The Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on July 15th on a bill to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism (H1763) into Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination law. The IHRA definition restricts speech, deeming certain criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights as antisemitic and is widely rejected by lawyers, civil rights experts, Jewish Studies scholars, and educators, among others.
What does the bill do?
If passed, this bill would impose the IHRA definition on public and private employers and would impact employers’ harassment policies, employee discipline, and what employees can do. It would also apply in the housing context, affecting tenants, landlords, home sellers, and realtors. It would chill free speech and advocacy for Palestinian justice in Massachusetts. This is one of the goals expressed by some members of the state’s Special Commission on Combatting Antisemitism and lead author of the bill, Rep. Steven Howitt (R-Seekonk), who serves on that Commission and is also the lead sponsor of the anti-BDS bill (H.3355).
What can I do to oppose this bill?
The MA Joint Committee on the Judiciary scheduled a legislative public hearing for this bill, H. 1763 An Act relative to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism for July 7/15/2025 from 01:00 PM-05:00 p.m. We are calling on you and/or your organization to testify against this bill and defend against attacks on our freedoms (dressed up as a protection against antisemitism).
Action 1: Testify at the July 15th hearing
- Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025, 1:00 pm
- Sign up to testify: Register here. Deadline July 11th @ 5pm
- In-Person Location: Massachusetts State House Room A-2
- Virtual Testimony: after registration you will receive a private meeting link
- Length of testimony: The Chair will decide whether to limit testimony to either 2 or 3 minutes per person
- Livestream: You can view the live stream of the testimony here.
Action 2: Write a letter to the Judiciary Committee opposing H.1763
- Address testimony to: Joint Committee on the Judiciary at 24 Beacon Street, Room 136, Boston, MA 02133
- Email written testimony to: Talia.Quinn@mahouse.gov.
- Please include your name, address, phone number and organization.
- Send a copy of your testimony to your State Representative and Senator: Find them here.
- Deadline: submit testimony up to one week after the hearing
Guidelines for shaping your testimony
- Introduce yourself with a brief personal story that shows why this is a critical issue for you. Stories personalize the legislation to committee members and make the issue come to life for them.
- Focus on one issue/argument only; include specifics: facts, information, substantiation.
- Avoid hyperbole/charged rhetoric. Don’t pontificate!
- Assume good will and eagerness to learn on the part of legislators. With this bill in particular, legislators will want to demonstrate that they oppose antisemitism. Be sure to validate that desire and say that this bill is NOT the way to do it.
- Sum-up/punch-line and ask the legislators to reject H. 1763. Thank the elected officials.
What to expect at the hearing: Many bills will be considered at the hearing. It will take a long time! Be prepared to arrive early to sign up and leave late (no way to predict when you’ll be called to testify). Witnesses are typically invited to testify in the order in which they sign up or in the order of bill numbers. Legislators testify whenever they show up.
Talking Points
If you testified last year, you can resubmit the same testimony (with new bill number). Another strategy is to pick one point or one resource to talk about.
- The IHRA definition is vague (which in itself is a problem) and looks innocuous at first glance, the examples But the IHRA, which created the definition, offers eleven examples of antisemitism, seven of which refer to criticism of Israel. The examples are not included in the bill, perhaps because that would reveal its bill’s true intent — to silence criticism of Israel — but will surely be invoked when Massachusetts courts try to interpret what the IHRA definition means. One, for example, says that calling Israel a racist endeavor is antisemitic (conflating political speech with religious speech). Another says that it is antisemitic to criticize Israel without also criticizing other countries. Its proponents explicitly state that one of its main purposes is to target human rights groups that defend Palestinian rights.
- The IHRA definition doesn’t focus on white supremacy and Christian nationalism. It is part of a larger right-wing attack on protest and dissent. Members of rightwing think tanks (e.g., American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), and the Heritage Foundation) are pushing for its codification. In the context of rising white supremacy, the IHRA definition is a dangerous model for suppressing other forms of speech and protest.
- The IHRA definition targets protected political speech. The IHRA definition infringes on freedom of speech and perpetuates racism against Palestinian activism. Virtually all instances of invoking the IHRA definition punitively target advocacy for Palestinian justice. The IHRA definition has been used to discipline, fire, and demonize academics and students who condemn Israeli attacks on Palestinians. Concerts and art exhibits have been canceled, politicians have been accused of antisemitism for speaking out on behalf of human rights for Palestinians, and global human rights organizations have been condemned for documenting Israeli apartheid.
- The IHRA definition is widely disputed and controversial. The claim by its proponents that the IHRA definition is the “consensus” definition of antisemitism is patently false. Even one of the main drafters of the IHRA definition, Professor Kenneth Stern, frequently speaks out against the way it is being used to silence legitimate debate, saying “Rightwing Jews are weaponizing it.”
- More than 300 scholars (many Jewish) of Holocaust Studies, Antisemitism, Jewish History endorsed a rejection of the IHRA definition and 128 scholars of antisemitism who urged the UN not to adopt it.
- The American Association of University Professors condemned it as a threat to academic freedom. The American Bar Association removed it from its definition of antisemitism.
- More than 100 civil society groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the ACLU, B’Tselem, and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights urged the U.N. not to adopt it.
- Dozens of U.S. Jewish organizations including Union for Reform Judaism, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, and Women of Reform Judaism say it should not be codified into law.
- The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights, the National Lawyers Guild, and Palestine Legal call it a threat to free speech.
Codifying this definition in Massachusetts would create a legislative nightmare. There are no legally binding definitions for other forms of ethnic, racial or religious discrimination in MA anti-discrimination law. Singling out antisemitism for definition would create a legal anomaly that could only be fixed by attempting to define all forms of discrimination as well. Adoption of the IHRA definition threatens Constitutional protections against state establishment of religion by setting boundaries of Jewish identity, belief, and belonging.
