Concord select board holds lengthy debate and public comment over IHRA definition in anti‑Semitism proclamation

The Concord Select Board spent a large portion of its April 13 meeting addressing controversy over a January 27 proclamation that cited the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of anti‑Semitism. Board members and dozens of residents and online participants pressed competing views about whether the town's statement should retain the IHRA reference, remove it, or clarify that the two‑sentence working definition was adopted but not IHRA's contextual examples.

Board members opened the exchange by summarizing how they understood the proclamation. "We intended to show our support for Concord's Jewish community by making it clear that anti‑Semitism is both unacceptable and acknowledging that it exists in Concord," Chair Mark said in his prepared remarks, adding that he did not intend to adopt the IHRA examples or curtail constitutionally protected speech.

Several board members urged moving from words to action. "I'm inclined to leave it alone and focus on the work for Concord," one member said, noting the need for education in schools, bystander training and a bias/hate‑incident reporting work group. Another proposed a small textual clarification: retain the IHRA paragraph's wording but explicitly state the board does not adopt the document's examples as binding policy.

Public commenters divided into two main camps. Some residents urged the board not to amend the proclamation, saying the IHRA text and its examples are necessary guidance for recognizing modern anti‑Semitism. "The examples that have raised concern are those about anti‑Israeli bias," said Matthew Myerson, who testified he has treated students who described being bullied for being Jewish. "This is what makes the IHRA definition an important protection against anti‑Semitism for the Jewish community today."

Other speakers — including local activists, former town volunteers and residents concerned about political speech — asked the board to remove the IHRA label or the IHRA examples. They argued that some IHRA examples conflate criticism of Israeli government policy with anti‑Semitism and could chill legitimate political expression. A number of commenters urged a bespoke, local definition or keeping the two‑sentence core definition while removing the IHRA citation and examples.

After listening to testimony, the Select Board did not vote to amend or rescind the proclamation at the meeting. Instead, members signaled a preference to focus on community outreach and concrete programs: an educational campaign, bystander training sessions, and an underway bias and hate‑incident reporting work group modeled to gather better data. "We have to get to work," one member said. "Spending time word‑smithing documents can be useful, but it doesn't move the ball down the field."

Next steps for the board include pursuing the reporting and education initiatives discussed and considering a concise clarifying statement if members agree wording will reduce confusion. For now, the proclamation remains on the books as adopted on January 27; the board emphasized it supports free speech while condemning anti‑Semitism and intends to pursue programs to improve school climate and community safety.