCarthy-era scare words when national anxiety about communism led to the trashing of First Amendment freedoms.

College protestors certainly disrupted campuses and may have harassed Jewish students, particularly those in counter-demonstrations. These, however, are violations of university rules that should be dealt with by the university.

More debate about the war in Gaza, not less, is sorely needed. There is plenty of blame to go around. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas brutally and viscously murdered approximately 1,200 innocent Israeli and American Jews, and the fate of hostages remaining in captivity under horrendous conditions is still unknown. But the war also caused the deaths (and destroyed the homes, schools and hospitals) of tens of thousands of women and children who had nothing to do with the October 7 attack by Hamas.

Many Jewish families like mine are passionately committed to the post-WW II vision of a homeland for the world’s Jews, but understand that by sabotaging a two-state solution, threatening land annexation and conducting total war on the people of Gaza, Netanyahu has made Israel less secure, not more.

If there is a beacon to guide us out of this morass, it is the First Amendment’s admonition to distinguish between odious ideas and illegal actions.

Supreme Court Justice William Brennan succinctly stated when overturning the prohibition on sending communist literature via the postal service: “Preserving the free flow of ideas across borders is vital to maintaining a robust democracy.”

So my appeal, especially to my fellow Jews, is that we are best served by holding fast to the values of free speech and ill-served by surrendering the power over what is permissible to say and think to government.

Silencing anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian voices to quell anti-Semitism may be a satisfying short-term sugar high. But we will bemoan the loss of free speech and academic freedom if we allow federal and state leaders to make America replicate Viktor Orban’s Hungary.

Howard L. Simon, PhD, served as executive director of the ACLU of Michigan from 1974–1997, and executive director of the ACLU of Florida from 1997–2018. He resides in Gainesville, Florida and is president of Clean Okeechobee Waters Foundation, Inc.

*indicates name changed to protect identity

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) has historically worked to ensure that all students have equal access to quality public education. In February, the ED departed from its role of protecting students’ civil rights. In its February 14th “Dear Colleague Letter,” the ED threatened to revoke federal funding from any educational institution that engages in what it described as “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) work. However, the ED has not defined what it considers to be “illegal DEI” and, from preschool to higher ed, its vague prohibitions in the letter are making it harder for educators, administrators, and students to deliver on and receive an education that explores a wide range of perspectives – including students’ own lived experiences – and encourages critical thinking.

The letter states that any undefined diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, practices are unlawful. It requires educators to act now to revise their lessons or suffer complaints, investigations, and the loss of vital federal funding. The letter failed to follow legal procedures for issuing such demands. If enforced, public schools and universities nationwide could be punished simply for teaching standard topics, like American history, or creating classrooms where each student feels safe to discuss the reality of our lives. Threats that the letter may be enforced have already caused teachers to self-censor.

But the ED does not have the authority to control what schools teach. Educators must be free to design lessons that give students the complete education they deserve, including those that teach history honestly and celebrate diversity. On March 5th, the ACLU, alongside our New Hampshire and Massachusetts affiliates, as well as the National Education Association (NEA), sued the ED on behalf of NEA, NEA-NH, and the Center for Black Educator Development to stop the ED’s unconstitutional intrusion on free speech and academic freedom. Several New Hampshire School Districts have also joined to assert their rights and protect their students.

“It’s clear that the Trump administration is trying to shut down speech it doesn’t like — especially when it deals with race in our educational institutions,” says Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU. “The ‘Dear ColleagueLetter’ is a brazen attempt to intimidate schools into abandoning lawful efforts to create inclusive learning environments.”

The educators represented in our suit against the ED said they felt like the “Dear Colleague Letter” instigated a “witch hunt” against them. Teachers who have dedicated their lives to helping every student grow into their full potential now fear losing their jobs and teaching licenses if they do not severely restrict what they and their students say and do in their classrooms.

Jordan*, an AP English teacher, describes feeling like their hands are tied. To keep students engaged and prepared for the AP exam, Jordan encourages them to connect older texts to their lived experiences and current events — an approach backed by state certification standards. But under the ED’s letter, even the most thoughtful lesson plans can be misunderstood as a violation of its guidelines. Jordan is now afraid that by allowing discussions of sexism, racism, or colonialism, even when students introduce them, they risk being accused of indoctrination.

“I don’t tell my students what to think,” Jordan says. “That is not teaching. I fear they are losing valuable analytical training and preparation for college if they cannot generate their own opinions on challenging works from our past and connect them to their world today.”

Taylor*, an assistant professor whose research focuses on Indigenous narratives, is already self-censoring. The ED’s vague rules have them worried that topics vital for understanding history and different viewpoints, like colonialism and feminist theory, could be wrongly seen as discriminatory. “As long as the letter is effective,” Taylor notes, “I cannot fully perform my role as an educator and speak freely on these critical topics.”

This self-censorship hurts students. Taylor has always encouraged students to draw on their lived experiences when engaging with course materials. But now, they are hesitant to invite those reflections or even respond to them in class. “I am committed to hearing all my students’ voices,” Taylor explains. “I am concerned that this commitment will become illegal.”

Taylor’s experience is but one of the inevitable consequences of Trump’s war on allegedly “woke” concepts. Since 2020, Trump and other anti-public education extremists have banned books and censored programs and curriculum that address systematic racism and sexism. The ACLU and our partners challenged these three of these efforts, but today, anti-DEI efforts remain the latest effort to erase marginalized communities.

For Billie*, a special education professor, after the Dear Colleague Letter was issued, their university ordered faculty to remove all references to DEI from course descriptions, including words like “disability,” “inclusion,” and “culturally responsive.”

Billie is concerned about the ability to meet the needs of special education students who are diverse in many ways, or share with students materials about the history of the disability rights movement and the fight for inclusion. These changes also conflict with national standards for special education teachers that Billie has prepared students to meet. They, too, come at a moment when schools across the country face a critical shortage of special education teachers. “If we can’t train teachers to meet the needs of diverse learners,” Billie warns, “students with disabilities will suffer.”

That impact is already being felt by the next generation of educators. Jesse*, a student teacher, has had their courses revised because of the ED’s letter, and describes feeling a decline in the quality of their education. Among other changes, their university is removing its education DEI course, taking away critical tools for supporting students from different backgrounds. Jesse lives in a city with a large immigrant population from Mexico and West Africa. They only want to be sure that their future students “can see themselves in the learning and feel welcome in class,” they say. But now, without coursework on cultural understanding and responsiveness, they worry that they will not be fully prepared to do this.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment,” said middle school teacher and president of the National Education Association, Becky Pringle.

When schools cannot teach about the world — including the histories and lived experiences of people of different races, genders, and abilities — students lose the chance to understand themselves, relate to others, and thrive in a diverse society. DEI initiatives allow students to hear a full range of perspectives, even those some anti-public education politicians don’t like.

At the ACLU, we know that classrooms must be shaped by the needs of students, not political agendas or vague legal threats. For more than a century, we have fought federal overreach to silence free speech. We will not back down now.