The state of Wisconsin has added a definition of antisemitism to state law, drawing criticism from opponents who say it will police free speech rights, specifically on college campuses according to lobbyists.
On March 27, Gov. Tony Evers signed Assembly Bill 446, now Act 143, which codifies the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition and examples for antisemitism to help determine discriminatory intent, according to the bill text.
The IHRA definition states antisemitism is a, “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities,” according to their website.
The definition includes further contemporary examples of antisemitism:
“Antisemitism is denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
“Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”
Act 143 directs all state agencies, local governments and public officials to consider the IHRA definition and examples when evaluating evidence of discriminatory intent and when applying enhanced penalties for hate crimes, according to a press release by Rep. Ron Tusler, R- Harrison, who introduced the bill.
The law does not create a new crime — the IRHA definition applies only when evaluating conduct that already meets the threshold for a hate crime or unlawful discrimination under existing law, according to the press release.
“This legislation provides a clear, internationally recognized framework to better identify and respond to antisemitism,” Tusler said in the press release. “At a time when antisemitic incidents are rising across the state and nation, this law ensures that institutions have the tools they need to distinguish unlawful discrimination from protected expression.”
The Milwaukee Jewish Federation and Wisconsin Council of Religious and Independent Schools have lobbied in favor of the bill, according to lobbying data.
But, adoption of the new definition has faced opposition from the Academic Staff Professionals Representation Organization, American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Citizens Action of Wisconsin, according to lobbying data. Executive Director of Citizens Action Robert Kraig said the definition can be used to threaten free speech.
“We think antisemitism is a serious problem that needs to be addressed, one of the real scourges, not only in history, but in the present. But this definition is very problematic to be put into statute, because, in fact, it was never designed to be in statute. In fact, the lead drafter of this definition opposes putting it in statute,” Kraig said. “If it’s in a statute, it can be very easily abused to shut down free speech and dissent and legitimate criticisms of Israel’s policy”
Kenneth S. Stern is the lead drafter of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism.
Stern is also executive director of the Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation, which works to increase understanding of hatred and antisemitism and how to combat them, with a particular emphasis on college campuses, according to Stern’s testimony before Congress. Stern argued against the formal adoption of the IRHA’s definition of antisemitism into law or policy when he testified to the U.S. Congress in 2017, according to the testimony.
“My fear is, if we similarly enshrine this definition into law, outside groups will try and suppress, rather than answer, political speech they don’t like,” Stern said in the testimony. “The academy, Jewish students, and faculty teaching about Jewish issues, will all suffer.”
While it is not inevitable that the law will be used to prosecute free speech on university campuses, it could be abused in this way, according to Kraig.
The Department of State has used the IRHA working definition and examples of antisemitism since 2010, according to a press release. Wisconsin will become the 38th state to adopt the definition thus far, according to data by the Combat Antisemitism Movement.
“There’s discretion of university administrators, and so that’s the problem. It could not necessarily lead to those things, but we should not be putting anything in statute that can be used that way,” Kraig said, “Wisconsin is not as free of place when we have in Wisconsin statute definitions that can be used to suppress free speech, free assembly, protest of major wrongs in the world, and I would hope that a future legislature will amend this law and fully protect free speech.”
Samantha Dombar is a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin studying political science, journalism and public policy. She is involved with Hillel and Chabad and other Jewish organizations on campus.
Dombar said antizionism can sometimes but not always be antisemitic, and the definition adopted through Act 143 can help clarify this distinction. For example, the phrase, “from the river to the sea” often used in campus protests related to the war in Gaza can be connected to the eradication of a Jewish homeland, even if this was not the intent, according to Dombar.
“Making those distinctions and allowing space for dialog where people can understand the consequences of their words and the deep historical roots I think that really is the bill’s intent, it’s not to limit free speech or to tell people that they’re going to be directly punished.” Dombar said, “I think that this bill isn’t by any means meant to discourage dialog it’s meant to foster meaningful dialog rather than harmful and one sided and misinformed dialog”
To Dombar, Act 143 is a necessary step to help prevent antisemitism on campus, fostering discourse rather than limiting free speech.
UW Hillel did not reply to a request for comment.
