The surge in campus tensions following the Israel-Hamas conflict has culminated in Governor Newsom’s signature on California’s controversial antisemitism bill. I’ve spent the past week speaking with lawmakers, constitutional scholars, and student activists to understand the implications of this legislation that’s divided even traditional allies.
The bill, which requires California public schools to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, passed after heated legislative battles. This definition encompasses certain criticisms of Israel that supporters argue crosses into antisemitism, while opponents fear it will chill protected political speech.
“We’ve witnessed an alarming 400% increase in antisemitic incidents in California schools since October 7th,” Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel told me during an interview in his Sacramento office. Gabriel, who co-chairs the Legislative Jewish Caucus, showed me binders documenting incidents ranging from swastikas drawn on campus to Jewish students being harassed. “This isn’t about silencing legitimate criticism of any government. It’s about protecting Jewish students who feel increasingly unsafe.”
The legislation arrives amid competing claims about campus climate. A recent UC Berkeley survey found 75% of Jewish respondents reported experiencing or witnessing antisemitism. Meanwhile, Palestinian rights groups have documented instances of Muslim and Arab students facing increased surveillance and disciplinary actions for political expression.
Constitutional law expert Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, expressed concerns when I spoke with him. “The IHRA definition is problematically broad and vague,” he explained. “While addressing antisemitism is crucial, this approach risks creating a chilling effect on protected speech about Israeli policies.” Chemerinsky pointed to previous court cases establishing that public universities cannot restrict political speech based on viewpoint, even when offensive.
The California Faculty Association opposed the bill, arguing it potentially undermines academic freedom. “Professors must be able to teach about complex geopolitical conflicts without fear of punishment,” said Dr. Lillian Taiz, the association’s president. She showed me course syllabi that could theoretically violate the new guidelines despite containing standard academic analysis of Middle Eastern politics.
Implementation questions remain unresolved. Campus administrators I spoke with expressed uncertainty about distinguishing between antisemitism and protected political criticism. “We’re awaiting guidance on how to balance these competing interests,” admitted a CSU administrator who requested anonymity due to the sensitivity of the issue.
Student reactions reflect the polarized debate. At a pro-Palestinian rally at UCLA last week, student organizer Layla Khoury expressed frustration. “This definition equates legitimate criticism of human rights violations with hatred of Jewish people,” she said. “My grandfather was displaced from his home in 1948. Discussing that history isn’t antisemitism.”
Jewish student groups largely supported the measure. “We’ve been called slurs while walking to class,” shared Sarah Goldstein, president of Hillel at San Francisco State University. “This isn’t about politics—it’s about ensuring we can attend school without intimidation.”
Data from the Anti-Defamation League shows California experienced 518 antisemitic incidents in 2023, more than any other state. This represents an 81% increase from 2022. Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has documented a similar surge in Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian incidents nationwide.
Legal challenges appear inevitable. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has already signaled concerns about constitutional violations. Their analysis suggests the bill could face First Amendment hurdles similar to those that derailed previous attempts to regulate campus speech regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Governor Newsom’s signing statement acknowledged these tensions, emphasizing that implementation must respect constitutional protections. “Nothing in this bill should be construed to diminish free speech rights,” he wrote. However, critics question whether such assurances provide adequate safeguards.
Having covered Congress for over fifteen years, I’ve observed how legislation often produces unintended consequences. The antisemitism bill, while addressing legitimate concerns about Jewish student safety, introduces complex questions about how educational institutions should navigate increasingly contentious political discourse.
What’s clear from my reporting is that campuses have become proxy battlegrounds for global conflicts, with administrators struggling to balance safety, free expression, and educational missions. As California implements this definition, how it navigates these competing interests may set precedents for other states considering similar measures.
The coming months will reveal whether this legislation achieves its stated goal of protecting Jewish students without compromising fundamental academic and speech freedoms that define American higher education.
