Editor’s note: Letters to the Editor and open letters reflect the opinions, concerns and views of University of Wisconsin-Madison students and community, may or may not be accurate and do not reflect the editorial views or opinions of The Daily Cardinal.
The working definition of antisemitism adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016 was originally created by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2004. This definition, nearly a quarter-century old, is now used by more than a thousand governments, universities, NGOs, and other institutions around the world, including the US State Department, US Department of Education, and most US states. The bipartisan bill that Wisconsin lawmakers are currently considering would require state agencies to consider this working definition when they evaluate evidence of discriminatory intent under already existing antidiscrimination laws.
The IHRA working definition affirms that some kinds of hostility to Israel, “conceived as a Jewish collectivity,” can, “taking into account the overall context,” be antisemitic, and it offers examples, such as accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than America, or holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the state of Israel. This should not be controversial. Multiple empirical studies have found a positive relationship between anti-Jewish and anti-Israel attitudes. Moreover, anti-Israel attitudes have motivated attacks on Jewish individuals and institutions, including the firebombing of Pennsylvania governor Josh Shapiro’s home in April 2025; the murder of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim in Washington, DC, in May 2025; and the deadly firebombing of a peaceful demonstration in Boulder, Colorado, in May 2025 calling for the release of the hostages taken by Hamas. When activists reject the IHRA working definition of antisemitism, they deny that some kinds of hostility to Israel can be antisemitic, and they thereby open a loophole in state antidiscrimination laws.
Wisconsin urgently needs to close this loophole in the current context of rising antisemitism. As your paper reported, antisemitic incidents in Wisconsin began a sharp rise in 2015 after years in which the number of incidents was flat or declining. Antisemitic attitudes are also worsening. I am currently analyzing data collected last summer by the UW Survey Center from a representative sample of Wisconsin adults. The good news is that overt support for most antisemitic stereotypes is under 10%. However, there are several troubling exceptions, most of which involve indicators of the “new,” Israel-related antisemitism. For example, 18% of respondents agree that “Israel can get away with anything because its supporters control the media,” 22% agree that “Israel and its supporters are a bad influence on democracy,” and 40% agree that “Israel treats the Palestinians like the Nazis treated the Jews.” In all these instances, young respondents aged 18 to 24 are even more likely to agree. In addition, more than 35% of respondents chose the middle category (neither disagree nọr agree) in response to these questions, which may suggest ambivalence, susceptibility to antisemitism, or evasion. The Wisconsin legislature’s adoption of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism would be a valuable tool in this context, making it easier to identify and combat anti-Jewish hate speech and hate crimes, as well as anti-Jewish harassment, vandalism, and assault.
Critics of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism contend that it conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism and that its adoption would suppress such criticism and shut down free speech. These concerns are misplaced. The IHRA working definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Furthermore, as explicitly recognized in the bill before the Wisconsin legislature, adoption of the IHRA definition would not abrograte or trump First Amendment protections. And lastly, the bill does not make breaching the IHRA definition a crime on its own. Rather, it adopts the definition as a useful tool to determine, if there is a criminal offense, whether there is an antisemitic element to that offense.
The citizens of Wisconsin should not be afraid of the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. It is high time that our state joins most other states in adopting it.
Chad Alan Goldberg
Martindale-Bascom Professor of Sociology
University of Wisconsin–Madison
