The Missouri State Legislature is currently considering the passage of House Bill (HB) 2061, a bill that would codify into state law the highly controversial and widely discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. 

Unlike other definitions favored by leading scholars of Jewish, Islamic, Holocaust, and hate studies, the IHRA definition views certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. In fact, of the 11 examples of antisemitism referenced in the definition, seven deal with criticism of the State of Israel. HB 2061 would formally and broadly apply this definition to every public school, university, and institution in Missouri. It would suppress dissent against the Israeli occupation of Palestine by referring those suspected of violating this speech code to a Title VI civil rights investigation.

Proponents of the bill argue that carving out special legal protections for Jewish people is necessary to combat rising antisemitism, and given that Judaism is a sufficiently unique identity that lies outside existing protected categories (neither exactly a religion, race, nor ethnicity), it requires additional protections.

One could make any number of arguments against such a bill and such a definition: that it sets a dangerous and impractical precedent, conflating emotional discomfort with actionable hate speech; that discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and religion are already illegal under existing statutes; that it desecrates the memory of the Holocaust by providing political cover for the ongoing genocide of Palestinians; that it risks worsening antisemitism by allowing the State of Israel to exert further undue influence on America’s domestic politics.

But one doesn’t need to subscribe to any of these views to oppose the bill. Simple American grade-school civics are sufficient.

Some background on the IHRA definition’s origins and its afterlife is prudent here. It was first published in 2005 by the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, an agency of the European Union. From its inception, this definition was never meant to shape law in the way HB 2061’s proponents are wielding it. This is evident from its name — a “working definition.” In fact, the original document itself is careful to note that it is “non-legally-binding.” The definition was meant as a conceptual model to help classify existing data on hate incidents in the European Union. Even if this were legally binding for the European Union, no member state has the same, near-absolute freedom of speech as enshrined in federal U.S. law. HB 2061 infringes on freedom of speech and violates the supremacy clause, which forbids states from passing laws that contravene the U.S. Constitution.

Most damning for supporters of the bill is that the lead author of the IHRA definition, antisemitism scholar Kenneth Stern, a self-described Zionist, has disavowed exactly this use of his work. In a 2019 op-ed in The Guardian titled “I drafted the definition of antisemitism. Right-wing Jews are weaponizing it,” Stern argues that application of this definition to campuses is an “attack on academic freedom and free speech.” Stern adds that “Historically, antisemitism thrives best … where the integrity of democratic institutions and norms (such as free speech) are under assault.”

I raised this point when I traveled to Jefferson City earlier in January to give public testimony against HB 2061. I was one of dozens of Jews to speak out against the passage of this bill, joined by ordinary working Missourians (both urban and rural), academics and scholars, and the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors. We appealed to fact, precedent, and principle. Proponents of the bill stoked fear, casting American life since Oct. 7 as one of constant, omnipresent threats to Jewish safety. At times, they resorted to outright genocide denial (e.g., suggesting that the population of Gaza actually grew during the Israeli genocide). More than one Jewish witness against the bill was called antisemitic during the hearing. Indeed, nobody who spoke in the bill’s favor denied that an anti-Zionist Jew could find themselves the target of this legislation.

As an elite Missouri institution with a sizable population of Jewish students and faculty and a (albeit recently much diminished) reputation for championing free speech, it is imperative that we bring all our resources to bear against this bill. For most of us, the single best action we can take is to contact our Missouri State senator and representative and express our opposition. I implore all members of the WashU community and beyond, Jewish and not, to oppose this bill and remain stalwart against this coordinated attack on our freedoms.