The Antisemitism Awareness Act (Act), a noble bipartisan bill that was passed by the House of Representatives and is now held up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
The Act codifies the inclusion of the IHRA working definition under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities, such as colleges and universities, receiving Federal financial assistance.
The Act finds that the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism is a vital tool, which helps individuals understand and identify the various manifestations of antisemitism. In this regard, it should be noted that the U.S. is a member of the IHRA and this definition of antisemitism was adopted by the U.S. State Department, as well as more than 40 other countries.
The Act references Executive Order 13899 of December 11, 2019 that expressly extended protections against discrimination under Title VI to individuals subjected to antisemitism on college and university campuses and confirmed use of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in connection therewith. President Trump reaffirmed this on January 29, 2025, in Executive Order 14188, titled Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.
The Act also correctly finds that the use of alternative definitions of antisemitism impairs enforcement efforts by adding multiple standards that fail to identify many of the modern manifestations of antisemitism.
The Senate Committee process has been stalled by a flurry of amendments designed to frustrate the very object of the law, by interposing contrived concerns about the First Amendment that are frankly irrelevant to the Act and Title VI. The operative provisions of Title VI are about prohibited conduct, not free speech, and thus the entire premise asserted for urging the amendment is baseless.
Another Senator made the fatuous claim that, because the IHRA considers libelously blaming all Jews for the Crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans to be antisemitic, the bill would prohibit reading the Gospel of John, Chapters 18 and 19. This assertion is not only baseless, it also misses the import of Title VI.
In essence, it should be prohibited to discriminate against Jews, whether because it incorrectly holds all Jews responsible for the Crucifixion or for any of the other antisemitic grounds covered by the IHRA definition or otherwise. As an aside, Pope Paul VI solved the senator's misreading of John in Nostra Aetate, on October 28, 1965.
Title VI prohibits exclusion from participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under federally assisted programs or activities on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. It recognizes that harassment based on someone's religion, shared ancestry or national origin can create a hostile environment.
Thus, a hostile environment created or left uncorrected by a school can violate Title VI, when the harassing conduct is so severe, persistent, or pervasive that it denies or limits a student's ability to benefit from or participate in a school's programs or activities.
All that the Act does is include the IHRA definition of antisemitism as an illegal basis for such discrimination, exclusion or denial of benefits. Notice, the operative words deal with prohibited conduct, not uttering of words (whether or not protected by the First Amendment.)
It is also important to recognize that not all speech is protected under the First Amendment. For example, speech directed towards inciting or producing lawless action is generally not protected speech. True threats of violence are also not protected and neither is defamation of non-"public figures" (NYT v Sullivan) like ordinary students, who happen to be Jewish (Gertz v Welch.)
The U.S. Supreme Court (Beauharnais v Illinois) upheld a state libel law that made it illegal to defame a race or class of people. I mention this matter specifically because some of the facts and circumstances, like the unsavory leaflets and depraved and libelous remarks at issue in that case, are eerily similar to the propaganda efforts and devices used by Hamasnicks to defame, harass, intimidate and exclude Jewish students from facilities and programs at colleges and universities.
The antisemitic/anti-American Hamasnick mobs also call for illegal takeovers of school facilities, like the Columbia Library, and actually bar Jews from entering. Vandalism and violence, as well as harassment and intimidation of Jewish students are common features of these campus riots. This is not protected free speech
The Senate should immediately pass the Antisemitism Awareness Act in the pristine form adopted by the House and not dilute it with poison pill amendments.
Leonard Grunstein, a retired attorney and banker, founded and served as Chairman of Metropolitan National Bank and then Israel Discount Bank of NY. He also founded Project Ezrah and serves on the Board of Revel at Yeshiva University and the AIPAC National Council. He has published articles in the Banking Law Journal, Real Estate Finance Journal, and other publications. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.