South Carolina

S 0419 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples that target advocacy for Palestinian rights, into state anti-discrimination law. This bill also states the IHRA definition of antisemitism will be used for educational purposes with state personnel. Related Bill: H 3686.

H 3686 is an antisemitism redefinition bill that adopts the distorted IHRA definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples that target advocacy for Palestinian rights, into state anti-discrimination law. This bill also states the IHRA definition of antisemitism will be used for educational purposes with state personnel. Related Bill: S 0419.

This antisemitism redefinition provision requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The definition includes some contemporary examples related to Israel, such as “applying double standards,” “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,” and “denying Israel the right to exist. The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

The provisions were attached as a rider to the 2019-2020 appropriations bill, which expires at the end of the fiscal year. Similar provisions were passed in the 2018-2019 budget (H4950) and are included in the 2020-2021 bill (H5201).

This antisemitism redefinition provision requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The definition includes some contemporary examples related to Israel, such as “applying double standards,” “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,” and “denying Israel the right to exist. The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

The provisions were attached as a rider to the 2018-2019 appropriations bill, which expires at the end of the fiscal year, after a standalone version of the bill (H3643) failed to pass the Senate in 2017. The provision was renewed in the 2019-2020 budget (H4000).

This anti-boycott bill prohibits state contracts with businesses unless they provide a written certification that they are not and will not engage in a boycott of “a person or an entity based in or doing business with a jurisdiction with whom South Carolina can enjoy open trade.” The bill provides exceptions for bids at least 20% less than other bids and excludes contracts worth less than $10,000. Because H3583 excludes boycotts based on the specific conduct of a targeted entity and those applied in a nondiscriminatory manner, boycotts for justice fall outside its scope. 

This anti-boycott bill prohibits investment of state retirement funds in entities, including non-profits, that engage in boycotts of Israel or territories occupied by Israel. Since 2015, South Carolina has had an anti-boycott law in effect (H 3583) that prohibits state contracts with companies that boycott South Carolina’s trading partners, including Israel. 

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires the state, including state and local agencies, to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of state anti-discrimination laws. The bill defines antisemitism to include IHRA definition and its contemporary examples related to Israel, which include: “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “applying double standards” to Israel. The definition conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Jewish hatred, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

South Carolina has passed similar provisions that apply to discrimination in the public education system as part of its annual budget bills since 2018 (H4950, H4000). HB 5287 would codify this problematic definition and expand its use beyond the education context to all state agencies. 

The lead sponsor of HB 5287, Rep. Alan Clemmons, has advocated for legislation aimed at silencing advocates for Palestinian rights as a board member and former chairman of ALEC, the rightwing bill mill that has pushed numerous racist policies, including Stand Your Ground laws and anti-pipeline protest laws. 

This antisemitism redefinition provision requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The bill includes some contemporary examples related to Israel, such as: “applying double standards,” “multilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,”  and “denying Israel the right to exist.” The definition is so broad and vague that it could encompass any and all criticism of Israel, circumscribing political speech in support of Palestinian rights, potentially in violation of the First Amendment.

The provisions were attached as a rider to the 2020-2021 appropriations bill. Similar provisions were passed in the 2018-2019 (H4950) and 2019-2020 (H4000) budgets, which expire at the end of the fiscal year. Standalone bills attempting to codify the distorted definition have failed (H3643, H5287).

This antisemitism redefinition bill requires South Carolina public colleges and universities to consider a distorted definition of antisemitism to determine whether there has been a violation of policies prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion. The bill adopts the 2010 US State Department fact sheet definition of antisemitism, including its contemporary examples related to Israel of “demoniz[ing] Israel,” applying a “double standard for Israel,” including by “[m]ultilateral organizations focusing on Israel only for peace or human rights investigations,”  and “delegitimiz[ing] Israel.” The bill was defeated after activists and legal organizations raised concerns that it would require public colleges and universities to censor and suppress Palestine advocacy in violation of the First Amendment. Related legislation: H4950.

H3678 is a non-binding resolution that attacks the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) for a series of resolutions referring to Israel’s occupation of East Jerusalem and its obligations to protect cultural sites within the city. The resolution’s preambular language also attacks boycotts for Palestinian rights, suggests it is antisemitic to call Israel an occupying force, and asserts that Israel has “God-given” rights to the land and to all of Jerusalem. 

H4635 is a non-binding resolution that condemns the American Studies Association’s 2013 resolution endorsing the boycott of Israeli academic institutions complicit in Israel’s violations of international law. The resolution notably and falsely labels the ASA’s boycott “an intolerable, anti-Semitic, base form of bigotry and hatred” and calls on all of South Carolina’s colleges and universities not to participate in academic boycotts. 

This non-binding resolution was introduced on the same day that Angela Davis was scheduled to speak at the University of South Carolina. The resolution describes Davis as “controversial,” and notes her involvement with the Communist Party, the Black Panther Party, and her support for defunding the police. The resolution also notes that she has endorsed boycotts for Palestinian rights, which the resolution falsely claims are “inspired by, and consistent with [the objectives of] Hamas.” While stopping short of an outright call to rescind her invitation to speak, the resolution calls on the university “to recognize speakers that support the mission of the university to support the historical understanding of [the] State and all perspectives that are a better and more faithful index to the needs of [the] State.” The resolution also notes an expectation “that all ideological points of view and all future speakers will be honored in like fashion in speaking at the University of South Carolina.”