VERIFYING 3 questions about the Antisemitism Awareness Act

On May 1, the House of Representatives passed a bill called the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 that would establish a broader definition of antisemitism in the U.S. amid growing campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act calls on the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights to take into consideration the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, which is defined as:

“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 definition includes a list of contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere:

• Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

The passage of the legislation in the House prompted swift criticism online. Some social media users questioned whether the definition of antisemitism that the bill references is new. Free speech advocates claimed the legislation bans criticism of Israel, while some right-wing commentators and Republican lawmakers claimed the bill makes it illegal to criticize the Bible and Christianity.

But is that what the bill would actually do? Here’s what we can VERIFY.

THE SOURCES

• Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023
• International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)
• 2019 Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism
• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights
• American Jewish Committee
• American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 
• Catholic Church
• Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY)
• Kenneth Stern, J.D., attorney, author and director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate

WHAT WE FOUND

QUESTION #1

Is this a new definition of antisemitism?

THE ANSWER

No, this is not a new definition of antisemitism.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 adopts the working definition of antisemitism that was created in 2016 by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The IHRA is an intergovernmental organization with 35 member countries, including the U.S., and eight observer countries.

The bill, which passed 320-91 in the House, would codify the IHRA’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. The bill now goes to the Senate where its fate is uncertain.

This isn’t the federal government's first use of the IHRA’s definition. In 2019, former President Donald Trump signed an executive order on combating antisemitism. The order told federal agencies to consider the IHRA’s definition when investigating civil rights violations.

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) says 31 states plus the District of Columbia, are already using or have recognized the IHRA definition to be used as a “tool to identify and combat antisemitism.” It has also been adopted at the county/city level, according to the AJC.

Previous bipartisan efforts to codify the IHRA’s definition into federal 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 across the U.S. and most recently on college campuses.

The proposed definition in the bill has faced strong opposition from across the political spectrum including lawmakers, Jewish organizations and free speech advocates.

In an April 26 letter to lawmakers, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged Congress 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 said.

Attorney Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate and the lead drafter of the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, has said that the term is now being weaponized to muzzle free speech on campuses.

“I see it as not just a legal question, I see it as intentionally trying to create a chilling effect, and I don’t think that’s appropriate. You don’t use instruments of law to suppress speech,” Stern said in a May 1 interview on PBS’s “Amanpour and Company.”

“I guarded the term antisemitism. To have a sting, it has to be used in only the clearest cases …. now, there’s a push to make it almost ubiquitous, and when everything becomes antisemitic, nothing is antisemitic, and it makes it harder to fight antisemitism,” Stern added.

QUESTION #2

Does this bill ban criticism of Israel?

THE ANSWER

No, the Antisemitism Awareness Act does not ban criticism of Israel.

The IHRA’s working definition of antisemitism, which is cited in the legislation, includes a list of contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. One example is “holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”

However, the IHRA definition notes that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”

This means that criticism of the Israeli government or actions of government representatives is not antisemitic. But, based on the IHRA’s definition, holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel is considered antisemitic.

QUESTION #3

Does this bill criminalize the Bible and Christianity?

THE ANSWER

The Antisemitism Awareness Act does not mention the Bible or Christianity, and the bill’s sponsor says the legislation does not ban the Bible.

The IHRA’s definition, which is referenced in the bill, lists the theory that Jews killed Jesus as an example of contemporary antisemitism.

For centuries the Catholic Church and other Christian leaders interpreted the Bible to teach that Jews were responsible for killing Jesus. However, in 1965, the Vatican officially rejected the theory, saying that Jews could not be held collectively responsible for killing Jesus. Pope Benedict XVI also personally exonerated Jews for Jesus’ death in a 2011 book.

But some factions of other Christian denominations still teach this theory and could be impacted by this bill if it is signed into law.

On May 1, Congressman Mike Lawler (R-NY), who co-sponsored the legislation, said in an X post that the bill does not criminalize Christianity.

“The bill does not criminalize Christianity — I’m Catholic. It gives contemporary examples of potential antisemitism. Calling all Jews Christ-killers is a form of antisemitism. Believing in the gospel is not,” Lawler said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

This story is also available in Spanish / Lee este artículo también en español: VERIFICAMOS 3 preguntas sobre la Ley de Concientización Sobre El Antisemitismo