This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
The American Center for Law and Justice is urging the Supreme Court to take up a specific case, and rule that Jewish professors in New York do not have to accept the anti-Semitic representation of a union as their "exclusive agent."
The ACLJ has confirmed it has filed a friend-of-the-court brief at the Supreme Court, "urging the court to protect the First Amendment rights of Jewish professors who refuse to be represented by anti-Semitic unions."
The case is called Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress/CUNY (PSC) and, the legal team explained, "presents a critical opportunity to defend academic freedom and protect the fundamental right to free speech on our college campuses. It is about resisting a culture of intimidation and coercion that seeks to silence dissenting voices and restrict religious and ideological diversity within higher education."
It developed because of number of Jewish professors City University New York expressed concerns over the surging political bias within the Professional Staff Congress union.
That group is supposed to represent faculty and staff members but "began acting contrary to their interests in a variety of ways, taking an increasingly partisan stance on social and political matters," the ACLJ reported.
"The union's leadership, which claims to advocate for all its members, instead created an environment that punishes those who do not align with its ideological agenda. Most strikingly, the union adopted a resolution supporting the anti-Semitic BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement. As a result of PSC's resolution and subsequent conduct, Jewish professors have been ostracized on campus based on their identities, religious beliefs, and support for Israel," the report explains.
The problem is that they are not allowed the boycott, because state law bans them from leaving the political organization.
"They are compelled to continue to accept PSC as their exclusive agent and spokesman, regardless of how strongly they disagree with their union's conduct or how counter to their fundamental identity the speech of the union may be," the ACLJ said.
State courts there so far have taken the union's side, but the fight now is being moved up to the Supreme Court.
The ACLJ said its contribution to the legal discussion is that at stake are government employees' rights that are protected by the First Amendment.
"The threats of compelled speech are always serious, but they are particularly dangerous and egregious when union members are compelled to have a representative who speaks counter to those members' consciences," the ACLJ said.
"Unions function as political activity groups and de facto auxiliaries of a political party and should be treated as such. No one should be forced to participate in such public advocacy against their will, the group informed the court.
And, it pointed out, "The implications of Goldstein v. PSC extend far beyond one professor's individual rights. Unions like the PSC often claim to defend the interests of their members, yet their actions sometimes reveal a disturbing willingness to stifle internal dissent and push a singular agenda. This is not just a betrayal of their members – it's an assault on the fundamental principles of free speech and association that form the bedrock of our democracy."
