The authors validly highlight the ADL's positive impact on school climates and its longstanding work against various forms of hate. However, their argument is weakened by the use of false dilemmas, slippery slope reasoning, and emotional appeals that distract from the core issue and potential nuanced solutions.

1. false equivalence •  The following statement, and the essay on the whole, assumes that by not partnering with the ADL any further, the NEA is not fighting antisemitism.

We don't get to cherry-pick which forms of hate are politically palatable to denounce. We fight them all -- or we fail our students.

This equates the NEA's decision to not partner with the ADL with a failure to combat antisemitism, overlooking the possibility of the NEA continuing to fight antisemitism through other means. 

2. appeal to fear • The authors evoke fear and anxiety among Jewish families to garner support for their position, rather than focusing on logical arguments against the NEA's decision.

Jewish families are watching this unfold and asking whether their children are still welcome in our public schools.

The suggestion that Jewish children are unsafe is used to manipulate the reader's emotions.

3. red herring • The authors introduce the topic of urgent issues facing teachers, which diverts attention from the main argument about the NEA's decision regarding the ADL.

Meanwhile, the most urgent issues facing teachers remain under-addressed: overcrowded classrooms, stagnant wages, inadequate funding and widening equity gaps.

This is a distraction that does not directly relate to the main point of the article.

4. slippery slope • The authors suggest that accepting one form of hate (antisemitism) will inevitably lead to accepting other forms of hate, creating a chain reaction.

Today it's antisemitism. Tomorrow it's transphobia. Next week it's anti-black racism or Islamophobia.

This fallacy assumes a inevitable progression without evidence.