by Vanguard Staff
- “Protecting Jewish students has always been a top priority of the Jewish Caucus, and we are proud to see this critical antidiscrimination bill advance with strong bipartisan support.” – Senator Scott Wiener
SACRAMENTO – The California Legislature has advanced a bill aimed at combating antisemitism in K-12 schools, sending it to Governor Gavin Newsom for consideration. Assembly Bill 715, authored by the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, passed the Senate 35-0 and the Assembly 71-0 as lawmakers closed out the legislative session.
The bill, years in the making, is described by supporters as a landmark step to strengthen California’s antidiscrimination laws and ensure Jewish students are not subjected to harassment, bullying, or discrimination in classrooms and school settings across the state.
AB 715 builds on existing civil rights law and is designed to strengthen protections for Jewish students against antisemitism. The legislation also establishes an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator within the California Department of Education, a role tasked with guiding schools on how to identify and respond to antisemitism, train staff, and address student complaints.
Supporters say this sends a clear message that antisemitism and other forms of hate will not be tolerated in California schools.
“Protecting Jewish students has always been a top priority of the Jewish Caucus, and we are proud to see this critical antidiscrimination bill advance with strong bipartisan support,” said Senator Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, D-Encino, co-chairs of the Jewish Caucus.
He added, “We appreciate the tremendous advocacy of Jewish students, parents, and educators from across California, and we are deeply grateful to Senate Pro Tem Mike McGuire and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas for their support and leadership. The Legislature is sending a strong and unambiguous message — antisemitism has no place in our schools and it will not be tolerated.”
Jewish Caucus Vice Chair Assemblymember Dawn Addis, D-Morro Bay, and Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, D-West Hollywood, who are joint authors of the bill, said the measure responds to urgent realities faced by Jewish students.
“Jewish students across California are being harassed, bullied, and intimidated simply because of who they are — and that is unacceptable,” they said. “When swastikas are painted on elementary school playgrounds, when a Jewish student has a Nazi flag taped to their back, or is chased and yelled at, we will not turn a blind eye. Antisemitism is rising at alarming levels, and California schools are not immune. This bill is about affirming safe and supportive learning environments consistent with our state’s values. The classroom must be a welcoming environment that contributes to the child’s academic well-being.”
Supporters of AB 715 say the legislation is long overdue, noting incidents of antisemitic harassment and vandalism in schools throughout the state in recent years. They argue that by giving the Department of Education new tools and requiring schools to take stronger steps to prevent antisemitism, California will set a model for how to protect students from targeted hate.
The unanimous votes in both chambers of the Legislature were presented as a sign of broad bipartisan recognition that antisemitism in schools is a growing problem that requires government intervention.
But the legislation has also generated significant opposition from some interfaith groups and civil liberties advocates who warn that the measure risks conflating political criticism of Israel with antisemitism, thereby threatening free speech and academic freedom in California schools.
Interfaith Communities United for Justice and Peace (ICUJP), a coalition founded in the wake of 9/11, released a lengthy statement opposing the bill. The group, which includes Christians, Jews, Muslims, Quakers, humanists, and others, said AB 715 “suffers from essential flaws” and fails to address their concerns despite revisions made during the legislative process.
“AB 715 contains no definition of antisemitism and several provisions could be read to include criticism of the State of Israel and its policies within the scope of antisemitic ‘discrimination and bias,’” ICUJP said.
The organization highlighted language in the bill that directs the new Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator to be guided by the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, released in May 2023. That strategy embraces the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) “working definition” of antisemitism, which has been the subject of controversy and debate worldwide.
ICUJP argued that the IHRA definition and examples are often used to silence or punish legitimate political speech, including criticism of Israeli government policies.
They pointed to examples in the IHRA framework, such as characterizing Israel as a “racist endeavor,” applying “double standards” to Israel, or drawing comparisons between Israeli policies and those of Nazi Germany. “Whether one agrees or disagrees with these statements, or finds them offensive or objectionable, they are viewpoints about Israel and are not antisemitic,” the group said. “Israel does not have a free pass preventing it from being criticized.”
Kenneth S. Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition, has himself spoken out against using it in law. In a series of articles, letters, and testimony, Stern has repeatedly warned that enshrining the definition into law would be “unconstitutional and unwise.”
He noted that the IHRA definition “was never intended to be a campus hate speech code.” ICUJP also cited the May 2024 statement signed by more than 1,200 Jewish university professors, including Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe, journalist and professor Peter Beinart, and Yale Law and History Professor Samuel Moyn, urging lawmakers to reject codifying the IHRA definition.
“Far from combating antisemitism, this dynamic promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face,” the professors wrote. They warned that if adopted into law, the definition would silence Jewish Americans and others who criticize Israeli policies, reinforcing the notion that Jewish identity is inseparable from Israel’s government.
Opponents of AB 715 also invoked a recent federal court ruling to underscore their concerns. On September 7, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the Trump administration violated the First Amendment when it froze $2.2 billion of research grants on the grounds that Harvard University had not adequately dealt with antisemitism.
Judge Burroughs, describing herself as “both Jewish and an American,” found that the administration’s actions were part of a “government-initiated onslaught” aimed at enforcing an ideological orthodoxy. She wrote that “combating antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
ICUJP said it agreed with that conclusion and warned that California could invite similar constitutional challenges if AB 715 becomes law. “Despite our good faith efforts to alert the proponents of AB 715 to these serious flaws which will threaten California teachers and no doubt lead to time consuming and expensive litigation, our concerns have gone unheeded,” the group said. “Consequently, ICUJP opposes AB 715, as written. We remain committed to combating antisemitism consistent with our devotion to the Constitution and the democratic principles we cherish.”
The debate over AB 715 illustrates the challenge lawmakers face in responding to rising antisemitism while protecting the rights of students and teachers to engage in free political and academic debate. While the unanimous legislative votes reflect bipartisan concern about antisemitism in schools, the vocal opposition from civil liberties and interfaith groups suggests that if the bill is signed into law, it could face legal challenges on First Amendment grounds.
Governor Newsom has not yet indicated whether he will sign AB 715. If he does, California would be among the first states to incorporate the federal antisemitism strategy into state education law, potentially setting a precedent for how states address antisemitism while balancing constitutional rights.
Supporters say the bill is a necessary safeguard to ensure Jewish students feel safe in classrooms, while opponents caution that it risks silencing political speech and entangling the state in costly litigation.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
I am going to copy my final comment on the opinion article by SS on September 12, 2025 in response to RG:
RG say, “So then, how would you protect Jews from antisemitism on school campuses?”
ACM: “You can’t – it’s baked into the pie:
RG say: “Yes you can, not perfectly, but we must fight antisemitism however we can wherever we can.”
Alan C. Miller says:
There are already laws against discrimination. The problem isn’t the laws, it’s people. People who don’t recognize Jews as a people, or have different standards for different peoples, or believe Jews are white, or believe Jews are a religion body exclusively, or see Jews as ‘successful’ and therefore not worthy or being protected as a people, or that all Jews are individually responsible for what the Jewish state does, or Jews must disclose their political beliefs regarding their homeland — when no other peoples are asked this, or whatever deluded reasoning that goes on in people’s heads — and that, unfortunately, also includes a sliver of Jews who themselves apply this to the rest of the Jewish people. It all contributes to Jew hatred, and no new law will change that.
What concerns me most about such laws that focus only on so-called antisemitism (Jew hatred/bigotry, let’s call it what it is), is that, while it is it’s own unique, weird and possibly the oldest [Western] bigotry — and that many westerners can’t even see it in themselves — it’s still just bigotry. I don’t want a special F-ing law for my people. Not only because it’s bigotry like all bigotry, but in singling out Jews, it perpetuates a common anti-Jewish trope — that we are “special” or treated special, or Israel is controlling the US or whatever other garbage. Such laws could actually escalate the problem by further propping the idea of Jews as being treated special. No one and no people should be treated ‘special’. Hate is hate.
Having said that, there is a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment and activities in Davis and UC Davis that would not be so socially tolerated against any other peoples. I’ve heard that the vast majority of hate incidents reported/investigated on campus are directed against Jews – but I don’t want to say that definitively until I can confirm that (glad to retract if incorrect). I’m very glad the administration is going after so-called ‘antisemitism’ on UC campuses including UC Davis. But I am quite uncomfortable that it is directed only at so-called ‘antisemitism’ (anti-Jew bigotry) and not bigotry in general. If there are (these are made-up numbers) 30 anti-Jewish hate incidents, and 5 anti-Muslim hate incidents and 10 anti-black hate incidents [put in any numbers you wish], the powers that be should be going after ALL the hate incidents equally. I’m as concerned about how this looks as I am about hate against all peoples being treated equally.
As I said, no law that singles out a anti-Jew bigotry is going to help Jews — and may hurt our people as the bigots latch on to that. What will help is if the people of Davis take a moment to look into their own hearts and consider why incidents against Jews in this town are not met with the same outrage that would occur if they were against the groups that do get the public empathy/outrage. Why the double standard, for you ? [By “you” I mean each reader, should they care to take a moment to consider for themselves]
“California would be among the first states to incorporate the federal antisemitism strategy into state education law”
And how is federal antisemitism strategy going as far as reducing bigotry against Jews these days, eh?
Alan M. says: “or believe Jews are white, or believe Jews are a religion body exclusively, . . .”
“It all contributes to Jew hatred, and no new law will change that.”
(How does a belief that Jews are white or are a religion body exclusively contribute to Jew hatred? Not seeing the connection regarding that.)
Alan M. says: “If there are (these are made-up numbers) 30 anti-Jewish hate incidents, and 5 anti-Muslim hate incidents and 10 anti-black hate incidents [put in any numbers you wish], the powers that be should be going after ALL the hate incidents equally.”
(Of course, but you left out (XX number) of incidents against white people, based on their skin color. I realize that some are invested in not believing that this exists, but I can personally assure anyone that it does. In fact, that’s the ONLY type of hate incidents I’ve actually seen/experienced in public schools and on public transit systems, and it was, and probably still is pervasive.)
RO ask, “How does a belief that Jews are white or are a religion body exclusively contribute to Jew hatred?”
It’s very complex, but basically the US framework of identity politics places every group into narrow categories of either “oppressed people of color” or “privileged white oppressors.” Jews don’t fit neatly into either and get screwed by both. When Jews are seen as “white,” as too many believe, the long history and ongoing reality of anti-Jew bigotry is erased, making us appear immune to prejudice and undeserving of protection. When I heard white supremacists in the 60’s/70’s calling for the extermination of blacks and Jews, I didn’t feel very “white”. However, when Jews are seen only as a religious body, our peoplehood, common ancestry, and minority status are denied. That strips away recognition of Jews as a vulnerable ethnic group. Both distortions let society dismiss or rationalize anti-Jew bigotry. The result is that Jews are targeted as outsiders and somehow accused of holding undeserved or magical powers, a dynamic no law written around U.S. identity politics can fix. I believe it is foolish for Jews to look for protection in laws built around such a framework.
Alan – you are going to confuse him and the issue.
Basically, California law protects individuals from illegal discrimination by employers based on the following:
Race, color.
Ancestry, national origin.
Religion, creed.
Age (40 and over)
Disability, mental and physical.
Sex, gender (including pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding or related medical conditions)
Sexual orientation.
Thanks, Alan. I appreciate the explanation. The following sentence stood out to me:
Alan M. says: “Jews don’t fit neatly into either and get screwed by both”
(I don’t believe that would also apply to Asians, from that perspective. Which is related to the reason that the recalled school board trustee said that Asians are using “white supremacy” to get ahead.) In a sense, she wasn’t wrong.
Seems like whites, Jews and Asians are on the “same team”, from this perspective. (And increasingly – Latinos.)
Maybe someday, everyone will be a white supremacist. (Sometimes I think about this concept applying to entire countries – like Russia and China becoming part of NATO. After all, we’ll need their help when Mars attacks.)
As far as David’s comment is concerned, I believe I do understand Alan M’s point. But you responded with the “official” line from California, which doesn’t reflect reality.
The disassociation from reality is also the reason that I bring up the racial attacks I experienced and witnessed, which again – are the ONLY racial attacks I’ve ever seen in person. But “progressives” (or “liberals”?) refuse to openly acknowledge that it exists. (They know it does, but don’t want to admit it.)
Correction – I DO believe that this would apply to Asians, as well as Jews.
But having grown up as an easily-identifiable “white” person, I observed that the only group who attacked “everyone else” were young groups of black people. As such, that’s about the only group I even “noticed”.
There were also occassionally some tensions with Latinos I think – but nowhere near the same degree. But I also believe there were enormous tensions between Latinos and black people, at times. (Perhaps still to this day.) Woodland doesn’t have many black people, but it has a lot of Latinos and whites, and Asians. Maybe there’s an underlying reason for that.
RO say, “As far as David’s comment is concerned, I believe I do understand Alan M’s point. But you [DG] responded with the “official” line from California, which doesn’t reflect reality.”
Yeah, I didn’t see the point in bypassing the conversation and quoting current law.
“But you [DG] responded with the “official” line from California, which doesn’t reflect reality.”
A lot of stuff coming out of California these days doesn’t reflect reality.
“But the legislation has also generated significant opposition from some interfaith groups and civil liberties advocates who warn that the measure risks conflating political criticism of Israel with antisemitism, thereby threatening free speech and academic freedom in California schools.”
I think they have this backwards. There’s nothing wrong with political criticism of Israel. I doubt I know a Jew who isn’t critical of Israel on one level or another. The problem is many use political criticism of Israel as a cover to claim they aren’t engaging in anti-Jew bigotry. This can be either intentional or done with total lack of awareness (usually when the double-standard is involved for Israel).
““AB 715 contains no definition of antisemitism and several provisions could be read to include criticism of the State of Israel and its policies within the scope of antisemitic ‘discrimination and bias,’”
Seems unlikely since Jews themselves do this. Now of course if you are telling people their homeland should *not exist*, that’s another story. What other countries get this? – let’s stick with countries in the Middle East who’s modern form is from the same era: Besides Israel — Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Libya, Sudan, Kuwait, Yemen, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Iran, Egypt, Turkey. Each has a unique story of course, most are Arab/Muslim, and some had previously existed, as did Israel, outside of empires such as the Ottoman. Many have had bloody revolution, war, famine and/or civil war. Clearly some of these borders were ‘problematic’, governments ‘problematic’, relations between peoples ‘problematic’, but does anyone call for these other countries to cease to exist today? Nope, just the Jewish one.
“They pointed to examples in the IHRA framework, such as characterizing Israel as a “racist endeavor,” applying “double standards” to Israel, or drawing comparisons between Israeli policies and those of Nazi Germany. “Whether one agrees or disagrees with these statements, or finds them offensive or objectionable, they are viewpoints about Israel and are not antisemitic,”
Um . . . they are “viewpoints” of about Israel, but all pretty flaming so to my ear they are examples of anti-Jewish bigotry. I get to think that, and even if some other Jew in some organization — and I’m smelling antizionist from here — don’t see it that way, I don’t believe some agency gets to tell me that something isn’t anti-Jewish bigotry — in my “lived experience” (forgive me), that is bigotry. That doesn’t mean you can’t be a bigot — you’ve got the 1st amendment right to do that — just like I have the first amendment right to think you’re an arsehole.
“Israel does not have a free pass preventing it from being criticized.”
No one is talking about Israel not being criticized. But saying something isn’t bigotry because you’re Jewish and have some organization doesn’t give that organization a free pass to gaslight me by telling me three things are not bigotry when I believe all three to be bigotry.
“They warned that if adopted into law, the definition would silence Jewish Americans and others who criticize Israeli policies, reinforcing the notion that Jewish identity is inseparable from Israel’s government.”
I really doubt most people, including the AB-715 police, would even begin to understand the nuances of Jews criticizing Israel, much less silence anyone. The point and beauty of the first amendment is that you get to be an arsehole, and I get to tell you that you are being an arsehole.
I oppose this law, but I believe for different reasons that the organization of antizionists does. Everyone gets to say stuff, and everyone gets to criticize Israel. And everyone gets to call out bigotry, bigots and arseholes.
God Bless America!
This is a very sad day for our California education system. The chance that Newsom would veto such a bill is low. I pick up on where Alan left off. “I oppose this law, but I believe for very different reasons”. It does not take an antizionist stance to oppose this bill. Not least among its defects is the fact that there will be no “relief” for the portion of the Jewish community that brought this bill forward for school safety. It will have the opposite impact on their children and all children attending school.
Unity of purpose in creating a safe discourse about current events – that we share the burdens of history regardless of our origins – is ruined by AB715. This bill, at its core, implements censorship and exceptionalism and will likely become a historical milestone in the long demise of our liberal consensus. The symbolism of goodwill and compromise in ethnic studies and mitigating bad outcomes rings as hollow today as when the bill was introduced a year ago.
Our newly elected Chris Calbadon could see no good way to refuse his vote, knowing full well that the lawsuits that will pile up to remove funds from schools.
What AB715 also accomplishes is to make sure Israel remains the center of our attention, starting in Kindergarten. It may not have been the agenda of the Jewish mom who is vigorously advocating for a loving community and sees AB715 as that antidote, but there is no way around the religious zealotry that is introduced into our public education system. I believe that AB715 is a direct violation of the separation of church and state.
The source of the energy that it took to pass such a bad law is not unjustified. Antisemitism in the US has been a powerful force that US Administrations often looked the other way. But the momentum of the Jewish Federation and other Jewish anti-semitism groups has also grown hubristic in their very power to control the legislative process. It can’t be ignored, that part of AB715 passage is to demonstrate who has the levers of power in politics to hold sway against the majority of voters.
There is no two ways about it, we are about to make Antisemitism Police part of our school system, we are codifying Jewish consideration as separate, but “equal” to all civil rights discussion and behavior in schools.
I would like to understand the Vanguard’s reasons for publishing the “victory lap” version of this bill’s passage. Here is a review, which addresses many concerns about the censorship of Palestinian human rights, of the recently passed AB 715. The review discusses the damage this bill imposes on our school system and public discourse.
https://www.laprogressive.com/education-reform/antisemitism-prevention
Just to point out about two thirds of the article cited opposition to the measure: “But the legislation has also generated significant opposition from some interfaith groups and civil liberties advocates who warn that the measure risks conflating political criticism of Israel with antisemitism, thereby threatening free speech and academic freedom in California schools.”
I don’t know much about what the bill does and doesn’t do. I looked at it and what I saw was a bill that had major revisions written in the Senate Education Committee. Its hard to know from the dogmatism of the opposition if the final product will be as bad as predicted. Time will tell but my experience tells me that its unlikely to be the worst case scenario as described by the opposition. One thing I saw was that the bill set up a state office of civil rights something that the Federal Government has had since the 1960’s.
I will share my hope that kids will learn to be tolerant of other kids religions and that this will help in that dream. I will also share my experience as a kid learning to suffer the sleights and indignities of having a minority religion. That was many years ago when antisemitism was in a post WWII trough. I’m pretty sure that it is worse for many Jewish kids in America right now.
My friend told me that another kid told her 5th grade son “I’m going put you in an oven.”
I told her that her son should have punched the kid in the nose. How would you deal with something like that Scott?
“My friend told me that another kid told her 5th grade son “I’m going put you in an oven.”
I told her that her son should have punched the kid in the nose. How would you deal with something like that Scott?”
I realize you weren’t asking me, but I would hope that the school system would expel (or at least suspend) “your” kid for physically attacking someone else as a result of that type of comment.
I’m less sure how the school system should handle the kid who made the comment, but it should be something far less than what “your” kid should be subject to.
Since when did we started teaching kids to attack each other physically, over words (which aren’t even a viable threat)? (Unfortunately, it started a long time ago I guess.)
Cal Matters published an article on this bill that was run by the Davis Enterprise on its October 15, 2025 front page. Its a very good summary of the issues raised:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/10/school-antisemitism-bill-signed/
Scott says: “But the momentum of the Jewish Federation and other Jewish anti-semitism groups has also grown hubristic in their very power to control the legislative process. It can’t be ignored, that part of AB715 passage is to demonstrate who has the levers of power in politics to hold sway against the majority of voters.”
I can’t point to direct evidence (other than to examine who is actually in power, or has influence over power and wealth), but this statement strikes me as very accurate/applicable. And has been for some time.
As such, the type of law referred to in this article is likely to increase anti-Semitism and hatred from some people. Ultimately, you can’t “force” this type of thing on people, as it leads to backlash.
I don’t know why Hitler went after the Jews, but I suspect he blamed them for something similar.
All of this leads back to categorizing different groups of people into “victims” and “victimizers”, which is ultimately and rightly rejected. But not before it leads to more hatred and resentment.
What you say will only be a problem if and when someone is unjustly accused of antisemitism because they call out Israel for war crimes or accuse them of genocide. Both accusations have facts to back them up, but neither is antisemitic. I don’t believe this will result in a backlash against Jews, rather it will further expose the the Israel-is-Always-Right coalition and lead to a change in the law or throwing it out based on free speech critical of a nation’s politics.