The Ohio Holocaust and Liberators Monument is seen on the Statehouse grounds. (Photo courtesy of the official Ohio Statehouse website.)
Religious groups and advocates across the state signaled their support for a bill that would cement a definition of anti-semitism into Ohio law.
In a recent meeting of the Ohio Senate Judiciary Committee, state-level and national groups praised Senate Bill 297, a GOP-led bill that was introduced in June.
S.B. 297 seeks to insert a definition of anti-semitism into the Ohio Revised Code, one that was adopted by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2016.
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” the definition states. “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.”
The definition is already in use by Ohio’s state agencies, along with departments, boards and commissions, including public colleges and universities, after Gov. Mike DeWine released an executive order in 2022 encouraging its use.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
What the legislation would add is “contemporary examples” identified by the IHRA to support the anti-semitism definition.
“The scope and utility of the IHRA definition lie in the examples it provides, which capture not only traditional anti-Jewish hatred and Holocaust denial but also modern antisemitism that targets the State of Israel based on its Jewish foundations and character,” said William Daroff, the CEO of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, during the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
In support of the bill, Daroff cited Anti-Defamation League data, which showed an increase in “antisemitism incidents” of more than 300% since Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant group Hamas attacked Israel, causing the deaths of 1,200 people, including 46 Americans, according to the U.S. Department of State.
“Time and again, time and again, and time and again, especially since October 7, those with responsibility, those with authority to act on incidents, have said ‘I don’t know if this rises to the level of actual antisemitism,’” said Howie Beigelman, president and CEO of Ohio Jewish Communities. “This definition provides that for them.”
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.
The bill would also expand the criminal offense of “ethnic intimidation” to add “riot and aggravated riot committed by reason of the race, color, religion or national origin of another person or group of persons,” according to an analysis by the Ohio Legislative Service Commission.
Ohio law considers a riot five or more people participating “in a course of disorderly conduct” with certain purposes, such as committing a misdemeanor offense, intimidation of a public official or employee or “to hinder, impede or obstruct the orderly process of administration or instruction at an educational institution.”
A riot rises to the level of “aggravated riot” when a group of five or more people commit or help in the commission of a felony or violent offense, or when a deadly weapon is used.
The state’s chief law officer agreed with those wanting to see the bill passed. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost submitted written testimony in favor of the measure, saying it is “astonishing that such legislation is necessary in America today, but, sadly, such a definition is needed.”
“The targeting of Jews has consistently been reported as the most likely of all religious groups to be victimized, and the rates of these despicable acts are on the rise,” Yost wrote.
He said the IHRA definition “has become the authoritative definition for use by governments and international organizations across the globe.”
Supporters of the bill also expressed confidence that while the bill would ensure antisemitism is identified in the state, First Amendment rights would still be assured.
“However, when that hatred morphs into a crime or other action covered by a school or work policy, only then can penalties be assessed,” Beigelman said in his testimony to the committee.
In order for the measure to become law, it will need to be passed by the committee, then sent to the floor for approval before the end of the month, which also marks the end of the current General Assembly.
Should the bill not go through before then, it will need to be reintroduced in the new year, and go through the committee process once again.
