US campus antisemitism bills explained: What the two proposed laws say, and how they differ
[ad_1]
Walking across a college campus should be safe for any student. But it is not the case for many students in the US. Harassment in classrooms, exclusion from student groups, and subtle bias in events have made college a challenge for some, not only affecting their learning but also their sense of belonging. Reports by The College Fix reveal the increasing concern that the incidents of antisemitism are having a large impact on the experiences of students on campus across the country. In response, Congress has put forward two bills that aim at protecting students and at schools accountability. The No Antisemitism in Education Act and the Protecting Students on Campus Act, first of all, are anti-discrimination laws but they differ in the ways in which they aim to achieve this end, and the differences could have a direct impact on the life of students on campus.
No Antisemitism in Education Act
Introduced by Florida Republican Rep. Randy Fine in November 2025, the No Antisemitism in Education Act is currently a proposed bill before the US House of Representatives. It requires all federally funded schools—from elementary schools to universities—to treat antisemitism with the same seriousness as racism or other forms of discrimination. The bill adopts the IHRA working definition, which describes antisemitism as hatred toward Jewish people but specifically allows fair criticism of Israel. By giving schools a clear standard, the bill aims to ensure that incidents are recognized and addressed, rather than ignored or dismissed. Legal experts quoted by The College Fix observe that the emphasis on actions instead of words renders the legislation improbable to conflict with the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. It is acceptable to criticize the policy of the Israeli government, however, if someone were to target the Jewish identity or negate the Jewish self-determination, that would be a boundary that the schools would have to deal with. Such a change might translate into a steadier reaction from the university authorities when students are harassed. The explicitly spelled-out terms serve as a kind of map for the school administration and also make it much more obvious to students that an incident is antisemitic if it has occurred.
Protecting Students on Campus Act
The Protecting Students on Campus Act was first introduced in the Senate on January 21, 2025 by Republican Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, with support from Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania and other bipartisan cosponsors. The bill was read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where it received a committee markup later that spring but has not yet been passed by the Senate or the House and is not law.In the House, Rep. Lois Frankel re-introduced the bill with bipartisan support in December 2025. The College Fix notes that rather than creating a new legal definition, it focuses on enforcing protections that already exist under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Title VI bars discrimination based on race, color, or national origin—and Jewish students fall under these protections. Those are the parts of Frankel’s bill that seem the most ambitious and necessary. It envisions using public money for ads and materials that would explain students their rights, auditing school policies to check if they comply, and holding congressional hearings when discrimination is reported. The main goal is to make sure that schools are held accountable, and students have clear channels to report harassment. For students, the measure could mean the presence and help of someone they can see, which would make sure their complaints do not disappear in the administrative procedures. Knowing that there is a system and Congress is watching could make campuses safer and more responsive to discrimination.
Why these bills matter to students
Both bills aim to make campus life safer for Jewish students—but their approaches are different. Fine’s bill focuses on giving schools a clear framework for identifying antisemitism. Frankel’s bill focuses on enforcing rules that already exist, making schools more accountable.The human impact is clear: students who understand their rights and see that schools are taking action are more likely to feel safe, included, and empowered. Whether in classrooms, dorms, or student organizations, these measures could transform campus environments from spaces of uncertainty to communities where learning and participation are protected.
Support, debate, and the national conversation
Several advocacy groups, among them the Anti, Defamation League, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, and StandWithUs, have been very vocal in their support of the two bills. Their main points of emphasis are the necessity of definite regulations, transparent reporting, and genuine accountability. On the other hand, opponents warn that the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism might become indistinct. Supporters maintain that political debate is always fine, but if the Jewish identity is targeted or Jewish self, determination is denied, then it is a very serious matter.As these bills move through Congress, students, parents, and educators will be watching closely. These bills, which have been passed, amended, or stalled, have ignited a nationwide discussion about the protection of students’ rights in schools.
[ad_2]
Source link
