Want to effectively and sustainably help combat antisemitism on American college campuses? Don’t attempt to force a particular definition of antisemitism, but do require antisemetic harassment to be taken seriously. Also require institutions of higher education to adopt policies that prevent disruptions to classes and campus events, preserve libraries as places for study, and protect the physical safety of those on campus.

That’s the core message in a letter sent today by Heterodox Academy (HxA) Director of Policy Joe Cohn to members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions as that committee actively considers a bill known as S.558 tomorrow.

“Institutions of higher education have been struggling to meet their legal and moral obligations to protect Jewish students and faculty from harassment and other forms of discrimination,” Cohn writes. But, he says, the “Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2025” under consideration as currently written won’t solve the problem — only exacerbate it.

HxA’s mission is to promote and protect open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in higher education. We’re concerned with antisemitism and attempts to stop it on campuses because we’re interested in making sure all campus community members are able to pursue better knowledge – including through honest debate – without censorship and without harassment.

If passed as written, the bill we’re talking about here would require institutions of higher education to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which states:

Antisemitism is 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.

The IHRA gives as an example of antisemitic speech “[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

Cohn notes this definition is “so broad that it allows for the investigation and punishment of core political speech” — that which is protected under the First Amendment. Using a definition like this won’t just chill protected speech, it will also fail in court, effectively neutering a well-intended bill.

“It is tempting to believe that institutions must have a definition of antisemitism if they are to effectively combat it,” Cohn writes. “But this is not true. In the American legal system, we don’t define ‘racism,’ ‘sexism,’ ‘ageism,’ or any other form of ‘ism.’ Instead, we prohibit discrimination on the basis of broad protected classes and empower courts to evaluate facts to determine whether discrimination on those categories occurred.”

And that, Cohn explains, is where attention ought to be paid: “The real question isn’t whether the particular expression is antisemitic but whether it crosses the line into one of the unprotected categories of speech, such as true threats, harassment, or incitement of violence.”

So, what does HxA recommend?

First, instead of trying to define antisemitism, Congress should require that the Department of Education “define harassment using the precise definition provided by the Supreme Court in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education. There, the Court defined student-on-student harassment as conduct that is ‘so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it can be said to deprive the victims of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school.’”

This approach would have a real and sustainable effect: requiring institutions to identify conduct that crosses a line from protected free speech to harassment and requiring institutions to take action to punish the latter.

What else could help?

“Congress should also empower the Department of Education to require institutions to adopt policies that constitutionally regulate the time, place, and manner of otherwise protected expression,” Cohn says.

Such policies need to be “reasonable, content-and viewpoint-neutral criteria, to be narrowly tailored in furtherance of a significant institutional interest, and to leave open ample alternative channels of communication,” a standard put forth by the Supreme Court in Ward v. Rock Against Racism.

Time, place, and manner restrictions can ensure First Amendment rights are protected while the rights to conduct classes, study in the library, and traverse the campus without harassment are protected, too.

The goal of this bill is a good one. Now the approach needs to be stronger — and constitutional.

See the full letter here.