By Vanguard Staff
SACRAMENTO, CA – Governor Gavin Newsom on Tuesday signed AB 715, a bill authored by Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis and championed by the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, to strengthen protections against antisemitism in K-12 schools across the state.
The legislation establishes a new state Office of Civil Rights within the California Department of Education and creates an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator who will help develop training, review complaints, advise school districts, and recommend policy changes.
Supporters say the law responds to an alarming rise in harassment and bias targeting Jewish students and sends a strong message that hate has no place in public schools.
“Today is a historic day for California’s Jewish community and for every child who has ever felt unsafe, unseen, or unwelcome at school,” said David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee, which sponsored the bill. “By signing AB 715, Governor Newsom has sent a clear and powerful message: antisemitism, like all forms of hate, has no place in our public schools, period. This law is more than policy — it is a promise that Jewish children, their families, and all students, deserve a great public education and classrooms free from hate and discrimination.”
Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel of Encino, co-chair of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus, praised the new law as a “strong and unambiguous message — hate has no place in our schools and will not be tolerated.” He credited Jewish students, parents, and educators for “fighting tirelessly to protect Jewish children.”
Assemblymember Dawn Addis of Morro Bay called the legislation “a historic first-in-the-nation effort that centers on the wellbeing of children across our state, many of whom bravely shared horrific stories about their experiences in our schools.” Addis said the measure ensures that “in protecting Jewish students, we take a step forward in protecting all students from hate and discrimination.”
Under AB 715, school districts will be required to investigate instances of discriminatory harassment or antisemitic conduct and take corrective action when necessary. Instructional materials must also meet state standards for factual accuracy and inclusivity.
Despite widespread support in the Legislature, the bill drew criticism from educators, civil rights advocates, and free speech groups who warned it could have unintended consequences for classroom discussions on controversial issues.
Theresa Montaño, a professor of Chicano/a Studies and tri-chair of the California Faculty Association’s Teacher Education Caucus, said, “Teacher discourse on Palestine or the genocide in Gaza will be policed, misrepresented, and reported to the antisemitism prevention coordinator. Today, it’s Palestine, but tomorrow it could be your ‘rainbow flag,’ your ‘Black Lives Matter poster,’ or your ‘ICE out of LA’ T-shirt.”
Hussam Ayloush, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations California, expressed similar concerns, saying the law “threatens to chill free speech and comprehensive learning in classrooms, punish educators for discussing global human rights issues, and adds a financial strain on the state’s already deficient budget by adding additional levels of bureaucracy.”
Some organizations, including the ACLU and the California Teachers Association, urged Newsom to veto the measure, arguing that vague or overbroad definitions of antisemitism could invite censorship or litigation. Critics were particularly concerned that the law draws on the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, which they say conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitic speech.
Supporters countered that the law does not criminalize criticism of Israel and is narrowly focused on preventing discrimination and harassment targeting Jewish students. They emphasized that AB 715 complements broader anti-discrimination efforts, including SB 48, a companion measure signed the same day that expands protections for students facing bias based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.
AB 715 will take effect on Jan. 1, 2026, placing California at the forefront of a national debate over how schools should address antisemitism, academic freedom, and the boundaries of free expression in the classroom.
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.
When a bill to protect to protect kids from antisemitism in school is controversial you know Jews are living in dangerous times.
The problem is that it singles-out Jews as the ONLY recipient of racism/hatred.
There’s already a narrative that “black and brown people” are the only recipients of racism/hatred.
Kind of interesting – I was watching a program the other day which outlined the reasons that Nazi atrocities have been emphasized, but not so much regarding Japan’s atrocities (which in some ways, were worse).
I disagree that the new law singles out Jews as the ONLY recipient of racism/hatred. It singles them out as a SPECIAL case and potentially (intentionally?) conflates criticism of the state of Israel, it’s policies and actions with racist intent. The supporters of this bill, of course, deny this. But why not just include anti-Semitic speech and actions with all the other classes of protected individuals? I’ve never heard of a narrative that “black and brown people” are the only recipients of racism/hatred. There is a list of protected classes of individuals in law that is much broader than that to which anti-Semitism is an appropriate addition.
I don’t believe they (or any other group) are a “special case”.
As far as the narrative regarding “black and brown people”, I find it difficult to believe that you haven’t heard the issue addressed that way.
In fact, some people claim that “black and brown” people “can’t” be racist.
As far as “anti-Semitic” speech is concerned, that’s protected speech under the First Amendment. (Perhaps doesn’t apply at schools, however.) In fact, the First Amendment is under attack from both all sides of the political spectrum.
There is a woman (in Minnesota?) who is facing charges as a result of the use of the “n” word. Officials are likely violating constitutional law regarding prosecution of that. I hope she sues those officials, for violating her First Amendment rights.
“I don’t believe they (or any other group) are a “special case”.”
Based on what reasoning?
For the reason I already stated – ALL groups experience race/religious hatred, at times.
As far as “anti-Semitic” is concerned, no one even knows who is Jewish in the first place, until they start espousing their views (which is also protected under the First Amendment).
But there is no inherent right to demand a “warm and fuzzy” reaction to anything that anyone says.
I, for one, don’t even pay attention to any of it (in regard to protestors who are fighting each other for no reason). But I understand that it means a lot to some people, so I also wouldn’t confront them for no reason.
I do not have any connections to my multiple countries of origin, but I do know that they were fighting each other during WWII.
No offense, but I don’t think you’re speaking from a place of knowledge for how Jews are attempting to navigate a very difficult time in this country on many levels, and frankly “ALL groups experience race/religious hatred, at times” is a BS cop out. That said, I was not a supporter of this legislation as I don’t think it gets at the critical issues, but what you are saying is nonsense.
This new law is a special case because it pertains only to anti-semitic speech or is focused that way. Am I misreading the article?
You are not
Uh, huh. I always like it when others tell me that their “lived experience” applies to EVERYONE with the same background that they have.
And sometimes, also telling me about the “lived experiences” of those who don’t have the same background as they do (as if everyone in those groups have the same experiences – but somehow feel that they’re qualified to act as a spokesperson on their behalf).
Again, no one even knows that someone is Jewish, until they pronounce it.
People walking around in the world don’t even think about slight differences in appearance, such as differences between Japanese and Chinese people (who were also fighting each other during WWII).
You know what people notice? General height, weight, sex, general skin color, etc. That’s all they notice. (And apparently, we can no longer assume “gender” from our own observations, despite everyone doing so every single time – whether or not they say anything).
Our own country was fighting each other during the civil war, which I’m sure also created divisions (even when some of them were DIRECTLY related to each other.)
When was the last time you were in a synagogue?
“… no one even knows that someone is Jewish, until they pronounce it.”
The mandatory adoption of surnames in the Jewish populations of parts of Europe led to surnames that are recognizably of Jewish heritage. In the US this led to discrimination in housing, employment, college acceptance, and barriers to admission in private organizations. Nobody had to pronounce anything; their name was all that was necessary for discrimination to occur.
Probably about the same time I was last in a mosque or a Catholic church.
Don’t get me started regarding religion, as I subscribe to the George Carlin school of thought regarding that.
I have periodically visited missions, however. (Due to their historic value/interest.)
I do say, “Merry Christmas”, however. And if I knew exactly when Hanukkah was (or how to spell it), I’d say “Merry Hanukkah”, as well.
There you have it. You saying “ALL groups experience race/religious hatred, at times” is a huge middle finger to a community that I am part of and you really have no knowledge of what they are dealing with. You have no idea how ripped apart the Jewish community has been for the last two years over this stuff.
Well, if the Jewish community is “ripped apart” as you say, doesn’t that prove that anti-Semitism isn’t applicable?
And why not address that in a synagogue (instead of a public school)? You just stated that it’s an “internal” problem within the Jewish community itself.
And yes, you are discounting my “lived experience” as a white person in public schools and public transit, despite going over it many times on here.
But truth be told, Jewish people would have the same problem as I did, since they are (for the most part) viewed as “white” by their attackers.
Asians are also attacked.
I witnessed all of this, first-hand.
You know what I never witnessed? Attacks on black or Hispanic people, or Jews (unless “viewed” as white).
Happy Kwanza, as well. (The only truly fake holiday, as far as religious history is concerned. A “social justice” holiday.)
You don’t know when to stop
David, when you say, “You have no idea how ripped apart the Jewish community has been for the last two years over this stuff.” you get to the heart of the issue. Is the “ripping” happening from within the Jewish community, or is the ripping being perpetrated by forces outside the Jewish community?
Both
“I, for one, don’t even pay attention to any of it . . . ”
Yet even after stating that, you feel the need to comment on what you pay no attention to. Did it ever occur to you that maybe in paying no attention to something, because you don’t care much, you might also have little of value to say about it, and maybe would be better off saying nothing?
For someone who cares little about this subject, article after article you sure do feel like telling everyone how much you don’t know and don’t care.
“Again, no one even knows that someone is Jewish, until they pronounce it.”
The correct pronunciation is JEW-ish.
“People walking around in the world don’t even think about slight differences in appearance, such as differences between Japanese and Chinese people (who were also fighting each other during WWII).”
That sounds racist, but I can’t quite put my finger on why.
“You know what people notice? General height, weight, sex, general skin color, etc.”
Generally, I guess that’s generally correct.
RO say, “Well, if the Jewish community is “ripped apart” as you say, doesn’t that prove that anti-Semitism isn’t applicabl
e?”
What the actual F is that supposed to mean?
RO say: “And why not address that in a synagogue (instead of a public school)? You just stated that it’s an “internal” problem within the Jewish community itself.”
What the flying actual flying F ? God, why do you even bother trying to comment on something you clearly know nothing about. You do realize you look like a major dumb F to anyone reading this, right?
RO say, “But truth be told, Jewish people would have the same problem as I did, since they are (for the most part) viewed as “white” by their attackers.”
Attackers? As in Hamas? Or do you mean ‘detractors’, as in those incollege protests? And anyone who views Jews as ‘white’ knows nothing about the Jewish people.
RO say, “Asians are also attacked.”
Huh?
RO say: “You know what I never witnessed? Attacks on black or Hispanic people, or Jews (unless “viewed” as white).”
Who cares what you witnessed?
RO say: “Happy Kwanza, as well. (The only truly fake holiday, as far as religious history is concerned. A “social justice” holiday.)”
You may be the only person on Earth to deploy a landmine and then purposefully step on it.
RO say: “The problem is that it singles-out Jews as the ONLY recipient of racism/hatred.”
Huh?
I happened to attend the hearings on this bill in April or thereabouts. This bill went through the legislature like a grass fire. After all, what decent person is not against anti-Semitism? The proponents relied heavily on the events of October, 2023 to make their case and, again, who cannot feel the legitimacy of feelings around that event? But, and it’s a big but, what does this bill do for equanimity in our schools and in our communities? Others testified that a person who maybe lost dozens of family members in Gaza is every bit as hurt and entitled to be heard. This bill may end up being a one-way weapon to silence or minimize that person’s lived experience. The bill’s authors studiously avoided answering questions on how it could be legitimate to question the policies and actions of the Israeli government without being accused of anti-Semitism. This is a one nation protection law. We are free to attack the policies of India over their treatment of Sikhs, or Islamic citizens in India without being accused of being anti-Hindu. This bill, if it is enforced the way it is written, will hopefully be ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court because it sets up an unenforceable restriction on free speech that has nothing whatsoever to do with the race or religion or ethnic status of the population of Israel and everything to do with the violation of international law and common morality regarding the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and increasingly all of present day Israel and its claimed territories.
The bill didn’t go through the legislature like wildfire. The bill was dramatically re-written in the Senate Education Committee. The bill that was passed is substantially different from whatever hearing you attended in the spring.
DH say, “The bill’s authors studiously avoided answering questions on how it could be legitimate to question the policies and actions of the Israeli government without being accused of anti-Semitism.”
I’m not sure I agree with this bill because I don’t think it addresses the core problems, nor can government solve what is in people’s hearts, but this argument above is also ludicrous and right out of the antizionist playbook. There’s this built-in assumption here that non-antizionist Jews blindly support Israel. In fact, every Israel-supporting Jew I know is critical of some aspect of Israel policy and/or governance. It’s like a Jewish pastime to argue about Israel.
And I find your last sentences probably vile but so poorly written I don’t even know how to interpret it so as to comment.
Cal Matters published a very good and balanced discussion of the history of this bill that the Davis Enterprise ran on their front page on Wednesday, October 15, 2025. I suggest everyone who wants to wade in read it. Too late, I understand for some of us, but if anyone comes across this post and wants a good synopsis of the very legitimate arguments against this legislation as well as in favor of it, this is it:
https://calmatters.org/politics/2025/10/school-antisemitism-bill-signed/
God that was exhausting, and really for no legitimate reason.
Thank you Alan Miller!
I am here to serve :-|
MW say: ” Is the “ripping” happening from within the Jewish community, or is the ripping being perpetrated by forces outside the Jewish community? ”
DG say “Both”
True, and “ripping” depends on how you define. I blame the antizionist Jews, both far left and far right. Beyond that, Jews have disagreements about just about everything. Including Israel policy and governance and settlements and the war. Yet except for the antizionists, we are unified as a people. The one thing the Jewish community (which I define as all Jews sans the antizionist far left and far right loons) doesn’t argue about, is whether Israel should “exist”. That we as Jewish community agree on. (Other than that, we have many varied opinions about everything, and argue about them ;-) )
But the antizionists will tell you they are the voice of Jews. Yeah right. Or should I say, ‘yeah far left and far right’ :-\ Antizionist Jews are the dictionary definition of horseshoe theory gone amock.
In that antizionist Jews are quite self-ripped from non-antizionist Jews, there’s a rift. I personally define and draw the line there — I have no respect for antizionist Jews, who take on anti-Israel rhetoric (I don’t mean criticism of Israel, I mean *anti*-Israel – big difference), isolate themselves from the Jewish community, put on a show to bang on the door “wanting” to be part of the Jewish community, then complain when the Jewish community doesn’t want them when they themselves don’t want to be part of us, then claim to speak for the Jewish community as some magic, annoying-loud, false majority — and also align with groups wanting to destroy Israel. While still “Jews”, they weaponize their identity against the Jews as a whole.
There is even a weird sect of far-right ultra-Orthodox Jews in New York who wear traditional Orthodox garb, keffiyehs & wave Palestinian flags, the Neturei Karta. It would be fascinating to get them in a room with Davis antizionist Jews and listen to the dual tool conversation!
Everyone should watch this (trailer for upcoming documetary) on an Israeli spy that penetrated the flotilla. The various alphabet “peace” #gag# #cough# #blech# organizations with “students for” and “Jews for” organizations have a similar relationship to Hamas. Wake up people. Hamas is ‘defeated’ today, but the ideology is embedded deeply in western society like a cancer.
Watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr_WGsP8eLo
Alan M. says: “Attackers? As in Hamas? Or do you mean ‘detractors’, as in those in college protests?
Last time I checked, Hamas was in Gaza – not the U.S. I’m referring to attacks in public school systems and on public transit. They aren’t singling out “Jews”.
Regarding protestors, that’s a voluntary choice (and those protesting on campus may not be exclusively “Jews” or “Palestinians”).
Alan M. says: “And anyone who views Jews as ‘white’ knows nothing about the Jewish people.”
Did I say that they do? And what difference does that make, anyway?
Alan M. says: “Who cares what you witnessed?”
It’s more than anecdotal, that’s why. The problem in public schools and on public transit was not related to attacks against Jewish people (because they are Jewish), when I attended school. They were lumped into the same category as whites – didn’t I already explain that?
“What the actual F is that supposed to mean?”
David is the one who said that this “division” exists within the Jewish community. So why the “F” as you put it does this need to be addressed in public schools? I assume you realize that not everyone who attends a public school is Jewish (or cares about Jews simply because they are Jewish).
Apparently, identifying as Jewish is very important to you, but I don’t share your view regarding that. Why would I (or anyone else) care about that?
As far as the lunatics protesting on campus, why would anyone else care about that? That’s a voluntary choice, as are all of the other protests in which people sometimes “seek” conflict with other groups and/or authorities. Or sometimes, just want to cause havoc for society at large (e.g., chaining themselves together on the Golden Gate Bridge).
“Apparently, identifying as Jewish is very important to you, but I don’t share your view regarding that. Why would I (or anyone else) care about that?”
Apparently, identifying as an arse is very important to you — and indeed no one cares.
This is how I felt yesterday. Ron O seems incapable of comprehending when he’s being offensive and when he just needs to stop.
How so?
If you and Alan don’t provide the reason, it has no meaning.
But no – I don’t care if someone else’s race or religion is important to them. At least, not when they try to create public policy out of it, without considering everyone else. I find that MORE than offensive.
There is no honesty (especially in regard to any official/required lectures/classes) in regard to discussions regarding race or religion.
What we’re dealing with is an agenda of those who have power (one way or another) to force “their” group victimhood upon everyone else.
You’re making it worse. Just cease.
You can obviously not post my comment, but you’re still not even addressing anything I said.
The fact that you and Alan find it offensive has no meaning to me.
But for sure, if I’m in a public institution where “only” one group is considered in regard to discrimination and attacks, it’s probably more than offensive – it’s bordering on illegal (if that’s the only type of discrimination that’s addressed).
Hate crimes, despite how they’re actually applied – are intended to discourage ALL attacks based upon factors such as race. Even attacks against white people (though you can probably count on one hand how often they’re pursued in that scenario).
In the meantime, you and Alan can stick your “hurt feelings/victimhood” (as if Jewish people were the only ones) where the sun don’t shine.
“The fact that you and Alan find it offensive has no meaning to me.”
And that says it all. You don’t care about anyone but yourself.
See, that’s where you’re wrong – either on purpose, or from misunderstanding.
What I said is that I don’t favor basing public policy on (only) one group’s experiences – which is the focus of this initiative/article. That’s different than caring about someone else’s beliefs/values on an individual/personal level.
The fact that this type of initiative was even being considered is astonishing, though I’d have to go back at this point and see exactly what is proposed.
I’ll leave it at that, since it appears that you’re not interested in actual discussion.
“The fact that you and Alan find it offensive has no meaning to me.”
That’s true, in regard to any support for public policy based upon (only) one group. There are people who think, for example, that reparations are in order for various groups. (I also don’t care what they think about that – or more accurately, am OPPOSED to that.)
But this doesn’t actually have anything to do with me – it’s just bad public policy for EVERYONE else.
This is also related to the reason that I don’t support the casino monopoly provided to tribes. (Which in that case, is dependent upon more than just native heritage. You have to have a legitimate claim to being from the “right” tribe, as judged by the tribe itself as I understand it.)
Same thing with reparations for black people – not all black people would qualify.
So in the case for any kind of “special” treatment for Jewish people in the public school system, I am also opposed to that (and don’t care if anyone finds THAT offensive).
Now that I’m re-reading the article again, the concerns regarding this type of initiative are already addressed in that article.
Those are the same type of concerns I agree with, though I suspect that those who are expressing concern might also propose something that would result in the exact same type of concerns.
This is why you cannot single out particular groups. (I’m not sure that public school even has the bandwidth to deal with the broader issue, in any kind of honest or respectful manner. Maybe they should just teach the three “r’s” – reading, righting, and rithmetic. And start worrying about what they’re teaching in schools in China and India, before we can no longer compete with them.)
Seems to me that diversity is not always the “strength” that it’s presented as. Seems that it more-often leads to conflicts and dysfunction, especially when identities are embraced and promoted as something important, rather than “incidental” to one’s being.
RO say, “In the meantime, you and Alan can stick your “hurt feelings/victimhood” (as if Jewish people were the only ones) where the sun don’t shine.”
Where did I say I had hurt feelings or felt ‘victimhood’ or that we were the ‘only ones’ ? The last mindset Jews should place ourselves in is one of ‘victimhood’ — that’s a huge reason that so many Jews felt they have to have control of their own destiny and not be at the whim of the countries that ‘hosted’ them (and all too often pushed them out or killed them). And where doesn’t the sun shine, exactly? Certainly not Israel — where the sun shines a lot.
On a related note, it appears that Trump’s administration was working behind the scenes to end the conflict between Israel and Gaza. I think this is most-evident by the pressure applied to Hamas from surrounding nations, which seems likely to be the result of Trump’s efforts.
Hard to tell exactly what’s occurring, but I do know that some will never give Trump any credit (even when it’s warranted). From what I’ve seen, Trump is one of the more anti-war presidents – which is surprising given his rhetoric.
Once that conflict ends (at least for now), some of the conflict within the U.S. will diminish.
And if this is the result of Trump’s involvement, it would add credence to his “let’s make a deal” capability. He does seem quite flexible at times, as well. (In other words, willing to negotiate details in light of a larger goal.) It could be that he’s actually one of the best presidents for that particular type of conflict.
Dave Hart says: ” . . . and everything to do with the violation of international law and common morality regarding the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and increasingly all of present day Israel and its claimed territories.”
Presenting it that way in a classroom WILL lead to hatred of Jews, in general. That’s just how some people will unfortunately react (probably even more so, among children). Israel, unlike the United States, is directly tied to Judaism.
Some people still try to claim that the United States is a “white supremacist” country, to the point where a school district official in San Francisco said that Asian students are using that to get ahead.
I don’t think schools can handle this topic. If kids want to know what’s going on in the world, there’s plenty of sources outside of school. Hopefully, their own parents can provide some guidance (if needed in the first place) that doesn’t steer them in the wrong direction.
But everything else you said seems correct.
Let me try this again. In 1969 or 1970, there was a famous photo of a girl running down a road, screaming, naked, the victim of napalm dropped by a U.S. aircraft. That photo permanently ended any doubt in my mind about the morality of the war in Vietnam. We see even more horrific scenes in Gaza. The sheer disparity in the body count between Palestinian deaths (not Hamas deaths) and Israeli deaths since 1947, let alone the last two years is a fact that can’t be ignored. Recounting the reality of war, forcibly displacing Palestinians from their homes and land could find one prosecuted under this law. Israel is now gearing up its propaganda machine to try to regain some moral ground making it even more important to talk about what they have perpetrated. It’s got nothing to do with simply being Jewish, or with anti-Semitism. It is a problem created by the state of Israel and making it illegal to talk about only compounds the crime.
Have you reviewed the law that was signed after it was amended in the Senate?
“We see even more horrific scenes in Gaza. The sheer disparity in the body count between Palestinian deaths (not Hamas deaths) and Israeli deaths since 1947, let alone the last two years is a fact that can’t be ignored.”
How do you know which deaths are Hamas and which are not since no distinction is made by those reporting casualties inside Gaza.
Are you insisting that entire families including small children killed in their homes are Hamas operatives? I can imagine Israel will insist that any adult or even teenager was somehow known to be a Hamas fighter. The dismembered bodies of children puts a lie it.
Yeah, I regret pointing out the way deaths have been recorded without mentioning the horrors of Gaza as something we all should find horrifying.
Still I think you are worried about potential political repercussions while ignoring the real experiences of Jewish students in California schools. You are concerned about potential abuses while I’m concerned about real abuses.
I’ve asked several times and in different ways how you would address real Antisemitism in California schools? I’m still waiting for a reply.
It needs to be addressed in the same way as discrimination against any group should be addressed with the caveat that there doesn’t seem to be an effective program for any group in a protected class. If this new law can be equally wielded for all other classes it is a step forward. Time will tell if it is to be implemented asynchronously. The way the bill is written, or the way I read it, there is an antisemitism coordinator to be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate. There is no black racist coordinator, asian racist coordinator or LGBTQ+ coordinator under the bill. So it seems to be very narrow and specific. I would be happy if there was an anti bullying coordinator since bullying covers every negative discriminatory offense. But the law isn’t written for any of the latter.
I want to re-ask a question I posed to someone else. What should be done about real antisemitism in school? My friend told me a story about her son being told by another kid “I’m going to put you in an oven.” How should schools respond to incidents like that?
While you are focused on some perceived geopolitical threat to free speech I am concerned about the day to day transgressions that Jewish kids suffer regularly.
The question you always have to ask is whether current laws are sufficient to deal with that – I believe they are or at least should be.
“The question you always have to ask is whether current laws are sufficient to deal with that”
I’m going to remember you said that.
Use the full quote if you’re being honest: “I believe they are or at least should be.” Because any time you bring it up, the question falls to the sufficiency of the current law. That’s where the debate will undoubtedly be.
Oh, so you feel you need some wiggle room.
My point is that you should evaluate whether a new law is needed, so if you take the first half of what I said, it doesn’t accurately reflect my view.
“The question you always have to ask is whether current laws are sufficient to deal with that – I believe they are or at least should be.”
Apparently both the legislative and executive branches of the State of California disagree with you based on the findings presented in the bill.
Yeah, but that doesn’t mean they are correct. They often pass redundant and duplicative laws. You already have laws against hate crimes and bullying on the books, plus most schools have their own regulations. It’s a matter of them enforcing it. A new law may signal the need for more enforcement, but that has a limited shelf-life.
That is why the bill creates a State Office of Civil Rights to make sure that the laws are faithfully enforced.
There is already a California Civil Rights Department which has both enforcement and investigatory powers, and we frequently published their findings
Apparently the executive and legislative branches found a need for improvement or redudency as addressed below.
This bill would establish the Office of Civil Rights, under the administration of the Government Operations Agency, with the purpose of working directly with local educational agencies to prevent and address discrimination and bias, as specified. The bill would require the Director of the Office of Civil Rights to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The bill would require the Office of Civil Rights, in consultation with the State Department of Education and under the supervision of the Government Operations Agency, to, among other things, (A) provide education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, (B) share relevant laws and regulations with educational state agencies, school districts, county offices of education, charter schools, and community stakeholders, and (C) annually submit a report to the Government Operations Agency, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the executive director of the State Board of Education, and the Legislature on the state of discrimination and bias in all local educational agencies, as specified. The bill would also require the Office of Civil Rights to employ the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The bill would require the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator to, among other things, develop, consult, and provide antisemitism education to school personnel to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism and to make recommendations, in coordination with the executive director of the state board, to the Legislature on legislation necessary for the prevention of antisemitism in educational settings.
I think it’s mainly for show
“… for show.”
Are you serious. You think this is some sort of Kabuki? Its a lot of moving parts if its just for show.
You realize that the arguments are that the bill would both do too much and too little at the same time. I ask you the same question and you might pose it to someone you know on the school board. What should be done when a Jewish kid is told by another kid “I’m going to put you in an oven.”
I think there is a problem and current law is sufficient to address it, but unfortunately, the legislature wants to show it’s doing something and no one really wanted to be on record opposing a bill that addresses antisemitism, so we are where we are.
If you really believe that you obviously haven’t been paying attention. Are you disputing Bonta’s findings or do you think they are inaccurate? Or do you think they are not worth trying to address at the State level?
I don’t know how I could not be paying attention to be honest with you given all the areas that I work in – I just have a different opinion than you as to what needs to be done and that’s ok.
This bill is the “Protect the State of Israel Act” under the guise of countering anti-semitism. Israel, because of its policies in Gaza, will be mounting a major propaganda campaign and will attempt to use this law to pressure school districts to muzzle or outright dismiss anyone who includes a clear-eyed analysis of Israel’s war crimes. There will be no such action if someone wants to recount Palestinian or Hamas war crimes. This law is intended as a cudgel against anyone critical of the state of Israel. That is its only purpose.
Oh, BS, DH. Now you’re just repeating anti-Israel talking points. I agree more with DG than RG on this, but then you gots to come in waving the Palestinian flag. I’ll know more when I talk to some of the people who pushed this through, but I can tell you they are concerned about anti-Jew bigotry, not “protecting Israel” which, if you stopped to think about it for a moment, this law couldn’t do. And how exactly will Israel ‘muzzle’ or ‘dismiss’ those who analyze how Israel conducted the war in comparison to Palestinian or Hamas as you put it? Considering all Jews I know are critical of Israel in one way or another, I’m not sure how anyone ‘critical’ is going to be cudgeled. Or do you mean, ‘want it not to exist’ rather than ‘critical of’. “It’s only purpose” — wow, I see it as ineffective and unnecessary and only really a problem because of people like you who will weaponize its existence as some sort of conspiracy by the magic Jews and their incredible powers. Ug . . . someone get me an Alka Seltzer.
If the bill can’t protect Israel, why do you think Israel is specifically mentioned? I’m sue that the legislative authors will claim this is purely to protect people. Like so much legislation that gets passed, the original fingerprints are wiped clean to protect the guilty. Just because you don’t personally know anyone who is Jewish that would give Israel unqualified support doesn’t mean there aren’t others in the state (or out of the state acting through Californians who would have standing) that want to be able to quash anti-Israel talk. The law specifically allows anonymous complainants. It has been watered down, but it’s still there but time will reveal who wants to use this law. As I said elsewhere, I have no problem with condemning war crimes by others, including Palestinians, so your critique of my comments is a red herring. The difference is there is no law like this one protecting the feelings of Palestinians who might be unjustly accused of war crimes. This law is written in a one-sided manner. That has always been my argument against it.
Below I’ve copied findings excerpted from the bill itself. I ask those in opposition how should we address those findings if this bill is not the right way to go about it?
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) In April 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom released the Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism. That report noted that, “Antisemitism has proliferated at a shocking speed in recent years, globally and here in California.”
(b) In 2025, Attorney General Rob Bonta released the annual Hate Crime in California report, which found that anti-Jewish bias events accounted for 76 percent of all reported religious hate crimes, while Jewish people make up only approximately 3 percent of the state’s population.
(c) It has been well documented that Jewish and Israeli American pupils across California are facing a widespread surge in antisemitic discrimination, harassment, and bullying. In many cases, such discrimination, harassment, and bullying has been so severe and pervasive that it has placed Jewish pupils at risk and limited, or completely impeded, their ability to learn or engage in school programs or activities.
(d) Discrimination, harassment, and bullying of Jewish pupils has included antisemitic tropes and conspiracy theories; discriminatory slurs, symbols, and expressions; physical and verbal assaults; discrimination by proxy and through the use of coded language; collective blame and generalizations about Jewish people; vilification of Jews and Israelis; and distortions of Jewish religion, ancestry, history, and identity. This discrimination, harassment, and bullying, including the use of inappropriate instructional materials and instruction, has deeply impacted Jewish pupils across California and the nation resulting in the vilification and ostracization of Jewish pupils.
(e) In certain communities, the discrimination, harassment, and bullying of Jewish pupils has become so severe and pervasive that Jewish pupils have been advised to hide any outward identifying signs of their Jewish identity.
It is tellng that the word “Israel” and “Israelis” is strategically dropped in and spread throughout this bill. If there is a Christian member of the Israeli army who committed war crimes, one could still not call them out based on how this is written. I can only hope the courts throw it out based on conflating being Jewish with being Israeli and therefore, conflating ethnic origin or religion with the policies and actions of one, specific nation state.
Have you reviewed the bill since it was amended? I ask because I disagree with you about the bill covering only one religion or specific single state.
The excerpted portions you provided specifically mention “Jews and Israelis”. I don’t see where it covers anyone who is not Jewish or not Israeli. No other religion is mentioned and no one who is not Jewish is mentioned. And while I have no problem with the intent as I read it, I am aware that there are those who would selectively read this bill with the intent to weaponize its enforcement against anyone who is critical of Israel or would make a case for war crimes committed by a citizen or agent of the Israeli government even if that person were not Jewish.
‘no other religion’ ? Seriously, do you know of what you speak? Jews are not just a religion. We are a people, an ethnicity, a nation that existed before any of today’s middle-eastern states. That’s why “Jews and Israelis” are named. Because antisemitism targets both the Jewish people and the Jewish state.
No one said you can’t criticize a government. Israelis themselves do it every day — loudly, fiercely, and in the streets. Jews do it throughout the world. The bill doesn’t silence debate. It draws a line between political criticism and hate aimed at Jews as a people. You are actually starting to make me see why the bill may be necessary after all.
Calling the Gaza war a “war crime” is not analysis, it’s a talking point. I’m sure there were mistakes made, and some may fall under that definition, I don’t know and neither do you. But Hamas launched a massacre. Israel is fighting to eradicate Hamas. The civilian death is the tragedy of war. If you want to talk about civilian suffering, do so honestly — but don’t dress up blood libel as “criticism.”
The bill doesn’t stop anyone from speaking. It stops people from disguising old hatred in new language. If that bothers you, maybe look closer at why. Ok, now I agree with RG. Thanks DH !!! For being you.
You might try reading the bill before you pretend to know what it does or does not provide. “Blood libel”? Now who is using strange language? If razing an urban area, killing at least 15,000 children and innocents is simply a mistake, starving people and intentionally driving them from their homes is not ethnic cleansing, a war crime, then explain that to me. No one is buying that it is inadvertent. It was systematic. How is that for speaking plainly and honestly? And, no, the bill does not stop anyone from speaking, it just means they may be the subject of “complaints and civil remedies” (see you in court). We all know what that means. The intent is to put a chill on criticism.
DH say, “If there is a Christian member of the Israeli army who committed war crimes, one could still not call them out based on how this is written.”
What the actual F does that mean? How does a bill in California prevent someone on the other side of the world from being “called out”, for all the good that would do if they actually committed a war crime. Tell, me, do you give a flying F about the war crimes committed against Israel, or are those ‘justified’ in your mind?
You either don’t want to understand this state law, or you are approaching it subjectively with some kind of bias. When I wrote “If there is a Christian member of the Israeli army who committed war crimes, one could still not call them out based on how this is written.”, I was referring to the bill that says that it can be construed as antisemitic to call any member of the IDF a war criminal in a K-12 setting. This bill says that truth telling makes teachers or students who are Israeli uncomfortable and therefore can be construed as antisemitic speech. This bill makes that factual statement potentially illegal. Please don’t try to deflect from the issue at hand. This bill does not proscribe calling the October 7 attack a war crime. It was. This bill does not concern itself with making Palestinians uncomfortable, only Israelis or people who are Jewish and associate their Jewish identity with Israel. So, what is your exact problem?
While adding antisemitism the bill states that the the office of civil rights will address all issues arising that are included Section 220 of the ED Code.
Ed Code Section 220
No person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid.
Thank you for posting the language. It really does seem to cover everyone and shows that we have an enforcement (political) problem and a social problem in facing down bullying in all its forms.
Here is a link to the text of AB 715
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVersionsCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB715
Again, thanks for the link. It seems the implementation of this bill is still off in the distance but it definitely has little nuggets of “civil remedy” “anonymous complainants” and references to “Israeli” that while somewhat ambiguous at this time open the door to political manipulation. For instance, the selection of the new Department (a new single purpose department) and the position for implementing are both to be appointed by the Governor and approved by the Senate (nothing political there). My basic problem with how this bill became law is that there is a lot of lining up to be counted as being tough on antisemitism without any discussion on why this is different other than the obvious event of October, 2023. We are baking in a new bureaucracy in response to war zone behavior by Israel. Now it is also possible this whole thing can also be harnessed to go after all the other forms of discrimination and hate speech, but that will take some doing. Who knows, maybe this could be turned to everyone’s benefit even though it is not initiated for that purpose. I’m a hopeless optimist.
It just so happens this article from the New Yorker, September 29 issue is more than pertinent with references to new books by scholars who actually study stuff and write better than I ever could because they have editors. It’s not one of those interminably long articles for those of us with limited time and attention spans. If you can’t read it because it’s paywalled, ask and I will figure out a way to email it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/09/29/on-antisemitism-mark-mazower-book-review-world-enemy-no-1-jochen-hellbeck