The Senate Must Refine the House-Passed Antisemitism Bill

​The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a well-intentioned response to a genuine concern: escalating antisemitism, particularly on college campuses. While the motives behind this bill are commendable, the legislation, as it stands, threatens to infringe upon the free speech rights that are fundamental to American values and academic freedom. We recommend a more nuanced approach. We urge the Senate to refine the bill to effectively combat hateful conduct without compromising constitutionally protected speech – even if that speech is occasionally heinous.
 
The Antisemitism Awareness Act seeks to update the definition of antisemitism used in enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws, employing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition. This definition includes criteria such as “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and “drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.” While these examples identify antisemitic speech and attitudes, their inclusion in legal statutes brings the government squarely into the business of policing and outlawing speech.
 
This act in its current form has the potential to suppress First Amendment-protected speech. The IHRA definition, though useful as a guideline and for private criticism of antisemitic speech, is too expansive for legal application without risking the suppression of protected political expression. Legal scholars and civil rights activists have noted the dangers of such overreach, which could chill discussions on Israel and Palestine, particularly within academic institutions where vigorous debates are necessary.
 
Worse, the act's broad language risks transforming universities into environments in which administrative caution stifles debate and discussion out of fear of legal repercussions. This could have a chilling effect on academic freedom on many subjects, as educators may become reluctant to address or discuss hot topics. From here, what effectively would be the legal suppression of speech would inevitably spread to protect other groups. A private university has the free-association right to fire a professor or suspend a student for intemperate speech. Frankly, there have been some high-profile examples of academics – glorifying the abduction and rape of women and the murder of babies on Oct. 7 – who richly deserve to spend the rest of their academic careers lecturing squirrels in the park. But the broader legal consequences of this bill in all universities for academic inquiry and the free exchange of ideas – cornerstones of higher education in the United States – are profoundly concerning.
 
The Senate should carefully scrutinize this legislation. It is essential that any law aimed at curbing antisemitism be precise enough to target hateful behavior without punishing speech. Senators should consider amendments that clearly distinguish between hateful acts that single out people by religion and speech, no matter how intemperate, ensuring that the legislation protects individuals without compromising the robust civil discourse essential to a free society.
 
While calling out antisemites is vital and necessary, it must not come at the expense of the constitutional rights that define American democracy and academic freedom that defines the university. We urge an approach in the Senate that robustly defends both Jewish students and free speech.
 
And we politely suggest to supporters of the House bill that once you start to police speech, don’t be too surprised when the speech police come for you.