Codifying Antisemitism

Antisemitic harassment and discrimination are unlawful in many contexts, but without a standard definition of what ‘antisemitism’ includes, that idea is almost meaningless. This has led to an equal protection problem for members of the Jewish community, which is why states across the country have started to pass laws adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) Definition of antisemitism for use in clarifying the application of existing legal protections for Jewish people from crime and discrimination. Thus far, the bills that have passed have for the most part been overwhelmingly bipartisan, but there have been minor pockets of pushback in a number of states. While a handful of the questions raised reflect honest concerns that deserve to be fully addressed for the benefit of legislators, unfortunately, the majority of the ‘opposition’ has been led by a small corps of disingenuous lobbying groups that as a matter of self-interest continue to purposefully lie about what these bills actually do—and by the same token could never do—in an apparent attempt to give greater cover to antisemitism and antisemites. This Article will answer some of the most common questions that lawmakers, citizens, and other interested stakeholders might have about statutes that utilize the IHRA Definition for the narrow purpose of assessing motivation when analyzing discriminatory conduct claims, so that critics can no longer hide behind the vague and erroneous assertion that such policies are somehow unfair to other groups or would in any way offend the First Amendment.