[Order David Horowitz’s new book, America Betrayed, HERE.]

The House of Representatives passed, by a bipartisan vote of 320-91, a landmark bill entitled the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. The bill buttresses the U.S. Department of Education’s tools in enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against antisemitism on campus. It codifies the definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including ‘‘[c]ontemporary examples of antisemitism’’ that IHRA has identified. The United States is a member of IHRA.

The House bill provides explicit legislative authority for the Department of Education to use the IHRA definition of antisemitism in “reviewing, investigating, or deciding whether there has been a violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.) on the basis of race, color, or national origin, based on an individual’s actual or perceived shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics.”

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any entity that receives federal financial assistance (such as grants or student loans) from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights investigates complaints of discrimination such as harassment against protected groups at schools receiving federal funding, including colleges and universities. The Department’s Office of Civil Rights has interpreted the scope of Title VI’s protections to cover “individuals who may be harassed for being viewed as part of a group perceived to exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics.”

The House bill passed amidst the wave of antisemitism at college and university campuses that has swept across the country during the last several weeks, instigated by pro-Hamas agitators. But the Democrat-controlled Senate has yet to take up the House bill.

What is Democrat Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking elected Jewish official in the federal government, waiting for? Does he not accept the IHRA’s definition of antisemitism? If not, why not?

IHRA defines antisemitism as follows: “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.”

IHRA clarified that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” In other words, criticizing specific Israeli government policies such as its support of settlements and its military tactics is not antisemitic per se.

However, applying a double standard to Israel “by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation” is one manifestation of antisemitism that IHRA provided as an example. “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,” is another example of antisemitism that IHRA identified, as well as using the “Nazi” slur against Israel. “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion” is yet another contemporary manifestation of antisemitism that IHRA offered as an example.

IHRA stated that for its own purposes it considered its definition of antisemitism “non-legally binding.” That makes sense since IHRA is not a governmental body with any authority to pass legally binding laws or regulations. However, Congress does have the authority to adopt IHRA’s definition when legislating explicit guidance as to how the Department of Education should enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Those who have objected to the Antisemitism Awareness Act, such as New York Democrat Rep. Jerry Nadler who voted against the bill, claim that it violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech on campus. That claim is entirely baseless. Nowhere in the bill does it prohibit antisemitic hate speech, including the burning of the Israeli flag, as despicable as that is. The Antisemitism Awareness Act simply provides a definitional tool for the Department of Education to use in applying its existing standards to determine whether “harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination.”

The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights already considers the impact of derogatory or threatening language used to harass members of particular groups on campus in assessing whether unlawful discrimination has taken place. It does so while making sure that there is no infringement on the rights of students or other members of the academic community to free expression.

“The fact that discriminatory harassment involves speech…does not relieve the school of its obligation to respond if the speech contributes to a hostile environment,” according to the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. “Schools can protect students from such harassment without running afoul of students’ and staff First Amendment rights.”

The Office of Civil Rights provides several suggestions in this regard, such as “communicating a rejection of stereotypical, derogatory opinions and ensuring that competing views are heard” and instituting “campus climate checks to assess the effectiveness of the school’s efforts to ensure that it is free from harassment.”  Most importantly, the Department’s Office of Civil Rights cautions that “Schools should be alert to take more targeted responsive action when speech crosses over into direct threats or actionable speech or conduct.”

It goes without saying that Columbia University, UCLA, George Washington University, Princeton University, and so many other higher education institutions have not followed this advice. They have discriminated against the Jews on campus who support Israel by letting the pro-Hamas, antisemitic mobs harass them and seize exclusive control over public spaces on campus that are supposed to be open to all. School administrators have looked on as the mobs created pervasively hostile and unsafe environments on campus for Jewish students and staff who did not buy into the mobs’ groupthink. These victims were thus denied the ability to fully benefit on an equal basis from the schools’ education programs and activities.

The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights is currently investigating colleges and universities against which complaints have been filed claiming harassment and other discriminatory conduct. These investigations need to be conducted with a sense of urgency. The schools, students, and faculty members who are found to have engaged in a pattern of antisemitic acts creating a pervasive hostile environment for Jews must be suspended or excluded altogether from receiving any federal funding assistance.

The House bill, if promptly passed by the Senate and signed by President Biden, will help the Department of Education in its investigations and enforcement actions by legislatively endorsing its use of IHRA’s widely accepted definition of antisemitism. Senator Schumer has warned about the alarming rise in antisemitism in the United States since Hamas’ October 7^th genocidal attack against Jews in Israel and Israel’s military response.The least that Senator Schumer can do after delivering his disgraceful criticism of Israel’s military operations on the Senate floor is to address the rising antisemitism on campus by pushing through immediate Senate passage of the Antisemitic Awareness Act.