speech definition gov

government speech

Primary tabs.

The government speech doctrine is a principle of constitutional law which says that, although the  First Amendment ’s Free Speech Clause limits government regulation of private speech, it does not restrict the government when the government speaks for itself. In other words, the government is not required to act neutral when expressing its own opinion.  

It is not always clear when the government is speaking for itself instead of unconstitutionally restricting others’ speech. For example, in Rust v. Sullivan the Supreme Court determined that when the government funds family-planning programs, it may forbid healthcare providers in the program from answering pregnant women’s questions about abortion . In Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez , however, the Court determined that, when the government funds a program supporting legal representation for indigent parties, it may not forbid lawyers in the program from helping those parties challenge or amend welfare laws. The Supreme Court has not yet provided a clear standard for this type of case.

This doctrine does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the Constitution. For example, even though government speech is not regulated by the Free Speech Clause, it is still subject to the  Establishment Clause .

[Last updated in January of 2023 by the Wex Definitions Team ]

• the Constitution
• constitutional law
• wex definitions

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

What Does Free Speech Mean?

Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court often has struggled to determine what exactly constitutes protected speech. The following are examples of speech, both direct (words) and symbolic (actions), that the Court has decided are either entitled to First Amendment protections, or not.

The First Amendment states, in relevant part, that:

“Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech includes the right:

• Not to speak (specifically, the right not to salute the flag). West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette , 319 U.S. 624 (1943).
• Of students to wear black armbands to school to protest a war (“Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate.”). Tinker v. Des Moines , 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
• To use certain offensive words and phrases to convey political messages. Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
• To contribute money (under certain circumstances) to political campaigns. Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1 (1976).
• To advertise commercial products and professional services (with some restrictions). Virginia Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Consumer Council , 425 U.S. 748 (1976);  Bates v. State Bar of Arizona , 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
• To engage in symbolic speech, (e.g., burning the flag in protest). Texas v. Johnson , 491 U.S. 397 (1989);  United States v. Eichman , 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio , 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials. Roth v. United States , 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest. United States v. O’Brien , 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration.  Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier , 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser , 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event. Morse v. Frederick, __ U.S. __ (2007).

Disclaimer: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for use in educational activities only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on legislation. 

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects
• Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, interpretation & debate, freedom of speech and the press, matters of debate, common interpretation, fixing free speech, frontiers for free speech.

by Geoffrey R. Stone

Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School

by Eugene Volokh

Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law; Founder and Co-Author of "The Volokh Conspiracy" at Reason Magazine

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” What does this mean today? Generally speaking, it means that the government may not jail, fine, or impose civil liability on people or organizations based on what they say or write, except in exceptional circumstances.

Although the First Amendment says “Congress,” the Supreme Court has held that speakers are protected against all government agencies and officials: federal, state, and local, and legislative, executive, or judicial. The First Amendment does not protect speakers, however, against private individuals or organizations, such as private employers, private colleges, or private landowners. The First Amendment restrains only the government.

The Supreme Court has interpreted “speech” and “press” broadly as covering not only talking, writing, and printing, but also broadcasting, using the Internet, and other forms of expression. The freedom of speech also applies to symbolic expression, such as displaying flags, burning flags, wearing armbands, burning crosses, and the like.

The Supreme Court has held that restrictions on speech because of its content —that is, when the government targets the speaker’s message—generally violate the First Amendment. Laws that prohibit people from criticizing a war, opposing abortion, or advocating high taxes are examples of unconstitutional content-based restrictions. Such laws are thought to be especially problematic because they distort public debate and contradict a basic principle of self-governance: that the government cannot be trusted to decide what ideas or information “the people” should be allowed to hear.

There are generally three situations in which the government can constitutionally restrict speech under a less demanding standard.

1. In some circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that certain types of speech are of only “low” First Amendment value, such as:

a. Defamation: False statements that damage a person’s reputations can lead to civil liability (and even to criminal punishment), especially when the speaker deliberately lied or said things they knew were likely false. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964).

b. True threats: Threats to commit a crime (for example, “I’ll kill you if you don’t give me your money”) can be punished. Watts v. United States (1969).

c. “Fighting words”: Face-to-face personal insults that are likely to lead to an immediate fight are punishable. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942). But this does not include political statements that offend others and provoke them to violence.  For example, civil rights or anti-abortion protesters cannot be silenced merely because passersby respond violently to their speech. Cox v. Louisiana (1965).

d. Obscenity: Hard-core, highly sexually explicit pornography is not protected by the First Amendment. Miller v. California (1973). In practice, however, the government rarely prosecutes online distributors of such material.

e. Child pornography: Photographs or videos involving actual children engaging in sexual conduct are punishable, because allowing such materials would create an incentive to sexually abuse children in order to produce such material. New York v. Ferber (1982).

f. Commercial advertising: Speech advertising a product or service is constitutionally protected, but not as much as other speech. For instance, the government may ban misleading commercial advertising, but it generally can’t ban misleading political speech. Virginia Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Council (1976).

Outside these narrow categories of “low” value speech, most other content-based restrictions on speech are presumptively unconstitutional. Even entertainment, vulgarity, “hate speech” (bigoted speech about particular races, religions, sexual orientations, and the like), blasphemy (speech that offends people’s religious sensibilities), and violent video games are protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has generally been very reluctant to expand the list of “low” value categories of speech.

2. The government can restrict speech under a less demanding standard when the speaker is in a special relationship to the government. For example, the speech of government employees and of students in public schools can be restricted, even based on content, when their speech is incompatible with their status as public officials or students. A teacher in a public school, for example, can be punished for encouraging students to experiment with illegal drugs, and a government employee who has access to classified information generally can be prohibited from disclosing that information. Pickering v. Board of Education (1968).

3. The government can also restrict speech under a less demanding standard when it does so without regard to the content or message of the speech. Content-neutral restrictions, such as restrictions on noise, blocking traffic, and large signs (which can distract drivers and clutter the landscape), are generally constitutional as long as they are “reasonable.” Because such laws apply neutrally to all speakers without regard to their message, they are less threatening to the core First Amendment concern that government should not be permitted to favor some ideas over others. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC (1994). But not all content-neutral restrictions are viewed as reasonable; for example, a law prohibiting all demonstrations in public parks or all leafleting on public streets would violate the First Amendment. Schneider v. State (1939).

Courts have not always been this protective of free expression. In the nineteenth century, for example, courts allowed punishment of blasphemy, and during and shortly after World War I the Supreme Court held that speech tending to promote crime—such as speech condemning the military draft or praising anarchism—could be punished. Schenck v. United States (1919). Moreover, it was not until 1925 that the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment limited state and local governments, as well as the federal government. Gitlow v. New York (1925).

But starting in the 1920s, the Supreme Court began to read the First Amendment more broadly, and this trend accelerated in the 1960s. Today, the legal protection offered by the First Amendment is stronger than ever before in our history.

Three issues involving the freedom of speech are most pressing for the future.

Money, Politics, and the First Amendment

The first pressing issue concerns the regulation of money in the political process. Put simply, the question is this: To what extent, and in what circumstances, can the government constitutionally restrict political expenditures and contributions in order to “improve” the democratic process?

In its initial encounters with this question, the Supreme Court held that political expenditures and contributions are “speech” within the meaning of the First Amendment because they are intended to facilitate political expression by political candidates and others. The Court also recognized, however, that political expenditures and contributions could be regulated consistent with the First Amendment if the government could demonstrate a sufficiently important justification. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), for example, the Court held that the government could constitutionally limit the amount that individuals could contribute to political candidates in order to reduce the risk of undue influence, and in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003), the Court held that the government could constitutionally limit the amount that corporations could spend in the political process in order to influence electoral outcomes.

In more recent cases, though, in a series of five-to-four decisions, the Supreme Court has overruled McConnell and held unconstitutional most governmental efforts to regulate political expenditures and contributions. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010); McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014). As a result of these more recent decisions, almost all government efforts to limit the impact of money in the political process have been held unconstitutional, with the consequence that corporations and wealthy individuals now have an enormous impact on American politics.

Those who object to these decisions maintain that regulations of political expenditures and contributions are content-neutral restrictions of speech that should be upheld as long as the government has a sufficiently important justification. They argue that the need to prevent what they see as the corruption and distortion of American politics caused by the excessive influence of a handful of very wealthy individuals and corporations is a sufficiently important government interest to justify limits on the amount that those individuals and corporations should be permitted to spend in the electoral process.

Because these recent cases have all been five-to-four decisions, it remains to be seen whether a differently constituted set of justices in the future will adhere to the current approach, or whether they will ultimately overrule or at least narrowly construe those decisions. In many ways, this is the most fundamental First Amendment question that will confront the Supreme Court and the nation in the years to come.

The Meaning of “Low” Value Speech

The second pressing free speech issue concerns the scope of “low” value speech. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of the low value concept, suggesting that, in order for a category of speech to fall within that concept, there has to have been a long history of government regulation of the category in question. This is true, for example, of such low value categories as defamation, obscenity, and threats. An important question for the future is whether the Court will adhere to this approach.

The primary justification for the Court’s insistence on a history of regulation is that this limits the discretion of the justices to pick-and-choose which categories of expression should be deemed to have only low First Amendment value. A secondary justification for the Court’s approach is that a history of regulation of a category of expression provides some basis in experience for evaluating the possible effects – and dangers – of declaring a new category of speech to have only low First Amendment value.

Why does this doctrine matter? To cite one illustration, under the Court’s current approach, so-called “hate speech” – speech that expressly denigrates individuals on the basis of such characteristics as race, religion, gender, national origin, and sexual orientation – does not constitute low value speech because it has not historically been subject to regulation. As a result, except in truly extraordinary circumstances, such expression cannot be regulated consistent with the First Amendment. Almost every other nation allows such expression to be regulated and, indeed, prohibited, on the theory that it does not further the values of free expression and is incompatible with other fundamental values of society.

Similarly, under the Court’s approach to low value speech it is unclear whether civil or criminal actions for “invasion of privacy” can be reconciled with the First Amendment. For example, can an individual be punished for distributing on the Internet “private” information about other persons without their consent? Suppose, for example, an individual posts naked photos of a former lover on the Internet. Is that speech protected by the First Amendment, or can it be restricted as a form of “low” value speech? This remains an unresolved question.

Leaks of Classified Information

The Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit the publication of classified information unless it can demonstrate that the publication or distribution of that information will cause a clear and present danger of grave harm to the national security. New York Times v. United States (The “Pentagon Papers” case) (1971). At the same time, though, the Court has held that government employees who gain access to such classified information can be restricted in their unauthorized disclosure of that information. Snepp v. United States (1980). It remains an open question, however, whether a government employee who leaks information that discloses an unconstitutional, unlawful, or unwise classified program can be punished for doing so. This issue has been raised by a number of recent incidents, including the case of Edward Snowden. At some point in the future, the Court will have to decide whether and to what extent the actions of government leakers like Edward Snowden are protected by the First Amendment.

I like Professor Stone’s list of important issues. I think speech about elections, including speech that costs money, must remain protected, whether it’s published by individuals, nonprofit corporations, labor unions, media corporations, or nonmedia business corporations. (Direct contributions to candidates, as opposed to independent speech about them, can be restricted, as the Court has held.) And I think restrictions on “hate speech” should remain unconstitutional. But I agree these are likely to be heavily debated issues in the coming years. I’d like to add three more issues as well.

Professional-Client Speech

Many professionals serve their clients by speaking. Psychotherapists try to help their patients by talking with them. Doctors make diagnoses, offer predictions, and recommend treatments. Lawyers give legal advice; financial planners, financial advice. Some of these professionals also do things (such as prescribe drugs, perform surgeries, or file court documents that have legal effect). But much of what they do is speak.

Yet the law heavily regulates such speakers. It bars people from giving any legal, medical, psychiatric, or similar advice unless they first get licenses (which can take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of education to get)—though the government couldn’t require a license for people to become journalists or authors. The law lets clients sue professionals for malpractice, arguing that the professionals’ opinions or predictions proved to be “unreasonable” and harmful, though similar lawsuits against newspapers or broadcasters would be unconstitutional.

And the law sometimes forbids or compels particular speech by these professionals. Some states ban psychiatrists from offering counseling aimed at changing young patients’ sexual orientation. Florida has restricted doctors’ questioning their patients about whether the patients own guns. Many states, hoping to persuade women not to get abortions, require doctors to say certain things or show certain things to women who are seeking abortions. The federal government has tried to punish doctors who recommend that their patients use medical marijuana (which is illegal under federal law, but which can be gotten in many states with the doctor’s recommendation).

When are these laws constitutional? Moreover, if there is a First Amendment exception that allows such regulations of professional-client speech, which professions does it cover? What about, for instance, tour guides, fortunetellers, veterinarians, or diet advisors? Courts are only beginning to confront the First Amendment implications of these sorts of restrictions, and the degree to which the government’s interest in protecting clients—and in preventing behavior that the government sees as harmful—can justify restricting professional-client speech.

Crime-Facilitating Speech

Some speech contains information that helps people commit crimes, or get away with committing crimes. Sometimes this is general information, for instance about how bombs are made, how locks can be picked, how deadly viruses can be created, how technological protections for copyrighted works can be easily evaded, or how a contract killer can get away with his crime.

Sometimes this is specific information, such as the names of crime witnesses that criminals might want to silence, the location of police officers whom criminals might want to avoid, or the names of undercover officers or CIA agents. Indeed, sometimes this can be as familiar as people flashing lights to alert drivers that a police officer is watching; people are occasionally prosecuted for this, because they are helping others get away with speeding.

Sometimes this speech is said specifically with the purpose of promoting crime—but sometimes it is said for other purposes: consider chemistry books that talk about explosives; newspaper articles that mention people’s names so the readers don’t feel anything is being concealed; or novels that accurately describe crimes just for entertainment. And sometimes it is said for political purposes, for instance when someone describes how easy it is to evade copyright law or proposed laws prohibiting 3-D printing of guns, in trying to explain why those laws need to be rejected.

Surprisingly, the Supreme Court has never explained when such speech can be restricted. The narrow incitement exception, which deals with speech that aims to persuade people to commit imminent crimes, is not a good fit for speech that, deliberately or not, informs people about how to commit crimes at some point in the future. This too is a field that the Supreme Court will likely have to address in coming decades.

“Hostile Environment Harassment” Rules

Finally, some government agencies, courts, and universities have reasoned that the government may restrict speech that sufficiently offends employees, students, or business patrons based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, and the like. Here’s how the theory goes: Laws ban discrimination based on such identity traits in employment, education, and public accommodations. And when speech is “severe or pervasive” enough to create a “hostile or offensive environment” based on those traits, such speech becomes a form of discrimination. Therefore, the argument goes, a wide range of speech—such as display of Confederate flags, unwanted religious proselytizing, speech sharply criticizing veterans, speech suggesting that Muslims are disloyal, display of sexually suggestive materials, sexually-themed humor, sex-based job titles (such as “foreman” or “draftsman”), and more—can lead to lawsuits.

Private employers are paying attention, and restricting such speech by their employees. Universities are enacting speech codes restricting such speech. Even speech in restaurants and other public places, whether put up by the business owner or said by patrons, can lead to liability for the owner. And this isn’t limited to offensive speech said to a particular person who doesn’t want to hear it. Even speech posted on the wall or overheard in the lunchroom can lead to liability, and would thus be suppressed by “hostile environment” law.

To be sure, private employers and business owners aren’t bound by the First Amendment, and are thus generally free to restrict such speech on their property. And even government employers and enterprises generally have broad latitude to control what is said on their property (setting aside public universities, which generally have much less such latitude). But here the government is pressuring all employers, universities, and businesses to impose speech codes, by threatening liability on those who don’t impose such codes. And that government pressure is subject to First Amendment scrutiny.

Some courts have rejected some applications of this “hostile environment” theory on First Amendment grounds; others have upheld other applications. This too is something the Supreme Court will have to consider.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

US government and civics

Course: us government and civics   >   unit 3, freedom of speech: lesson overview.

• Freedom of speech

Cases to know

Key takeaways, review questions, want to join the conversation.

• Upvote Button navigates to signup page
• Downvote Button navigates to signup page
• Flag Button navigates to signup page

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Freedom of Speech

By: History.com Editors

Updated: July 27, 2023 | Original: December 4, 2017

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered free speech as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution . The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court , in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I . The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa , organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District . The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

What does free speech mean?; United States Courts . Tinker v. Des Moines; United States Courts . Freedom of expression in the arts and entertainment; ACLU .

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

US House passes controversial bill that expands definition of anti-Semitism

Rights groups warn that the definition could further chill freedom of speech as protests continue on college campuses.

The United States House of Representatives has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would expand the federal definition of anti-Semitism, despite opposition from civil liberties groups.

The bill passed the House on Wednesday by a margin of 320 to 91, and it is largely seen as a reaction to the ongoing antiwar protests unfolding on US university campuses. It now goes to the Senate for consideration.

Keep reading

The take: university protests spread across the us, at least 200 arrested at may day clashes in turkey, university gaza protests rage on with columbia arrests and violence at ucla.

If the bill were to become law, it would codify a definition of anti-Semitism created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

That is a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. Adding IHRA’s definition to the law would allow the federal Department of Education to restrict funding and other resources to campuses perceived as tolerating anti-Semitism.

But critics warn IHRA’s definition could be used to stifle campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza, which has claimed the lives of 34,568 Palestinians so far.

What is the definition?

IHRA’s working definition of anti-Semitism is “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities”.

According to the IHRA, that definition also encompasses the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity”.

The group also includes certain examples in its definition to illustrate anti-Semitism. Saying, for instance, that “the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” would be deemed anti-Semitic under its terms. The definition also bars any comparison between “contemporary Israeli policy” and “that of the Nazis”.

However, IHRA does specify that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic”.

Bipartisan criticism

Rights groups, however, have raised concerns the definition nevertheless conflates criticism of the state of Israel and Zionism with anti-Semitism.

In a letter sent to lawmakers on Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged House members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

The bill is “therefore not needed to protect against anti-Semitic discrimination”, the letter said.

“Instead, it would likely chill free speech of students on college campuses by incorrectly equating criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism.”

Those fears were echoed within the House of Representatives itself. During a hearing on Tuesday, Representative Jerry Nadler, a Democrat, said the scope of the definition was too broad.

“By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly,” he said.

Representative Thomas Massie, a Republican, also criticised the bill in a post on the social media platform X, noting that it only referred to the IHRA definition, without providing the exact language or stating clearly which parts would be enshrined into law.

“To find the legally adopted definition of anti-Semitism, one must go to [the IHRA website],” he wrote.

“Not only is the definition listed there, but one also finds specific examples of anti-Semitic speech. Are those examples made part of the law as well?”

Concerns on campus

The IHRA adopted its current definition of anti-Semitism in 2016, and its framing has been embraced by the US State Department under President Joe Biden and his two predecessors.

The vote on Wednesday comes as renewed protests have swept across college campuses in opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza. April has seen the spread of encampments on university lawns, as students call for university leaders to divest from Israel and for government officials to call for a ceasefire.

The Biden administration and other top Washington officials have pledged steadfast support for Israel, despite mounting humanitarian concerns over its military campaign.

US lawmakers also have upped the pressure on university administrators to quash the protests, which they have portrayed as inherently anti-Semitic.

Protest leaders across the country, however, have rejected that characterisation. Instead, they accuse administrators and local officials of conflating support for Palestinians with anti-Semitism.

They also have said their rights are being trampled by administrators who seek to appease lawmakers, prompting at times violent police crackdowns on the encampments.

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson announced that several House committees would be tasked with a probe into alleged campus anti-Semitism. But critics fear the investigation could ultimately threaten to withhold federal research grants and other government support from the universities where the protests are occurring.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Bill to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses Prompts Backlash From the Right

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said the legislation could make it illegal to assert that Jews killed Jesus, punishing Christians for “believing the Gospel.”

By Annie Karni

Reporting from Washington

A bipartisan push in Congress to enact a law cracking down on antisemitic speech on college campuses has prompted a backlash from far-right lawmakers and activists, who argue it could outlaw Christian biblical teachings.

The House passed the legislation, called the Antisemitism Awareness Act, overwhelmingly on Wednesday, and Senate leaders in both parties were working behind the scenes on Thursday to determine whether it would have enough backing to come to a vote in that chamber.

House Republicans rolled the bill out this week as part of their efforts to condemn the pro-Palestinian protests that have surged at university campuses across the country, and to put a political squeeze on Democrats, who they have accused of tolerating antisemitism to please their liberal base.

But in trying to use the issue as a political cudgel against the left, Republicans also called attention to a rift on the right. Some G.O.P. members said they firmly believe that Jews killed Jesus Christ, and argued that the bill — which includes such claims in its definition of antisemitism — would outlaw parts of the Bible.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, said she opposed the bill 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.”

Speaker Mike Johnson and other Republican leaders have sought to capitalize on the campus unrest to unite the G.O.P. and further drive a wedge in the Democratic Party, which is deeply divided over the war in Gaza. Many progressives have sided with the protesters who have condemned Israel’s tactics, citing the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians, while centrist lawmakers and President Biden have continued to support Israel’s right to defend itself after the Hamas attack in October.

The bill would for the first time enshrine a definition of antisemitism into federal law, and instruct the Education Department to consider it when investigating allegations of discrimination against Jews on college campuses. That could lead to federal funds being withheld from colleges or universities that fail to restrict a broad range of statements covered by the definition, which includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination” and claiming that Israel’s existence is a “racist endeavor.”

The measure had its intended effect of dividing Democrats; 70 of them voted “no.” Representative Mike Lawler, Republican of New York and the lead sponsor, got in his intended jab, saying on the House floor that “some of my colleagues on the left are allowing electoral politics to get in the way of doing what is right.”

But the bill also splintered the G.O.P. conference, with 21 Republicans opposing it.

Representative Matt Gaetz, Republican of Florida, called the legislation a “ridiculous hate speech bill.” On social media, he argued that “the Gospel itself would meet the definition of antisemitism under the terms of the bill,” and included a line from the New Testament about the crucifixion of Jesus.

“The Bible is clear,” he added. “There is no myth or controversy about this.”

The Anti-Defamation League considers the assertion that Jews killed Jesus an antisemitic myth that has been used to justify violence against Jews for centuries. In 1965, the Catholic Church said that Jews could not be held collectively accountable for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. And in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI said in a book that there was no basis in the scripture for the belief that Jews were responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.

In 2019, former President Donald J. Trump signed an executive order on combating antisemitism that relied on the same definition that appears in the House bill. That did not stop right-wing lawmakers and activists from erupting over the issue after the legislation passed the House on Wednesday on a vote of 320-91.

“Did the House of Representatives just make parts of the Bible illegal?” Charlie Kirk, a far-right influencer, asked rhetorically on social media. “Yes,” replied Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host. “The New Testament.”

In an appearance on CNN on Wednesday afternoon, Representative Jared Moskowitz, Democrat of Florida, batted away Ms. Greene’s comments as par for the course for someone known for her antisemitic and racist language.

“I don’t think the Jewish community is worried right now what the ‘Jew Laser Lady’ has to say,” Mr. Moskowitz said, adding, “That’s not who we want on our side.” In a 2018 Facebook post , Ms. Greene wrote before she was elected to Congress, she speculated that a devastating wildfire that ravaged California was started by “a laser” beamed from space and controlled by a prominent Jewish banking family with connections to powerful Democrats.

“She has been one of the people in this hall that has stoked antisemitism in the past,” Mr. Moskowitz said.

Mr. Lawler said the argument put forward by Ms. Greene and Mr. Gaetz was “absurd on its face, inflammatory and irrational.”

The bill would mandate that the Education Department rely on the definition of antisemitism used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance , an intergovernmental organization based in Stockholm, when enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

Jewish leaders have been pressing Congress to pass some version of the bill for years. In 2016, the Senate, which was controlled by Democrats, passed a similar measure, but it died in the Republican-led House. The hope of many Jewish leaders now is that the situation on campuses in the United States has become so heated in reaction to the Israel-Hamas war that there could be momentum for the bill to clear both chambers.

But it is now facing headwinds in the Senate. Ginned up by Mr. Carlson and other right-wing figures, a handful of Republicans, including Senators Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, have voiced objections to the bill, according to two people familiar with the internal party discussion who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

“There are objections on both sides,” said Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York and the majority leader. “So we’re going to look for the best way to move forward.”

There has long been controversy , even among those who have dedicated their careers to studying and combating antisemitism, about the Holocaust organization’s definition and the potential it has to run afoul of the First Amendment.

Kenneth Stern, an attorney who wrote the definition, testified in 2017 that it “was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus.” Its goal, he said, was to help governments collect data on antisemitism. One of his concerns was that anti-hate speech laws could let racist and antisemitic actors portray themselves as victims denied their constitutional rights.

Christopher Anders, director of the democracy and technology policy division at the American Civil Liberties Union, warned that the bill could lead to pressure on colleges and universities to restrict speech critical of the Israeli government “out of fear of the college losing federal funding.”

“The House’s approval of this misguided and harmful bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment,” he said.

Representative Thomas Massie, a libertarian Republican from Kentucky, made the same argument, calling the measure a “hate speech” bill that he believed was a violation of the First Amendment.

Opponents of the bill included progressive Democrats such as Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Cori Bush of Missouri and Pramila Jayapal of Washington.

“How dare the party of Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene come down here and lecture Democrats about antisemitism,” Representative Teresa Leger Fernandez, Democrat of New Mexico, who voted against it, said on the House floor.

“Remember,” the lawmaker 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.’”

She appeared to be referring to Mr. Trump’s dinner in 2022 with Nick Fuentes , an outspoken antisemite and racist who also forged ties with Ms. Greene and other right-wing lawmakers in Congress.

In addition to Mr. Gaetz and Ms. Greene, hard-right opponents of the legislation included Representatives Lauren Boebert of Colorado, Anna Paulina Luna of Florida, Chip Roy of Texas, Paul Gosar of Arizona and Andy Biggs of Arizona.

Annie Karni is a congressional correspondent for The Times. She writes features and profiles, with a recent focus on House Republican leadership. More about Annie Karni

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

House passes bill to expand definition of antisemitism amid growing campus protests over Gaza war

Pro-Palestinian protesters camp out in tents at Columbia University on Saturday, April 27, 2024 in New York. With the death toll mounting in the war in Gaza, protesters nationwide are demanding that schools cut financial ties to Israel and divest from companies they say are enabling the conflict. Some Jewish students say the protests have veered into antisemitism and made them afraid to set foot on campus. (AP Photo)

FILE -President of Columbia University Nemat Shafik testifies before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce hearing on “Columbia in Crisis: Columbia University’s Response to Antisemitism” on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, April 17, 2024. Columbia University president Nemat (Minouche) Shafik is no stranger to navigating complex international issues, having worked at some of the world’s most prominent global financial institutions.(AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — The House passed legislation Wednesday that would establish a broader definition of antisemitism for the Department of Education to enforce anti-discrimination laws, the latest response from lawmakers to a nationwide student protest movement over the Israel-Hamas war.

The proposal, which passed 320-91 with some bipartisan support, would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism in Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. It now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.

Action on the bill was just the latest reverberation in Congress from the protest movement that has swept university campuses. Republicans in Congress have denounced the protests and demanded action to stop them, thrusting university officials into the center of the charged political debate over Israel’s conduct of the war in Gaza. More than 33,000 Palestinians have been killed since the war was launched in October, after Hamas staged a deadly terrorist attack against Israeli civilians.

If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the bill would broaden the legal definition of antisemitism to include the “targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity.” Critics say the move would have a chilling effect on free speech throughout college campuses.

“Speech that is critical of Israel alone does not constitute unlawful discrimination,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said during a hearing Tuesday. “By encompassing purely political speech about Israel into Title VI’s ambit, the bill sweeps too broadly.”

Advocates of the proposal say it would provide a much-needed, consistent framework for the Department of Education to police and investigate the rising cases of discrimination and harassment targeted toward Jewish students.

“It is long past time that Congress act to protect Jewish Americans from the scourge of antisemitism on campuses around the country,” Rep. Russell Fry, R-S.C., said Tuesday.

The expanded definition of antisemitism was first adopted in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, an intergovernmental group that includes the United States and European Union states, and has been embraced by the State Department under the past three presidential administrations, including Joe Biden’s

Previous bipartisan efforts to codify it into law have failed. But the Oct. 7 terrorist attack by Hamas militants in Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza have reignited efforts to target incidents of antisemitism on college campuses.

Separately, Speaker Mike Johnson announced Tuesday that several House committees will be tasked with a wide probe that ultimately threatens to withhold federal research grants and other government support for universities, placing another pressure point on campus administrators who are struggling to manage pro-Palestinian encampments, allegations of discrimination against Jewish students and questions of how they are integrating free speech and campus safety.

The House investigation follows several high-profile hearings that helped precipitate the resignations of presidents at Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania. And House Republicans promised more scrutiny, saying they were calling on the administrators of Yale, UCLA and the University of Michigan to testify next month.

The House Oversight Committee took it one step further Wednesday, sending a small delegation of Republican members to an encampment at nearby George Washington University in the District of Columbia. GOP lawmakers spent the short visit criticizing the protests and Mayor Muriel Bowser’s refusal to send in the Metropolitan Police Department to disperse the demonstrators.

Bowser on Monday confirmed that the city and the district’s police department had declined the university’s request to intervene. “We did not have any violence to interrupt on the GW campus,” Bowser said, adding that police chief Pamela Smith made the ultimate decision. “This is Washington, D.C., and we are, by design, a place where people come to address the government and their grievances with the government.”

It all comes at a time when college campuses and the federal government are struggling to define exactly where political speech crosses into antisemitism. Dozens of U.S. universities and schools face civil rights investigations by the Education Department over allegations of antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Among the questions campus leaders have struggled to answer is whether phrases like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” should be considered under the definition of antisemitism.

The proposed definition faced strong opposition from several Democratic lawmakers, Jewish organizations as well as free speech advocates.

In a letter sent to lawmakers Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union urged members to vote against the legislation, saying federal law already prohibits antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

“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,” the letter stated.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of the centrist pro-Israel group J Street, said his organization opposes the bipartisan proposal because he sees it as an “unserious” effort led by Republicans “to continually force votes that divide the Democratic caucus on an issue that shouldn’t be turned into a political football.”

Associated Press writers Ashraf Khalil, Collin Binkley and Stephen Groves contributed to this report.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Campus protests over the Gaza war

House passes bill aimed to combat antisemitism amid college unrest.

Barbara Sprunt

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson visited Columbia University on April 24 to meet with Jewish students and make remarks about concerns that the ongoing demonstrations have become antisemitic. Alex Kent/Getty Images hide caption

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson visited Columbia University on April 24 to meet with Jewish students and make remarks about concerns that the ongoing demonstrations have become antisemitic.

The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday aimed at addressing reports of rising antisemitism on college campuses, where activists angered by Israel's war against Hamas have been protesting for months and more recently set up encampments on campus grounds .

The Antisemitism Awareness Act would see the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism for the enforcement of federal anti-discrimination laws regarding education programs.

The bill passed with a 320-91 vote. Seventy Democrats and 21 Republicans voted against the measure.

The international group defines antisemitism as "a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews" and gives examples of the definition's application, which includes "accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagine 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."

Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., introduced the legislation.

"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," he said on the House floor before passage.

The bill goes further than an executive order former President Donald Trump signed in 2019 . Opponents argue the measure could restrict free speech.

"This definition adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance includes 'contemporary examples of antisemitism'," said Rep. Jerry Nadler in a speech on the House floor ahead of the vote. "The problem is that these examples may include protected speech in some context, particularly with respect to criticism of the state of Israel."

Fellow New York Democrat Rep. Ritchie Torres , one of the 15 Democratic cosponsors of the bill, told NPR he finds that argument unconvincing.

"There's a false narrative that the definition censors criticism of the Israeli government. I consider it complete nonsense," Torres said in an interview with NPR.

"If you can figure out how to critique the policies and practices of the Israeli government without calling for the destruction of Israel itself, then no reasonable person would ever accuse you of antisemitism," he added.

Issue should 'transcend partisan politics'

While members of both parties have criticized reports of antisemitism at the protests, Republicans have made the issue a central political focus.

House Speaker Mike Johnson made a rare visit last week to Columbia University, where demonstrators were demanding the school divest from companies that operate in Israel. Johnson and a handful of GOP lawmakers met with a group of Jewish students.

"They are really concerned that their voices are not being heard when they may complain about being assaulted, being spit on, being told that all Jews should die — and they are not getting any response from the individuals who are literally being paid to protect them," Rep. Anthony D'Esposito, R-N.Y., told NPR of the meeting.

On Tuesday, Johnson held a press conference focused on antisemitism with a group of House Republicans at the U.S. Capitol.

"Antisemitism is a virus and it will spread if it's not stamped out," Johnson said. "We have to act, and House Republicans will speak to this fateful moment with moral clarity."

Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who chairs the House progressive caucus, says Republicans are playing politics.

"Many of these Republicans didn't say a word when Trump and others in Charlottesville and other places were saying truly antisemitic things. But all of a sudden now they want to bring forward bills that divide Democrats and weaponize this," she said.

Torres said he wished Johnson had done a bipartisan event with House Democrats to "present a united front."

"You know, it's impossible to take the politics out of politics, but the fight against all forms of hate, including antisemitism, should transcend partisan politics," he said.

Student protestors chant near an entrance to Columbia University on April 30. Columbia University has restricted access to the school's campus to students residing in residential buildings on campus and employees who provide essential services to campus buildings after protestors took over Hamilton Hall overnight. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images hide caption

Student protestors chant near an entrance to Columbia University on April 30. Columbia University has restricted access to the school's campus to students residing in residential buildings on campus and employees who provide essential services to campus buildings after protestors took over Hamilton Hall overnight.

Jewish students speak about feeling harassed

Hear from students who met with speaker johnson.

There was increased urgency to move legislation to the floor after lawmakers started hearing stories of Jewish students feeling unwelcome on campuses.

Eliana Goldin, a junior at Columbia and the Jewish Theological Seminary, said the escalation of protests on and around her campus have made her feel unsafe.

"I know many, many people who have been harassed because they wear a Jewish star necklace," Goldin told NPR. Goldin was one student who received a message from Rabbi Elie Buechler of Columbia a week ago.

"The events of the last few days...have made it clear that Columbia University's Public Safety and the NYPD cannot guarantee Jewish students' safety in the face of extreme antisemitism and anarchy," the message read. "It deeply pains me to say that I would strongly recommend you return home as soon as possible and remain home until the reality in and around campus has dramatically improved."

Demonstrators say their protest is peaceful and that some of the antisemitic events that have garnered national attention have come from people outside of the university.

Goldin said she was part of an interaction that got a lot of online attention of someone yelling at her and others to "go back to Poland." She said she was disappointed in the reaction from the broader Columbia community, even though the person was likely not a student.

"I do think if someone were to say, 'go back to Africa' to a Black student, it would one, be abhorrent," Goldin said. "And correctly, the entire Columbia student body would feel outraged at that, and we would all be able to rally around it. But of course, when someone says 'go back to Poland' to a Jew, we don't feel the same outrage and the same unity against that."

Torres said lawmakers should listen to students like Goldin.

"If there are Black students, who claim to experience racism, we rightly respect their experiences. The same would be true of Latino students, the same would be true of Asian students," he said. "If there are Jewish students who are telling us that they do not feel safe, why are we questioning the validity of their experiences? Why are we not affording them the sensitivity that we would have for every other group?"

Columbia University did not respond to NPR about questions about their handling of the protests.

A demonstrator breaks the windows of the front door of the building in order to secure a chain around it to prevent authorities from entering as demonstrators from the pro-Palestine encampment barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building at Columbia University, on April 30. Alex Kent/Getty Images hide caption

A demonstrator breaks the windows of the front door of the building in order to secure a chain around it to prevent authorities from entering as demonstrators from the pro-Palestine encampment barricade themselves inside Hamilton Hall, an academic building at Columbia University, on April 30.

'It just really kind of erodes the soul'

Xavier Westergaard, a Ph.D. student at Columbia, attended the meeting between the House GOP delegation and Jewish students.

"The mood in the room was relief that someone so high up in the government made this a priority," he said, referring to Johnson.

"Jewish students, including myself, have been the victims of physical violence and intimidation. This goes from shoving, spitting, being told to go back to Europe," he said. "It just really kind of erodes the soul if you hear it too many times."

He added: "And this is not just happening outside the gates, on the sidewalk where anyone from anywhere can come and demonstrate. We do have the First Amendment in this country. This was actually on campus. The university has responsibilities to protect their students from harassment on the basis of religion or creed or national origin."

A consistent refrain among protesters is that criticizing the policies of the Israeli government doesn't equate to antisemitism.

Westergaard agrees, but says that's not what he's experiencing.

"I've heard, 'We want all Zionists off campus.' I've heard 'death to the Zionist state, death to Zionists.' And as a Jew, I feel that Zionism and Judaism can be teased apart with a tremendous amount of care and compassion and knowledge," he said. "But it's also just a dog whistle that people use when they're talking about the Jews."

Juliana Castillo, an undergraduate, was also at the meeting with Johnson. She said calls for the safety of students doesn't just include physical well-being.

"There are things like intimidation, like feeling uncomfortable being openly Jewish or taking a direct route across campus," she said. "It doesn't always manifest as a lack of physical safety. Sometimes it manifests as being unwelcome in a class or feeling like people's viewpoints or perspectives are not respected."

She said even isolated incidents of antisemitism that get circulated widely online have a "creeping impact on people."

"Just knowing that something has happened to your friends, or to people you know in a place you're familiar with, makes it difficult to have a sense that this is your campus," she said. "These things do build up."

Bipartisan push on more bills to counter antisemitism

Lawmakers say this bill is just one step — and that there's more action the chamber should take to combat antisemitism.

Torres and Lawler have introduced another bill that would place a monitor on a campus to report back to the federal government on whether the university is complying with Title VI , which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in places like colleges that receive federal funding.

"A law is only as effective as its enforcement, and the purpose here is to provide an enforcement mechanism where none exist," Torres said. "And I want to be clear: the legislation would empower the federal Department of Education not to impose a monitor on every college or university, only when there's reason to suspect a violation of Title VI."

Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries is urging Johnson to bring the bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act to the floor.

"The effort to crush antisemitism and hatred in any form is not a Democratic or Republican issue" said Jeffries in a statement.

Letter to Speaker Mike Johnson on the Bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act. pic.twitter.com/z3weUD54zm — Hakeem Jeffries (@RepJeffries) April 29, 2024

The bill would establish a senior official in the Department of Education to monitor for antisemitism on college campuses and create a national coordinator in the White House to oversee a new interagency task force to counter antisemitism.

"We have negotiated that bill for nine months. It is bipartisan. It's bicameral," said North Carolina Democrat Kathy Manning, who co-chairs the House Bipartisan Task Force for Combating Antisemitism.

Manning was part of a trio of House Democrats who visited Columbia University last week to hear from Jewish students.

Manning points to a study from the American Jewish Committee that found that 46% of American Jews since October 7 say they have altered their behavior out of fear of antisemitism .

"I find that deeply disturbing, that in the United States of America, people are now afraid to be recognized in public as being Jewish," Manning said.

Pro-Palestine protesters hold signs including one proclaiming that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism during an April 25, 2024 demonstration at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Jewish Groups Decry House Passage of Bill Defining Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'

"antisemitism is a serious problem, but codifying a legal definition could have dangerous implications for free speech," said one campaigner..

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to approve legislation directing the U.S. Department of Education to consider a dubious definition of antisemitism, despite warnings from Jewish-led groups that the measure speciously conflates legitimate criticism of the Israeli government with bigotry against Jewish people.

House members approved the Antisemitism Awareness Act —bipartisan legislation introduced last year by Reps. Mike Lawler (R-N.Y.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Max Miller (R-Ohio), and Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.) in the lower chamber and Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) in the Senate—by a vote of 320-91 .

Both progressive Democrats and far-right Republicans opposed language in the bill. The former objected to conflating criticism of Israel with hatred of Jews, while the latter bristled at labeling Christian scripture—which posits that Jews killed Jesus—as antisemitic.

"Antisemitism is the hatred of Jews. Unfortunately, one doesn't need to look far to find it these days. But the supporters of this bill are looking in the wrong places," Hadar Susskind, president and CEO of the Jewish-led group Americans for Peace Now, said following Wednesday's vote.

"They aren't interested in protecting Jews," he added. "They are interested in supporting right-wing views and narratives on Israel and shutting down legitimate questions and criticisms by crying 'antisemite' at everyone, including Jews" who oppose Israel's far-right government.

"With this disingenuous effort, House Republicans have failed to seriously address antisemitism," Susskind added. "I hope the Senate does better."

The legislation—officially H.R. 6090—would require the Department of Education to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism when determining whether alleged harassment is motivated by antisemitic animus and violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance," including colleges and universities.

Lawler's office called the proposal "a key step in calling out antisemitism where it is and ensuring antisemitic hate crimes on college campuses are properly investigated and prosecuted," while Gottheimer emphasized that "the IHRA definition underscores that antisemitism includes denying Jewish self-determination to their ancestral homeland of Israel... and applying double standards to Israel."

Critics say that's the trouble with the IHRA working definition: It conflates legitimate criticism and condemnation of Israeli policies and practices with anti-Jewish bigotry, and forces people to accept the legitimacy of a settler-colonial apartheid state engaged in illegal occupation and a " plausibly " genocidal war on Gaza.

As the ACLU noted last week in a letter urging lawmakers to reject the legislation:

The IHRA working definition... is overbroad. It equates protected political speech with unprotected discrimination, and enshrining it 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. But the IHRA working definition declares that "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," "drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis," and "applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" are all examples of antisemitism.

Jewish Voice for Peace Action slammed what it called IHRA's "controversial and dangerous mis-definition that does not help fight real antisemitism and is only a tool for silencing the movement for Palestinian rights."

"The Israeli government's bombardment and siege of Gaza has killed over 34,000 people in six months," the group said on social media. "Congress must stop attacking the students and faculty members who are trying to stop this genocide, and instead focus on ending U.S. complicity in Israel's attacks."

Israel's Gaza onslaught has sparked a wave of nonviolent student-led protests across the United States and around the world. Some of these protests have been violently repressed by police, while anti-genocide activists including Jews have been branded "antisemitic" for condemning Israeli crimes or defending Palestinians' legal right to resist them.

Sending in militarized police and snipers to stop students from exercising their First Amendment rights is truly disgusting. Why are my colleagues and the mainstream media more outraged over these anti-war protests than they are about the over 35,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza? pic.twitter.com/EwLqRrS2we — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) May 1, 2024

Americans for Peace Now said that while it is "deeply concerned about the escalating antisemitism in the United States and globally," the legislation "poses a significant threat to free speech and open discourse."

"Equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism is a tactic used to stifle important discussions on Israeli policies and actions, thereby hindering the broader effort to combat true instances of hatred and discrimination against Jewish communities," the group added.

Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Centre for the Study of Hate and lead drafter of the IHRA working definition, warned years ago that "Jewish groups have used the definition as a weapon to say anti-Zionist expressions are inherently antisemitic and must be suppressed."

"Imagine if Black Lives Matter said the most important thing the [Biden] administration could do to remedy systemic racism is adopt a definition of racism, and that definition included this example: opposition to affirmative action," Stern wrote in 2020.

"Obviously, sometimes opposition to affirmative action is racist and sometimes it is not," he added. "The debate about systemic racism would be changed to a free speech fight, and those with reasonable concerns about affirmative action correctly upset that the state was branding them racist."

Join Us: News for people demanding a better world

• If Everything Is Antisemitic Then Nothing Is ›
• 'This Has to Stop': Palestinian Rights Advocates Condemn Antisemitic Incidents in US ›
• US House to Vote on Declaring 'Anti-Zionism Is Antisemitism' ›
• House GOP Plays Politics With Campus Antisemitism While Enabling Islamophobia ›
• Understanding the Difference Between Anti-Semitism and Pro-Palestinian Activism ›
• Hamas Didn’t Attack Israelis Because They Are Jewish ›
• Bernie Sanders to Netanyahu: 'It Is Not Antisemitic to Hold You Accountable' ›