When people argue about whether something is antisemitic — a protest chant, a classroom slide, a social-media post — one document comes up again and again: the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism. This explainer covers what it says, where it came from, how it is used in civil-rights law, and why it matters for Jewish students, parents and employees.
What is the IHRA definition?
The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) is an intergovernmental body of dozens of member countries, including the United States. In 2016 its members adopted a "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, building on an earlier working definition developed by a European monitoring agency in 2005.
The core definition is short:
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities."
That sentence alone is general. What makes the definition useful in practice is the list of contemporary examples that comes with it.
The examples, in plain language
IHRA gives eleven examples of what could, depending on the overall context, be antisemitic. They include:
- Calling for, helping with, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews.
- Dehumanizing or stereotypical claims about Jews — for example, myths about Jews controlling the media, the economy or government.
- Blaming Jews as a people for wrongs committed by a single Jewish person or group.
- Denying the Holocaust or accusing Jews of inventing or exaggerating it.
- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to their own country.
- Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination — for example, by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
- Applying double standards by requiring of Israel behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
- Using classic antisemitic symbols and images — such as the blood libel — to characterize Israel or Israelis.
- Comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis (see Holocaust inversion).
- Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel.
What the definition does not say
The definition expressly states that criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. It does not ban speech, and it is not a speech code. Its examples describe when hostility toward Israel crosses into hostility toward Jews — singling Israel out, denying Jews alone the right to a homeland, or recycling old antisemitic tropes in new political language. For more on that line, see our glossary entry on anti-Zionism vs. antisemitism.
How it is used in civil-rights law
On its own, the IHRA definition is not a law. Its legal weight comes from how government agencies and courts use it to recognize antisemitism under laws that already exist:
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs, including public schools and most universities. The federal government treats discrimination against Jews based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics as covered. See Title VI.
- Executive Order 13899 (December 2019) directs federal agencies enforcing Title VI to consider the IHRA definition and its examples when deciding whether conduct was motivated by antisemitism.
- Many states, cities, universities and school districts have also adopted or referenced the definition in their own policies.
In practice, this means that when a school receives complaints about antizionist harassment, the IHRA examples help show why the conduct targets Jewish students as Jews — and why the school may be legally required to respond. A school that ignores a hostile environment it knows about can be liable for deliberate indifference.
Alternatives and criticism
Some academics and advocacy groups have proposed alternatives, such as the 2021 Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism and the Nexus Document. Critics of IHRA argue its Israel-related examples could chill political speech. Supporters respond that the definition protects criticism of Israel by its own terms, and that the alternatives leave Jewish students without protection against the most common form of antisemitism they now face. JCAC's view is that antizionism aimed at Jews is today's most common form of antisemitism, and that the IHRA definition describes it accurately.
The IHRA definition in JCAC's cases
Several matters we follow involve exactly the conduct the IHRA examples describe:
- Brandeis Center v. State of California — Jewish families challenge antisemitic harassment and biased curriculum in California K-12 schools.
- StandWithUs v. MIT — Jewish students allege MIT tolerated a campus environment hostile to Jewish and Israeli students after October 7.
- Miller v. San Francisco Unified School District — a Jewish educator alleges hostility and retaliation after objecting to a union's "Palestine Solidarity" materials.
- Sumrall v. Ali — a woman alleges she was choked with the Israeli flag she was wearing.
What you can do
- Learn the categories. Our legal guide for families breaks school antisemitism into fifteen types — see especially harassment of Jewish students, antisemitic speech, posters and clothing, and antisemitic or antizionist curriculum.
- Document what happens. Write it down, save screenshots and note witnesses. See Document everything.
- Ask what your school teaches. Use our free public records request tool to get curriculum materials.
- Report the incident to JCAC.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Every situation depends on its facts — consult an attorney about your own case.