This past week, the Democratic Socialists of America (an organization known for its far-left economic positions that, while not a political party of its own, does count a small number of members of the United States Congress in its ranks) issued a statement withdrawing their support of congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her participation in a panel discussing the problem of antisemitism in the United States.
To clarify, neither congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez nor the other panel organizers made antisemitic comments at the event. Instead, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) objected to her stating that there comes a point where criticism of Israel can become antisemitic. As indicated by this position, it seems the DSA (which was staunchly Zionist in the 1970's, for whatever it's worth) views any legitimization of Israel as bigoted, and all delegitimization of Israel as righteous, making the DSA an antisemitic organization.
That being said, it is still permissible to post in support of the DSA (just not in support of the bigoted positions they are supporting on this one topic.) Below is the set of guidelines regarding how statements about bigoted politicians/groups are to be viewed by the staff:
For currently serving, aspiring, or recently unseated politicians or political parties:
Politicians and political parties couldn't be single-issue groups if they wanted to. They'll have to make decisions regarding tax structure, the education system, upkeep of the road system, etc, whether or not those issues are at the fronts of candidates' minds when they run for office. Both voting decisions and party affiliation are decisions based on assessing a large number of factors, and neither a candidate nor a party is expected to be perfect. That being said, expressing support for a politician's specific position on a specific issue may be grounds for the post containing that support to be censored, if the position in question violates the terms of service.
For historical politicians:
If a member starts expressing support for Adolph Hitler or Jefferson Davis, that's another matter, for the following reason: Those two politicians are out of office and primarily known for single issues, with their positions on those issues blatantly violating the terms of service. For historical politicians, the rule becomes that members may not support historical politicians whose primary legacy was a bigoted one.
For non-party political groups:
These groups include the aforementioned DSA, the Proud Boys, Greenpeace, Take Charge Minnesota, etc.
Similar to the rule regarding historical politicians, the rule regarding non-party political groups is that members may not support any groups that are primarily known for bigoted positions.
As some examples/non-examples:
The Democratic Socialists of America are largely known for their economic positions. Supporting them is fine.
The Proud Boys are largely known as a White supremacist organization. Members cannot support this group.
Greenpeace is primarily known for its environmental activism. While they do engage in illegal ecoterrorism, this is not what most people think of when they hear the name "Greenpeace". Supporting Greenpeace is fine, though if members are asked if they support ecoterrorism, they are not allowed to say that they do.
Take Charge Minnesota is an organization largely known for advocating that Black Americans lead better, more productive, healthier lives, and asserts that most Black/White racial disparity would disappear if most Black people lived such lives. (Take Charge Minnesota is a largely Black organization.) Take Charge Minnesota also advocates that strengthening commitment to one's faith is a step toward a healthy life. While their views are not in line with those of most Black Americans, and most Black Americans would argue that their positions understate the impact of institutional impediments toward Black American success, there's nothing wrong with promoting healthier lifestyles for Black Americans that are believed to lead to better Black American economic success and longer Black American life expectancy.
An important note on ACF policy regarding Take Charge Minnesota: We still don't have a clear set of guidelines on when criticism of differences in Black vs. White American lifestyles becomes racism. ACF policy on Take Charge Minnesota is tentative by nature, and may change once such a set of guidelines is presented.
