New York Senate Bill S01954

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/14/25
• Refer: 1/7/26

Caption

Enacts "the combating campus antisemitism act"; prohibits the granting of tuition assistance awards to any student who has knowingly engaged in promoting antisemitism in a manner that is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action, that constitutes "true threats"; makes related provisions.

Summary

S01954, titled the "combating campus antisemitism act," would amend New York’s Education Law to make students ineligible for Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) awards if they have knowingly engaged in promoting antisemitism in a way that meets certain constitutional speech thresholds. The bill applies this restriction across multiple TAP categories, including standard awards, supplemental remediation awards, part-time awards, and part-time workforce credential awards. It defines antisemitism by reference to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s 2016 working definition and examples, and it directs the Higher Education Services Corporation to create guidelines for determining when a student has engaged in disqualifying conduct and for restoring or resuming aid. The bill’s practical effect would be to add a new eligibility condition to state financial aid programs administered under the Education Law. It would not create a criminal penalty, but it would authorize denial of state tuition assistance to students found to have engaged in specified antisemitic conduct, including conduct characterized as incitement, true threats, or fighting words, or conduct that fails to adequately address such an event. Because the bill reaches several TAP provisions, it would affect a broad range of students at public and private higher education institutions that participate in state aid programs. The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of combating antisemitism on campus and protecting Jewish students from threatening or violent conduct. The bill’s sponsors frame it as a campus antisemitism measure and build in constitutional-speech language to tie the aid restriction to categories of expression that are less likely to raise First Amendment concerns. No committee transcript or vote record was provided, so there is no recorded debate or voting history to show broader legislative sentiment. The main point of contention likely concerns the use of state financial aid as a sanction for speech-related conduct and the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism. Critics could argue that the bill may chill protected expression, invite inconsistent enforcement, or give state officials too much discretion in determining what counts as antisemitic conduct. Supporters would likely argue that the bill is narrowly targeted at conduct already outside constitutional protection and is necessary to prevent harassment, threats, and incitement on college campuses.

Impact

The bill would amend sections 666, 667, 667-a, and 667-c of the Education Law to add antisemitism-based disqualification criteria for TAP and related tuition assistance awards. It would require the Higher Education Services Corporation to issue guidelines for identifying disqualifying conduct and for restoring eligibility, thereby changing how state student aid eligibility is administered for affected students and institutions.

Sentiment

The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a pro-enforcement, anti-antisemitism posture, with sponsors seeking to condition state aid on conduct standards tied to threats, incitement, and fighting words. Because no committee discussion or vote data were provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s text and sponsor framing.

Contention

The likely controversy is whether denying tuition assistance based on antisemitic conduct is an appropriate and constitutional use of state aid policy. Potential opponents may object to the incorporation of the IHRA definition, the breadth of the term "promoting antisemitism," and the risk of punishing protected speech or unevenly applied standards. Supporters are likely to emphasize that the bill is limited to conduct already falling within recognized exceptions to First Amendment protection and that it is aimed at preventing threats and incitement on campuses.