Students Could Get In Trouble For Saying Jews Killed Jesus, If Governor Signs New Missouri Law

Talking about Jews killing Jesus, criticizing Israeli policy, or questioning certain accepted facts about the Holocaust could land public school kids and public college students in hot water, if a bill that cleared the Missouri legislature on Thursday, April 9 is signed by Governor Mike Kehoe.

The bill — SS HB 2061 — was initially put forward in 2025 by State Rep. George Hruza, a Republican from Huntleigh, Mo. and son of a Holocaust survivor.

The final version cleared the House with 100 Yes votes, 17 No votes, 19 Present votes, and 22 Absent.

View the House roll call vote here.

The bill was initially opposed by some Democrats not because of any concerns about free speech, but rather because its violation-reporting requirements applied only to antisemitic speech and not to other racist speech. So, according to reporting by the Missouri Independent, the bill was expanded:

One key change was to the bill’s creation of a process for reporting and investigating discrimination and harassment to state Title VI coordinators. The House passed language that outlined the procedure for tracking only antisemitic incidents, but the Senate version broadens the policy to discrimination against all races and ethnicities.

Others opposed the bill because of its obvious targeting of first amendment free speech rights. Hruza amended it to protect "any right protected under the First Amendment." But for the bill's critics, that wasn't enough, since the bill drew its definition of "antisemitism" from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

Among the activities that the IHRA calls antisemitic and could lead to trouble for a Missouri public school student or college student at a public university:

- Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

- Pointing out that Jews killed Jesus, in characterizing Israel or Israelis.

- Making a comparison between any policy of the state of Israel and the policies of the Nazis.

The complete definition from the IHRA page is below.

The bill specifies that a student or staff member could be punished if they used speech considered to be antisemitic in a way that constituted harassment or intimidation. However, the bill does not define those terms.

From the bill:

"Each educational institution shall… prohibit such conduct… if such conduct creates an atmosphere or circumstance in which individuals… are [affected] either by physically impeding such activity or by creating an atmosphere of fear or intimidation."

Regarding penalties, the bill references "antidiscrimination regulations promulgated under Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Reporting Speech

The bill requires every school/district to add to their code of conduct "penalties for harassment of and discrimination against Jews." Those disciplinary actions would be up to each school/district to decide, but could theoretically range from a warning to expulsion.

If a person were to commit speech deemed antisemitic under the bill, the Title VI coordinator for the school/district would have to be notified, and the coordinator would have to conduct an investigation. That investigation would include examining whether the school/district followed its own code of conduct rules. If the coordinator found the school/district had not sufficiently penalized or prohibited antisemitic speech, the coordinator would issue a warning to the school/district, with 30 days to comply.

If the school/district ignores the warnings issued by the Title VI coordinator, then the coordinator would have to report it to the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice.

From the IHRA website:

In the spirit of the Stockholm Declaration that states: “With humanity still scarred by …antisemitism and xenophobia the international community shares a solemn responsibility to fight those evils” the committee on Antisemitism and Holocaust Denial called the IHRA Plenary in Budapest 2015 to adopt the following working definition of antisemitism.

On 26 May 2016, the Plenary in Bucharest decided to:

Adopt the following non-legally binding working definition of antisemitism:
“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.”

To guide IHRA in its work, the following examples may serve as illustrations:

Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Antisemitic acts are criminal when they are so defined by law (for example, denial of the Holocaust or distribution of antisemitic materials in some countries).

Criminal acts are antisemitic when the targets of attacks, whether they are people or property – such as buildings, schools, places of worship and cemeteries – are selected because they are, or are perceived to be, Jewish or linked to Jews.

Antisemitic discrimination is the denial to Jews of opportunities or services available to others and is illegal in many countries.