Mouse over any sourced passage!
Click on any sourced passage!
Click on any sourced passage
In 2017, curriculum coach Esther Koontz was asked to certify that she wasn’t boycotting Israel in order to work as a contractor for the Kansas Department of Education - according to the federal court which later heard her case.
Earlier that year, the Mennonite Church USA had called on Mennonites to “to avoid purchases and investments directly related to the military occupation of Palestinian territories.” According to Koontz, a member of the Mennonite Church, it was presentations at her church about conditions in Israel and Palestine that first motivated her to boycott Israel.
Esther Koontz took her case to court, and in a victory for free speech, a federal judge ruled that the Kansas Department of Education can’t require that she, or any independent contractor, declare that they’re not participating in a boycott of Israel. In fact, the judge declared such a requirement unconstitutional.
It turns out that the Department of Education was actually following a Kansas state law passed earlier in 2017. The law banned state contracts with any individual or company without that individual or company first certifying that they are not boycotting Israel. There is one exception: the law gives the secretary of administration the ability to "approve contracts" or "waive application" of the certification "if the secretary determines that compliance is not practicable." The bill doesn’t specify what circumstances qualify as "not practicable."
This move by the Kansas government is far from an isolated event.
Since 2015, at least 19 U.S. state governments passed measures targeting companies who boycott Israel. At least 14 of those states restricted public sector contracts with these companies, and at least 4 mandated the creation of a public list of companies boycotting Israel.
Michigan, Kansas, and Georgia went further and targeted individual contractors, not just companies, for boycotting Israel. These states restrict individuals from contracts with a state agency if they’re boycotting Israel.
It can be argued that it's diplomatically awkward for a government to contract a company who boycotts a trade partner. However, banning contracts with individuals for legal boycotts conducted in their personal lives, and governments creating public lists to call out companies participating in legal political action which these governments just happen to disagree with is harder to justify.
A particularly bizarre U.S. anti-Israel-boycott measure was what happened to Hurricane Harvey victims in Dickinson Texas. In October 2017, the city required residents to state (in writing) that they were not boycotting Israel when applying for grants from the Dickinson Harvey Relief Fund. Funds which, according to the city’s own website, were donated.
The Washington Post, NPR, and NBC covered the story, while the ACLU issued a statement criticizing Dickinson’s action. By November, the whole terms and conditions section (not just the anti-boycott requirement) was removed from the online application. NBC reported that the Dickinson city council had voted to remove the anti-boycott provision for individual citizens, but it should be noted, since we’re a site that prefers primary sources, we couldn’t find a record of the vote or an updated terms of agreement on the Dickinson city website (email us here if you do).
The court ruling in the case of Esther Koontz is an encouraging development, but the issue is far from over. Kansas was not the only state requiring anti-boycott pledges from individual contractors, while the 4 state measures mandating their governments maintain public lists of companies based on legal political action they disagree with is a disturbing precedent.
In 2017, curriculum coach Esther Koontz was asked to certify that she wasn’t boycotting Israel in order to work as a contractor for the Kansas Department of Education - according to the federal court which later heard her case.
Earlier that year, the Mennonite Church USA had called on Mennonites to “to avoid purchases and investments directly related to the military occupation of Palestinian territories.” According to Koontz, a member of the Mennonite Church, it was presentations at her church about conditions in Israel and Palestine that first motivated her to boycott Israel.
Esther Koontz took her case to court, and in a victory for free speech, a federal judge ruled that the Kansas Department of Education can’t require that she, or any independent contractor, declare that they’re not participating in a boycott of Israel. In fact, the judge declared such a requirement unconstitutional.
It turns out that the Department of Education was actually following a Kansas state law passed earlier in 2017. The law banned state contracts with any individual or company without that individual or company first certifying that they are not boycotting Israel. There is one exception: the law gives the secretary of administration the ability to "approve contracts" or "waive application" of the certification "if the secretary determines that compliance is not practicable." The bill doesn’t specify what circumstances qualify as "not practicable."
This move by the Kansas government is far from an isolated event.
Since 2015, at least 19 U.S. state governments passed measures targeting companies who boycott Israel. At least 14 of those states restricted public sector contracts with these companies, and at least 4 mandated the creation of a public list of companies boycotting Israel.
Michigan, Kansas, and Georgia went further and targeted individual contractors, not just companies, for boycotting Israel. These states restrict individuals from contracts with a state agency if they’re boycotting Israel.
It can be argued that it's diplomatically awkward for a government to contract a company who boycotts a trade partner. However, banning contracts with individuals for legal boycotts conducted in their personal lives, and governments creating public lists to call out companies participating in legal political action which these governments just happen to disagree with is harder to justify.
A particularly bizarre U.S. anti-Israel-boycott measure was what happened to Hurricane Harvey victims in Dickinson Texas. In October 2017, the city required residents to state (in writing) that they were not boycotting Israel when applying for grants from the Dickinson Harvey Relief Fund. Funds which, according to the city’s own website, were donated.
The Washington Post, NPR, and NBC covered the story, while the ACLU issued a statement criticizing Dickinson’s action. By November, the whole terms and conditions section (not just the anti-boycott requirement) was removed from the online application. NBC reported that the Dickinson city council had voted to remove the anti-boycott provision for individual citizens, but it should be noted, since we’re a site that prefers primary sources, we couldn’t find a record of the vote or an updated terms of agreement on the Dickinson city website (email us here if you do).
The court ruling in the case of Esther Koontz is an encouraging development, but the issue is far from over. Kansas was not the only state requiring anti-boycott pledges from individual contractors, while the 4 state measures mandating their governments maintain public lists of companies based on legal political action they disagree with is a disturbing precedent.