Stop Antisemitism on College Campuses Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Scott, Tim [R-SC]
- Committees
- Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 27, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to combat antisemitism on college campuses by conditioning federal student aid eligibility on institutions' adherence to the IHRA definition of antisemitism and a prohibition on supporting related events.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of higher education from authorizing, facilitating, providing funding for, or otherwise supporting any event promoting antisemitism on campus. It defines antisemitism by adopting the working definition from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), including its contemporary examples. Institutions found in violation would be barred from participating in federal student loan and grant programs under Title IV of the Act.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill is a crucial step to protect Jewish students from discrimination and harassment, ensuring a safe and inclusive learning environment. They contend that adopting the IHRA definition provides a clear, internationally recognized standard for identifying and addressing antisemitism, preventing institutions from ignoring or downplaying such incidents.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that the bill could infringe on free speech rights, particularly regarding criticism of Israel, which some interpretations of the IHRA definition might encompass. They might also raise concerns about federal overreach into campus affairs and the potential for politically motivated accusations to jeopardize critical institutional funding.
The bill is extremely short and easy to read, allowing ample time for comprehensive evaluation.
Section 2, amending Section 487(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965
Prohibition on Authorizing Antisemitic Events and Definition of Antisemitism
This provision adds a new requirement for colleges and universities to maintain eligibility for federal student financial aid programs. It mandates that institutions must not authorize, facilitate, fund, or otherwise support any event on campus that promotes antisemitism. The bill explicitly adopts the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples, as the standard for what constitutes antisemitism.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision provides a clear and enforceable standard to combat rising antisemitism on college campuses, ensuring that institutions take concrete steps to protect Jewish students. They believe the IHRA definition is a widely accepted and appropriate tool for this purpose.
Critics contend
Critics contend that the IHRA definition, particularly its contemporary examples, can be interpreted to stifle legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies, thereby chilling free speech on campus. They argue that linking federal funding to such a broad definition could lead to self-censorship by institutions fearing loss of critical financial aid.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the goal of combating antisemitism and protecting Jewish students with concerns about academic freedom and free speech, particularly regarding political discourse related to Israel. It also creates a tension between institutional autonomy and federal oversight through funding conditions.
Defines "antisemitism" by reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, including its contemporary examples.
Section 2(30)(B)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to incorporate existing, recognized definitions rather than re-codifying them. However, in this context, the specific definition chosen carries significant policy implications that are not immediately apparent from the bill's face.
Case for: Proponents argue that using the IHRA definition provides a clear, consistent, and internationally recognized standard for identifying antisemitism, which is crucial for effective enforcement and for educating institutions on what constitutes prohibited behavior.
Case against: Critics argue that the IHRA definition, particularly its "contemporary examples" that relate to Israel, is controversial and can be misapplied to suppress legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, thereby chilling free speech and academic discourse on campus.
Estimated impact: This definition will dictate the scope of prohibited activities for all institutions receiving Title IV federal student aid, potentially affecting campus speech and event authorization policies nationwide.