By Morgan Kromer in The College Fix
Some argued proposed antisemitism act could violate free speech rights
A bill that aims to strengthen enforcement against rampant campus antisemitism has hit something of a dead end in the Senate — even after passing the house in May.
Enjoy what you're reading? Subscribe for more!
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had pushed to include the Antisemitism Awareness Act as an amendment in the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act, but Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson “refused the request, arguing that it may be outside the purview of the NDAA,” Jewish Insider reported Monday.
A final NDAA compromise bill was released Saturday — it excluded the antisemitism act — and there does not appear to be much time for the Senate to consider it on its own in the final waning weeks of the current legislative sessions.
What’s more, the Antisemitism Awareness Act has sparked debate since its introduction due to its definition of antisemitism and what that might mean for free speech on college campuses.
One free speech expert told The College Fix that the act, if approved, could violate First Amendment rights. In contrast, a pro-Israel group praised the AAA for offering a “clear roadmap” for identifying discrimination.
Bill H.R. 6090 would have required the U.S. Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s 2016 definition of antisemitism “when reviewing or investigating complaints of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.”
FIRE’s lead counsel for government affairs, Tyler Coward, told The College Fix in a phone interview that the IHRA definition is too broad.
“[It] seeks to define antisemitism for the purposes of tracking anti-Semitic incidents in Europe. That was its original purpose, and because it was just supposed to be a tracking position, it was purposefully overbroad in a way that the drafters wanted to capture a lot of different incidents,” Coward told The Fix.
Coward also said the definition would raise concerns about what constitutes punishable speech versus protected speech. He said that even some examples listed in the definition, such as criticism of the Israeli government, are protected under the First Amendment.
“In the U.S., you can compare any country in the world’s policies to that of the Nazis, including America, including Germany, including anybody except for Israel, under this definition,” Coward said.
MORE: Combat antisemitism and protect free speech by ending double standards
By removing the ability to criticize Israel, and making that criticism punishable, it creates a “classic end-point discrimination that just isn’t permissible under the First Amendment,” he said.
Additionally, Kenneth Stern, who played a key role in developing the definition, is among those who urged against its use in the bill. He has appeared in multiple articles and podcasts, including one with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, in which he argued that using the IHRA definition would lead to the policing of speech.
Not all were against the Antisemitism Awareness Act, though. Rabbi Yaakov Menken at the Coalition for Jewish Values told The Fix via email that he and the coalition believe the act respects freedom of speech while dousing hate speech.
“There is no right to incite hatred. The AAA does not criminalize speech, and certainly the IHRA definition is merely an exercise in free speech,” Menken said.
“It calls hate speech what it is. Nazis have a right to march on public roads with a proper permit, but they have no right to march across a college campus,” he said.
Menken also said the IHRA definition, “with its contemporary examples,” provides a “clear roadmap” for recognizing discrimination against Jews, even when it is framed as criticism of Israel or its government.
Further, Republican Congressman Mike Lawler, who introduced the bill, has previously disputed free speech concerns surrounding the act. In July, he referred The Fix to three articles in response to questions about the AAA and its effects on free speech.
He sent three “[f]act checks…which clearly outline there are no threats to free speech and that the bill is designed to enable the Department of Education to properly address antisemitic hate crimes on campus.”
Lawler (pictured) also published a news release directed at outgoing Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer in November when he announced his intention to move forward with the bill. Lawler accused Schumer of “dragging his feet for six months” rather than working on the bill immediately after it was passed in the House.
Lawler also sent a letter of complaint, co-signed by other senators, regarding comments Schumer made to Columbia University administrators. The comments were made in opposition to holding the school accountable after it was sued by Jewish students following multiple antisemitism complaints.
Cover Image: The first amendment by Nick Youngson via Pix4free