Tag: politics

Huda Beauty, Sephora, and the Betrayal of Inclusivity Culture

Here is a quote by Huda Kattan, creator of Huda Beauty, in a video posted to her millions of followers.  TikTok says it took down the video for spreading harmful misinformation, although Huda says she took the video down herself because it was being misconstrued.

“All of the conspiracy theories coming out and a lot of evidence behind them — that Israel has been behind World War I, World War II, September 11, October 7 — they allowed all of this stuff to happen. Is this crazy?  Like, I had a feeling — I was like, ‘Are they behind every world war?’ Yes.”

(This goes on.)

Huda’s follow-up video claimed that she was being smeared due to her activism supporting Palestine. Neutral sources, like cosmetics blogs, are omitting what she said in the original video when discussing the issue.

Every country should be criticized, without fear of government reprisal, if you disagree with its policies or actions.  That is our First Amendment right in this country, and it is one of our most precious, and most exceptional, rights. But why are we allowing people to disguise hate as activism and profit off it by using private businesses who claim to value inclusivity?

What did Huda mean in claiming that Israel is behind WW2, where millions of Jews were systematically exterminated in countries across Europe. Jews living in Israel (which wasn’t an official state at the time) did fight in WW2 for the Allies, against the Nazis.

Jews in America were also committed to fighting the Nazis. My great-uncle, who is American, helped liberate Auschwitz. My grandfather fought in Normandy. They both received Purple Hearts for being wounded as soldiers.

And what did Huda mean that the state of Israel was behind WW1? The modern state of Israel did not exist, and accusing Jews of instigating WW1 is straight Nazi propaganda, and was in Hamas’s original 1988 Charter, which also contained tenets about killing all Jews, everywhere.

The idea that Israel or Jews were behind 9/11 is a globally repeated and false anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. The terrorist group Al Qaeda took full responsibility for the attacks, killing many Jews who worked in NYC. There is no evidence that anyone else is responsible besides Al Qaeda.

And, of course, blaming Israel for 10/7 is what people say to excuse the horrors filmed gleefully by so many who poured into Israel to murder families in their pajamas and take over 200 hostages (including children).  There are still hostages alive in Gaza now; Hamas has filmed some of them in order to make more propaganda and psychologically torture their families.

Whatever your views on Israel/Palestine, it’s alarming that Huda’s claims need to be disputed. So many people are still supporting her. Supporting Palestine in its fight for freedom cannot mean parroting dangerous anti-Semitic tropes or attempting to rewrite history.

Huda Beauty promotes inclusivity as part of its brand. Inclusivity culture is quite profitable, as is Huda Beauty.

Sephora, the popular beauty retailer that sells Huda Beauty, has been asked to drop Huda Beauty from its shelves. Sephora has ended relationships with other beauty brands for misconduct, including Olivia Jade. Sephora is now reviewing its relationship with Huda Beauty, but it is unclear why Sephora needs a multi-day investigation to suss out that Israel is not behind the Holocaust.

Sephora, which sells Huda Beauty, also prides itself on inclusivity, either because inclusivity culture is profitable or Sephora cares about the concept as a principle. Right now, Sephora seems to be putting profits over principles, as Huda, across her platforms, has many more followers than there are Jews in the world. Huda Kattan has not corrected her misstatements.

Inclusivity as a principle is a laudable goal. If you truly believe in inclusivity, in a principled not a partisan way, it means appreciating beauty in so many people. It means allowing many different voices to share their experiences, to be part of something, to care about and find the truth by making spaces welcoming to people of different backgrounds and perspectives. It is the sentiment behind Grutter (since overturned) that allowed universities to maintain affirmative action programs against equal protection challenges because diversity was an important goal in the classroom.

We learn better when exposed to different types of people. As a free speech scholar, I fully support this vision of inclusivity.

Inclusivity culture in practice is too often the opposite of how it should be in theory. Of course, some people still favor principle over ideology, but many who preach inclusivity rhetoric promote acceptance of their favored groups at the expense of other groups.

Many (not all) involved in inclusivity rhetoric also don’t care about truth – they begin with a particular ideology and then cherry-pick facts to fit that narrative. It’s been hard to watch people who profess tolerance twist themselves into hypocritical knots to justify the gross generalizations they make about anyone not in their preferred ingroups.

It is difficult to draw lines. Too much censorship happens when we claim that certain views are bigoted. We need to allow a wide range of views to be discussed so we can all be enlightened by different perspectives. But there are views that seem intolerant, and then there are false statements of fact that malign entire groups. And while we also have our First Amendment rights to utter those false statements, because the government cannot be trusted to fairly and accurately determine which accounts are sufficiently true or false, we as private individuals do not need to accept conspiracy theories and lies. These are the enemy of truth and enlightenment, and inclusivity.

Sephora has every right to keep Huda Beauty on its shelves.  That is part of the freedom we cherish. But if people profiting from messages of inclusivity promote millionaires parroting literal Nazi talking points, then inclusivity culture has fully jumped the shark.

Deporting People for Pure Speech is Likely Unconstitutional (even under Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project) and Undermines American Exceptionalism

I am a First Amendment scholar. I protect the right of all to protest in accordance with free speech values. I also have personal and professional reasons to be concerned about some of the protests that have overtaken some university campuses.

Taking over buildings, shouting down classes and speakers, and assaulting staff is not speech. Some of those protest tactics seek to shut down dialog or use coercive, non-expressive methods to make change. Federal laws like Title VI, which prohibits discrimination and harassment that deprives students of their ability to receive their education, should be employed against some of the illegal takeovers of universities.

That said, what I love about this country is our tolerance for a wide variety of views, from enlightened and open-minded to the un-nuanced, ignorant, crass, or hateful views. Our free speech tradition is second to none. We have not always been perfect, but we have upheld the First Amendment rights of the following diverse speakers: Jehovah’s witnesses who didn’t want to salute the flag or put “Live Free or Die” on their license plates, neo-Nazis who wanted to march in a town of recent Holocaust survivors, protesters who want to burn the American flag, professors who don’t want to have to follow the orthodoxy of their institutions or want to place controversial and offensive items on their final exams, Communist professors who do not want to share their lecture notes or associations, nonprofit corporations who want to amass funds to create political documentaries, advertisements by civil rights leaders criticizing the sheriff of Montgomery Alabama, artists who wish do not wish to be compelled to create things that undermine their religious beliefs, students who wear armbands to protest war, a man who put the F word on a jacket to a courthouse to protest the draft, and so many more.

The way that the Trump administration is pursuing the deportations of foreign students flies in the face of this grand tradition. I am profoundly troubled by this administration’s justifications for arresting and pursuing deportation of students on visas and green card holders.

The administration’s interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act is that it has full discretion to deport people deemed enemies of the state or those who assist terrorist groups like Hamas. An interpretation of the laws that allows deportations of people purely for expressing political views would likely be a violation of the First Amendment, even if we can originally deny visas to those who advocate for the overthrow of our country or have certain affiliations. As applied to pure speech, the law is vague and viewpoint discriminatory.

There is precedent where national security interests override free speech concerns. For example, in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that prohibited nonprofits from advising designated foreign terrorist organizations, even on how to conduct peaceful diplomacy. In that case, however, the meaning of “training” or “expert advice or assistance” was not considered vague by the Supreme Court. Those facts are in stark contrast to applying immigration law to a wide range of views about Israel and Palestinian rights.

In addition, the Supreme Court recently upheld the forced sale or ban of TikTok, partially on the grounds that the law did not implicate speech because it allowed for a divestiture and partially on the government’s stated national security concerns. The Supreme Court does give a great deal of deference to the government in articulating national security concerns. But this deference can only go so far. There was no notice in the Immigration and Nationality Act that merely writing an opinion piece, for example, would be equated with serving a terrorist organization.

But even if our Constitution would technically allow these deportations, because of the interaction between free speech rights and immigration discretion with national security interests, it is the wrong path to take. If Mahmoud Kahlil is being detained for assisting protesters in taking over a building, charge him with that. If Rumeysa Ozturk has done anything besides write an op ed in a student newspaper, please put forth this evidence. Currently, it appears that the administration is equating pure speech with illegal conduct. This flies in the face of our free speech doctrine and ultimately will erode speech for all of us and embolden illegal protests. If just text is outlawed, then people will also resort to the illegal methods we wish to curtail. Dialog, understanding, and knowledge is what we should be promoting.

In his seminal dissent in Abrams v. United States, Justice Holmes said that the American experiment, and the free speech experiment, was to let all ideas come to the surface for testing.

“But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment.”

Justice Jackson, in his remarkable Barnette opinion, held that “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

This is the way. This is the way to show patriotism, and it is the best way to support Jewish constituents while honoring the free speech traditions that benefit us all. Arresting people for what appears to be pure, political speech leads only down the totalitarian path. The administration should pursue those who engage in illegal conduct, or seek to deprive the rest of us of our right to express our opinions. But targeting people living and studying in this country purely for the conclusions they have reached is wrong, unjust, un-American, and unwise.

Do Trump’s executive orders affecting the use of certain words when applying for government grants (including research grants) violate the First Amendment?

President Trump’s Executive Orders ending governmental diversity, equity, and inclusion preferences and programming are a dramatic reversal of the initiatives of the Biden administration. Part of this reversal includes ending DEI programs supported by the federal government, including “equity-related grants.” Researchers who receive grants from billion-dollar-budget agencies, like the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, are now removing words from grant proposals in order to comply with Trump’s executive orders. Because these executive orders are vague and governmental direction has often been unclear, researchers with active proposals are unsure whether their projects are still eligible for funding.

The NSF and NIH are now analyzing key words within grants to determine compliance with executive orders. Certain words will flag further review, like “pregnant person” or “gender.” These words make the project ineligible for funding only in certain cases. As an example, the word “accessibility” would be flagged for review, but if a grant proposal is about “data accessibility,” then the proposal would not be in violation of the executive order. If an NSF grant proposal is deemed ineligible, it must either be modified or risk being terminated in part or in full.

Agencies have also taken down websites that may no longer comply with these executive orders. The Center for Disease Control cannot issue publications with certain banned words as well. These government actions do not present First Amendment problems because the government is generally permitted to speak as it wishes on its own websites.

First Amendment problems may arise, however, because these executive orders have a chilling effect on how scientists apply for funding. Compliance with the executive orders may also have larger-scale impacts on the scientific research being performed. When private researchers self-censor in order to receive government funding, this may implicate the heart of the First Amendment’s concern of government perversion of the marketplace of ideals in the search for truth.

Before I present some aspirationally objective legal analysis of these executive orders, I must note President Trump is not the first president to condition grants, including scientific grants, on a scientist’s or academic’s adherence to the president’s preferred political or ideological approach. For example, President Biden required statements about diversity and inclusion plans in order to apply for certain research grants, including NASA research grants. Many researchers, including liberal scientists, believed this politicized and skewed research in certain directions and introduced factors into the grant decision-making process that were unrelated to the merits of the research. Researchers were also encouraged to apply for diversity experts and to allocate funding to these experts instead of to their primary research.

It is therefore inaccurate to state, as this Washington Post article does, that the “scientific enterprise” has previously been politically independent. Unfortunately, both parties have distorted the search for truth with their favored ideological approaches. I would applaud a return to the prioritization of truth over social justice or ideological aims in our research institutions. The question is, however, what governments are constitutionally permitted to do, not how they should behave.

That said, Trump’s policies seem to present grave speech harms to researchers and organizations who rely on federal funding and wish to, for example, conduct research about certain subjects, such as health inequities. If, as Trump’s executive orders imply, compelling researchers to focus on DEI topics is problematic, then it is also problematic to prevent researchers or grant recipients from using this approach. Both Biden’s and Trump’s executive orders proclaim to be combatting discrimination, and opponents of both accuse the other of perpetuating discrimination. The operative question is what constitutional limits are placed on the ability to condition grant funds to achieve these aims. My tentative answer is that there seems to be a First Amendment problem here.

In analyzing the free speech clause of the First Amendment, courts distinguish between government employees, who have very limited speech rights when speaking in their official capacities, and private citizens, who have robust free speech rights. (This is why I can use the word “diversity” all I want in this blog, and no one can punish me for it.) Grant recipients exist somewhere between government employees and purely private citizens.

The government has discretion to selectively fund certain programs through grants. For example, the government can pay grantees to run an anti-smoking campaign but does not have to fund a pro-smoking campaign. The Supreme Court has held that recipients of federal funding for pregnancy-related services can be denied funding if they engage in “counseling, referral, and the provision of information regarding abortion as a method of family planning” without violating free speech. The government can choose how to allocate its resources to promote certain policies.

However, the government cannot condition receipt of funding on refraining from speech that is outside the purposes of the program. As an extreme example, the government cannot condition receiving funding for the production of high quality musical works on musicians never talking about Vietnam. The Supreme Court has held that a government policy that requires those who receive funding to serve populations affected with HIV to explicitly oppose prostitution is a First Amendment violation, because this speech-restriction was outside of the scope of the program. According to the Court, “by demanding that funding recipients adopt—as their own—the Government’s view on an issue of public concern, the condition by its very nature affects ‘protected conduct outside the scope of the federally funded program.'”

As an example of this, in 2020, a federal trial court in California held that Trump’s conditioning grant funding on an LGBTQ organization’s no longer promoting “divisive topics,” such as implicit bias, likely violated the First Amendment. The court held that Trump had no power to condition grant receipt on not discussing certain topics in the organization’s community advocacy.

The situation at issue here, however, may be distinguishable. The Trump administration could argue that it is not preventing researchers or scientists from advocating particular views outside of the scope of the federal grant aid. Instead, Trump could argue, the government is selectively funding certain research with methodologies that do not reflect certain discriminatory ideological views. This is a dangerous argument, given that the point of science is to discover truths, not promote or oppose a particular agenda.

As a closer analog to funding of the sciences, the Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment is not violated when the National Endowment for the Arts considers whether an artist has shows “decency and respect” for diverse beliefs and values in their art in awarding grant funding. However, part of the Court’s rationale was that this decency and respect was not a requirement in receiving grant funding, just a consideration. To the extent that scientists with certain approaches cannot receive federal funding as a requirement, Trump’s executive order is more constitutionally suspect.  

A district court has held that the federal government couldn’t condition a Stanford scientist’s receiving a contract to study artificial hearts on a confidentiality clause, which allowed the government to block publication of research. Although this case is legally distinct, it means funding science by the government has its First Amendment limits, and they may be exceeded here.

I do hope someone challenges these executive orders because clarity on what is constitutionally permissible will be invaluable to the grant recipients, including scientists, who work to advance the state of our knowledge. Vague and uncertain standards lead to extra censorship as people try to comply with requirements they don’t fully understand.

There are other executive orders that may be constitutionally infirm. I have limited this analysis to grant proposals because conditional funding presents discrete First Amendment issues. This blog does not address, for example, the executive orders that impact K-12 curriculum and diversity programming in higher education.

Edit: This language, in Rust v. Sullivan, indicates there may be a good basis for challenging President Trump’s funding conditions: “the university is a traditional sphere of free expression so fundamental to the functioning of our society that the Government’s ability to control speech within that sphere by means of conditions attached to the expenditure of Government funds is restricted by the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines of the First Amendment.”