An Act amending the act of March 10, 1949 (P.L.30, No.14), known as the Public School Code of 1949, in miscellaneous provisions relating to institutions of higher education, providing for public insti . . .tution of higher education policy on antisemitism.
Summary
HB353 would require every public institution of higher education in Pennsylvania to adopt a written policy prohibiting antisemitism as a condition of receiving state funding. The policy must be clear and understandable and apply to faculty, staff, and students. The bill also requires these institutions to incorporate definitions of “discrimination” and “harassment” into their codes of conduct, and those definitions must include antisemitism and examples of antisemitic activity.
The bill defines “antisemitism” broadly as a perception of Jewish individuals that may be expressed as hatred toward Jewish people, including rhetorical or physical manifestations directed at Jewish or non-Jewish individuals, their property, or Jewish community institutions and religious facilities. It applies to community colleges, rural regional colleges, State System universities, State-related institutions, and Thaddeus Stevens College of Technology. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.
Impact
HB353 would amend the Public School Code of 1949 by adding a new section governing public institutions of higher education. It would condition state funding on adoption of an antisemitism policy and require affected institutions to revise their conduct and anti-discrimination policies to explicitly address antisemitism. The bill would therefore impose new compliance obligations on public colleges and universities and could affect how they investigate, define, and discipline discriminatory or harassing conduct involving Jewish students, faculty, staff, or campus property.
Sentiment
The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded vote, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and subject matter, the measure appears to be framed as a campus anti-discrimination and civil rights policy intended to address antisemitism in higher education. The absence of recorded opposition or amendment history in the provided materials means the overall sentiment cannot be measured beyond the bill’s protective purpose.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s requirement that institutions adopt a specific antisemitism policy as a condition of state funding, which could raise concerns about administrative burden, enforcement, and the scope of protected speech on campus. Another likely issue is the breadth of the antisemitism definition and how it would be applied in discrimination and harassment codes, particularly in distinguishing antisemitic conduct from protected expression or political speech. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided committee materials.