A growing fault line: How US schools are struggling to define and confront antisemitism
In the two years since the October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, tensions surrounding the Israel-Hamas conflict have increasingly entered American classrooms. Across the United States, advocates and educators report a rise in antisemitic incidents, while others warn that the line between political criticism and hate speech is being redrawn in troubling ways.According to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), nearly 860 antisemitic incidents were reported in non-Jewish schools last year, a decrease from over 1,100 in 2023 but still markedly higher than pre-war levels. These incidents range from verbal harassment to offensive graffiti and, in some cases, classroom materials that propagate harmful stereotypes.While the surge in incidents has triggered calls for tighter oversight, it has also deepened existing political divides over free speech and the limits of classroom discourse.
States take divergent paths
Several states, both conservative and liberal, have moved to formalise definitions of antisemitism in education policy. Legislatures in Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and Tennessee have passed measures compelling schools to adopt the definition of antisemitism advanced by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), a framework also recognised by the United States Department of State.The IHRA definition includes eleven examples of antisemitic behaviour, such as applying “double standards” to Israel or drawing comparisons between Israeli policies and those of Nazi Germany. Supporters argue that adopting this standard is essential to address evolving forms of Jewish hate.Republican state senator Kristen Thompson, who sponsored Oklahoma’s legislation, said in a statement cited by the Associated Press that the bills make it clear that Oklahoma “stands with our Jewish communities and will not tolerate hatred disguised as political discourse.”However, civil liberties groups and education unions caution that the same laws risk suppressing legitimate criticism of Israel and silencing pro-Palestinian voices. In Arizona, the Democratic governor vetoed a bill modelled on similar legislation, calling it an overreach that could undermine educators’ judgement.California has taken a different approach. A law signed by Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom mandates training for teachers to identify and counter antisemitism. His administration has resisted efforts to legislate definitions, favouring capacity building over codification.
Federal pressure focuses on universities, not schools
The federal government’s response has also been uneven. While the Trump administration has pursued high-profile investigations into universities accused of tolerating antisemitism, including Harvard and Columbia, it has largely refrained from similar actions against K-12 institutions.Instead, oversight at the school level has been left to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which continues to review complaints nationwide. Among them are reports from the Berkeley Unified School District in California, where students allegedly mocked Jewish classmates by asking for “their number,” a reference to Holocaust tattoos, and teachers were accused of endorsing pro-Hamas demonstrations, the Associated Press reports.In another case, a 14-year-old student in San Jose withdrew from a charter school after repeated bullying linked to her Jewish identity. Her family’s subsequent federal lawsuit alleges the school failed to provide a safe environment, the Associated Press reports. Both the California Department of Education and the school declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.
Union backlash and ideological fractures
In Massachusetts, a state commission created to combat antisemitism concluded last year that prejudice against Jews remained “pervasive and escalating” in schools. The finding, however, provoked sharp criticism from the Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA), which accused the commission of politicising the issue.The dispute intensified when Democratic legislator Simon Cataldo, who co-chairs the commission, alleged that the union had circulated antisemitic materials, including a kindergarten workbook depicting Zionists as “bullies.” The MTA said the examples were selectively cited from a broader collection of Palestinian art resources, and the links were subsequently removed.In a statement shared with the Associated Press, the union contended that accusations of antisemitism were being “manipulated to achieve political objectives,” echoing criticisms of the Trump administration’s interventionist approach to educational governance.Margaret Litvin, an associate professor of Arabic and comparative literature at Boston University, told the Associated Press that conflating criticism of Israel with prejudice against Jews “risks justifying heavy-handed interference by the state in school affairs.” The challenge, she suggested, is to confront hate without narrowing the boundaries of academic and political speech.
A growing divide within the teaching community
The debate has also reached the National Education Association (NEA), the country’s largest teachers’ union. Earlier this year, delegates narrowly supported a proposal to drop ADL classroom materials on the Holocaust and bias education, arguing that the organisation’s influence skewed curricula toward a pro-Israel perspective.The NEA’s board of directors later overturned the decision, with union president Becky Pringle stating that the move “would not further the NEA’s commitment to academic freedom.”In response, the ADL launched a new initiative, BEACON, Building Educator Allies for Change, Openness, and Networks, aimed at equipping teachers to address antisemitism and other forms of hate in classrooms. Hundreds of educators have reportedly expressed interest in joining the programme, according to the Associated Press.
Between vigilance and voice
The ongoing debate over antisemitism in schools exposes the fragility of America’s educational pluralism. As statehouses legislate definitions and classrooms become microcosms of geopolitical conflict, the risk is that the pursuit of safety may come at the cost of free expression.What remains clear is that schools are being asked to navigate an increasingly complex terrain, one where protecting students from hate and preserving the right to dissent are no longer separate questions, but part of the same test of civic learning.
