Rogers is the “data wrangler” at BillTrack50. He previously worked on policy in several government departments.
In an era marked by a troubling rise in antisemitic incidents, members of Congress have responded by advancing the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Let's delve into the key elements of the bill, its intentions, the potential impacts it may have on curbing this age-old prejudice and concerns with its implementation.
The primary goal of the Antisemitism Awareness Act is to strengthen the federal response to antisemitism, especially in educational environments such as K-12 schools and universities. It seeks to clarify and reinforce how antisemitism is identified and addressed under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Title VI does not explicitly cover religion-based discrimination, it prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin. The proposed bill underscores that antisemitic acts can often be disguised as discrimination against these categories, especially when they are rooted in perceptions of Jewish ancestry or ethnicity.
It would apply the definition of antisemitism set forth by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in the enforcement of federal antidiscrimination laws concerning education programs or activities. It emphasizes that these proposals do not expand the powers of the secretary of education or alter the standards for determining what constitutes actionable discrimination, nor do they infringe upon rights protected under other laws or the First Amendment.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.) and enjoyed broad bipartisan support in the House, passing 320-91, and moving over to the Senate on May 2.
Is the bill justified?
Proponents of the bill cite the protests at campuses around the country as a reason for better defining antisemitism and improving educational programs.
"Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, since the heinous terrorist attack on Israel, there has been an explosion of antisemitism, violence and intimidation at home and around the world — especially on our college campuses. ... I’m full of grief, anger, and disgust following the darkest day in Jewish history since the end of the Holocaust. ... [W]e have an obligation to teach future generations about this evil and protect Jewish students from violence and the virulent impact of all hate," stated Rep. Josh Gottheimer.
The IHRA definition of antisemitism is at the heart of the bill: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward 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.” The IHRA goes on to provide some examples for illustration, which include:
- Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
- 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.
"The IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism is the most authoritative and effective tool to delineate all forms of contemporary Jew-hatred across the ideological spectrum, and has been adopted by more than 1,200 entities worldwide. Jews are the most targeted group for religious-motivated hate crimes in the United States, and we are encouraged by this legislative initiative to ensure that the American Jewish community is as fully protected by federal anti-discrimination laws as other minorities," said Sacha Roytman Dratwa, CEO of the Combat Antisemitism Movement.
Free speech concerns
While the bill does garner broad support, there are those who feel the definition it adopts is unhelpfully broad. Rep. Jamie Raskin wrote in a statement:
“The IHRA ‘definition’ literally does not define antisemitism other than to say, nebulously and inscrutably, that it ‘is a certain perception of Jews.’ It adds that it ‘may be expressed as hatred’ (emphasis added) and made manifest in different ways but still nowhere defines what it is. Thus, the definition falters from the start because it defines antisemitism as a ‘perception,’ and then leaves the elements of that perception completely blank.
“In a legal sense, for the purposes of enforcing criminal law or civil rights law against individuals, the IHRA definition is plainly unconstitutionally vague. It could never withstand a rigorous due process analysis for individual punishment because it does not give a reasonable person particular notice of what the proscribed speech or conduct is in even the most rudimentary sense."
Raskin is a supporter of the Countering Antisemitism Act, introduced in April, which implements key features of President Joe Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. He feels that there are better, more constitutionally satisfying definitions available and he also states that Lawler’s bill will do nothing to practically improve the fight against antisemitism.
But, given its lack of effect, he reluctantly supports it. “At this moment of anguish and confusion over the dangerous surge of antisemitism, authoritarianism and racism all over the country and the world, it seems unlikely that this meaningless ‘gotcha’ legislation can help much — but neither can it hurt much, and it may now bring some people despairing over manifestations of antisemitism a sense of consolation," he said.
The American Civil Liberties Union has called on lawmakers to oppose the bill. In a letter to members of Congress, the ACLU wrote, “Federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment by federally funded entities. H.R. 6090 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.”
