SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
antisemitism awareness act
Pro-Israel Senators Show Their Hand By Opposing Free Speech Protections in Now-Delayed Antisemitism Bill
The Antisemitism Awareness Act has never been about countering antisemitism or protecting Jewish students from discrimination; it is about silencing pro-Palestine students and protecting the Israeli government from criticism.
May 06, 2025
When Senate Republicans brought the so-called Antisemitism Awareness Act up for a committee vote last week, they were expecting an easy win. After all, the bill had the support of Senate Republican leaders, most Israel advocacy groups, and even some Democrats.
Yet the bill faced an unexpected problem that may ultimately doom its passage. During a markup hearing of the HELP Committee, two Republicans broke ranks, joining all Democrats in approving free speech amendments that undermined the true goal of the bill: requiring colleges and universities to conflate criticism of the Israeli government and Zionism with antisemitism.
The first amendment considered was HELP Chairman Sen. Bill Cassidy's (R-La.)manager amendment, which affirmed that “Nothing in this Act shall be constructed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
While that vague reassurance passed with bipartisan support, most Republicans refused to support substantive amendments that explicitly referenced Gaza as an example of free speech, laid out examples of protected student speech, and prohibited retaliation against dissent.
If the true purpose of the Antisemitism Awareness Act was protecting Jewish students from illegal anti-Semitic discrimination, then none of these amendments should have been a problem.
At start of the hearing, ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) warned, “Unfortunately and unacceptably, the Antisemitism Awareness Act we are considering today would label speech that criticizes the Israeli government and Netanyahu’s horrific war in Gaza as antisemitic and a violation of civil rights laws, and that is an extremely dangerous precedent.”
Sanders then offered several amendments designed to reduce the risk that government agencies and educational institutions can use the bill as a new tool of censorship.
His first amendment clarified, "no person shall be considered antisemitic for using their rights of free speech or protest under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ... oppose Benjamin Netanyahu's led war effort, which has killed more than 50,000 and wounded more than 113,000, 60 percent of whom are women and children” and "oppose the Israeli government's devastation of Gaza..."
All Democrats voted in favor, which was itself a surprise given how many Democratic politicians have desperately avoided any criticism of the Israeli government. The bigger surprise came from Senator Rand Paul. He broke ranks with other Republicans and supported the amendment, ensuring its passage.
A second Sanders amendment declared that the federal government cannot force any school, college, or university to adopt a policy that a branch of the federal government may compel a school "to violate the rights of a student, faculty, or staff member under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."
In a sane world, every Republican senator would have supported such a basic amendment. Yet all opposed it except for two: Sen. Paul and Sen. Susan Collins (D-Maine).
The third Sanders' amendment clarified that speech, such as distributing flyers, inviting guest speakers, or engaging in classroom discussions, is protected unless it involves true threats or incitement of violence. Again, Paul and Collins were the only Republicans to break with their colleagues to support it.
Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) introduced an amendment prohibiting the federal government from detaining or deporting students based on protected political speech. That amendment passed by a single vote, thanks again to Senator Paul. Markey stated, “When a young person writes an op-ed in the student newspaper and get whisked off of the streets of Tuffs University to a prison in Louisiana with no charges that is what we are debating today.”
If the true purpose of the Antisemitism Awareness Act was protecting Jewish students from illegal anti-Semitic discrimination, then none of these amendments should have been a problem. They should have received universal support, and their approval should not have derailed the bill.
Yet the fate of the legislation is now up in the air.
HELP Committee Chair Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said during the hearing that, “Supporting these amendments is an effort to kill this bill.”
Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Ok.) responded the next day by telling Jewish Insider that “Rand Paul totally killed that bill.” Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) also said, “These amendments are dealbreakers.”
Why? Because the Antisemitism Awareness Act has never been about countering antisemitism or protecting Jewish students from discrimination; it is about silencing pro-Palestine students and protecting the Israeli government from criticism.
The bill would require government agencies and schools to enforce federal civil rights law using the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism—a vague and widely disputed standard that poses a mortal threat to First Amendment freedoms.
Kenneth S. Stern, the original drafter of the IHRA definition, has testified to Congress that, "My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress–rather than answer–political speech they don’t like. The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer." Stern has repeatedly stated that the definition was never meant to be enforceable law and that doing so risks unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That is precisely what this legislation seeks to achieve.
The IHRA definition declares that any student describing the founding of Israel as a "racist endeavor" has engaged in antisemitism punishable by their school and the government of the United States—even though racist militias and terrorist groups like the Irgun subjected Palestinians to a horrific campaign of ethnic cleansing and mass murder during the founding of Israel.
IHRA also declares anyone “applying double standards” to Israel is antisemtiic. If someone criticizes the Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza but hasn't made time to criticize the RSF's war crimes in Sudan, they must be antisemitic. Ditto for anyone “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis,” comparisons that--while controversial—have even been made by far-right supporters of the Israeli government.
As Sen. Paul noted during the hearing, these and other examples establish a dangerous double standard. No other foreign government is granted this level of immunity from criticism under U.S. civil rights law. If enforced through Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, these vague and politically motivated examples would transform legitimate political critique into grounds for federal investigations, and dissent into a punishable offense.
If passed, this bill—even in its watered-down form—would open the door for the Israeli government and its supporters to misconstrue American civil rights laws.
CAIR, like many other civil rights groups, has called on congress to not pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act into law, as it would give the Department of Education—under a Trump administration already targeting, arresting, detaining, and attempting to deport anti-genocide protesters—even more power to investigate, silence, and punish speech on campus critical of Israel. We are already seeing the consequences. More than 1,700 student visas have been revoked since January. Students like Columbia’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts’ Rumeysa Ozturk remain in ICE custody for nothing more than participating in peaceful, protected protest and speech. Others face deportation for daring to speak out. This is not theoretical. This is not speculative. It is happening now.
In its original form, the Antisemitism Awareness Act would have given the Trump administration even more power to escalate its attack on free speech for Palestine. Even with the addition of Sanders' amendments, the now-contradictory bill still threatens free speech protections by including the IHRA definition.
That's still not good enough for most Senate Republicans and pro-Israel groups pushing the bill. Now that the bill cannot be so easily weaponized to silence dissent against Israeli government's war crimes in Gaza or its founding ideology, at least some of its key backers are threatening to abandon it.
Congress must reject this bill in full. No amendment can salvage legislation built on an anti-democratic foundation. Americans have the right to speak out against injustice, whether it occurs in our own country or in Gaza.
We must be absolutely clear about what is at stake. If passed, this bill—even in its watered-down form—would open the door for the Israeli government and its supporters to misconstrue American civil rights laws. That is not only a betrayal of free speech. It is a threat to American sovereignty.
Americans must unequivocally oppose antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-Black racism, anti-immigrant sentiment, and all forms of hate. But conflating antisemitism with opposition to Israel’s military occupation, apartheid policies, or the ongoing genocide in Gaza is not just dishonest. It is dangerous.
Congress must reject this bill in full. No amendment can salvage legislation built on an anti-democratic foundation. Americans have the right to speak out against injustice, whether it occurs in our own country or in Gaza.
Silencing speech does not stop hate. It only deepens injustice. And we should not stand by while our government attempts to criminalize moral clarity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
ACLU Slams Senate Push to Crack Down on Campus Criticism of Israel
"The ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy."
Nov 14, 2024
The ACLU on Thursday sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that bipartisan legislation which backers claim would combat antisemitism on university campuses would actually be an affront to free speech protections and censor legitimate criticism of the Israeli government as it carries out atrocities in Gaza, the occupied West Bank, and Lebanon.
The group's letter comes two weeks after Axiosreported that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "recently promised Jewish leaders that he would try later this year to pass" the House-approved Antisemitism Awareness Act, or S. 4127.
"Instead of addressing antisemitism on campus, this misguided legislation would punish protected political speech," said ACLU senior policy counsel Jenna Leventoff, who signed the letter with Christopher Anders, director of democracy and technology.
"At a time when civil rights enforcement on campus could not be more critical, this bill risks politicizing these vital protections by censoring legitimate political speech that criticizes the Israeli government," Leventoff warned. "The right to criticize government actions is the most fundamental protection provided by the First Amendment—and this includes the actions of foreign governments. The Senate must continue to block this bill and protect free speech."
"It would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."
The letter highlights that "federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. S. 4127 is therefore not needed to protect against antisemitic discrimination; instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism."
As Israeli forces—armed by the Biden administration and U.S. Congress—have bombed and starved Palestinians in Gaza over the past 13 months, students colleges and universities across the United States have held protests urging their education institutions and government to divest from the assault, which is the subject of a genocide case at the International Court of Justice.
Some campus administrations—under pressure from Zionists in Congress—have called in law enforcement to violently crack down on protesters and enacted new policies intended to limit anti-genocide demonstrations by students and faculty.
"The ACLU does not take a position on the conflict between Israel and Palestine, but it does staunchly defend the right of those in the United States to speak out on domestic and international political matters," the organization emphasized. "The ability to criticize governments and their policies is a critical component of our democracy."
As the letter explains:
This bill directs the Department of Education to take the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of "antisemitism" into consideration when determining whether alleged harassment was motivated by antisemitic intent and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including in higher education. The federal government itself has interpreted Title VI to prohibit harassment or discrimination against Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs as well as others when that discrimination is based on the group's actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. These existing protections are critically important, particularly in the current environment.
The IHRA working definition, however, is overbroad. It equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination. Enshrining this definition into regulation would chill the exercise of First Amendment rights and risk undermining the Department of Education’s legitimate and important efforts to combat discrimination. Criticism of Israel and its policies is political speech, squarely protected by the First Amendment.
"The IHRA definition of antisemitism is also unconstitutional," the letter continues, citing a case about Republican Texas Gov. Greg Abbott's executive order directing the state's higher education institutions to craft policies based on the controversial language.
The letter points out that even "the lead author of the original IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has himself opposed the application of this definition to campus speech, noting that codifying this definition would lead campus administrators to 'fear lawsuits when outside groups complain about anti-Israel expression, and the university doesn't punish, stop, or denounce it.'"
The ACLU specifically warned that "S. 4127 could result in colleges and universities suppressing a wide variety of speech critical of Israel or in support of Palestinian rights in an effort to avoid investigations by the department and the potential loss of funding, even where such speech is protected and does not qualify as harassment."
"Even where administrators do not take formal action, students and their organizations, faculty, and university staff may be deterred from speaking and organizing on these issues," the group added. The bill would also "likely inspire an increasing number of complaints focused on constitutionally protected criticism of Israel," taking time away from "meritorious" filings.
The Senate majority leader has faced intense pressure to bring the bill to a vote as this session of Congress winds down. Axios noted that Florence Avenue Initiative, a nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose its donors, "has spent about $5 million on an ad campaign blasting Schumer, the highest-ranking Jewish lawmaker, for his inaction."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Senate Must Reject the Dangerous Antisemitism Awareness Act
The bill could be used to crush legitimate debate about Israel, its policies, and American policies toward it—policies that have given rise to one of the greatest acts of genocide since the Holocaust.
Jun 13, 2024
Totalitarianism rarely shows its true face when it arises. Instead, it often pretends to stand for good and decent values. A new bill claims to fight antisemitism, something all decent people oppose. But antisemitism—that is, bias and discrimination against Jews because of their religion or ethnic identity—is already barred under civil rights law. The real goal of the so-called “Antisemitism Awareness Act” is to suppress free speech.
This dangerous bill was already passed by the House of Representatives and now awaits a Senate vote. It outsources some of our constitutional rights to an outside organization, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, whose arbitrary definition of antisemitism poses a threat to civil liberties. It could be used to crush legitimate debate about Israel, its policies, and American policies toward it—policies that have given rise to one of the greatest acts of genocide since the Holocaust.
This bill could suppress historical research and ban the mention of facts that have been verified by international organizations. It could initiate lawsuits, funding cuts, and disciplinary action across all American “education programs or activities, and for other purposes.” (Those “other purposes” are not defined.) Student protesters, professors, writers, and even elected officials could face political repression and become legal targets.
It turns the USA’s much-celebrated sense of liberty into a funhouse mirror, a grotesque and distorted reflection of everything this country claims to see in itself. Its passage would make a travesty of everything America's leaders claim to believe in.
The implications are enormous. The federal government spends more than $100 billion per year on education, including $85.3 billion for kindergarten through high school, $24.6 billion in federal student aid assistance, and $1.3 billion in congressional earmarks for colleges (for projects that range from equipment purchases and airport runways to prison education programs). All these expenditures could be used as leverage to stifle legitimate debate.
Despite its “antisemitic” branding, the bill targets Jews as well as non-Jews. As literature professor Benjamin Balthasar writes, it would effectively ban the teaching of “much Jewish history and culture.” Balthasar observes that Hannah Arendt, Albert Einstein, Ed Asner, and “countless other Jews would now be considered ‘antisemitic’ under the new law.”
The bill defines criticism of Israel as a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That legislation allows citizens to file “administrative complaints with the federal agency that provides funds,” or to sue in federal court. That means that non-Jews could take action against anti-apartheid Jews—including deeply religious Jews who object to Israel’s existence on theological grounds. And they could do it in the name of antisemitism.
As Balthasar writes, this bill “would in some ways be the most punitive law against Jews to be enacted in the U.S. since the Immigration Act of 1924.” Ultimately, it would infringe everyone’s civil liberties. Here are five examples of legitimate speech that could be banned under this legislation.
Five Forbidden Statements
1. “Gaza is a concentration camp.”
This sentence runs afoul of a provision that would outlaw “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” That undoubtedly protects the sensitivity of people who are offended by the comparison, but at what cost to the Constitution? It isn’t hard to draw parallels between some Nazi actions and certain actions of many other countries, including both Israel and the United States.
Nor should that be a surprise. In Hitler’s American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, James Q. Whitman records that Hitler drew inspiration from American racism, especially laws “excluding certain races from naturalization.” Hitler also spoke admiringly of the way Americans had “gunned down the millions of (American Indians) to a few hundred thousand.”
Since some Nazi policies were drawn from our own country’s, it raises the question: How can there be a blanket ban on comparing them to those of any other country?
This provision would presumably forbid people on campuses and schools from saying, for example, that “Gaza is an open-air concentration camp.” But the Cambridge Dictionary defines a “concentration camp” as “a place where large numbers of people are kept as prisoners in extremely bad conditions, especially for political reasons.” Can anybody argue that Gaza is not a concentration camp, or that mass extermination isn’t already underway there?
The concentration camps weren’t invented by the Nazis. The Oxford Reference Dictionary’s overview begins, “Originally a place in which non-combatants were accommodated, as instituted by Lord Kitchener during the Second Boer War.” The United States also built concentration camps to intern Japanese American civilians during the Second World War.
If this bill passes, it would be permissible to compare any country’s policies to those of Nazi-era Germany. Every country, that is, except one.
2. “The creation of Israel involved considerations of race and ethnicity.”
The law outlaws “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
One commonly used definition of “racism” is “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.”
Israel has granted special rights to members of one ethnic group since its creation, wherever they may live in the world, while denying some of those same rights to people who were already in its territory when it was created.
Here’s a historical fact that would be suppressed by this law: Israel is the only nation in the world that an occupying nation (Great Britain) established by fiat based on worldwide ethno-religious affiliation rather than a contemporary, living society.
The “racist endeavor” clause could also ban the discussion of another historical fact: that the Balfour Declaration led to an influx of primarily white European Jews onto land then inhabited by Indigenous people of color.
The right of self-determination is not automatically granted to any religious or ethnic group. Israel is the only instance where that right was extended to a people who largely did not live on the site of their supposed homeland, and where it was done by denying the civil and property rights of people who had lived there for generations.
3. “The right of self-determination doesn’t (or shouldn’t) permit the displacement of local populations in favor of people who currently live elsewhere.”
Less than 10% of Palestine’s population was Jewish in 1890. (By comparison, approximately 40% of Baghdad’s population was Jewish in the early 20th century.) The majority who had lived there for generations were denied self-determination, losing both rights and property, despite their innocence regarding Europe’s long-time persecution of the Jews.
How can such a right be granted to one group at the expense of another, already existing population? At the very least, that’s a debatable proposition. But this kind of debate could very possibly be forbidden under the same “racism” provision of this law.
4. “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.”
You could also get in trouble by challenging a related claim about Israel: that it is “the only democracy in the Middle East.” A democracy? Three-quarters of all Palestinians—some 750,000-1,000,000 people—were deliberately displaced at Israel’s founding. A 2018 law explicitly states that “the right of national self-determination in the State of Israel is unique to the Jewish people.”
That’s hard to reconcile with principles of democracy or self-determination. At the very least, they are reasonable subjects for debate—debate that this law would ban.
5. “Israel is conducting a genocidal campaign in Gaza.”
Israel’s actions in Gaza—systematic bombing, destruction of homes and infrastructure, killings of journalists and medical personnel—meet many legal definitions of genocide and other crimes. That is a matter of law. But this statement could also run afoul of the law’s overly broad ban on Nazi-era comparisons.
In fact, many countries and leaders have been accused of acting in a Nazi-like fashion since World War II. That shouldn’t surprise us, nor is it necessarily wrong to make the comparison. Yes, such comparisons can be odious and extreme. But, as Alex Ross writes in The New Yorker:
The kind of genocidal hatred that erupted in Germany had been seen before and has been seen since. Only by stripping away its national regalia and comprehending its essential human form do we have any hope of vanquishing it.
We can’t vanquish something we’re not allowed to name.
International Law and Collective Guilt
What Israel is reportedly doing in Gaza was defined as criminal many years ago under international law. But any mention of that—or even of international case law regarding Israel—could be banned under this bill.
The proposed law also forbids “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” That’s fair enough, especially considering the many Jews worldwide who are protesting Israel’s actions today. But there’s a bitter irony. Many of the bill’s backers blame all Gazans for the events of October 7, an accusation Israel’s leaders have openly used to justify their genocide.
Also banned under this law is, “accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.”
Again, fair enough. And yet, again, this is precisely what Israel’s supporters and media allies are doing to Palestinians. They’re doing it to student protesters, too. They search far and wide for someone—anyone—who has said anything antisemitic and can be linked, however loosely, with these peaceful and high-minded demonstrators. Then they broadcast these aberrant individuals’ words all over the news, using them to smear an entire movement.
Can Jews Be “Antisemitic” Toward Non-Jews?
Under this bill, they can. The document it relies on says:
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed in hatred of Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” (Emphases mine.)
This definition of antisemitism is so broad, in fact, that it doesn’t have to involve Jews at all. One non-Jew might express “hatred” (a term that isn’t defined) against another non-Jew and still run afoul of this law. Or they might be guilty of a certain forbidden “perception” of their fellow non-Jew.
It gets even weirder. As it’s written, this law could forbid a Jew who opposes the occupation from arguing with a non-Jew who supports it, on the grounds that the Jew’s speech is “antisemitic.”
Conclusion
Every year at Passover, Jews repeat the prayer, “Next year in Jerusalem.”
When we studied this in Hebrew school, it seemed clear to some of us that the return to Jerusalem was meant to come with the appearance of the Messiah, not through a political declaration. But those of us who raised this question were waved off. Today, many of the world’s most traditional Jews hold the belief that the state of Israel violates scripture and Halakhic law. They, too, could be considered “antisemitic” under this law. These absurdities highlight the bill’s real purpose, which is the state suppression of certain speech.
Despite its name, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act” doesn’t do much to address real antisemitism. And it’s designed to stifle, not promote, “awareness.” It turns the USA’s much-celebrated sense of liberty into a funhouse mirror, a grotesque and distorted reflection of everything this country claims to see in itself. Its passage would make a travesty of everything America's leaders claim to believe in.
The Senate must reject this bill.
Let your senators know you oppose this bill. The U.S. Capitol Switchboard operator can connect you directly with their offices: (202) 224-3121.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular