Controversial Definition of Antisemitism at Universities Would Limit Criticism of Israel

Pro-Palestine protesters at the UT-Austin campus in April 2024 -Lina Fisher

The Texas Senate Committee on Education K-16 heard public testimony last week for Senate Bill 326, which would extend a controversial definition of antisemitism to all student conduct policies at public universities. If passed, schools would use a definition set by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance to determine whether a student’s conduct violation “may have been motivated” by antisemitism.

The proposed bill comes after an executive order last March that required public universities to incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism into their free speech policies.

So why is the IHRA definition of antisemitism so controversial? The IHRA definition includes criticism of Israel as antisemitism. Examples mentioned in the definition include calling the state a “racist endeavor” or comparing its policies to Nazi policies.

Some groups say this aspect of the definition curtails free speech by silencing criticisms of Israel, like those in the pro-Palestine demonstrations that took place across college campuses last year. Austin’s federal judge, Robert Pitman, said in an October court order that enforcing the IHRA definition of antisemitism in campus speech policies is “likely” unconstitutional because it suppresses legitimate critiques of Israel, but he hasn’t officially ruled on the matter.

Oli Hoffman, a Jewish student at the University of Texas at Austin who testified against the bill, said the IHRA definition dangerously conflates the Israeli government with the Jewish people and is often used to silence pro-Palestine speech. Hoffman prefers the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism to define antisemitism because it carves out space for legitimate criticism of Israel’s actions.

“This country’s government has often weaponized the issue of antisemitism ... to make itself seem like the good guy,” Hoffman said.

Hoffman was at the pro-Palestine protests at UT’s campus last April, where law enforcement arrested 136 people. “I’m sure many more Jewish students than I were getting thrown to the ground or pepper-sprayed not because we were Jewish, but we happened to be Jewish,” Hoffman said. “It was very ironic that a lot of us who were Jewish experienced violence that was all in the name of Jewish safety on campus.”

Proponents of the bill, like Jackie Nirenberg, Austin regional director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the bill doesn’t suppress free speech because it only applies to actions, like harassment or vandalism.

“Anti-Zionist language is protected by free speech,” Nirenberg said. “Antisemitic language is protected by free speech, so this is not enforcing any ban on people’s rights to speak out. It is about when that crosses the line into having a negative impact on somebody’s life and making them feel targeted in any way.”

Other advocates for the bill pointed to rising antisemitism at K-12 schools and college campuses. A survey conducted by the Anti-Defamation League found that 83% of Jewish college students witnessed or experienced antisemitism since October 2023.

“You cannot defeat what you are unwilling to define,” said Sandra Parker, vice chair of the Texas Holocaust, Genocide, and Antisemitism Advisory Commission, in her testimony. “Antisemitism is being tolerated and ignored [because] people don’t know what antisemitism is when they see it.”

SB 326 passed out of committee Tuesday.