IHRA definition warranted Select Board’s scrutiny

At the Select Board’s January 27 meeting, Chair Mark Howell started discussion of their proposed proclamation by noting the deluge of correspondence debating whether they should adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, but then stated, “I’m no expert and feel unqualified to resolve that debate.” As the prelude to a discussion and vote through which the Select Board would opt to weigh in on just this question, this glib disavowal was astounding.

This was, unfortunately, a sign of what was to come in the cursory discussion that followed. The Select Board latched onto this definition as a supposed source of clarity and direction, arguing that it provided a foundation on which to build further work combating antisemitism. But then they seemed impatient and uncomfortable with the messy business of actually examining the IHRA definition, its weaknesses and misuses, and the potential impacts of “adopting” it. Repeatedly during the mere eight minutes of discussion, members avoided any detailed scrutiny of the definition, blithely dismissed any concerns around free speech (including directly from the ACLU and expert legal opinion), and made claims about the definition’s “overwhelming support” that, when placed alongside extremely divided published correspondence, public comment, and rival petitions, seem either delusional or purposefully dishonest. 

Mr. Howell has stated a strong desire to draw a line under this episode and move on. But this debate is likely to reactivate with equal intensity any time the definition is invoked in Acton. If the Select Board didn’t want to get involved in such arguments about definitions, believing them to be too awkward, divisive, or distracting, they shouldn’t have even considered endorsing the IHRA definition — the most controversial option — on behalf of the citizens of Acton. 

John Dilworth

Hubbard Street