Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Antisemitism Education topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel advances measure banning antisemitic instruction and expanding rules to higher education after contentious hearing
Summary
House Bill 28‑67, which would prohibit instruction that promotes antisemitism or creates a hostile educational environment and extend similar prohibitions to higher‑education institutions, advanced from committee after hours of public testimony that exposed deep divisions on campus speech and academic freedom.
The House Education Committee on Feb. 17 voted to advance House Bill 28‑67 as amended, a measure that prohibits public schools and higher‑education institutions from teaching or training students in antisemitism that constitutes harassment or discrimination and that requires institutions to take specified actions if violations are confirmed.
Representative Wei introduced HB 28‑67 as a bipartisan response to testimony taken by an ad‑hoc legislative committee after the October 2023 attacks and subsequent campus incidents. The amendment adopted in Chairman Gress's name extended the bill’s prohibitions and accountability mechanisms to faculty, administrators and contractors at public higher‑education institutions, added reporting requirements, and directed institutions to review grants and student organization recognition when antisemitic conduct is found.
Supporters focused on campus safety and incidents they described as antisemitic. Rabbi Pinchas Aloosh told the committee that students at his congregation experienced violent harassment and threats and urged passage: “This bill bans this hatred from our schools.” Michael Goldstein, a constituent who helped prompt the ad‑hoc study, and other witnesses described alleged patterns of hostile conduct on some campuses.
Opponents included teachers, students and civil liberties advocates who warned HB 28‑67 could chill protected speech and be applied inconsistently. Maggie Rolling Smith, a former teacher and Jewish chaplaincy student, testified about her interactions with Students for Justice in Palestine chapters and urged more dialogue rather than sweeping prohibitions. Dr. Erdogan Amran, a psychiatric nurse practitioner and Palestinian American, said the bill risks criminalizing discussion of Israeli policies and would silence lived Palestinian experience.
The Arizona Education Association and the ACLU raised concerns that the bill’s definitions and enforcement mechanisms were overly broad; Isela Blanc of the Arizona Education Association said the bill’s phrasing could be "interpreted in wildly different ways" and warned that the civil remedies and disciplinary procedures could be used to harass educators. The ACLU argued the bill risked First Amendment violations and noted camping and protest activities have recognized expressive protections.
Committee members debated the scope of the bill, the clarity of definitions, and whether existing policies already prohibit harassment and discrimination. Several members who supported the measure said it is narrowly focused on conduct that constitutes harassment or discrimination, not on teaching about antisemitism historically. Representative Gutierrez and others expressed concerns about possible chilling effects and asked for clearer drafting. After discussion, the committee adopted the Gress amendment and returned HB 28‑67 with a due pass recommendation. The clerk recorded the committee’s action as a due‑pass recommendation (vote counts announced: 8 ayes, 4 nos, 0 present in the reported roll call), advancing the bill to the next stage.
The record shows an extended and polarized public comment period with testimony from both Jewish and Palestinian speakers, teachers, students, and civil‑liberties advocates. The committee's action sets up further floor debate and possible amendments to clarify definitions and enforcement mechanisms before any final legislative action.
