Groups across ideological spectrum unite in opposing Antisemitism Awareness Act

Since October 7 and the subsequent campus protests around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, lawmakers have introduced legislation aimed to address concerns about anti-Semitism on college campuses. Some of the legislation has been controversial, but none has drawn more widespread criticism than H.R. 6090, the Antisemitism Awareness Act. 

Introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler in 2023, the Antisemitism Awareness Act requires the U.S. Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition and contemporary examples of anti-Semitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws on college campuses. But the IHRA definition was never intended to be used for legal purposes, and it covers a broad swath of expression the First Amendment protects. 

Requiring schools to use it would not help address discrimination at institutions of higher education. If enacted, it would pressure them to investigate and punish expression protected by the First Amendment. (We’ve written before about the problems with the bill.) 

In large part due to its effects on free speech, the Antisemitism Awareness Act faces remarkably broad opposition, uniting individuals and groups from across the political and ideological spectrum including those detailed below.

The definition’s lead author

The lead author of the IHRA definition himself, Ken Stern, opposes codifying the definition into law. In a recent conversation with Nico Perrino, FIRE’s executive vice president, Mr. Stern stated:

The thing that I see as the real problem of this on the campus is not necessarily how the cases are gonna be litigated. It's about the chilling effect. It’s about the pressure on administrators who know that there are groups out there hunting for speech to file Title VI cases, and their job is to protect the university from being sued.

Members of Congress

In the House of Representatives, 91 members representing both parties voted against the bill, and many of them subsequently released statements that noted their concerns about its effect on free speech. As just a few examples: Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler said the bill “threatens to chill constitutionally protected speech.” Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss, citing FIRE, said “codifying IHRA as the only definition for Title VI investigations will unconstitutionally constrain academic freedom.” On the other side of the aisle, Republican Rep. Michael Cloud said the bill “raised significant concerns under the First Amendment.”

In the Senate, where the bill has yet to reach a vote, Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville warned that the bill requires “going after free speech …. There is all kinds of hate speech out there. If we’re going to start curbing that, then you’re going to take away rights of people." And Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz said the bill is too vague and that he worries “about creating a statutory thoughtcrime, even thoughts that I find personally offensive.” 

Civil liberties organizations and civil society groups

Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal advocacy group,  expressed concern about the bill’s effect on speech, stating: 

The antidote for bad speech is good speech, not government censorship. The antidote for unlawful conduct (i.e., violence and rioting), on the other hand, is enforcing existing laws against such conduct. In seeking to address the horrifying rise of antisemitism, our government should keep these principles squarely in mind and be wary of creating a new speech code.

The ACLU voiced similar concerns in urging members of the House of Representatives to oppose the bill:

The IHRA working definition . . . 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.

SPLC Action Fund, an affiliate of the Southern Poverty Law Center, and PEN America, a nonprofit organization that defends free expression, released statements opposing the bill as well. PEN America noted the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism is overbroad and argued “its enshrinement into law could lead to significant impairment of academic freedom, free speech and legitimate political expression.” 

Jewish groups like Bend the Arc and T’ruah also strongly opposed the bill, including on free speech grounds. Jonathan Jacoby of the Nexus Leadership Project — a coalition of academics, activists, and others working to address anti-Semitism — noted the rise in anti-Semitic incidents is alarming and calls for a robust societal response, but urged that the Antisemitism Awareness Act is “the wrong solution to an urgent problem that requires real action.” He added that “attempting to legislate or codify such definitions risks their being applied too broadly in a manner that infringes on constitutionally protected rights.”

Explicitly pro-Israel Jewish advocacy groups also expressed opposition to the bill. Americans for Peace Now condemned its passage, arguing that codifying the IHRA definition “threatens free speech and open discourse.” J Street similarly noted:

On its own, the IHRA Working Definition, coupled with its contemporary examples, is overly broad… [O]ur focus should be on policies that make American Jews safer, without restricting legitimate discourse or limiting the tools available to combat antisemitism.

Commentators

In The New York Times, columnists Michelle Goldberg, Bret Stephens, and David French (FIRE’s former president) cited the bill’s consequences for free speech. The Washington Times, the Cato Institute, and the Los Angeles Times editorial board all published op-eds or commentary opposing the bill because of concerns about stifling academic freedom and public discourse. Atlantic writer Conor Friedersdorf noted that the bill’s definition of anti-Semitism is “too expansive to serve as a unifying standard in academia, and it doubles down on an approach to antidiscrimination that chills free speech while failing to reduce hate.” 

The Free Press published a joint op-ed from two authors — one on the left and one on the right, each with their own opinions on Israel — who agree the Antisemitism Awareness Act is “profoundly misguided.” Newsweek editor Batya Ungar-Sargon, law professor and First Amendment scholar Eugene Volokh, and hedge fund manager Bill Ackman have all argued that the bill impairs free speech. 

This remarkable coalition, spanning political and social divides, highlights the widespread concern about the threat the Antisemitism Awareness Act poses to free speech and academic freedom. 

And, of course, since 2015, well before this bill was introduced, FIRE has been leading the charge to oppose its defining features. 

We’ve consistently cautioned against legislative attempts to force government agencies and administrators to use the IHRA definition when addressing claims of discriminatory harassment, recognizing the threat this would pose to campus speech rights. Now, we’re once again urging Congress to oppose the legislation, noting the bill “threatens free expression on campus by pressuring schools to police speech under a vague and overbroad definition of anti-Semitism” and would “leave students and faculty unsure about expressing statements and opinions that could get them into trouble, causing many to stay silent rather than risk investigation and discipline.”

This remarkable coalition, spanning political and social divides, highlights the widespread concern about the threat the Antisemitism Awareness Act poses to free speech and academic freedom. FIRE stands firmly with these groups in their opposition and will continue to monitor the legislation closely.