Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community members urge board not to adopt IHRA definition of antisemitism
Summary
Several speakers during public comment urged the Albany board not to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and said doing so would chill debate about Israel and Palestinian issues; others said antisemitism is a real concern but that the IHRA definition is controversial.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, multiple speakers asked the Albany City School District Board of Education to reject a motion proposed earlier by members of a community group to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
Ava Agree, who identified herself as a Jewish resident of Albany, told the board the IHRA definition "does not do so" when referring to equipping schools to handle antisemitism and asked trustees not to adopt it, arguing that many Jews do not support Zionism and that the IHRA definition can equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Karen Carmeli, speaking for Jewish Voice for Peace Albany, said the IHRA definition is controversial among scholars and can "wrongfully equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism." Carmeli said attempts to apply the IHRA text on campuses and in hiring have shut down debate and referenced recent state-level incidents involving academic positions.
Mark Mitchell, an Albany resident who said he has experience in local school advocacy, also urged trustees not to adopt the IHRA definition and provided the board with handouts arguing the definition is "extraordinarily faulty," citing the author of the definition and a scholar who opposes it.
Why it matters: Speakers said adopting the IHRA definition could suppress free expression about Israeli government policies and undermine nuanced responses to antisemitic incidents. Trustees did not take a vote on the matter during the meeting; the comments were recorded as part of public comment.
Board context: Trustees previously heard a presentation from a group (Amidah) at a January meeting and had several community speakers at that time. At this meeting, the board read its public-comment rules and heard requests from speakers representing multiple viewpoints; no board action was recorded on adopting any definition at this session.
Ending: Speakers asked the board to engage careful, nuanced approaches to antisemitism and other forms of bias rather than adopting a single definition; the board took public comment under its established rules and did not respond directly during the period.
