������Ƶ

When Gov. Greg Abbott  Texas colleges to include a new definition of antisemitism in their policies, one thing became clear: Compliance with the governor’s executive order required public universities to roll back students’ free speech rights. 

According to new public records obtained by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), colleges rushed to incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA)  into their free speech policies to classify what speech is punishable as “antisemitic.” 

The problem? Its vague, broad language means that students can be punished for peaceful protest and core political speech protected by the Constitution. The definition lists examples of speech and conduct that qualify as antisemitism, including generally protected speech such as criticisms of Israeli policy. 

Even the primary author of the definition, Kenneth Stern,  requiring the definition’s use for disciplinary purposes because it threatens free speech. According to Stern, the definition “was intended for data collectors writing reports about anti-Semitism in Europe. It was never supposed to curtail speech on campus.”

The use of this speech-chilling definition is on a collision course with the First Amendment, which binds public colleges. 

Under Abbott’s executive order, universities can punish students for almost any expression about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, the governor that institutions ensure “groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Committee and Students for Justice in Palestine are disciplined for violating these policies.” 

But that’s not how free speech works — and no student’s right to speak on important issues can be curtailed based on what clubs they join. By singling out these groups, Abbott sent a clear message: Specific viewpoints that he does not like must be punished. 

Indeed, Abbott’s order cast a chill on free speech that’s already palpable on campuses statewide, according to student reports and public records obtained by FIRE. Students at Texas State University  they will no longer be able to freely protest on campus when the penalties include expulsion. Many colleges, including , , and adopted blanket bans on any expression deemed antisemitic under the vague and overbroad definition, whether that expression be written or spoken, made by employees or students, online or offline, indoors or outdoors.

, , and now forbid holding events and handing out flyers or other printed materials administrators decide fall under the definition. The penalties for violating these policies are severe, ranging from suspension to termination and expulsion.

Texas colleges can and must protect community members from actual violence, and can do so without violating the Constitution. And when it comes to speech, they can sanction expression falling within one of the narrow categories of , such as true threats, incitement to violence, or properly defined harassment.

But what they can’t do is undermine students’ First Amendment rights by subjectively deeming their expression as “antisemitic” or “hate speech.” 

Students have expressed fear about running afoul of these new speech codes, demonstrating their . Abbott’s order will stifle protests, deepen ideological divides, and undermine the transformative power of debate and discussion. The IHRA definition is simply the wrong tool for the job.

There’s still time to stand up for free speech before the school year starts. Texas colleges must push back against Abbott’s unconstitutional mandates and protect the rights of all students to speak their minds. 

Nordstrom and Marchand are program officers at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. This commentary appears exclusively in the American-Statesman.