It’s axiomatic that the U.S. Constitution protects the right of Americans to express themselves even in terms others might consider offensive.
Until this month, however, there would have been no legal basis for the notion that a private organization has a God-given right to continue issuing unspeakably vile comments on behalf of individuals who have long since severed ties with it.
In essence, however, that was the conclusion of Los Angeles District Court Judge Stephen Wilson, who on July 21 dismissed a lawsuit filed by seven Jewish teachers represented by United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA) alleging the union had spent years engaging in a pattern of anti-Jewish and anti-Zionist actions.
The complainants — all of whom teach in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) — had previously exercised their First Amendment right to opt out of union membership and dues. But under California law, a government employee union like UTLA still has an obligation to represent every worker — including nonmembers — in its bargaining unit.
This provision, the suit argues, puts the union in a position of speaking for the Jewish teachers even when it makes manifestly anti-Semitic pronouncements. Wilson’s ruling, however, asserts the law in no way restricts their “freedom to associate or not to associate with whom they please.”
The case will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
To be clear, expecting a union to fairly represent even nonmembers isn’t a burden imposed unbidden on an unwilling victim. Rather, it’s a privilege conferred by the state and gratefully accepted by union leaders in exchange for having been handed a legal monopoly over a designated segment of the government workforce.
The law also entitles union leaders to grouse about so-called “free-riders” — defined as workers who enjoy all the benefits of union membership despite paying nothing in dues or fees.
By definition, however, the nonmembers weren’t present during negotiations in which this forced representation scheme was hatched. Thus, they can no more be presented as beneficiaries than the unions can be as victims of the arrangement.
The lawsuit plaintiffs certainly don’t see any benefit to being represented in any capacity by an organization whose leaders are openly contemptuous of their faith, their values and their culture.
UTLA’s anti-Jewish actions include:
- consistently supporting, and many of its members concurrently belonging to, Union del Barrio, which has frequently called for the destruction of the state of Israel;
- spending $700,000 to support a candidate for school board who publicly espoused conspiracy theories against Jews, including the notorious “blood libel”:
- excluding Jewish and Zionist members from its private Facebook group;
- the union’s Houses of Representatives passing a motion expressing support for an “international campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions against apartheid in Israel”;
- endorsing an anti-Jewish curriculum, including courses like “Teach Palestine,” which deliberately misrepresents Jewish history; and,
- the UTLA Human Rights Committee providing funding to enable members to attend anti-Jewish rallies.
UTLA’s actions, by the way, are far from isolated. Less than a week before the lawsuit was dismissed, members of the National Education Association’s (NEA) Jewish Affairs Caucus published an open letter to the union’s president, Becky Pringle, expressing outrage at how earlier this summer individual Jewish delegates to the NEA’s Representative Assembly in Portland, Ore., were “vocally mocked, harassed and threatened in ways that dishonor our union.”
In May, the Freedom Foundation — whose lawyers represented the Los Angeles teachers — filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of a Jewish public school teacher in Portland over his forced association with the Portland Association of Teachers (PAT), which he alleges “created and sustained a hostile work environment for Jewish educators.”
Both lawsuits challenge their respective states’ system of exclusive representation, which requires public employees — regardless of union membership — to be represented by a designated union.
Again, no one is challenging the Constitutional right of individuals or private organizations to marginalize themselves by making hateful, toxic comments. The question is whether the intended victims of their attacks can be made a party to them against their will.
Jeff Rhodes is vice president of news and information at the Freedom Foundation.