Yesterday the ACLU posted an electrifying piece by Esther Koontz, a curriculum coach in the Wichita public schools: “Kansas won’t let me train math teachers because I boycott Israel.”
A day earlier, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Kansas commissioner of education on behalf of Koontz– saying that a new Kansas law requiring all state contractors to certify that they aren’t boycotting Israel violates the First Amendment because it imposes an “ideological litmus test” on beliefs and associations.
Koontz is a Middle American if ever there was one. She is married to a Mennonite pastor. She decided to boycott Israel after teachings at her church. She taught math for many years.
Last spring she was chosen to participate in a state program that trains public school math teachers all over Kansas. But in June Kansas passed its law against contracts with boycotters of Israel. She writes:
That law affects me personally. As a member of the Mennonite Church USA, and a person concerned with the human rights of all people — and specifically the ongoing violations of Palestinians’ human rights in Israel and Palestine — I choose to boycott consumer goods made by Israeli and international companies that profit from the violation of Palestinians’ rights.
The law went into effect in July, and the state sent Koontz a certification form to affirm that she does not boycott Israel.
I was stunned. It seems preposterous that my decision to participate in a political boycott should have any effect on my ability to work for the state of Kansas.
After waiting for several weeks and considering my options, I emailed back and told the official I could not sign the certificate as a matter of conscience. Could I still participate in the state’s training program? She responded that, unfortunately, I could not.
Koontz also says in the piece that she endorsed BDS, boycott, divestment and sanctions, last fall during a church teaching that convinced her that BDS “could help bring about an end to the Israeli government’s occupation, in the same way those tactics helped dismantle apartheid in South Africa.”
Meantime, ACLU staff attorney Brian Hauss, who sued on Koontz’s behalf, wrote a piece for Haaretz affirming the right to boycott. He also cited South Africa.
From the Boston Tea Party to the Montgomery bus boycott to the campaign to divest from businesses operating in apartheid South Africa, political boycotts have been a proud part of this country’s constitutional tradition.
I don’t understand why this isn’t in the New York Times!
Here are some excerpts from Hauss’s lawsuit, filed two days ago in federal court in Kansas. The Kansas law barring contracts with boycott supporters was aimed at free speech about Palestinian conditions and Israeli actions:
The Act’s legislative history indicates that one of its principal objectives is to suppress participation in boycott campaigns aimed at Israel, particularly Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (“BDS”) campaigns, which seek to apply economic pressure on Israel to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories and Israel…
In the House Budget Committee hearing, Representative Powell “explained his support for the legislation” by “emphasiz[ing] the unique relationship between the United States and Israel, and Israel’s standing as one of the few democracies in the Middle East.”
Proponent Margie Robinow testified that, “[w]ithout a stance against BDS, the hearts and minds are lost for the next generation, along with the economic impact.”
The suit tells us of Koontz’s close association with the Mennonite Church, and her path to boycott:
Ms. Koontz is a member of the Mennonite Church USA. Her husband has been a Mennonite pastor from 2006 to 2011, and from 2013 to the present. They have three children and have been members of the First Mennonite Church, Hutchinson, for four years.
In the fall of 2016, a member of Ms. Koontz’s congregation made a series of presentations about his recent tour of Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. Over the course of eight sessions, Ms. Koontz and members of her congregation watched video presentations from non-governmental organizations, children’s rights advocates, former soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces, and others about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians.
At the conclusion of the series, the presenter asked the gathered congregation members to consider boycott, divestment, and sanctions activity. Ms. Koontz left the meeting with the conviction that she needed to do her part to support the Palestinians’ struggle for equality. She came to the conclusion that her economic decisions should reflect her values, even if that simply meant refusing to buy certain consumer products…
Accepting the calls from her church, “Ms. Koontz is engaged in a boycott of consumer goods and services offered by Israeli companies and international companies operating in Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.”
Ms. Koontz does not limit her boycott to products produced by companies operating in the settlements because she believes that the Israeli economy as a whole profits from the occupation and because she also wants to protest the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinian citizens living in Israel.
And by the way it’s about the U.S. too:
Through her boycott participation, Ms. Koontz seeks to protest the Israeli government’s actions, as well as the U.S. government’s support for those actions
The ACLU says the law that went into effect in July violates the First Amendment because it “imposes an ideological litmus test and compels speech related to state contractors’ protected political beliefs and associations.”
@Phil
It’s not in the NYTimes because it is a fundraising gimmick for the ACLU. Her version of events is unlikely, I’d say the most likely outcome is she loses on standing. No exciting 1st amendment debate at all.
Here is the problem with the case in brief. She claims she was going to hired as a “contractor”. “any individual or company seeking a contract with the state ” . So first off contract as what. Does she mean she was going to be a W2 temporary employee? They why would they be applying a business document that they ask of companies? If they do that’s a procedural error on that part of that agency. The next possibility would be a 1099 an individual without an underlying but that’s very unlikely for a state agency. And while I’ve never done business with Kansas I suspect illegal.
So probably there is some LLC call it Ester Koontz LLC this paperwork was directed at. Ester Koontz LLC may pass money through to Ester Koontz but it is not Ester Koontz. The LLC doesn’t boycott Israel, the managing director does in her personal life. So all that happened is the managing director of an LLC she refused to sign a document indicating that her LLC does not discriminate on the basis of national origin. Most likely she didn’t understand the document (most Americans don’t understand the distinction between these various corporate classification, it doesn’t come up if you aren’t doing anything complex).
Her lawsuit is based on the state having offered her a contract, and I suspect that Kansas is going to argue she was never offered a contract at all. No exciting first amendment case. No big showdown on BDS. Nothing of the sort. And even if they did offer her a contract Kansas is going to rightfully just argue the means of redress is to fix the procedural error.
That’s why there is no coverage. We just have a school teacher who just doesn’t understand tax law and the ACLU grabbing some headlines for fundraising on a case I suspect they know will blow up. But it will blow up harmlessly while they wait for a much better case.
There are other possibilities of course. But this is a not a good case.
And before I get posts below about first amendment stuff. Read what I wrote. There are no first Amendment issues unless you want to agree with Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores that corporations are entitled to religious opinions. And before you go there think through what that means for just about every anti-discrimination and anti-corruption rule affecting government contractors.
Public schools are no joke. They are corporations designed to silence teachers.
“Her version of events is unlikely”.
Really? What about her version strikes you as unlikely?
The law did not go into effect in July? That’s pretty easy to check.
Or the state did not send Koontz a certification form to affirm that she does not boycott Israel? How else would they monitor this to enforce the law?
Or she really was not denied the chance to go to the training for the job? She refused to affirm that she does not boycott Israel — but they hired her anyway?
What is wrong with you JeffB?
These types of ridiculously unconstitutional laws need to be litigated in a court of law. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant” for these types of hasbara vermin trolls.
@- JeffB
“It’s not in the NYTimes because it is a fundraising gimmick for the ACLU. Her version of events is unlikely, I’d say the most likely outcome is she loses on standing. No exciting 1st amendment debate at all.”
I disagree on all your points.
You say Ms. Koontz’s version of events is unlikely…according to whom, exactly, other than yourself?
Irrespective of how this case actually plays out, I believe it to be one of major Constitutional proportions. Here’s why: Even if it is dismissed, it will not be the last case to emerge from Zionism’s ill-advised political efforts to delegitimate BDS through legislation (lawfare). Courts can see through that and they know when they are being played. If you are correct and Ms. Koontz is denied standing other cases will emerge because the question of whether or not states can violate/ignore/erase the right to boycott – a right the SCOTUS has spoken to specifically and upheld – is not going to just go away.
Zionism’s recent record in US courts is underwhelming, consider Zivotofsky vs. Clinton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zivotofsky_v._Clinton
Zionism tends to do better in the political and media realms…not so much in the courts where the rights and privileges of ordinary Americans must be respected.
Zionism was ill advised to pursue these anti-BDS laws in the face of settled judicial precedent on the American right-to-boycott: a Zionist “victory” here is hard to imagine and a defeat would have negative, wide-ranging and long term impacts on its efforts to put the BDS genie back in the Hasbara Bottle.
It is also worth noting that historically Zionism has used boycotts/embargoes/trade barriers whenever it served its purposes. Two salient examples are the Zionist boycotts of Arab labor and businesses in the 1930’s during the early days of colonization in Palestine and more recently in the 1980’s when American Zionism called on the US to deny Most Favored Nation (MFN) status to the USSR over the issue of Jewish emigration to Israel (Jackson-Vanik).
It would appear that Zionism opposes boycotts except when it doesn’t.
JeffB…please point out all my errors. Thank you.
Zionist “No Trade No Aid” poster:
http://www.palestineposterproject.org/poster/no-trade-no-aid-till-soviet-jews-are-free
300 historic Palestine posters on boycotts/divestment/sanctions:
http://www.palestineposterproject.org/special-collection/bdsboycotts