California’s new law to combat antisemitism in K-12 schools has become a political lightning rod and, increasingly, a wedge issue in state Democratic politics.
AB 715 passed overwhelmingly in both houses of the Legislature in September, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the measure on Oct. 7, the two-year anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, terrorist attacks in Israel that launched the Israel-Hamas war, a global surge in antisemitism and ongoing debates about how to classify anti-Jewish bigotry.
“Antisemitism is a historic scourge and needs to be addressed aggressively,” Newsom said in a statement at the time.
But what exactly is AB 715, which went into effect on Jan. 1? And why is it controversial?
What does AB 715 do?
AB 715 adds regulations to the Education Code, which governs the operation of California schools. It adds rules for public school officials, administrators and teachers.
The law’s big-ticket item establishes a new Office of Civil Rights, whose director is to be appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate. The office will serve as a clearinghouse for discrimination complaints across the state and issue an annual report on “the state of discrimination and bias.”
An Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator will work under the OCR director, developing antisemitism education, tracking discrimination complaints and maintaining a webpage “containing resources and information specific to antisemitism.”
In addition, the Office of Civil Rights will employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, per a companion law, SB 48.
What’s more, AB 715 places additional responsibilities on local governing bodies, like school boards, to apply oversight to materials taught in school. The law adds language that holds governing boards responsible for discriminatory content taught in the classroom.
The law also strengthens the tools available to parents and other adults to report discrimination in schools. It homes in on consulting organizations that contract with school districts to provide curricula and teacher training. If their materials are found to violate anti-discrimination rules, the consulting organizations must “reimburse all funds received” for their services and disclose to every other school district they work with that “they have been found in violation of the state’s antidiscrimination laws.”
The law also adds language broadening the scope of discrimination claims. It says discrimination can occur even if a member of the targeted group does not experience the discrimination. In other words, school officials can be held responsible for homophobic content even if an LGBTQ student is not present, or antisemitic content even if a Jewish student is not present.
AB 715 also includes language directed specifically at teachers. “Teacher instruction shall be factually accurate and align with the adopted curriculum and standards,” the law says, “and be consistent with accepted standards of professional responsibility, rather than advocacy, personal opinion, bias, or partisanship.” The requirement also applies to textbooks and instructional materials used in public schools.
Why did California need a K-12 antisemitism bill?
The law cites an increase in antisemitism in the U.S. and in California schools specifically, stating that in some instances anti-Jewish bias has become so severe that Jewish students “have had to hide any outward identifying signs of their Jewish identity.”
The law mentions Newsom’s 2024 Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism, which says that “Antisemitism has proliferated at a shocking speed in recent years, globally and here in California.”
The legislation notes that a 2025 California Department of Justice report found that “anti-Jewish bias events accounted for 76 percent of all reported religious hate crimes, while Jewish people make up only approximately 3 percent of the state’s population.”
In 2024, J. reported on dozens of families who filed paperwork to leave the Oakland Unified School District because of antisemitism. Antisemitic incidents have proliferated across the Bay Area and the rest of the state, accelerating since Oct. 7, 2023. Many of those incidents center around one-sided instruction on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, anti-Israel activism from teachers, and harsh criticism of Israel and Zionists that has bled into mistreatment of Jewish students by peers and teachers.
Why is the law controversial?
Opponents of the new law argue that it will add burdensome regulations to teachers and impinge on their free speech rights, particularly on topics related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Animating the controversy are questions about what constitutes antisemitism and discrimination against Jews, and how to distinguish between legitimate discussion of controversial issues and bigotry. Many opponents of the law argue that criticism of Israel and Zionism, no matter how harsh, is distinct from antisemitism and should not be construed as such.
The debate hinges primarily on one sentence in AB 715, which references the 2023 U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.
“The United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, shall be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism,” the law states.
Opponents of AB 715 argue that the Biden strategy is an inappropriate resource to evaluate what constitutes antisemitism. The strategy references the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which says that some criticism of Israel, like comparing Israel to Nazi Germany or “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination,” can be antisemitic depending on the context. The Biden plan also offers an alternative definition outlined in what’s called the Nexus Document.
Neither the IHRA definition nor the Biden plan assert that simply criticizing Israel is antisemitic. The IHRA definition states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.”
A number of teachers unions, including the statewide California Teachers Association, opposed the bill, writing in a statement last year that the measure would “impose limits and define standards for course instruction regarding Israel, Palestine, Zionism, or the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.”
“At a time when there are those that seek to weaponize public education, AB 715 would unfortunately arm some ill-intentioned people with the ability to do so,” the CTA letter said. Saikat Chakrabarti, the progressive running for Congress to fill Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s seat, has attacked his opponent, state Sen. Scott Wiener, for supporting AB 715, calling it a “censorship bill.”
Does the law have anything to do with ethnic studies?
The law does not mention ethnic studies, but applies to curricula across all disciplines. An earlier version of a similar law, called AB 1468, focused on ethnic studies, but it was swapped for AB 715, which has a broader scope.
But the seeds for the law were planted during debates around California’s ethnic studies plan. Some of its language — including its focus on curricular materials and outside consulting organizations — is linked to the controversy.
Since school districts began widely implementing the course over the past five years, outside contractors like the Liberated Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum Consortium have pressed to introduce a more overtly left-wing version of the discipline in California classrooms, to include criticism of Israel and concepts like colonialism and capitalism, along with support for the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. Moderate political forces in Sacramento and large Jewish community organizations have opposed those efforts, framing them as political indoctrination.
What’s next for the law?
A group called the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, alongside a handful of teachers, parents and L.A. Educators for Justice in Palestine, is suing in federal court in an attempt to block the law on free speech grounds.
But that lawsuit experienced a recent setback. U.S. District Judge Noël Wise denied a preliminary motion to halt the implementation of the law, writing that public school teachers do not have full protection of the First Amendment’s rights to free speech in the classroom.
“As public-school education belongs to the government, the government may regulate Teacher Plaintiffs’ speech to accord with the government’s educational goals,” the judge wrote in a 22-page order denying plaintiffs’ request for an injunction on the law. The plaintiffs are appealing the ruling.
Meanwhile, AB 715’s authors have expressed openness to revising aspects of the law. According to David Bocarsly, executive director of the Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California, which backs the bill, conversations are underway in Sacramento focusing on select aspects of the measure, including the clause that states that “teacher instruction shall be factually accurate.” Opponents say the clause is overbroad.
“That’s a big piece under scrutiny,” Bocarsly said.