Campus Anti-Harassment Bill Mandates Fines for Repeat Offenses, Adds Religion to Civil Rights Protections

The Preventing Antisemitic Harassment on Campus Act of 2025 is poised to overhaul how discrimination is handled in federally funded programs, particularly in higher education. At its core, this bill updates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, making discrimination based on religion illegal across the board in any program receiving federal dollars (SEC. 2).

The New Rulebook for Campus Discrimination

For anyone connected to a college or university—students, faculty, or staff—this bill clarifies what counts as discrimination. It explicitly states that when postsecondary schools receive federal funding, discrimination includes being "deliberately indifferent" to harassment that is "severe, widespread, and objectively offensive" enough to deny equal access to the school’s offerings (SEC. 2). In plain English, if harassment is so bad that a student can't actually access their education, and the school knows about it and shrugs, that inaction is now legally defined as discrimination.

Crucially, the bill mandates that the government enforce Title VI against antisemitism with the same rigor as any other protected class. It provides a definition of antisemitism rooted in hatred toward Jewish people, whether that hatred targets individuals, property, or community centers (SEC. 2). This means there’s now a clear, federally backed standard for investigating and prosecuting antisemitic incidents on campus.

Escalating Fines and Financial Consequences

If you thought accountability was soft in higher education, think again. This bill introduces specific, escalating financial penalties for colleges found in violation of Title VI due to antisemitic discrimination. If a specific program at a school has a second violation within five years, the Department of Education must fine the school at least 10% of that program's annual federal funding. A third violation within that same five-year window jumps the mandatory fine to a minimum of 33% of the program's annual federal funding (SEC. 3).

This is the kind of consequence that hits the budget hard. For example, if a university’s School of Engineering receives $10 million a year in federal grants and gets hit with a third violation, that’s a mandatory $3.3 million fine. The bill also requires the Secretary of Education to monitor private lawsuits alleging antisemitic discrimination to help inform their own investigations, ensuring the feds keep a close watch on campus climates (SEC. 3).

The Religious Carve-Out: A Major Loophole?

While the bill generally prohibits religious discrimination in federally funded programs, it creates a significant exception that could affect who is protected. If a program or activity is run by, connected to, or affiliated with a religious organization—even a student religious group—the new ban on religious discrimination does not apply to that specific program (SEC. 2).

What does this mean in practice? Imagine a religious university receiving federal research funds. While they can't generally discriminate against students based on religion in their secular programs, this exception gives that organization more leeway regarding religious requirements for hiring or service provision within their religiously affiliated activities. This carve-out essentially weakens the general non-discrimination rule for a specific set of federally funded entities.

Accountability and Oversight

Beyond the financial penalties, the bill establishes new mechanisms for accountability. If a court finds a violation of Title VI, it gains the power to appoint a monitor to oversee how the offending party implements the required fixes, ensuring that schools actually follow through on their promises to correct discrimination (SEC. 4). Furthermore, the bill requires federal agencies and courts, when assessing a current Title VI violation, to consider how the entity has worked to fix past discrimination against other protected groups (SEC. 4).

For the average person, this means that the feds are now looking at a school’s overall track record. If a university has a history of poorly handling discrimination against one group, that history can be used against them when investigating a new claim involving a different group. Finally, the bill ensures that none of these new rules override or reduce existing First Amendment rights, confirming that free speech and religious freedom are maintained (SEC. 5).