Toolkit: Demand “NO IHRA”

Model “No IHRA” resolution

Short version: [University] administration must publicly oppose and reject “the IHRA definition” of antisemitism, and pledge to oppose any policy that conflates criticism and/or protest of Zionism and colonialism with antisemitism or “supporting terror,” as a matter of academic freedom and social justice.

Full version: [University] administration must publicly oppose and reject efforts to adopt “the IHRA definition” of antisemitism in legislation or policy, that conflate criticism and/or protest of Zionism and colonialism with antisemitism and “supporting terror”. The administration must publicly affirm that the right to oppose Zionism, colonialism, racism and state regimes is critical to protecting academic freedom and social justice. [University] administration must publicly recognize that college campuses are currently experiencing high levels of anti-Palestinian racism, which specifically seeks to silence, erase, dehumanize, and defame Palestinians and their allies who advocate for Palestinian human rights, and which specifically slanders Palestinians, their allies, and anti-racist organizations as being inherently antisemitic or a terrorist threat/sympathizer. [University] administration must pledge not to adopt any such policy for [University].

[If space allows, the following additional text is supportive to anti-IHRA organizing:] Criticizing the ongoing and escalating ethnic cleansing of Palestinians is anti-racist. Criticizing Israel as an apartheid state founded on settler colonialism is anti-colonial. Efforts to conflate criticisms of Zionism with antisemitism minimize and exploit histories of actual antisemitism that is rooted in white supremacy and European nationalism. Feeling uncomfortable is not the same thing as being unsafe. Discomfort is crucial for critical thinking and academic debate. Shutting down such debate and critical thinking is undemocratic.Censoring anti-racism and anti-colonialism is dangerous and allows fascism and white supremacy to deepen its roots.

Successful “No IHRA” resolutions

List: Canadian academic associations’ and labor resolutions against IHRA (Independent Jewish Voices – Canada, through Feb. 2024)

List: Institutional actors reject the IHRA working definition of antisemitism (Foundation for Middle East Peace, through Jan. 2024)

Further resources

American Association of University Professors (AAUP)

• Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom
• Academe magazine & blog

Institute for the Understanding of Anti-Palestinian Racism

• Research & resources

Foundation for Middle East Peace (Tracking Lawfare project)

• Palestine-Related Litigation — Recent Positive Court Rulings
• Defining Criticism of Israel as Antisemitism
• Challenging the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
• Lawfare/IHRA – Targeting Academia

Knight First Amendment Institute (Title VI project)

Middle East Studies Association

• Task Force on Civil and Human Rights
• Academic Freedom Initiative

Legal advocacy: Palestine Legal, CAIR, Ctr. for Constitutional Rights

Expert briefs on IHRA’s role in anti-Jewish discrimination

Amicus Brief: “27 Jewish Scholars of Jewish Studies”
Amicus brief: Jewish Voice for Peace )

---

Amicus Brief: “27 Jewish Scholars of Jewish Studies”

Changes the character of Jewish identity for political ends
“For millennia, Jewish communities around the world have promoted traditions of robust debate and intellectual engagement. Unfortunately, political events in recent years have seen the rise of social, political, and religious forces that wish to curb those freedoms by requiring loyalty and adherence to the Israeli government or to a narrow vision of what it means to be Jewish— one that conditions Jewish identity and belonging within Jewish communities on one’s support for (or at the very least, one’s willingness to remain silent about) the State of Israel, its reigning political ideologies, and its treatment of the Palestinian people.”

Uses government and universities to exert control over Jewish identity
“What makes today’s trend so pernicious is that this contestation is occurring not only within Jewish community institutions and advocacy organizations, or within Israeli society itself—but also within government institutions and universities, which increasingly attempt to police the boundaries of Jewish identity, belief, and belonging. That is not only deeply troubling—it is also unlawful.”

Violates Title VI by imposing stereotypes (akin to “femininity requirements” for pink-collar jobs)
Adopting IHRA policy “punishes Jewish students, faculty, and others for failing to adhere to a stereotype of what constitutes a ‘proper’ or ‘correct’ set of Jewish beliefs. Antidiscrimination law prohibits reliance on such unlawful stereotypes.”

Harmfully suggests that Jewish or Israeli students’ safety requires violations of others’ rights
IHRA policy “states or implies that viewpoint-based speech-restricting activities are required to protect Jewish or Israeli students.”

Violates the academic freedom of Jewish Studies scholars et al.
Universities must protect Jewish Studies scholars’ “ability to conduct their scholarship, design their curricula, engage in campus discussions and debate, and advocate for their viewpoints without facing adverse action from their universities or the government for failing to conform to a stereotype of what it means to be Jewish, or for espousing viewpoints that ought to be protected as extra-mural speech within academic freedom doctrine.”

Erases the long history of Jewish antizionist community on campus
(Harvard example): “Over the years, a vocal contingent of Jewish students at Harvard has spoken out to question the state of Israel’s policies and practices, as well as different conceptions of Zionism. Vibrant engagement with these issues within the Jewish community at Harvard continues to this day. For example, Harvard Law School recognizes a student organization named Tzedek (the Hebrew word for “justice”), which describes itself as ‘a progressive Jewish organization’ that is ‘a home on campus for a liberatory approach to Judaism, which guides us toward social justice. This space is home for anti-Zionist, non-Zionist, and Zionist-questioning Jewish students looking for a supportive community to explore current events and find support and solidarity.’ Harvard College recognizes the Harvard Forward-Thinking Jewish Union, which aims ‘to create a space for students to engage in discussions questioning Zionism and Jewish life in campus,’ and was formed after one student claimed that ‘he felt he was ‘not allowed’ to ‘question our support for the state of Israel and question Zionism’ in Hillel, where he attends religious services.’ Students from these groups often report marginalization by Harvard. Recently, for example, administrators reportedly attempted to stop a Passover seder organized by anti-Zionist Jewish students.”

Misrepresents academic exploration and complex study as ‘antisemitism‘
(Atalia Omer op-ed): “For several years, I taught in the Religion, Conflict, and Peace Initiative (RCPI) at Harvard Divinity School. Our program approached peacebuilding through deep engagement with histories of structural violence and power, with Palestine/Israel as our central case study. Our students read widely, traveled to the region, and met with a range of voices – including Jewish Israeli veterans from Breaking the Silence, Palestinian artists resisting cultural erasure, and Mizrahi and Ethiopian Jewish activists challenging racism within Israeli society.  It was, by design, intellectually and politically challenging. It exposed students to the complexity of the region and the diverse, often conflicting, ways Jews and Palestinians narrate their pasts and imagine their futures. But according to the authors of Harvard’s report, this was not legitimate scholarship nor responsible pedagogy; it was, essentially, simply antisemitic ideological indoctrination.”

Encourages campus administrators to violate Title VI antisemitism protections
“Jewish scholars and students are already facing a crisis of indifference or differential treatment from university administrators when they do not conform with a preconceived and politicized notion of what it means to be Jewish—namely, pro-Israel or Zionist. Often, their views are dismissed as token, marginal, or inconsequential, even though there is reason to think that is not the case. For example, a poll conducted in May 2024 by the right-wing think tank, the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, found that nearly a third of surveyed Jewish Americans agreed with the statement that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, and over half agreed with President Biden’s decision to withhold arms shipments to Israel, with younger respondents more likely to hold these views.”

Amicus brief: Jewish Voice for Peace (6/9/25)

Much of U.S. Jewry is antizionist, and opposes or is uncommitted to a Jewish state
“JVP [an anti-Zionist  U.S. Jewish organization] is made up of 720,000 members and supporters with chapters in nearly every state, JVP represents an important, sizeable and vocal minority Jewish viewpoint. Studies show a fifth to a third of American Jews share JVP’s viewpoint, and 45% of Jewish students believe Israel should not be a Jewish state or are undecided on the issue.”

Unconstitutionally restricts Jews’ practice of religion
>>“Discriminating against one type of Jew in favor of another, here Zionist Jews over antizionist Jews, restricts Jews from practicing their religious beliefs by adopting a narrow view of what it means to be Jewish.”
>>“Israeli law professors Itamar Mann and Lihi Yona recently analyzed this issue, arguing that while ‘antisemitism is often weaponized against Palestinians and their liberation struggle,’ there is ‘an additional layer of harm, imposed upon U.S. Jews,’ namely, that by ‘[c]onstructing Jewish identity along rigid and fixed lines, the contemporary legal definition of antisemitism imposes upon Jews a straitjacket of Zionism.’

Unconstitutionally dictates Jewish religious belief
IHRA’s claim that “actions opposing Zionism or criticizing Israel [are antisemitic] would mean that Zionism and supporting Israel are required parts of the Jewish faith…  would be redefining the Jewish faith. [It] would force Jews to adopt a political ideology—Zionism—as part of their religious beliefs, and enshrine “do not criticize the nation-state of Israel” as a foundational religious belief in Judaism.”

Unconstitutionally dictates that Jews must have certain political beliefs
IHRA dictates “who is and is not a Jew, [and]  what Jews are required to believe.”

Discriminates against Jews whose antizionism is central to their Judaism and Jewish identity
“[As Harvard’s former long-time] Hillel director argues… Jews must ‘be boldly critical of Israel—not despite being Jewish, but because [they] are.’”

Factually misrepresents Jewish history for nationalist political purposes
IHRA claims “ignore that Judaism is a millennia old religion by claiming that this ancient religion requires complete and uncompromising loyalty to Israel, a nation-state just 77 years old.”

Ignores Jewish student & faculty opposition to IHRA campaigns themselves
(Harvard examples): “ignores Jewish students and faculty at Harvard who view the IHRA definition as ‘intellectually vacuous’ that ‘muddles what speech is considered immoral.’ It ‘punish[es] reasonable and valid criticism of Israel, including that which Jewish students initiate’ as antisemitic.”

Ignores Zionist campus organizations antagonism toward campus Jewish communities
“It ignores Jewish Harvard faculty who oppose Harvard Hillel’s ‘longstanding hostility to dissent despite [the Jewish] community’s persistent disagreements on Israel, Palestine, [and] Zionism.’… .” It ignores the former Hillel Director of 18 years when he states ‘it is not antisemitic to demand justice for all Palestinians living in their ancestral lands.’ It even ignores opposition to adopting the IHRA as policy from Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA itself. This ‘cynical weaponization of antisemitism by powerful forces’ is intimidation that ‘ultimately silence[s] legitimate criticism of Israel and of American policy on Israel.’”

Misappropriates civil rights protections for marginalized groups, misapplies them to a nation-state
IHRA dictates “that criticism of a political ideology and nation-state is as heinous as hatred towards a religious group.”

Strips Jews of their Jewish identity and legal protections
IHRA’s efforts to mandate particular Jewish religious and political beliefs “render antizionist Jews as not being Jews at all, and dilutes the protected classes that decades of precedent and lawmaking have defined.”

Attempts to undo Jewish religious groups’ work to construct international laws against genocide, apartheid, and human rights violations
“Religious organizations played a key role in launching and sustaining the human rights movement including paving the way for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)… It is the Jewish community’s suffering and persecution in the Nazi Holocaust that led to the enactment of the Genocide Convention in 1948… The Genocide Convention prohibits targeting specific groups for their national, ethnic, racial or religious affiliation, deliberately inflicting living conditions to destroy this group, and forcibly transferring this group, as well as conspiring to commit and complicity in these acts. The Genocide Convention built the foundation of numerous international human rights and humanitarian laws and principles celebrated today, such as the Fourth Geneva Conventions mandating occupying powers protect civilians and ensure their care and survival, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), and the Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid.”

IHRA policy has already materially harmed Jews, Palestinians, scholars, academic freedom, and the university
(Harvard examples): “In the past six months alone, Harvard has cancelled an antizionist Jewish Passover Seder, suspended their Religion, Conflict, and Peace Program and demoted the directors, let go of the heads of the Center for Middle East Studies, suspended their research partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank, fired a librarian for taking down an Israeli hostage poster, and cancelled a medical school panel featuring patients from Gaza.”

What has worked?

Below is a breakdown of key arguments and text highlights, with links to the full text of each resolution.

• University of Bristol (UK) vs. Dr. David Miller
• CAIR lawsuit challenging Texas executive order on IHRA
• Palestine Legal/CAIR lawsuit challenging Univ. of Maryland
• San Diego State University Senate resolution
• Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs
• Canadian Association of University Teachers
• Canadian Anthropology Society
• Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université
• Human rights organizations [in Israel] urge UN not to promote IHRA definition of antisemitism
• Association for Jewish Studies
• Jewish Faculty Against IHRA

---

University of Bristol (UK) vs. Dr. David Miller

Anti-Zionism as protected philosophical belief
Anti-Zionism worthy of respect in a Democratic society
Dismissal chills academic expression
Anti-Zionism is belief genuinely held, cogent, serious, cohesive, and important
Israeli apartheid recognized by credible institutions

• The claimant’s dismissal was found to be an unreasonably intrusive response to the situation, and could set a precedent of an unconstitutional chilling effect on academic freedom of expression. When balancing the severity of the dismissal against the importance of the University’s reputational aims, the dismissal was unnecessary and disproportional, and its rationale insufficient.
• Applying the ‘Grainger’ test, the Court found the Professor’s beliefs to be legally protected philosophical beliefs, as they were genuinely held (deeply sincere and consistent over time), not a mere opinion (but rather an enduring belief), weighty and substantial (belief carries substantial weight regarding human life and behavior), cogent and serious (his perspective was cohesive and tenable), and worthy of respect in a democratic society (opposition directed at Zionism as a political ideology, not the Jewish people or their right to self-determination, and did not constitute support or advocacy for violence). 
• Claimant’s belief that Zionism is “a form of racism…ideologically bound to lead to the practices of apartheid, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, in pursuit of territorial expansion,” and “a settler-colonial and ethnonationalist movement… seek[ing] to assert Jewish hegemony and political control over the land of historic Palestine,” are legally protected philosophical beliefs, not discriminatory opinions.
• The claimant provided compelling evidence in the form of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reports finding Israel to be an apartheid state, along with examples of racist Israeli legislation. He also referred to “numerous academic works in his evidence which support his view of the nature of Zionism.”
• Claimant explained, and court accepted, that he considers targeting settler colonialism where it is ongoing to be important, including where indigenous peoples are being subjected to genocide, forced transfer or other crimes.

CAIR lawsuit challenging Texas executive order on IHRA

Viewpoint discrimination
Singling out Israel for protection
Criminalizing normal activity
Selective enforcement
Universities as protected sites of public expression

• The IHRA definition, once adopted, would transform normal and typical criticism of a foreign country into antisemitism when the foreign country criticized is Israel
• [The Governor’s executive order illegally] aimed to extinguish from public campuses a viewpoint critical of Israel and supportive of Palestinians.
• [Enforcement] revealed a boundless resolve to suppress students and others from expressing common and typical criticisms of one particular foreign country—Israel.
• [The Governor] has been repeatedly willing to press his own viewpoints and abandon even the pretense of following the First Amendment… using the machinery of his government [including overwhelming police force against peaceful protestors] to insulate a foreign country from the criticism students and others… are leveling against Israel.
• [Viewpoint discrimination has been clear as] other student groups [often Christian groups] have gathered in tents [for long periods of time without being policed.]
• Texas law allows members of the public—whether students or not—to gather on public campuses for expressive purposes even without that school’s preapproval.
• [The IHRA definition] labels as bigoted claims that the “State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” even though Israeli political leaders themselves often acknowledge that the country is operating an apartheid system that locks Palestinians into an inferior status
• [The IHRA definition] labels as bigoted any comparisons between Israel’s current policies and those of Germany during World War II, even though an entire academic field—comparative genocide studies—seeks to identify differences and similarities between genocides. The definition thus creates an obvious content-based distinction that restricts students from making certain historical comparisons to the genocide in Gaza today but would allow those same comparisons with countries other than Israel. It does so despite comparisons to Nazi Germany being a hallmark of American
• political discourse—used to pillory Obamacare, climate and immigration policy, our prisons, most foreign leaders, court decisions about reproductive rights, and even campus protests such those organized by Plaintiffs.
• [The IHRA definition] labels as bigoted criticism levied against Israel that is not also made against other countries. Thus… criticism of Israel for indiscriminately bombing Gaza runs afoul of the definition if it is not accompanied by, for example, criticism of indiscriminate bombing elsewhere.

---

Palestine Legal/CAIR lawsuit challenging Univ. of Maryland

Content-based discrimination
Universities as sites of public expression
International events & civil rights as normal subjects of campus expression

(Note: this lawsuit addressed some of the restrictions on speech that the IHRA definition demands, but focused on a protest ban rather than the IHRA definition.)

• Throughout American history, students have participated in and benefited from the marketplace of ideas on college campuses, particularly with respect to pressing and divisive social and political issues. The student-led Free Speech Movement, which arose on college campuses during the Civil Rights Movement, drew nationwide attention and expanded alongside the movements to demand gender equality and to protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
• Particularly since World War II, the central role played by the U.S. government and American institutions on the world stage has led U.S-based student movements to regularly weigh in on matters of international concern.
• [UMD’s] Statement on Free Speech Values states clearly that “it must promote an environment in which any and all ideas are presented”, giving students “the right to think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.”

---

San Diego State University Senate resolution

Anti-Palestinian racism
Harassment
Academic freedom
Free speech

• [C]ollege campuses are currently experiencing high levels of anti-Palestinian racism, which specifically seek to silence, erase, dehumanize, and defame Palestinians and their allies who publicly advocate for Palestinian human rights; and which specifically slanders Palestinians and their allies as being inherently antisemitic, a terrorist threat/sympathizer or opposed to democratic values
• [S]tudents, staff, and faculty nationwide and globally are experiencing dangerous levels of harassment and suppression of their right to free speech as shown by the fact that a coalition of more than 500 organizations and law offices have issued an Open Letter calling for support of SWANA and Muslim people, given the overwhelming amount of requests they are receiving from people facing racist attacks due to their advocacy for Palestine and/or their perceived relationship to Palestine
• University Senate endorses the protection of academic freedom and therefore rejects the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which has been widely condemned for conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism, including by one of the original drafters Kenneth Stern, who has gone on record about the potential of such a conflation to threaten academic freedom.

---

Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs

Manipulative wording
Shields Israel from accountability
UN guidance
Indigenous rights

• The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, which is increasingly being adopted or considered by western governments, is worded in such a way as to be easily adopted or considered by western governments to intentionally equate legitimate criticisms of Israel and advocacy for Palestinian rights with antisemitism, as a means to suppress the former.
• This conflation undermines both the Palestinian struggle for freedom, justice and equality and the global struggle against antisemitism. It also serves to shield Israel from being held accountable to universal standards of human rights and international law (Jewish Voice for Peace)
• Adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism is in direct contravention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UN Declaration). Articles 2, 3, 4, 26, and 33 of the UN Declaration in particular uphold Indigenous peoples rights’ to self-determination and self-governance, freedom from discrimination, and rights to lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, used or acquired and determine that states shall establish and implement, in conjunction with Indigenous peoples, a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process to recognize and adjudicate the rights of indigenous peoples pertaining to their lands, territories and resources, including those which were traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used.

---

Canadian Association of University Teachers

History of abuse
Academic freedom
Impact on academic funding
Outside political influence

• [T]he IHRA WDA [working definition of antisemitism] poses a significant threat to academic freedom at Canadian universities and colleges and has already been used on a number of occasions to censor and impede the academic freedom of teachers and researchers who have developed anti-racist and decolonial perspectives on the policies and practices of the state of Israel, and
• [G]overnment adoptions of IHRAWDA can impact federal and provincial academic grants, scholarships and funding for projects that are seen to conflict with the IHRAWDA mandate to shield the state of Israel from criticism and charges of racism and colonialism
• CAUT opposes the adoption of IHRAWDA at Canadian universities and colleges. CAUT supports the academic freedom of its members and recognizes the need to safeguard the rights of scholars to develop critical perspectives on all states, including the state of Israel, without fear of outside political influence, cuts to funding, censorship, harassment, threats, and intimidation.

---

Canadian Anthropology Society

Opposition to racism and other forms of discrimination

• That the Canadian Anthropology Society, whose discipline and whose membership are strongly opposed to all forms of discrimination based on “race,” nationality, class and gender, opposes the endorsement or implementation, in their present form, by governments, public bodies and academic associations in Canada, of eleven guidelines concerning antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Association. We recognize that the guidelines can, have and will be interpreted so as to equate the defence of Palestinian rights with antisemitism.

---

Fédération québécoise des professeures et professeurs d’université

Unfair burden to prove non-antisemitism
Academic freedom

• By placing the onus on people critical of Israel to prove that they are not anti-Semitic, [the IHRA] definition seriously undermines freedom of expression and academic freedom.

---

Human rights organizations [in Israel] urge UN not to promote IHRA definition of antisemitism

Coercive tactic
Undermines fight against antisemitism

• The Israeli government views and treats the IHRA definition as a coercive tactic and tool to silence dissent to its repressive policies vis-à-vis the Palestinians. It does so to delegitimize and discourage peaceful opposition to its entrenching occupation and annexation of Palestine.
• [T]he negative impact of the IHRA definition extends beyond human rights work in relation to Israel and Palestine. It also undermines the fight against antisemitism, by devaluating the meaning of antisemitism and by distracting from the real and imminent threats to the safety and well-being of Jews throughout the world.

---

Association for Jewish Studies

No single definition is useful
No single institution speaks for Jews

• Definitions and their limits: A single definition of antisemitism, as with that of any complicated and multi-layered phenomenon, will always be advisory at best. Universities should remain open to the various ways the term has been defined and should not adopt any single definition as the basis for campus speech codes or processes of adjudication.
• We recommend that universities familiarize themselves with these tools [IHRA, Jerusalem, and Nexus definitions of antisemitism], but resist campaigns pressuring them to codify one particular definition.
• In the United States, no single group or institution speaks on behalf of all Jews on any issue, including antisemitism. …[A] university or department should refrain from issuing statements that even by implication purport to speak for “the Jewish community” or Jews as a collective.

---

Jewish Faculty Against IHRA

History of intimidation
Jewish orgs critique of IHRA

• On campuses where this definition has been adopted it has been used to intimidate and silence the work of unions, student groups, academic departments and faculty associations that are committed to freedom, equality and justice for Palestinians. A range of international Jewish institutions have recognized this problem