Amid a federal investigation into Chapman University over an alleged failure to act against antisemitism, administrators quietly made a key change to the campus’ anti-discrimination and harassment policy.
Since September, the policy has included the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism when assessing violations.
“In line with long-standing guidance from the U.S. Department of Education, the university has now clarified that it considers the information set out in the IHRA definition and accompanying illustrative examples, to the extent it may be useful in a particular case,” said Bob Hitchcock, a Chapman spokesperson.
The change found favor with pro-Israel Jewish groups but also prompted concerns among some Chapman faculty members that it conflates hate with legitimate criticism of Israel.
Hannah Ridge, a Chapman political science professor who teaches Middle East politics, only learned of the definition’s inclusion a few weeks ago and raised issues with its potential impact on academic freedom.
“When we look at how this [definition] has been applied in practice, it has been treated as governing or controlling the limits of criticism of Israel,” she said. “That is problematic if we’re going to restrict it on college campuses.”
Established in 2016, IHRA defines antisemitism, in part, as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.”
Seven of the definition’s 11 contemporary examples of antisemitism in public spaces, like schools, revolve around the state of Israel.
How antisemitism is defined is a critical question for Chapman, which has come under increased scrutiny over the question in recent years, especially after students organized a pro-Gaza encampment in 2024.
Students for Justice in Palestine led a march around Chapman University during last years “protect DEI” protest.
(Gabriel San Roman)
That same year, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a federal complaint with the U.S. Department of Education on behalf of Jewish Chapman students, including Eli Schechter.
The complaint, which argued the university did not take adequate action against antisemitism on campus, called on Chapman to incorporate the IHRA definition.
It also triggered a federal investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights that is still ongoing.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent Chapman a letter last year claiming that the university could face enforcement actions if it did not move to protect Jewish students.
“The incorporation of the IHRA definition is an important and necessary step for Chapman to take,” said Denise Katz-Prober, the Brandeis Center’s director of legal initiatives who is overseeing the Chapman complaint. “Rules and policies, though, are only effective if they’re enforced.”
Whether the definition has been used in new complaints is unclear. Human Resource investigations are not publicly disclosed.
In the meantime, the policy change has already served to bolster Chapman’s “grade” on the Anti-Defamation League’s annual Campus Antisemitism Report Card.
Chapman received a “B” from the ADL, for “better than most” campuses, up from a “D” for “deficient approach” a year ago.
Matt Friedman, the ADL’s Long Beach and Orange County regional director, praised Chapman for including the IHRA definition, which he argued is the “most widely accepted” one on antisemitism.
“Its usage will provide Chapman’s administrators with an invaluable tool to identify antisemitism in all of its forms, including when anti-Jewish bias targets individuals or groups based on their perceived support for the Jewish state, while still respecting free speech and academic freedom,” Friedman said.
Chapman University’s new discrimination and harassment policy has been in effect since September.
(Allen J. Schaben/Los Angeles Times)
But Chapman professors continued to be concerned that the guidance can conflate legitimate criticisms of Israel with antisemitism and serves to chill free speech on campus and academic freedom in the classroom.
“Every day that I walk into my classroom, I, a Jewish Israeli finalist for the National Jewish Book Award, could be accused of antisemitism because of this definition,” said Shira Klein, chair of Chapman’s history department.
Klein, an antisemitism expert, pointed to an IHRA example that claims criticizing Israel in a way not applied to other democratic nations is anti-Semitic as being problematic.
“Israel is not like any other democratic country,” she said, “not according to overwhelming scholarly consensus, not according to the international courts and not according to most governments. Calling this consensus antisemitic and saying otherwise is absurd at best.”
Klein is one of several hundred scholars to have signed on to the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism’s definition, an IHRA alternative.
It defines antisemitism as “discrimination, prejudice, hostility or violence against Jews as Jews or Jewish institutions as Jewish” while seeking to protect debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Katz-Prober counters that the IHRA definition is flexible enough to protect academic freedom while rooting out veiled hate.
“Contemporary forms of antisemitism are often masked or disguised as criticism of Israel that is not, in fact, legitimate,” Katz-Prober said. “They utilize the same tropes, stereotypes and conspiracy theories as classical antisemitism.”
Chapman has weighed in on the debate at another venue: federal court.
In late October 2025, Schechter and Talya Malka filed a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging the university failed to protect them as Jewish students from “anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination” on campus.
Attorneys for the Chapman graduates argued that Zionism is at the “core” of what makes them Jewish.
In December, Chapman’s attorneys argued against conflating antisemitism with anti-Zionism and claimed that the university “cannot transform political speech into unprotected speech by characterizing it as anti-Zionist.”
The argument found favor with critics of the IHRA definition’s incorporation into Chapman’s anti-discrimination policy.
“I was thrilled to see that the university decoupled Israel and Jews, and decoupled antisemitism and anti-Zionism in their response to the lawsuit,” Klein said. “That was a wonderful step, and really shows that they understand that conflating these two is just an opinion, not a universal truth.”
Discussions over the IHRA definition’s inclusion into Chapman’s anti-discrimination policy continue.
“The university welcomes and reviews thoughtful feedback on policies in line with the university’s principles of academic freedom and free speech to ensure student safety and a productive educational experience at Chapman,” Hitchcock said.