House tees up vote on antisemitism bill some Democrats fear may inflame tensions

The House will vote on an antisemitism bill on Wednesday in response to the nationwide pro-Palestinian protests occurring across college campuses, with some House Democrats coming out against the legislation as it would expand the definition of antisemitism.

The bipartisan Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, which was introduced by Rep. Mike Lawler, R-NY, would require the Education Department to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism in Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. All schools receiving federal funds must comply with Title IV, changing how federal anti-discrimination laws on college campuses would be enforced.

Several House Republicans have praised the bill as the necessary next step after pro-Palestinian protesters have engaged in antisemitic behavior on such campuses as Columbia University, University of California, Los Angeles, and George Washington University, among others. Many of the demonstrations have forced Jewish students off campus or prohibited their ability to go to class, prompting Republicans and Democrats to visit Columbia and condemn the actions of the students.

Others have also gone so far as to criticize President Minouche Shafik’s inability to maintain order, calling on her and other Columbia officials to resign if protests are not disbanded.

The Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023 has 13 Democratic co-sponsors. However, several Democrats have pushed back against Lawler’s proposal, instead pushing for a separate bipartisan measure that would create a position within the White House tasked with countering antisemitism.

The Bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act from Rep. Cathy Manning, D-NC, would establish a national coordinator within the White House to oversee a new task force focused on combating domestic antisemitism. It would also require the administration to report to Congress on federal strategies implemented to combat antisemitism and designate a senior official in the Education Department to advise the department’s response to antisemitism on campuses.

That proposal has received the backing of Democratic leaders, who have called on Speaker Mike Johnson, R-LA, to bring the legislation to the floor for a vote instead.

“The effort to crush antisemitism and hatred in any form is not a Democratic or Republican issue,” Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-NY, said in a letter to Johnson on Monday. “It’s an American issue that must be addressed in a bipartisan manner with the fierce urgency of now. In this spirit, I strongly urge you to schedule a vote on the bipartisan Countering Antisemitism Act forthwith.”

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-CA, also praised Manning’s bill because it would specifically task an official “based inside the White House,” arguing the proposal would be Democrats’ “chosen vehicle” to crack down on antisemitism.

What is notable about Jeffries’s preferred bill is that it does not touch on the definition of antisemitism, which is the key element of Lawler’s bill. House Judiciary Committee ranking member Jerry Nadler, D-NY, who has been one of the most vocal Democrats against the New York Republican’s bill, said that he thinks Lawler's awareness act is “absurd.”

“What we need is a comprehensive approach, such as in the Manning bill, and we need to increase appropriations for the Office of Civil Rights, which is in charge of enforcing Title IV against antisemitism and other forms of discrimination in education,” Nadler said.

“The Lawler bill doesn’t do anything to combat antisemitism; it simply codifies definitions put out by the International Holocaust Remembrance [Alliance], and it specifically rejects two other definitions, which are equally valid,” the New York Democrat added.

He argued that even the chief author of the IHRA definition, Kenneth Stern, has said it should not be codified into law.

Other House Democrats are worried that the bill is pouring more gas on the fire. Rep. Becca Balint, D-VT, who is Jewish, said she is “very concerned” that codifying the IHRA definition will limit the ability of people to have “constructive and legitimate criticism of Israel.”

“I also think it is, yet again, more performative action by a party that has been clearly not champions against antisemitism, so I have a very difficult time taking it seriously,” Balint said.

The Vermont Democrat praised the Manning bill, saying it “actually does something” to combat antisemitism instead of being a “performative way to divide us in Congress.”

“Can we please focus on the work that we need to do in Congress and give these schools the opportunity to work this out campus by campus? I just — I don't think a sledgehammer approach is going to help in this moment when tensions are so inflamed. I just don't see how that helps,” Balint said.

“I feel like it is more of this, like, seizing on the moment to enflame war,” she added. “And what I'm trying to do is bring the temperature down so we can talk about it. And I don't have a lot of patience for people that are continuing to inflame.”