Missouri antisemitism law in schools sparks free speech debate
In Missouri, HB 2061 has taken effect, requiring public schools and universities to define antisemitic conduct in their codes of conduct and report relevant incidents to state officials. The law, titled “Antisemitism in Schools Is Prohibited,” took effect on August 28, The Jerusalem Post reports.
The document requires public educational institutions to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, including the contemporary examples it provides. Harassment or discrimination against students or employees on antisemitic grounds must be treated in the same way as racial discrimination.
Requirements for educational institutions
Schools and other educational institutions must include the definition of antisemitism and rules for countering such conduct in codes for students, faculty members, and employees. They must also prohibit antisemitic conduct if it interferes with a person’s ability to work, study, attend an institution, or use its facilities, as well as if it creates an atmosphere of fear or intimidation.
Institutions must provide consequences for harassment or discrimination against Jews in accordance with federal nondiscrimination standards enshrined in Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act. The law is an amendment to existing Missouri legislation and recognizes antisemitism as a form of discrimination.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
Reservations concerning criticism of Israel
During consideration of the bill, it was substantially amended. The final version limits the application of its provisions to cases of harassment or intimidation and explicitly provides that they may not be applied in a way that narrows or infringes rights protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
It is separately stated that criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other state should not be considered antisemitic. When assessing statements about Israel, educational institutions must consider whether they concern public policy or apply substantially different standards, expectations, or condemnation to Israel compared with other countries under comparable circumstances. These provisions apply only when the statements or related conduct interfere with participation in educational activities or create fear or intimidation.
At the same time, attorney Jawad Khazaeli told St. Louis Public Radio that the law could chill speech. Attorney Brenda Talent expressed concern that educational institutions could develop overly broad codes of conduct that would violate the First Amendment. The law’s author, Representative George Grusa, told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that calling Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide” could be considered antisemitic, but, according to him, such statements would remain protected if they do not cause harm or create fear.
