Colleges Face New Rules: Bill Aims to Block Campus Events Deemed Antisemitic Using IHRA Definition

This bill, the "Stop Antisemitism on College Campuses Act," steps into the often-charged atmosphere of university life by amending the Higher Education Act of 1965. Its core mission is straightforward: to prohibit colleges and universities from using their resources—whether it's authorization, funding, or other support—for any campus event promoting antisemitism. The key here is how "antisemitism" gets defined; the bill explicitly adopts the working definition, including its examples, established by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).

Defining the Boundaries

So, what does this mean on the ground? Section 2 of the Act essentially tasks universities with a new gatekeeping role. They'll need to evaluate events planned for campus against the IHRA definition. This isn't just about preventing hateful rallies; the IHRA definition includes contemporary examples, some relating to criticism of the State of Israel, which adds layers of complexity. For instance, claiming the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor or comparing Israeli policy to Nazism are cited examples within the IHRA framework. Colleges will have to decide if an event crosses that line before giving it the green light or any institutional backing.

The Real-World Rub: Speech, Safety, and Interpretation

Here’s where it gets tricky for campus life. While the goal is to protect Jewish students from hostility, there's a significant concern about how this plays out for free speech and academic debate, particularly around Middle Eastern politics. The IHRA definition itself is debated, and how rigorously or broadly universities apply it could vary widely. Could a panel discussion critical of Israeli government actions be flagged? What about a student group advocating for Palestinian rights? The worry, highlighted in Section 2's broad prohibition, is that the law might inadvertently chill legitimate discourse or be applied inconsistently, creating confusion and potentially silencing certain viewpoints to avoid controversy or legal challenges. It puts administrators in the tough spot of balancing safety, inclusivity, and open inquiry, with real consequences for students and faculty navigating these complex issues.