Georgia committee hears HB 1363 to create Title VI coordinator for K–12; debate centers on antisemitism language and procedural safeguards

A Georgia House Higher Education Committee hearing on HB 1363 on Feb. 26 examined a proposal to establish a state-level Title VI coordinator to handle K–12 discrimination complaints and to create statewide reporting and oversight.

Sponsor (speaker 5) said the substitute (LC650082) would broaden existing responsibilities to cover Title VI complaints for K–12 students, saying the state could draw on University System of Georgia (USG) expertise and that "there's no funding needed" because the duties would be carried out by designated existing staff. She described the role as providing a place where students "their complaints can be heard" and, if necessary, referred for counseling or other supports.

Witnesses from civil-rights organizations and students praised the goal of creating statewide accountability but urged specific changes to the draft. Jeremy Berry of the Georgia Solidarity Network backed the bill, saying similar statewide offices exist in Tennessee, Oklahoma, New York and Arkansas and arguing such an office would "identify trends" across counties and offer consistent oversight. Mikayla Arciaga, Georgia advocacy director for the Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), supported a statewide infrastructure but recommended immediate support for complainants, a triage/escalation process and that the state staff a team — or dedicate staff exclusively — rather than rely on a single part-time designee.

Several witnesses and committee members focused on language in the substitute that references a codified definition of antisemitism. Sarah Hunt Blackwell of the ACLU of Georgia opposed the bill as drafted because it cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) / IRA definition already codified in state law and includes illustrative examples she said ‘‘could be considered speech restrictive.’’ She said penalizing students for expressive conduct described in some IHRA examples could chill First Amendment–protected speech and recommended removing that specific reference and several lines in the substitute. Representative Holland asked whether removing the explicit antisemitism reference and relying on broader categories (race, ethnicity, national origin, religion) would resolve ACLU concerns; Blackwell said it would.

Ewan Jang, policy advocacy manager for the Asian American Advocacy Fund and a former attorney with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, urged clearer procedural safeguards. He flagged absent timelines for investigation, unclear notice and appeal rights, no stated evidentiary standards, limited protections against retaliation, and the risk that using an illustrative IHRA example list as a per se violation could create inconsistent state-federal outcomes. Jang recommended amendments to align state procedures with established legal standards and to ensure fair process for both complainants and respondents.

Speakers representing Muslim communities — including Asuka Mahmood of CAIR Georgia and Arsheila Huda (education and advocacy organizer) — warned that singling out antisemitism in codified text risks creating a hierarchy of protections and urged explicit mention or wording that clearly protects students of all faiths and nonreligious students alike. Student testimony (Nur al Baghdadi) echoed concerns that naming a single form of discrimination in law or a preamble signals prioritization.

Committee chair (unnamed in the transcript) said the committee would "hold this bill over" to give the sponsor time to consider amendments and invited stakeholders to provide suggested language to the author. No final vote was taken on HB 1363 at the hearing.

What happens next

The committee held HB 1363 over for amendment; the sponsor and several witnesses indicated the text could be revised to broaden protected categories, clarify procedures, add training requirements, and consider staffing the function as a dedicated team. The sponsor said she would accept suggested language and follow up with members and stakeholders.

Authorities and legal references cited in testimony included Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (referred to in testimony as "Title 6" or "Title VI") and a reference to the IHRA/IRA definition of antisemitism as it appears in Georgia law.

Ending

The committee did not vote on HB 1363. Members instructed the author to consider the testimony, and the bill will return to committee when the author is ready with revisions.