SB326

The requirement covers school districts, open-enrollment charter schools and public institutions covered by Education Code 61.003. Government Code 448.001 already defined antisemitism as a perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred, including rhetorical and physical acts directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish people, property, community institutions or religious facilities. SB326 makes that definition and its referenced May 26, 2016 IHRA examples the required standard in this disciplinary-motivation decision. Sections 1–2; Existing Texas definition.

The incorporated examples include calls to harm Jews, antisemitic conspiracy stereotypes, collective blame, Holocaust denial or accusations of its fabrication, dual-loyalty accusations, denial of Jewish self-determination, certain double standards and classic antisemitic imagery concerning Israel, comparisons of Israeli policy with Nazi policy, and holding Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions. Their accompanying text says to consider overall context and expressly says criticism of Israel similar to criticism of any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. The original international definition calls itself non-legally binding; SB326 separately requires its use in the specified Texas decision. Full definition, all eleven examples and qualifications reproduced by the U.S. State Department.

Section 3 states the Legislature’s intent that the law not be used to punish speech protected by the First Amendment or the Texas Constitution’s speech provision unless accompanied by actions violating the student code. That is the enacted intent clause, not a court ruling that resolves every speech dispute or permits unconstitutional punishment. A code violation remains a prerequisite in the operative provisions. Operative limits and speech-intent clause.

The introduced bill said to consider the definition and examples as instructive; the Senate substitute changed that to “shall use.” Menéndez’s Senate amendment to remove the explicit reference to examples failed. Rosenthal’s first House amendment, combining purpose/tracking language with the speech-intent clause, was withdrawn; his second, containing the speech clause alone, was adopted April 29. The Senate concurred May 7, and that clause is in the final law. Introduced text; Senate substitute; Failed Senate proposal; Withdrawn House proposal; Adopted House amendment; Official dispositions; All versions.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

A common standard may make schools’ assessments of antisemitic motivation more consistent and help identify harassment directed at Jewish students. Administrators must still evaluate conduct and context; the definition is not a substitute for establishing a student-code violation. The distinction between protected criticism, antisemitic motivation and punishable conduct matters to students and schools. No measured reduction in incidents or guarantee of identical disciplinary outcomes is established by the act. Required assessment and limits; Context and criticism qualification.

All four posted fiscal notes anticipate no state or local fiscal effect. The final posting is the April 30 “As Passed 2nd House” estimate. It does not measure staff training or individual case-review time, and the law makes no separate appropriation. Final posted fiscal note; Introduced estimate; Senate-substitute estimate.