Senate education committee advances AB 715 to create Office of Civil Rights, antisemitism coordinator after hours of testimony

The California Senate Education Committee voted 6-0 to advance AB 715, authored by Assemblymember Zabir and joint author Assemblymember Don Addis, to the Senate Judiciary Committee after more than four hours of testimony from hundreds of witnesses. The bill would create a state Office of Civil Rights and an antisemitism prevention coordinator to provide recommendations, technical assistance and resources to school districts and educators.

Supporters and the bill’s authors said the measure is intended to address a documented rise in antisemitic incidents in California schools and to give educators more tools to prevent and respond to harassment. Assemblymember Zabir said, “Jewish students in California are facing hate at crisis proportions,” and called AB 715 “about values that we all share — safety, dignity, and equality and protecting all of our students.” Assemblymember Don Addis said the bill creates prevention and response pathways, a website of resources for school communities and a coordinator post inside the new Office of Civil Rights.

Student and congregational testimony put a human face on the bill’s aim. Lev Miller Ruderman, a high school student who testified, described being targeted by classmates and said, “By being bystanders, they were complicit in targeting me for being a Jew.” Rabbi Jacqueline Mates Munchen of Temple Isaiah in Oakland said antisemitism in Oakland schools “is not new, but it has been emboldened in the last 2 years,” and described students, parents and teachers who she said had been marginalized or driven from districts.

The committee heard broad public comment both for and against AB 715. Supporters included Jewish community groups, parents and educators who said current local responses are inconsistent and a statewide coordinator and office could improve prevention and help school staff handle incidents more consistently. Opponents — including the California Teachers Association and educators, ethnic-studies scholars and civil-rights groups — said parts of the bill could chill classroom instruction, single out one group for special statewide enforcement and create new legal risks for teachers.

Seth Bramble of the California Teachers Association testified in opposition and warned of “unintended consequences,” saying the bill “codifies into law subjective standards for instruction under the term ‘factually accurate’” and that “this factually accurate requirement would give advocates on multiple sides of controversial issues a new legal tool to disrupt instruction, and to threaten educators.” Gabriel Khan, a Jewish educator who also testified in opposition, told the committee the bill “as it is written currently, jeopardizes not only the study of Palestinian history and ethnic studies but actually makes Jewish people in California less safe,” citing concerns about how the bill frames definitions and how those might be applied in classrooms.

Committee members and authors made several substantive changes to the bill during negotiations leading up to the hearing. The bill as presented to the committee removes a prior statutory definition of an “antisemitic learning environment,” drops language that would have regulated adoption of instructional materials on Israel/Palestine, and places the antisemitism prevention coordinator inside a newly created Office of Civil Rights rather than as a lone, separate position. Authors and the committee emphasized the bill does not create a new investigatory complaint intake; the state’s existing Uniform Complaint Procedures would remain the formal complaint process and the Office’s stated role is technical assistance and prevention, not handling intake investigations. The bill text also directs the California Department of Education to notify a local educational agency in writing of an embedded investigation report within 20 days in the version presented at hearing, a technical clarification staff said the department requested.

Committee discussion focused heavily on two contested areas: (1) the bill’s instructional language referencing “factually accurate” instruction and standards of professional responsibility, and (2) which external definitions or guidance — including a U.S. national strategy referenced in the bill and the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism cited by witnesses — should inform state policy without becoming a statutory test that could chill discussion. Opponents said the phrase “factually accurate” as applied to instruction (not just adopted instructional materials) could be used to challenge classroom discussion and suppress controversial viewpoints. Supporters said some clear standard is needed so parents and districts can point to an expectation when harassment or biased instructional material arises.

Several senators and the authors said they were committed to continuing work on technical fixes and broader companion legislation to cover other forms of discrimination. Senator Gonzalez and others noted a separate proposal to staff the Office of Civil Rights with additional coordinators to address religious, racial, gender and LGBTQ discrimination is being advanced so protections and technical assistance would not be exclusive to one protected group. The authors and committee staff said they expect follow-up legislation and technical cleanup in coming sessions.

Votes at a glance: The committee recorded the motion to pass AB 715 to the Senate Judiciary Committee and announced the bill “is out 6-0.” The roll-call acknowledgments recorded on the transcript are Senators Perez, Ochoa Bogue, Cabaldon, Choi, Gonzales and Reyes voting aye. The committee chair announced the measure will move next to Senate Judiciary.

What’s next: AB 715 now goes to the Senate Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Authors and several committee members said they will continue negotiations with CTA, civil-rights groups and community stakeholders on the “factually accurate” language and on the structure and scope of the Office of Civil Rights and its coordinators.

(Reporting note: This article draws on committee testimony and the committee’s roll-call and public-comment record from the hearing.)