Exploring the U.S. administration's characterization of antisemitism
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, first developed in 2005, has been a topic of debate due to its broad definition and the inclusion of examples related to Israel. This definition, which is not legally binding, was a focal point of the Trump administration's efforts to address antisemitism in U.S. universities.
During Donald Trump's presidency, the IHRA definition was cited in government efforts to evaluate incidents of antisemitism on campuses. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights viewed the definition as a framework for evaluating hostile conduct towards Jewish students. This use was part of broader policy pushes to counter what was framed as rising antisemitism in academic settings.
However, this approach has fueled controversy on campuses. Critics argue that the usage of the IHRA definition, especially its examples relating to criticism of Israel, could suppress free speech and limit legitimate discussion about Israel in academic environments. Some universities and civil rights advocates pushed back against what they saw as conflating antisemitism with political debate.
For instance, some schools, such as Columbia and Northwestern Universities, have rolled out trainings and policies that hinge on the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Some students at Northwestern told The Guardian that they feel these trainings are an attempt to chill speech that is critical of Israel.
Kenneth Stern, who helped author the IHRA definition of antisemitism, is concerned about its usage in mandatory trainings and its potential impact on speech and Jews on campuses. He emphasises that the definition was never intended to be used as a tool for censorship or to stifle legitimate discourse.
Arno Rosenfeld, discussing the issue, emphasised that asking a Jewish student about their thoughts on Israel at a social gathering could be a litmus test based solely on their identity and should be avoided. He also stated that credible messengers are needed to address antisemitism in progressive spaces on campuses, who can condemn Israeli genocide in Gaza and Israel apartheid while also making it clear that such condemnation is not antisemitic.
The Trump administration's task force to combat antisemitism prioritised rooting out antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses. However, some Jewish students are concerned that the administration's crackdown on antisemitism may be associated with an authoritarian right-wing crackdown on college campuses, making it harder to have honest conversations about antisemitism.
In addition, the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, has drafted Project Esther, which aims to label support for Palestinians as antisemitic and equates it with support for Hamas. Project Esther calls for monitoring the social media accounts of people viewed as pro-Palestinian and potential deportation of pro-Palestinian individuals.
In conclusion, the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, while widely adopted and seen as an important tool to combat antisemitism worldwide, has generated significant debate over free speech and political context. The Trump administration's promotion of the definition’s use in university anti-discrimination policies brought both institutional adoption and criticism in educational settings.
- The U.S. Department of Education, during the Trump administration, viewed the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a framework for evaluating hostile conduct towards Jewish students in universities.
- Critics argue that the usage of the IHRA definition in academic settings could suppress free speech and limit legitimate discussion about Israel, especially its examples relating to criticism of Israel.
- Kenneth Stern, who helped author the IHRA definition, emphasises that it was never intended to be used as a tool for censorship or to stifle legitimate discourse.
- The conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, has drafted Project Esther, which aims to label support for Palestinians as antisemitic and equates it with support for Hamas, potentially impacting free speech and political discussions.
