The bill would have the Federal Department of Education adopt the definition of antisemitism offered by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). You might, then, want to review the examples of antisemitism the IHRA offers. Is it antisemitic to:
-- justify the killing or harming of Jews?
-- make dehumanizing or demonizing stereotypical allegations about Jews?
-- promote the believe that Jews have conspired to control the media, economy, or government?
-- hold Jews as a whole responsible for the real or imagined wrongdoing of a single Jewish person?
-- deny that Jews were subject to the gas chambers during the Holocaust, or that they were the subject of genocide at the hands of Nazi Germany?
-- accuse Jews of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations?
-- deny Jews their right to self-determination because it is perceived that the existence of Israel is a racist objective?
-- require standards of behavior for Israel that are not required of other nations?
-- associate Jews killing Jesus as a characteristic typical of Jews, Israel or Israelis?
-- draw comparisons of Israeli policy with that of the Nazis?
-- hold Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel?
   My thoughts? I do think most -- but not all -- of those things do fall into the category of being hostile or prejudiced against Jewish people. Perhaps a revision of HR 6090 that uses many of the examples, but drops two or three of them, would be appropriate.
 The bill does end with the declaration that, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States."  Perhaps it would be good for the language of the bill to go one step further by specifically saying it is not restricting any of the examples from being free speech. It should say people are allowed to say those things so long as what they say is not in violation with existing slander and libel laws.
  The bill makes a wonderful addition. It notes that current law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. The bill adds to that. It prohibits discrimination based on "shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics." Who would oppose this being in the bill? Of course we do not want to discriminate on the basis of shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. Of course such discrimination should be out of line.
   One question becomes, how would this bill affect funding of such things as the Middle East Center at the University of Utah? Teachers should be allowed to discuss how some Palestinians would deny Israel self-determination and other such beliefs. However, should the college instructors endorse such beliefs? I suggest they should not. They should discuss how Palestinians believe, "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," as a way of promoting that Jews be wiped off that portion of the map now known as Israel, but they should not be allowed to endorse such a belief. They should not be allowed to endorse antisemitism while collecting federal funds to do so. Nor do we want them to endorse any antisemitism that stirs up hatred towards the Jewish people. People in most cases should be allowed to express their opinions, even when they are hateful and bigoted, but not so in this case. Teachers receiving federal funding can believe what they will believe away from the classroom, but they should not be given federal funds to practice and teach discrimination in the classroom.