A bill that would codify the definition of antisemitism in response to unrest on university campuses is making its way through the Senate – albeit slowly and not without controversy.
Despite overwhelming support for the Antisemitism Awareness Act in the House, where it passed last week on a 320-91 vote, the bill drew criticism from both sides of the aisle – with some Republicans saying it could outlaw Christian biblical teachings and some Democrats saying it infringes on free speech rights.
That same criticism is now threatening the bill’s future in the Senate, prompting lawmakers to work behind the scenes to determine a path forward.
Here’s some key things to know about the measure and its chances of advancing.
What Does the Antisemitism Bill Say?
The legislation would for the first time enshrine a definition of antisemitism into federal law by adopting wording settled upon in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a group of 35 member countries that includes the United States and Israel. The definition could then be used for enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws on campuses.
The intergovernmental organization founded in 1998 to increase and promote education, research and awareness related to the Holocaust adopted legally non-binding language in 2016 that defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” Examples of the definition’s application include “accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group” and making “dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective.”
The definition also includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” claiming that Israel’s existence is a “racist endeavor” and drawing comparisons between current Israeli policy and Nazi policy.
The bill currently before the Senate would instruct the Department of Education to “take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the Department’s assessment of whether the practice was motivated by antisemitic intent” when investigating allegations of discrimination against Jewish students on college campuses. If universities fail to restrict statements covered by the definition, they could risk having their federal funds withheld.
The Week in Cartoons May 6-10
How Did the Bill Come to Be?
The bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York and Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey in response to the growing pro-Palestinian protests on campuses and allegations of antisemitism springing from them.
“Right now, without a clear definition of antisemitism, the Department of Education and college administrators are having trouble discerning whether conduct is antisemitic or not, whether the activity we’re seeing crosses the line into antisemitic harassment,” Lawler said during a House floor speech before its passage.
The bill goes further than an executive order former President Donald Trump signed in 2019 that made Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applicable to antisemitic acts. The order suggested the alliance’s definition be considered by those enforcing Title IV – which bans discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs and activities, like colleges and universities that receive federal funding. The order also pointed to the group’s examples of antisemitism.
The new legislation comes eight years after the Senate passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016. The act requires the Education Department to consider the State Department’s definition of antisemitism when deciding whether federal anti-discrimination laws have been violated. The department’s guiding language is a version of the working definition of antisemitism that was issued in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia.
“We cannot stand idly by as protesters call for the death of Jews on college campuses and across the country. When I spoke at Columbia, I told administrators that we need deeds, not words to protect Jewish students. This bill is a critical step to take the action we so desperately need to stand against hate,” Gottheimer said.
A spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League, an international Jewish nongovernmental organization and advocacy group based in New York, said in a statement that the group supports the act, “which reinforces the use of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism in addressing campus harassment and discrimination, in line with policy that has been in effect over the last two presidential administrations.”
The spokesperson added that Congress “must take a comprehensive approach to fighting antisemitism” and that the organization “urges swift passage of the comprehensive Countering Antisemitism Act, which offers whole-of-government legislative solutions to complement the Antisemitism Awareness Act.”
The move to pass the bill is just one part in a series of planned responses from Republicans intending to address the unrest that has emerged from the protests. Other responses include threatening to rescind federal funding for universities perceived as not adequately cracking down on the demonstrations, deporting foreign students involved in the activities, and holding hearings with government, law enforcement and administration officials.
Why Is the Bill Getting Criticism From Some Far-Right Republicans?
The bill’s text quickly drew criticism from several Republicans, who quickly defected over the idea that the definition would outlaw some parts of the Bible.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said she opposed it because it “could convict Christians of antisemitism for believing the Gospel that says Jesus was handed over to Herod to be crucified by the Jews.” Notably, the proposed legislation is civil, so a criminal conviction is not possible.
Similarly, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida called the bill a “ridiculous hate speech bill.” He added that while antisemitism is wrong, “this legislation is written without regard for the Constitution, common sense, or even the common understanding of the meaning of words.”
He maintained that one of the “contemporary examples of antisemitism” included in the definition is “claims of Jews killing Jesus,” adding that “the Bible is clear. There is no myth or controversy on this.”
The Anti-Defamation League considers the centuries-old belief that Jesus was killed by Jews to be an antisemitic myth used to justify violence against Jewish people. The Catholic Church has also attempted to dispel the idea, with former Pope Benedict XVI saying in a 2011 book there was no basis in Scripture for the belief that Jews as a whole were responsible for Jesus’ death.
However, the idea quickly spread in the far-right community, with Charlie Kirk, a Republican activist, asking rhetorically on social media, “Did the House of Representatives just make parts of the Bible illegal?” Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson responded, saying “yes” and “The New Testament.”
Lawler hit out at Gaetz and Greene, calling their argument “absurd on its face, inflammatory and irrational.”
Other hard-right opponents of the bill included Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Rep. Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona and Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona.
Why Is the Bill Getting Criticism from Democrats?
The bill text also drew sharp criticism from some Democrats, who argued it is too broad and infringes on free speech rights. Seventy Democrats voted against the bill in the House along with 21 Republicans.
Rep. Jerry Nadler of New York, a Jewish lawmaker who described himself as a “deeply committed Zionist,” urged his colleagues to vote against the “misguided” bill because it “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech.”
“Speech that is critical of Israel – alone – does not constitute unlawful discrimination. By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.”
He opted to vote against it. He was joined by Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts, who said in a statement that he didn’t support it because he believed it to be unconstitutional.
“The IHRA definition of antisemitism is a critical tool for the federal government that the Department of Education already uses to understand and address antisemitism. But, as the Foundation for Individual Rights & Expression has persuasively argued and as even the author of IHRA has asserted, codifying IHRA as the only definition for Title VI investigations will unconstitutionally constrain academic freedom.”
Auchincloss was referring to Kenneth Stern, an antisemitism expert at the American Jewish Committee who helped draft the working definition. He later came out against its current usage, saying it was never meant to “chill” free speech on college campuses.
“Anyone who cares about education should be focusing on not only how to respond in the moment but how we can work collaboratively to build a better campus for the future,” wrote Stern.
House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, who ultimately voted for the bill, initially urged party members to back an alternative bipartisan measure that would create new positions focused on antisemitism in the White House and Education Department. It would have also required federal law enforcement to conduct an annual threat analysis of the issue in the country.
The bill’s text drew the ire of civil rights groups, which agreed that it went too far.
“This misguided and harmful bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment,” Chris Anders, director of ACLU’s Democracy and Technology Policy Division, said in a statement. He added that “addressing rising antisemitism is critically important, but sacrificing American’s free speech rights is not the way to solve that problem.”
“This bill would throw the full weight of the federal government behind an effort to stifle criticism of Israel and risks politicizing the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes precisely when their robust protections are most needed. The Senate must block this bill before it’s too late,” he said.
Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a non-profit civil liberties group, tells U.S. News that it opposes the bill because it “would chill speech on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the exact places where these difficult conversations and debates should be occurring – on our nation’s campuses.”
“The Antisemitism Awareness Act would require the U.S. Department of Education to adopt an unconstitutionally vague and overbroad definition of antisemitism that would pressure schools to investigate and censor students for speech protected by the First Amendment,” says Coward.
He adds that lawmakers should reject the “chilling legislation” and called on the Senate to instead “pass a bill that equips the Department of Education and our colleges and universities with the tools they need to combat unlawful harassment on campus without infringing on free expression.”
Meanwhile, other Democrats decried what they saw as Republicans playing politics.
“How dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about antisemitism,” Rep. Teresa Leger Fernandez of New Mexico, said on the House floor.
“Remember,” Fernandez added, “the leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump, dines with Holocaust deniers and said there were ‘fine people on both sides’ at a rally where white supremacists chanted ‘Jews will not replace us.’” Fernandez voted against the bill.
Similarly, Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington, who also voted against it, said, “By putting forward divisive bills that misrepresent what is and isn’t antisemitism, the GOP is muddying the waters on this important issue. Congress should be spending our time and efforts to meaningfully combat antisemitism.”
Other opponents of the bill include progressive Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri.
Where Does the Bill Stand Now?
Following the bill’s passage in the House, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Thursday there were bipartisan objections.
“We’re going to look for the best way to move forward,” he said.
GOP Whip John Thune of South Dakota declined to tell reporters last week which senators have objections but said it’s “who you would expect.”
Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky tells U.S. News that it is “intellectually and morally repugnant for college students to shout support for the atrocities committed by Hamas on Oct 7th.”
“Civilized people across the political spectrum appropriately condemn these vile and inexcusable apologies for mass murder. An appropriate response by the Senate would be to condemn the murderous rampage of Oct. 7th and condemn the voices on campuses across America who are shouting their support for the carnage committed by Hamas.”
He adds that “what would be inappropriate is for the Senate to rush, in reactionary fervor, to place new limits on speech in America.”
Politico reported that a recent version of the bill, backed by 15 members of the Democratic conference, did not include a provision that is in the House-backed bill. The provision states, “The use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards and may fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.”
It remains unclear when the Senate plans to tee up the bill again.