Beyond AB 715: Jewish Dignity and Free Speech

BY SIMCHA ROSENBERG

Since the Founding, Americans have strived to build a system powerful enough to protect citizens from abuse without becoming one that itself abuses power. After the Revolution, many Americans were wary of tyranny. They first tried a weak national government, and it failed; the country struggled to raise money, enforce laws, and unite over common causes.

The founders then redesigned the system, strengthening the federal government while adding guardrails: separate branches meant to check each other and a written promise that certain rights would not be up for debate. That promise became the Bill of Rights and its First Amendment: a bold bet that a free society could survive even when people say ugly things. Right now, California public schools are testing that bet.

In October 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 715, a law aimed at preventing and responding to antisemitism in K–12 public schools. Among other measures, the law mandates the creation of a statewide Office of Civil Rights, employs an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, and utilizes the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism (which includes Israel-related antisemitism) to address harassment against Jewish students in California public schools.

Almost immediately, critics filed a lawsuit, arguing that the law was too vague and will inevitably censor classroom speech, especially around Israel. This fight has become familiar in contemporary American politics: one side argues for increased accountability and enforcement against antisemitism, while the other worries about stifling meaningful and legally protected discussion.

It is tempting to treat the issue as a simple choice between free speech and safety, but the real question is deeper. Jewish students need institutional support against antisemitism. Dignity and respect are not perks; they are baseline expectations for learning in an American public school. At the same time, a strategy for protecting Jewish students that relies on fear and punishment will prevent what these students need most: a genuine sense of belonging.

With ongoing geopolitical tensions in Israel and the parallel rise in antisemitism at home, many Jewish students feel isolated and lack a sense of belonging in public schools. Many report feeling like they have been put in the spotlight amidst the constant focus on Israel in the news and on social media. In this charged environment, Jewish students have often become prime targets for bullying and harassment. Can the instigators use “freedom of speech” as an excuse to say hateful things without consequence?

It is the responsibility of a public school to protect the dignity and safety of every student. That is why a statewide response to antisemitism in public schools feels necessary at this moment. The passing of AB 715 in California is a strong signal that antisemitism in schools is seen as a real civil rights issue and not something that can be ignored or quietly managed.

But there’s another side to this debate: what does the law mean for protecting freedom of speech, and by extension, for American democracy? Many people believe that the law contradicts the deeply held American right to free speech. They perceive the law as too broad and vague, failing to give meaningful guidance on what students and teachers can and cannot say. Whether the law intends this or not, it could ultimately have a chilling effect on school learning at large. Students may opt for silence, robbing the classroom of authentic discourse. Teachers may avoid teaching the topic of Israel altogether, opting to skip this sensitive territory out of fear that it may lead to an investigation. If every discussion about Israel and what it means to be Jewish is treated like a potential legal case, students may learn to trust each other less. These are all legitimate concerns.

While the law in California was intended to protect Jewish students, it does not create the sense of belonging that Jewish students actually seek. Rules can prevent people from acting in a certain way in public, but they can’t change how people feel or correct biases. Rules can discourage and punish obvious harassment, but they won’t make Jewish students feel relaxed about wearing a kippah or Star of David necklace in school. A law like this might ultimately breed more resentment and suspicion towards the people it aims to protect, treating Jewish students like pawns in a global argument rather than real people.

The real work is to identify and implement a more nuanced approach, one that distinguishes harassment from debate without chilling free speech. Instead of blanket laws, faculty should be trained to identify antisemitism in stereotypes, scapegoating and blaming Jews as a group. This broader understanding would be more effective than just banning a list of words. Teachers should support controversial debates in the classroom, but with firm guidelines: use evidence, criticize ideas without attacking people, and never hold students responsible for the actions of governments.

America was built on the delicate balance between equal protection and liberty, and we still live with this tension every day. While the First Amendment protects speech, educators in American public schools have a responsibility to teach their students how to use that freedom without turning it into a weapon. AB 715 may seem like a necessary law to guarantee Jewish students some measure of safety, but guardrails alone cannot create belonging. The real work is building a culture where American students can debate hard issues honestly, while maintaining the dignity of all students.