When Dissent Becomes a Duty: The Fight Against A.B. 715 in California

In an era where the meaning of dissent is sharply contested, California finds itself at a crossroads with Assembly Bill 715. This bill attempts to define antisemitism in a way that might stifle important political discourse, a move reminiscent of strategies from the Trump administration, argues Lily Greenberg Call, a former adviser in the Department of the Interior. Here’s why this legislation, under the guise of fighting antisemitism, could unwittingly aid in Trump’s goals against freedom of expression, especially within educational settings.

Defining Antisemitism or Suppressing Dissent?

Assembly Bill 715 proposes that California’s K-12 schools adopt a definition of antisemitism closely aligned with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. While superficially aiming to combat antisemitic environments, the proposed definition includes political speech critical of Israel — such as calling it an apartheid state — which could label constitutionally protected expression as hateful. This move risks silencing voices not only within the Jewish community but also among broader allies advocating for Palestinian rights.

The Real Threat to Free Speech

The essence of A.B. 715 lies in its potential to blur the line between legitimate political speech and hate speech. It could lead to investigations and punitive measures against educators and students who engage in critical discussions about Israel. While intended to protect, it instead puts California’s laws in line with previous Trump-era tactics that sought to clamp down on opposition forces, such as when President Trump applied similar definitions to federal entities in 2019.

Historical Echoes and Future Implications

California’s educational institutions have long been hotbeds of activism, from protests against apartheid in South Africa to immigrant rights. However, A.B. 715 could jeopardize these traditions by chilling discussions among young minds. Lessons from the past warn against adopting repressive measures that typically pave the way for broader suppression—reminiscent of the post-⁹⁄₁₁ Patriot Act.

The Moral Obligation of Criticism

For many, especially within the Jewish community, criticizing government policies is a moral duty. Anti-Zionist voices, critical of Israeli state actions, could face unwarranted censorship under A.B. 715. Powerful groups like the California Teachers Association and numerous Jewish organizations have denounced the bill for impinging on academic freedom, expressing concerns that it might become a tool for silencing rather than protecting.

Lessons from the Trump Playbook

Ironically, some Democratic lawmakers supporting A.B. 715 have been outspoken critics of Trump and similar figures like Florida’s Ron DeSantis for their free speech records. Yet, by endorsing this bill, they risk replicating the very strategies they oppose. California’s Democratic leadership is urged to reconsider, positioning itself not as a suppressor but as a guardian of open dialogue—even when that dialogue challenges the status quo.

A Call for Coalition Building

Amidst rising antisemitic violence, primarily from far-right groups, the antidote lies in fostering multiracial coalitions against hate. This bill, seen as unnecessary by many, undermines efforts to build such alliances. Instead of adopting punitive definitions into state law, the focus should be on nurturing an environment where diverse political perspectives can flourish without fear of retribution.

Lily Greenberg Call’s original piece appeared in The New York Times. Her insights remind us that protecting free expression, especially when it critiques power, is paramount.

According to The Salt Lake Tribune, A.B. 715, if enacted, could usher California into an era of enforced silence, contradicting the very democratic ideals it seeks to uphold.