Kansas education committee hears wide-ranging debate on HB 2299 after AG and advocates testify

The House Committee on Education heard extended testimony on HB 2299, a proposal to prohibit discrimination and antisemitism in public K–12 and postsecondary institutions and to give the Kansas Attorney General new investigatory and enforcement powers.

The bill, as explained by committee staff and the reviser, would add a standalone section applying to public educational institutions, allow aggrieved persons — including minors acting through a parent or guardian — to file complaints directly with the attorney general, and authorize the attorney general to subpoena witnesses and documents and assess civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation. The reviser also told the committee that one section of the draft contained a drafting error on page 12 and circulated a balloon amendment to correct that error.

Supporters said the measure is needed to address what they described as a recent spike in antisemitic incidents on campuses and in K–12 schools. Adam Baron, founder of the Combat Antisemitism Movement and an owner of an energy business in Wichita, told the committee the bill “will help to address discrimination in public K through 12 and postsecondary institutions right here in Kansas.” David Sofer and other Jewish community representatives recounted incidents at state campuses and urged the panel to adopt the bill. Neda Meltzer of the Jewish Community Relations Bureau (AJC) said many Jewish students report not feeling safe on campus and cited a fall 2024 survey in which students described harassment and threats.

Attorney General Chris Kobach, the first conferee, framed the bill in legal terms and emphasized First Amendment limits. “The First Amendment does not prohibit hateful speech or speech that many of us would find offensive,” Kobach said, adding that the First Amendment does permit prohibitions on “speech that incites violence” or “speech that is intended to threaten or intimidate.” He described the bill as an update to Kansas statutory protections and said his office had reviewed early drafts for constitutional concerns. Kobach also called out what he described as a scrivener’s error in the draft and urged the committee to restore lines he said had been inadvertently deleted.

Committee staff and the reviser summarized the substantive changes and mechanics in the bill. The reviser said section 1 would not be made part of the existing Kansas Act Against Discrimination but would stand alone to apply specifically to public educational institutions — a category the bill defines to include K–12 districts, community colleges, technical colleges and the state’s public universities. The reviser explained that sections 2–5 would amend the Kansas Act Against Discrimination to add a public-policy declaration and to authorize the Kansas Human Rights Commission (KHRC) to refer complaints to the attorney general, and that the attorney general would receive parallel investigatory powers.

KHRC staff cautioned about overlap and unclear procedures. Ruth Glover of the Kansas Human Rights Commission said the bill’s language on how the attorney general’s role interacts with the existing act is “unclear, especially how the attorney general’s actions interact with the rest of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination.” She warned the proposed changes could “add a duplicate layer of government” because the commission already investigates and administers many discrimination complaints. Glover also raised practical questions about whether matters referred to or taken by the attorney general would return to the commission for the statutory probable-cause determination and how that would affect the exhaustion of administrative remedies for later court review.

Several pro and con witnesses focused on the bill’s chosen definition of antisemitism. Committee staff said the bill incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition and its contemporary examples; proponents argued the IHRA definition gives institutions a commonly used framework for identifying antisemitism. Adam Baron described the IHRA-linked examples as necessary to identify modern manifestations of antisemitism, saying, “If you’re against Jews in Israel, you’re antisemitic,” a formulation he attributed to the working definition in the context of the bill. Opponents — including scholars, student witnesses and community advocates — argued the IHRA working definition is contested and that its use in statute could chill protected political speech and academic freedom. Associate Professor Samuel Burdie and others recommended alternate, scholar-built definitions such as the Jerusalem Declaration or the Nexus document.

Other concerns surfaced about scope and enforcement. Multiple opponents — including university faculty, student witnesses and civil liberties groups — said the bill’s enforcement mechanism and a $10,000 civil penalty per violation could incentivize institutions to suppress lawful speech or academic content and could circumvent local procedures for resolving complaints. Representatives of K–12 and higher education governance organizations said the bill could chill classroom instruction and training that involves religious content or controversial subject matter. Kansas National Education Association counsel warned the bill “permits initial complaints to go leapfrogging straight up to the AG” without local resolution and that “even nondiscriminatory speech such as lawful curriculum lectures will be chilled.”

Committee members asked detailed legal questions. Members pressed the attorney general and staff on First Amendment limits, the bill’s relationship to the Kansas Constitution, and who would be the factfinder in disputed cases — administrative proceedings at the attorney general’s office, possible district court review, or an adjudicatory role for the KHRC. The reviser told members that, under the draft, any fines collected would be credited to the state general fund and that the bill’s effective date is July 1 if enacted.

The committee did not vote on HB 2299 during the hearing. The reviser circulated an amendment addressing the drafting error on page 12; the committee paused to take testimony from numerous proponent and opponent witnesses and closed the day after extended public testimony. Committee staff said the panel will reopen the HB 2299 hearing to begin with the reviser’s report and to consider the balloon amendment and other changes at a future meeting.

What’s next: The reviser’s balloon to correct the page‑12 drafting issue was circulated for committee review; no final committee action on HB 2299 occurred during the session recorded in the transcript.