IHRA definition differentiates between legitimate discourse and targeted hate
Leadership vows to “call out antisemitism,” but that promise is empty if they don’t know what antisemitism actually looks like now.
This is not a free-speech controversy or a political debate. Jewish students in Acton and Carlisle are being targeted during ordinary school life.
This is not happening in political discussions or classrooms, but in hallways, on soccer fields, and in the moments when kids are just trying to belong. The word “Zionist” is being used as a slur, a proxy for “Jew,” to single out students for harassment and exclusion. That is not free speech. It is a hostile school environment.
District leadership vows to “call out antisemitism,” but that promise is empty if they don’t know what antisemitism actually looks like now. It isn’t just swastikas or Nazi salutes. It is language used to target Jewish identity and then dismiss it as political, protected speech.
That is exactly why the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition exists. Created by historians, legal scholars, and antisemitism experts working internationally, it does not ban criticism of Israel or any country. It helps governments and institutions like our schools distinguish between legitimate discourse and targeted harassment and hate so they can respond knowledgeably.
Countries including the UK, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, and the United States have officially endorsed the IHRA definition. Nearby towns such as Sudbury, Acton, and Westford have followed suit, quietly and pragmatically, to protect their students. For whatever reason, Acton and Carlisle continue to debate its legitimacy.
Jewish people in this community deserve to feel safe, particularly our kids when they go to school.
IHRA is a tool, and we should use it.
Judy Weinstock
Maple Street, Carlisle
