Republicans and prominent conservative activists are coming out in opposition to the Antisemitism Awareness Act — a bill passed by the House this week that would force the Department of Education to apply a broader definition to antisemitism when enforcing anti-discrimination laws on college and university campuses. 

On Wednesday, the House passed the legislation by a large bipartisan vote of 320 to 91, according to the office of the House clerk. It requires the Department of Education to apply Title VI anti-discrimination protections for Jews based on the definition of antisemitism as authored by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, a Swedish nonprofit. 

The IHRA definition is the most widely accepted definition of antisemitism, including by leading Jewish groups and Western government bodies. It has a more broad definition of antisemitism than current law. It lists claiming that Israel is a “racist” state, comparing Israel’s military policies to that of Nazi Germany, and accusing Jews of “dual loyalty” as examples of antisemitism. 

In the House, the Antisemitism Awareness Act drew support from 187 Republicans and 133 Democrats. The measure was opposed by 70 Democrats, or a third of the Democratic caucus in the lower chamber. The measure was opposed by 21 Republicans, or just under 10 percent. 

The opposition by a sizable number of Democrats, though, was widely anticipated. The Republican opposition, while much smaller and largely in the so-called Freedom Caucus, has been notably outspoken, and not only in the House, particularly in terms of the First Amendment issues stirred up by the involvement of the government in defining antisemitism.

Even though the Senate is controlled by Democrats, it could be taken up by the upper chamber in the coming weeks. Senator Schumer told reporters on Thursday that he was unable to get the bill through the Senate via “unanimous consent,” but he would continue discussing a path forward with colleagues.

In the lower chamber, the top three Democrats — Congressman Hakeem Jeffries, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, and Congressman Pete Aguilar — all voted for the legislation. The three top Republicans — Speaker Johnson; the majority leader, Congressman Steve Scalise; and the majority Whip, Congressman Tom Emmer, also voted for the measure. 

Some Conservatives and a few elected Republicans and First Amendment advocates say that the act would stifle free speech on college campuses because of the broader definition of antisemitism as written by the IHRA. 

Congresswoman Harriet Hageman was one of the GOP members to vote against the bill on the House floor on Wednesday, saying in a lengthy statement that she was voting “in defense of the First Amendment.” While she condemns “acts of intimidation” against Jewish students, she could not vote to outlaw constitutionally-protected speech no matter how “offensive” it may be, she argued. 

“The bill effectively invalidates itself because it says it can’t be construed to infringe upon anyone’s rights, but the whole thing is a First Amendment violation on its face. As a final point, I will not vote to replace parts of our Constitution with the findings of a foreign organization on any subject,” Ms. Hageman says. 

Professors who have been opposed to the raucous campus protests and encampments say that the only way to combat demonstrators’ antisemitism is to engage in their own free speech — not have the government crack down on the protesters and universities for their opinions or speech. 

A legal scholar at Princeton University, Robert George, says antisemitism can be overcome on college campuses without restricting free-speech rights. “It does not help those of us who are calling out anti-Semitism on campuses and pushing back against this vile form of bigotry more broadly for legislators to enact laws placing viewpoint-based restrictions on speech,” he said on X Thursday, referring to the bill passed by the House. “We can fight bigotry without trampling the First Amendment.”

Opposition to the bill has been simmering since it was first introduced by Congressman Mike Lawler after the October 7 attacks in Israel. A free-speech absolutist advocacy group, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the bill would criminalize protected speech if made law. In a letter to members of Congress in November, the organization said Congress was inviting a “draconian” crackdown on constitutional rights. 

“If Congress enacts this provision into law, colleges and universities will be highly motivated to stamp out speech on one side of a hotly debated issue,” the group says. “The policies that institutions will adopt to avoid losing federal dollars will be viewpoint based prior restraints and they will likely be draconian.”

Critics of the measure on the left include the American Civil Liberties Union, which famously defended the right of the American Nazi Party to march at Skokie, Illinois, in the 1970s.

“The House’s approval of this misguided and harmful bill is a direct attack on the First Amendment,” said an ACLU official, Christopher Anders. He conceded that “addressing rising antisemitism is critically important, but sacrificing American’s free speech rights is not the way to solve that problem.” 

The rights group expressed concerns that the “bill would throw the full weight of the federal government behind an effort to stifle criticism of Israel and risks politicizing the enforcement of federal civil rights statutes precisely when their robust protections are most needed.”

Yet the logic of the law is that if antisemitism is going to be actionable under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 then a broadly acceptable definition will be needed in law. The bill’s sponsor, Mr. Lawler of New York, emphasized the need for the bill in light of the “reprehensible and alarming” behavior shown by some of the anti-Israel protesters at “Columbia, at Yale, at UCLA, and so many other schools.” 

Mr. Lawler added that “when people engage in harassment or bullying of Jewish individuals where they justify the killing of Jews or use blood libel or hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the Israeli government — that is antisemitic. It’s unfortunate that needs to be clarified, but that’s why this bill is necessary.”

________

This dispatch was expanded and revised from the bulldog.