By Aaron Smith and Zoya Altabaa

In the wake of California Assembly Bill 715 passing, educators have been filled with a mounting sense of concern about the law’s potential to limit academic freedom and stifle classroom conversation surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. 

Signed into law into 2025 by Gov. Gavin Newsom, AB 715 establishes the new “Office of Civil Rights,” which is tasked with investigating claims of unlawful, discriminatory practices, policies, and educational materials in California’s schools. In cases where the unlawful discrimination involves antisemitism, corrective measures are to be taken. The law is an attempt to address the rising tide of antisemitism in the United States. The bill passed in both chambers without a single vote against it. While the bill’s stated intent is to address discrimination within California schools, critics argue that its language may enable selective enforcement against otherwise protected speech.

The California Faculty Association, a union representing approximately 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors, and coaches across the 23 campuses of the CSU system, denounced the passing of AB 715  shortly after it was signed into law, calling it “deceptively titled” and “dangerous for democracy.” 

“While we agree with the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and California legislature that antisemitism is a great evil that must be addressed just as quickly as it is condemned, this bill fails to address this issue sincerely or prudently,” the faculty association said in a statement last fall. 

A primary critique levied against the bill is that, as a piece of legislation intended to prevent antisemitic discrimination, it fails to define what does and what does not constitute antisemitism. Instead, the bill refers to The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, a non-legally binding document, released by the Biden Administration back in 2023. This document also does not define antisemitism, but refers to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and its working definition of antisemitism. 

Rhonda Rios Kravitz, a retired dean from Sacramento City College, said that AB 715 was framed as a tool to combat antisemitism, but for her and many others, it undermines free speech, academic integrity, and the ability to engage students in critical discussions.

“Our opposition as educators really reflects a deep concern that a bill could be used to silence political viewpoints, particularly those critical of Israel, under the guise of preventing discrimination,” Kravitz said. “On this face, it might seem a common-sense measure to fight prejudice, but the Alliance definition goes far beyond hate crimes. It includes political speech calling Israel an apartheid state or advocating Palestinian rights as potential examples of antisemitism.”

Such broadness raises red flags for students as well. Jasmit Singh, who attends Sacramento State University, said the bill could silence conversations that matter.

“This is creating a different sort of administering of education,” Singh argued, “any monitoring of education from a political view is very concerning.”

California State Assembly Bill 715 received support from various Jewish communities statewide, including the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. 

Executive Director of JPAC California David Bocarsly said arguments about the alleged lack of a concrete definition of antisemitism “are yet more misinformation trying to undermine the bill that is designed to protect Jewish students in the classroom.”

The California Faculty Association and JPAC had seen similar conflicts earlier in the year. In a letter signed by Bocarsly, dated October 21, 2025, JPAC requested that the faculty association remove what they titled “harmful language” from their 2026 endorsement questionnaire which included JPAC among “groups that harm working people” to be “rejected.” 

The faculty association released a statement arguing that the coverage of their questionnaire had been taken out of context.

Bocarsly went on to explain that, within California state law, other at-risk groups didn’t have their respective “isms” codified into law. To demand that the Jewish community define theirs was a harsh and unfair double standard, he said.

“California schools have seen a 623% increase in antisemitic incidents over the past decade,” Bocarsly pointed out. “Our state has made a concerted effort over many years to make sure that all vulnerable students can feel safe in our schools and the Jewish community needs those same protections.”

For Singh, the issue is not about denying antisemitism but about ensuring that fighting one form of hate does not erase another story.

“Palestine was something I never learned about in school,” Singh reflected. “This just speaks more to the silencing of that. When people or educators are trying to change that history of not being educated on this, there’s now this big blockade they can be punished and targeted for it.”

As California moves forward with AB 715, the measure’s impact will rest on whether it protects Jewish students from hate while preserving space for Palestinian voices, without turning protection into suppression.

“Fighting antisemitism requires building broad, multiracial coalitions against hate,” Kravitz said, “not turning a tool of censorship into state law.”