AB 715 Shows the Danger of Legislating Classroom Speech
By Faisal Kutty
Nov/Dec 25
Imagine if teachers in the United States were barred from teaching about Saudi Arabia’s alleged repression of non-Muslims or Iran’s discrimination against women because such lessons might be deemed Islamophobic and offensive to Muslim students. We would immediately recognize this as censorship and as a dangerous conflation of criticizing governments with bigotry against a faith community.
Yet that is precisely the logic behind California’s Assembly Bill 715, now sitting on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.
AB 715, introduced by Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur (D) and Dawn Addis (D), is billed as a landmark measure to combat antisemitism in K-12 schools. It sailed through the Assembly on a 68-0 vote and has the backing of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and dozens of Jewish organizations.
Supporters point to alarming statistics; antisemitic incidents in California schools have surged more than sixfold in the past decade. They argue the bill is urgently needed to keep Jewish students safe. But beneath those good intentions lies a troubling attempt to legislate how teachers talk about Israel and Palestine — with national implications.
The bill strengthens anti-discrimination protections based on religion and nationality and creates a State Antisemitism Coordinator. It expands the state’s complaint procedures and creates a new “Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator.” Most controversially, opponents note the bill would bar materials deemed “antisemitic,” citing examples like labeling Israel a “settler-colonial state.”
This vague and expansive language has educators on edge. The California Teachers Association, California Faculty Association (CFA), and more than 100 other organizations oppose the bill.
The Council of UC Faculty Associations has called it “pedagogically dangerous,” warning it could punish teachers for presenting perspectives widely accepted in scholarship and public debate.
As Theresa Montaño, CFA Teacher Education Caucus tri-chair and CSU Northridge professor, put it, discourse on Palestine or the genocide in Gaza will be “policed, misrepresented, and reported to the antisemitism coordinator.”
The likely result is a chilling effect, where educators self-censor and avoid controversial subjects altogether out of fear of complaints, lawsuits, or professional retaliation.
The problem with AB 715 isn’t just what it prohibits. It’s the unequal way it addresses discrimination. While the bill references Islamophobia, its remedies overwhelmingly target antisemitism. Critics, including the California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations , argue this bill creates a hierarchy of protections: one community receives a coordinator, new procedures, and dedicated oversight, while others are left with vague promises.
This is not equity. It is exceptionalism — singling out one form of hate for special treatment while leaving others behind.
Worse, the bill risks conflating Jewish identity with the policies of the Israeli state. Shielding Israel from critique in classrooms is not the same as protecting Jewish students from harassment. We would never accept laws that prohibit criticism of Saudi Arabia’s monarchy or Iran’s theocracy. To equate criticism of those governments with hatred of Muslims would itself be Islamophobic. Why, then, should Israel be treated differently?
What happens in California does not stay in California. The state has the nation’s largest public school system, and its curriculum battles often set the tone for the rest of the country. Already, ethnic studies courses have become lightning rods, with lawsuits and political interventions shaping how — or if — Palestine can be discussed.
Higher education has been pulled into the same vortex. In July, the University of California banned student governments from boycotting Israel, citing federal pressure
The Justice Department has scrutinized UCLA’s handling of anti-Israel protests. These developments mirror a national trend: from Florida’s restrictions on teaching race and gender to congressional hearings on campus antisemitism, politicians are increasingly legislating the boundaries of classroom speech.
California, often a progressive trailblazer, is now poised to enact its own form of speech policing — this time under the banner of combating antisemitism. If Newsom signs AB 715, other states are likely to follow.
There is no question that antisemitism is real and dangerous. Jewish students, like all students, must be safe from harassment and discrimination. But we must not conflate that vital goal with protecting governments from criticism.
Criticism of Saudi Arabia’s repression is not anti-Muslim. Criticism of Iran’s abuses is not Islamophobic. And criticism of Israel’s occupation and human rights record is not antisemitic. Shielding Israel from scrutiny while allowing criticism of other governments is hypocrisy, and it undermines the credibility of efforts to fight real antisemitism.
California should reject AB 715. Protecting students from hate is essential. But legislating censorship in the name of safety is not. At stake is more than one bill in one state. It is whether America’s classrooms remain places of open inquiry — or become battlegrounds where politicians decide which histories, and which truths, our children are allowed to learn.
Faisal Kutty, J.D., LL.M. is a lawyer, law professor, and regular contributor to The Toronto Star and Newsweek. He is affiliate faculty at the Rutgers University Center for Security, Race, and Rights and Associate Professor of Law Emeritus at Valparaiso University. You can follow him on X @faisalkutty.
Want more like this? Subscribe to the Islamic Horizons magazine and support authentic journalism by Muslims for Muslims.