S.826 & H.R.3282 - Preventing Antisemitic Harassment on Campus Act of 2025

H.R.3282 was introduced on 5/8/2025 by Randy Fine. It is currently pending before the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Education and Workforce, and has zero co-sponsors.

S.826 was introduced on 3/4/2025 by Rick Scott. It is currently pending before the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, and has 8 co-sponsors on a partyline basis.

Related legislation: None

Bill Summary: S.826 and H.R. 3282 amend Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on religion in higher education, with a specific focus on antisemitism. The bill defines discrimination to include “deliberate indifference to harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive,” enough to deny equal educational access, and adopts a definition of antisemitism that mirrors that of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism. Institutions found in repeated violation face significant financial penalties: a second violation within five years triggers a minimum 10% cut to federal program funding, and a third increases the penalty to at least 33%. The Secretary of Education must monitor private antisemitism-related lawsuits, and if a court upholds a federal finding of noncompliance, it may appoint a monitor to oversee the remedy’s implementation.

Context: S.826 and H.R. 3282 follows a concerning trend within the 119th Congress of adopting broad definitions of antisemitism that risk being used to suppress free speech. Although the bill does not explicitly cite the IHRA, it incorporates the IHRA’s language verbatim to define antisemitism. This definition has been widely criticized by free speech and civil rights advocates, and even Kenneth Stern, one of the original drafters of the IHRA definition, has warned that its expansive scope can be used to label legitimate political discourse, criticism of Israel, as antisemitic. The use of the IHRA definition in legislation has little to do with antisemitism and is being weaponized to stifle discussions on Israel’s policies and critique U.S. foreign policy. By conflating criticism of the Israeli government or calls for Palestinian human rights with antisemitism, this approach risks chilling academic freedom, political activism, and open debate on college campuses.

The use of the term “Jewish or non-Jewish individuals or their property” incorporates a broad group of people within this definition of antisemitism. This interpretation not only includes groups who have expressed absolute support for the state of Israel, including white Christian nationalists who seek a “greater Israel” to bring about the second coming of Christ which would lead to the destruction of the Jewish people. In a sense, this definition of antisemitism places “antisemetic discrimination” above all other forms of discrimination while simultaneously perpetuating antisemetic behavior.

The text empowers the federal government to target eligibility for specific programs, meaning that a school can effectively sever and eliminate entire programs based on political witchhunts. Furthermore, use of monitors for schools in violation is akin to Soviet political commissars coming to American universities to police constitutionally protected speech. Such broad application raises serious concerns about the infringement of First Amendment protections and the potential for this legislation to be used as a tool to silence dissenting voices rather than combat genuine antisemitism.

American Values Analysis: This bill undermines American values by suppressing free speech under the pretext of combating antisemitism. Policing campus speech through government monitors is unlikely to curb real antisemitism and instead fosters surveillance and self-censorship. By elevating antisemitism above other forms of hate and tying it to federal funding penalties, the bill marginalizes other communities and risks framing Jewish safety as dependent on silencing political debate, particularly around Israel and Palestine, rather than fostering genuine inclusion.

American Interest Analysis: These Bills are not in America’s interest as they directly threaten political and policy debate as well as academic freedoms, and undermine our claim to global leadership on free speech, and thus weaken our ability to call out autocratic regimes that impose such limitations..

A New Policy’s Recommendation: OPPOSE

A New Policy opposes S.826 and H.R.3282 because it chills free speech and weapons antisemitism in an effort to silence students from engaging in constitutionally protected political expression in support of Palestinian human rights activism.

For more information please contact: Tariq Habash, (202) 770-0055, info@anewpolicy.org