logo
Ten years after it was first announced, Britain's Holocaust memorial has still not been built. Why?

Ten years after it was first announced, Britain's Holocaust memorial has still not been built. Why?

Yahoo27-01-2025

Last January, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, a 98-year-old Auschwitz survivor, addressed a House of Commons committee about the proposed new Holocaust memorial in Victoria Tower Gardens, next to the Houses of Parliament.
Born in 1925 in Poland, Ms Lasker-Wallfisch was sent to the concentration camp when she was 18 and only spared because she could play the cello, becoming part of the Women's Orchestra of Auschwitz.
She banged the table in frustration as she decried the proposed monument – a collection of 23 large bronze 'fins' jutting out of the ground – and subterranean ''learning centre', which she said was 'almost an insult.'
'What are we learning now that we haven't learned in 80 years?' she said. 'We shouldn't kill each other? Good idea'.
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day, celebrated every year to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz. Eighty years after the end of the Second World War, Ms Lasker-Wallfisch, now 99, is one of Britain's last living links with the Holocaust.
Against a background of war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, and international fury at Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership of Israel, anti-Semitic attacks in the UK are at record levels according to the Jewish security charity the Community Security Trust (CST). The need to remember the Holocaust has rarely been more urgent. So why has the proposed monument, more than a decade in the planning, become one of the most fraught schemes in government?
Despite enjoying cross-party political support, the proposal has been the target of concerted opposition, including a successful judicial review. This prompted a new law, the Holocaust Memorial Bill, to facilitate the construction of the memorial and underground learning centre. The estimated costs have more than tripled, from £50m to in excess of £150m, including at least £75m of public money.
Critics argue that the proposal, designed by the scandal-hit architect David Adjaye, will take the wrong form in the wrong place at the wrong price, carried along by political inertia. At worst, they warn, the memorial could even misrepresent Britain's relationship to the Holocaust, or increase the risk of anti-Semitic attacks.
But supporters, including Sir Ephraim Mirvis, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, contend the memorial is essential. Last summer, Mirvis said the 'moral duty to preserve the lessons of the Holocaust could not be greater'.
'This [monument] … sends a timely message, not only about our national undertaking to remembering this dark period of our history but, more importantly, about the kind of future we want to create together,' he said.
Britain's relationship to the Holocaust is complicated. The Kindertransport, in which the UK took in nearly 10,000 mostly Jewish children from across Nazi-occupied Europe, was a compromise brought about by Parliament's reluctance to accept adult refugees. Other celebrations of Britain's resistance to Nazi Germany can be complicated by the sense that more could have been done to help.
It was not until 1979 that Michael Heseltine, as Margaret Thatcher's environment secretary, announced that there would be a permanent memorial to the Holocaust, opposite the Cenotaph on Whitehall. But nobody could agree on what exactly to put there. Lord Carrington, the foreign secretary, who won the Military Cross as a tank commander, objected that the memorial had 'nothing to do with Britain.' The space on Whitehall is still empty.
In the end, a Holocaust memorial was built in Hyde Park, at the east of the Serpentine, and unveiled in 1983. It comprises two boulders on a bed of gravel, surrounded by a little copse of silver birch trees. On one of the boulders is an inscription, in Hebrew and English, with a quote from the Book of Lamentations: 'For these I weep. Streams of tears flow from my eyes because of the destruction of my people.' Although it is elegant, there is no denying that it is out-of-the-way and little visited. A statue at London's Liverpool Street station, meanwhile, commemorates the Kindertransport.
Nevertheless, the Holocaust is hardly ignored in the UK. The Imperial War Museum in Lambeth, less than a mile from Parliament, has a widely admired permanent Holocaust exhibition, which receives more than 600,000 visitors a year and has just been spruced up as part of the museum's £33m refurbishment. There is a National Holocaust Museum Centre and Museum in Nottinghamshire; Holocaust Centre North in Huddersfield; and the Wiener Holocaust Library in London's Russell Square.
The saga over a new monument began in 2014 when then-prime minister David Cameron launched a Holocaust Commission to establish whether the UK needed to do more to preserve the memory of the Holocaust.
The commission reported back the following year and recommended a 'striking and prominent new National Memorial', along with a visitor centre which would teach tourists about the Holocaust. The report also argued that the British memorial should be located near the centre of government, echoing the prominent memorials in Berlin, Washington DC and Jerusalem.
They settled on Victoria Tower Gardens, a peaceful little Grade II-listed park by the Thames on the southern side of Parliament. Cameron said the memorial would stand beside Parliament 'as a permanent statement of our values as a nation'. The monument would cost around £50m and open in 2017. Seven years later, nothing has been built, after a litany of complications.
The location was controversial from the start. Victoria Tower Gardens is small and popular with local residents. There are already three memorials in it: the Emmeline & Christabel Pankhurst memorial, the Buxton Memorial Fountain to the abolition of slavery, and Rodin's sculpture, The Burghers of Calais. The winning design, by David Adjaye, comprised 23 large bronze fins, creating 22 spaces to represent the countries most affected by the Holocaust, along with a visitor centre. The fins would loom over these other memorials and occupy a large percentage of the park's open space.
In an interview, Adjaye said 'disrupting the pleasure of being in a park is key to the thinking' behind his plan. In a further complication, in 2023 Adjaye was accused of sexual assault and harassment by three women who had worked with him. He denied the accusations but stepped back from the Holocaust memorial, among other projects.
Mirvis, for his part, refers to the creation of the memorial as a 'sacred task'.
'I appreciate that there are some detractors,' he wrote in Jewish News in 2020. 'There are some people who are opposed to this idea.
'I respect their views [...] but I beg to differ. I differ with them in the strongest, most passionate way. Locating this particular initiative and development in Victoria Tower Gardens is an inspirational choice of venue. It is a wonderful location.'
Residents have been less enthralled. 'I'm Jewish, and it's wonderful that there's a proposal to have a Holocaust memorial in the capital,' says Louise Hyams, a Conservative councillor on Westminster Council. 'But the one that's proposed is too large and overpowering. This was the ugliest of the proposals.
'More than that, the local residents value the park as somewhere they can go. In that area, there's a lot of social housing and people don't have gardens. They were very upset that this park would be taken away. It was the wrong monument in the wrong location. The atmosphere of the park would obviously change if there was a Holocaust memorial in it.' Others argued that the memorial would damage the park's flora, and increase the risk of flooding.
Hyams adds that the park will cause 'congestion' and might attract hostile as well as respectful visits. 'It is just going to cause trouble in that location,' she says. 'I don't want it to cause the opposite of what it wants to achieve. I don't want it to cause anti-Semitism.' She believes the Imperial War Museum, with its existing Holocaust exhibition and large open spaces, would be a better location for any new memorial.
Perhaps the most concerted opposition to the memorial, however, has come from Baroness Deech, a Jewish crossbench peer whose father fled the Nazis to Britain. She queries the value not just of the selected design, but the whole concept of a memorial.
'There was a report recently that found around half the people in the world hold anti-Semitic views, even in places where there are no Jews,' she says. 'There are in the world over 300 Holocaust memorials and nobody seems ever to have carried out an impact assessment. Do they do any good? The answer is obviously, 'No, they don't'. I think in part this is because they are more and more politicised, but also because they all place the Holocaust in a sort of box. 'This happened 80 years ago, it was the Nazis, the Germans, we're frightfully sorry, full stop'. Nobody seems to draw the dotted line from then until now. It's as if they sanitise it, saying 'It was all a long time ago', it's hermetically sealed.'
She adds that the site next to Parliament, which has been chosen for political purposes, is also likely to make the memorial a target. In April 2024, police covered up the Hyde Park memorial out of fear vandals might deface it.
'[The new memorial] will be the focal point for vandalism, protest and worse,' Deech says. 'All the [pro-Palestine] marches that go on at the moment will converge on Victoria Tower Gardens.' This is one of the reasons Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, the Auschwitz survivor who addressed the House of Commons committee last year, opposes the memorial, together with a fear that it will whitewash Britain's failure to accept adult Jewish refugees.
'I've studied this, and abstract memorials are more prone to being defaced than figurative ones,' continues Deech. 'The Kindertransport memorial in Liverpool Street has remained untouched. But abstract ones like this one, which don't have any meaning, no appeal to the heart, will immediately get red paint all over them and worse.
'The ruination of the park, which is inevitable, will be blamed on the Jewish community, most of whom don't want it. It has been largely [organised] by non-Jews and imposed on the Jewish community whether they want it or not. The Holocaust survivors I've been in contact with don't want it, because they can see it's pointless.'
The proposal has carried on regardless. After a public enquiry, planning permission was finally granted for the memorial in July 2021. Four months later, the High Court allowed a legal challenge against that permission. Opponents argued that a London County Council Act from 1900 prohibited building in the park. The High Court overturned the planning permission the following April, a decision further upheld by the Court of Appeal. To build the memorial, Parliament would have to pass a new law. In February 2023, the government introduced the Holocaust Memorial Bill for this purpose. With cross-party support, it has passed easily through Parliament, despite the objections.
'It is perceived as risky for politicians to oppose it,' says Prof Richard Evans, one of the world's leading historians of the Second World War and a long-standing opponent of the scheme. Not only is the memorial 'rather ugly', he says, but the proposed study centre is 'really second rate.'
'There are better ways of commemorating the Holocaust,' he says. 'We need the best we can get. The proposals are not adequate. They run the risk of making this country look ridiculous.'
For Evans, part of the problem is the nature of the memorial itself, which he says risks distorting Britain's history with the Holocaust. 'I'm concerned it may give a misleading impression of Britain's response to Nazi anti-Semitism, which was not entirely laudable,' he says. 'There were many barriers put up to the emigration of Jews from Nazi Germany, although of course some very good things were done, like the Kindertransport. But to say that Britain was preserved because of democracy is seriously misleading. After all, it was the Weimar Republic's democracy that let in and was destroyed by the Nazis, leading to the Holocaust.'
Britain's acceptance of Hitler's Anschluss with Austria, and the appeasement exemplified by the Munich Agreement, also helped create the conditions for the Holocaust, he adds.
Evans also believes that the memorial risks distracting from the serious business of educating people, especially young people, about the Holocaust, especially important given the rise in anti-Semitism since the Gaza war began on Oct 7 2023. 'The rise of anti-Semitism has been very shocking and rather depressing,' he says. 'But the ways we can counter it, speaking as a historian, are to give more publicity to the Imperial War Museum and to support the Holocaust Education Trust in its efforts to educate people. Certainly, to equate the appalling and shocking behaviour of the current Israeli government in Gaza with the genocide of the Holocaust is quite misleading.'
Seemingly undeterred by the opposition to the project, successive governments have continued to support it. After Sir Keir Starmer was elected Prime Minister in July, he doubled down on the plan.
'We will build that national Holocaust Memorial and Learning Centre and build it next to Parliament, boldly, proudly, unapologetically,' he said, addressing the Holocaust Education Trust in September. 'Not as a Jewish community initiative, but as a national initiative - a national statement of the truth of the Holocaust and its place in our national consciousness, and a permanent reminder of where hatred and prejudice can lead.'
Last autumn Cameron, now Lord Cameron, reiterated his support. Speaking in the House of Lords in his first public address since he stood down as foreign secretary, the Conservative peer defended the project as an 'unapologetic national statement' amid growing anti-Semitism. He acknowledged the project's critics, but said there was 'real power' to having the memorial 'at the heart of our democracy.' Although he knew that some approved of the 'concept but not the location,' he thought it was 'a good idea in part because of the location.'
Ed Balls, the former Labour schools minister and shadow chancellor, is co-chair of the board steering the memorial's construction, and has been involved in the project for over a decade. He remains committed to the design as it is. This messiness is part of the point. He emphasises that the learning centre will be a 'warts and all' look at Britain's history with the Holocaust.
'Our goal has always been, in the shadow of Parliament, to have a memorial to events which started off in a parliament through a democratic process which became undemocratic,' he says. 'In Britain, America and other countries around the world, the political and democratic process found it very hard to engage with something that became the catastrophe of the 20th century. It was a difficult time when Parliament faced big dilemmas and didn't rise to the challenge.'
Given the momentum behind the Bill, there is little risk it will not make it through the Lords this year. Construction of the memorial seems likely to follow soon after. The builders need to get a move on. Otherwise, the dwindling number of Holocaust survivors may not live to see it, whether they want it or not.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag
Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag

Protesters in Los Angeles were filmed burning and spitting on American flags as they chanted anti-Trump slogans over the weekend. Footage from the incident shows a circle of dozens of people, many wearing masks, surrounding an American flag burning on the ground. Several of the individuals then spit on the flag or sprayed flammable liquid to continue the blaze before a second flag was added to the fire. A number of the protesters held high the flags of South American countries like Mexico as the U.S. flag burned on the ground. They also chanted "F-Trump." The footage from this weekend's riots also shows officers with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department moving in to disperse the crowds, shooting flash bangs as they went. California Republicans Slam Newsom, Bass For Letting La Burn With Riots Amid Trump Immigration Blitz The Los Angeles Police Department declared an "unlawful assembly" Sunday night as protesters failed to disperse in the downtown area. Read On The Fox News App "Agitators have splintered into and through out the Downtown Area," the LAPD's Central Division wrote on X. "Residents, businesses and visitors to the Downtown Area should be alert and report any criminal activity. Officers are responding to several different locations to disperse crowds." "An UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY has been declared for the Downtown Los Angeles area," the department added. Trump Bans Travel To Us From Several Countries To Block 'Dangerous Foreign Actors' Protesters marched into the L.A. Live area, an entertainment complex in the heart of downtown Los Angeles that sits adjacent to Arena and the Los Angeles Convention Center, and were blocking lanes on Figueroa and 11th streets, police said. President Donald Trump sent in the National Guard this weekend after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents were reportedly attacked on the streets of L.A. as they conducted raids to catch and deport illegal immigrants. Seeing that neither California Gov. Gavin Newsom nor L.A. Mayor Karen Bass were moving aggressively enough to stop the attacks, Trump signed a presidential memorandum to deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to "address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester," the White House said in a statement. Newsom objected immediately even as the riots spiraled. "I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles county and return them to my command," Newsom wrote on X on Sunday alongside his letter to President Trump. "We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty – inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed." Fox News' Louis Casiano contributed to this article source: Anti-ICE protesters in Los Angeles spit on and burn American flag

The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People
The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

The Trump Administration's Nasty Campaign Against Trans People

The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last year, Donald Trump's presidential campaign notoriously made transgender issues a centerpiece of its charge that Democrats were out of touch with Middle America. The Trump team focused on matters where liberal activists and politicians had taken deeply unpopular stances: They would allow biological males in women's sports; Trump wouldn't. They supported medical transition for minors; he didn't. But in office, the Trump administration has gone far beyond those positions, issuing a series of executive orders and official statements that depict trans people as innately deluded, duplicitous, or dishonorable. The cumulative effect is to portray anyone who is gender-nonconforming as a traitor. 'NO MORE DRAG SHOWS, OR OTHER ANTI-AMERICAN PROPAGANDA,' Trump posted on Truth Social when he took over the Kennedy Center, in Washington, D.C. Look at the language of one of Trump's early executive orders, which prohibits trans people from serving in the military. The 'adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual's sex conflicts with a soldier's commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one's personal life,' a January 27 order declares. (Early last month, the Supreme Court allowed the ban on transgender soldiers to stand while legal challenges against it run their course.) More recently, the Trump confidante Laura Loomer has called for the firing of transgender government employees, including one she described on X as a 'Biden holdover.' This is noteworthy because Loomer's other personnel interventions appear to have been successful; six officials were fired from the National Security Council in April, apparently at her request. Loomer's animus against gender nonconformity is so strong that she has clashed with other MAGA darlings. She recently challenged Trump's nominee for surgeon general, Casey Means, to 'condemn' her own father, Grady, for having written a children's book about a flamboyant flamingo exploring its identity. When I asked Loomer by text why she opposed trans people working in national-security roles, she replied: 'Transgenderism is a mental disorder. It's important that only people of sound mind work in positions of national security. It would be reckless to appoint or allow transgenders to work at the NSC, given the fact that transgenderism is body dysmorphia, which is a mental disorder.' [Helen Lewis: The Democrats need an honest conversation on gender identity] The straightforwardly antagonistic tone in Trump's orbit represents a big shift since his first presidential campaign, when he said that North Carolina's so-called bathroom bill had gone too far and repulsed voters, and that Caitlyn Jenner, the Olympic champion and reality-TV star who'd publicly transitioned the year before, was welcome to use whichever bathroom she liked at Trump Tower. In the second Trump term, however, gratuitous rudeness toward transgender Americans has become normalized. Representative Sarah McBride, the first openly trans member of Congress, has been repeatedly referred to by some of her fellow lawmakers as 'the gentleman from Delaware' and 'Mr. McBride.' No doubt the people doing this see it as a punkish political statement. To me, they just seem pointlessly rude. My conclusion might strike some trans-rights advocates as incongruous. I have previously argued against the inclusion of biological males in women's sports and expressed skepticism of poorly evidenced treatments in youth gender medicine. I don't believe that male rapists and killers who say they are trans belong in women's jails—as California and some other jurisdictions decree. That creates an unacceptable risk to female prisoners. But understanding that women's rights sometimes conflict with those of males who identify as women is not the same as thinking that a lot of ordinary Americans are innately predatory or degenerate just because they are transgender. Adults should have broad latitude to make decisions about their own body, yet Republicans in Congress are considering the withdrawal of Medicaid funding for all hormonal and surgical gender treatments, not just those for minors. If you're skeptical of people who put their pronouns in their email signatures, feel free to roll your eyes—We could have guessed you're a man, Steve—while understanding that the gesture might be meaningful to them. Barring federal workers from including their pronouns, as this administration has done, is just as illiberal as mandating pronoun inclusion. Trump's actions on trans policies reflect a pattern across the administration of chaotic executive orders, inflammatory language, and counterproductive decisions. European reviews have found that American child gender-medicine practices far outstrip the available evidence for their safety and efficacy. But the Trump administration isn't helping convince the champions of puberty blockers to reconsider. When the Department of Health and Human Services commissioned a balanced, well-evidenced report suggesting caution in child gender medicine, the administration preempted its release by calling the practice 'chemical and surgical mutilation.' The White House's emotive language duly gave liberals—along with the medical associations who were criticized by the report—permission to ignore the findings. [Adam Serwer: The attack on trans rights won't end there] Even policies that may be defensible in substance have been carried out with a level of haste that seems vindictive. In January, Trump issued an executive order declaring that there are only two sexes, and that they are fixed at birth. (Most Americans agree with these statements.) Yet the consequences of this executive order have been to throw trans Americans' legal status into confusion: In February, the Euphoria star Hunter Schafer, a trans woman, revealed that her passport had been returned to her with the sex marker changed to 'Male.' No support or explanation has been provided for people who have to navigate what this might mean for their travel abroad. Trump has also said that any athletes who have changed their legal documents from their birth sex will not be allowed into the United States to compete in the 2028 Olympics. More than that, such athletes could receive a lifetime visa ban—even though their home country might well recognize their legal gender. 'America categorically rejects transgender lunacy,' Trump said in February—hardly the kind of language that will convince liberals that his primary interest is fair competition in women's sports. Overall, these are the actions of an administration that wants to keep waging a polarized fight against a vilified enemy, not broker sensitive compromises that respect the dignity of a minority group. The same pattern is obvious in the scrapping of several grants by the National Institutes of Health whose abstracts used the word transgender. We need more research on gender-related medical treatments, for the simple reason that thousands of Americans have already been given them, with too little attention to their long-term outcomes. We don't need grant refusals so haphazard that you suspect that a 20-something coder has done a keyword search and defunded entire studies as a result. If artificial hormones are dangerous, as some MAGA influencers contend, why would the government cancel grants dedicated to studying their side effects? Similarly, the only conceivable reason to scrap an LGBTQ suicide hotline is gratuitous meanness. The most recent Pew Research Center survey shows that 77 percent of Americans believe that discrimination against trans people exists, including 63 percent of Republican-leaning people. Waging all-out war on transgender Americans is just as out of touch with popular opinion as supporting routine mastectomies for troubled teenagers. [Helen Lewis: The push for puberty blockers got ahead of the research] One very good reason for the Democrats to retreat from their unpopular, maximalist Joe Biden–era positions on this issue is that they could then oppose the Trump administration's overtly cruel decisions. At the moment, the entire party is paralyzed about the topic, unwilling to go against its loudest activists while also reluctant to endorse those activists' demands. California Governor Gavin Newsom, for example, is now on the record opposing trans athletes in girls' sports, but the practice is still legal in his state—and drawing both grassroots protests and threats from Trump. 'Many in the Democratic coalition share, if only among close and trusted friends, the sense that we are walking on eggshells,' Jonathan Cowan, of the advocacy group Third Way, wrote in Politico late last month, adding: 'That silence is proving a political disaster.' As it stands, Democrats are neither being honest with voters that they went too far before nor opposing the Trump administration's overreach in the opposite direction. It should be possible to express concern about trans-rights groups' most dogmatic positions without being shouted down. But that does not also mean signing up to the premise that transgender Americans are inherently unworthy of basic respect. Under Biden, the left went too far into bad and unpopular gender-identity policies. Under Trump, the same is true of the right. Article originally published at The Atlantic

Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk
Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Arizona teachers could be sued for what they say in classroom under bill on Hobbs' desk

A bill on the governor's desk would allow students and their parents to sue K-12 and university teachers and could make the instructors pay damages for teaching or promoting antisemitism. The proposal has provoked concern from public-school advocates about exacerbating the teacher shortage and has raised red flags about First Amendment violations due to what the proposed law considers "antisemitism." But supporters, such as bill sponsor Rep. Michael Way, R-Queen Creek, say it's needed because existing anti-discrimination laws "either weren't clear enough or didn't contain the necessary enforcement mechanism to address this problem." House Bill 2867 would prohibit teachers, administrators, contractors and volunteers at K-12 public schools and public or private universities from: teaching or promoting antisemitism; requiring students to advocate for anti-Semitic points of view; and receiving professional development "in any antisemitism" that creates a "discriminatory" or "hostile" environment. The bill includes specific examples of speech the state would prohibit, such as calling the existence of Israel "racist" or comparing Israeli policy to that of Nazis. But when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott tried to punish university student groups for the same type of speech, a Federal District Court in Texas said it amounted to "viewpoint discrimination that chills speech in violation of the First Amendment." That might bode poorly for the constitutionality of Arizona's bill. Some supporters have contended the bill doesn't violate the First Amendment because it targets teachers, not students. However, one provision of the Arizona bill does target students groups — a fact one First Amendment expert said was an obvious violation. Other sections of the bill raise concerns about the free speech rights of teachers and private universities. Way said his bill was prompted by concerns ignited by Hamas' attack against Israel on October 7. It comes amid a wave of similar proposals from lawmakers nationwide who also have tried to combat antisemitism. The efforts have come under fire by free speech advocates for using antisemitism to punish people for criticizing the Israeli government or for supporting the Palestinian people. The Arizona Education Association, the main teacher's union in the state, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona have urged Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to veto the bill. The teacher's union, in a letter also signed by the National Council of Jewish Women Arizona, told Hobbs the proposal "weaponizes legitimate concerns about antisemitism to attack public education" by stripping teachers of professional liability protections. That would "incentivize bad-faith litigation by outside groups with unlimited resources, leaving Arizona educators, who already earn some of the lowest salaries in the nation, with few avenues to defend themselves." The ACLU of Arizona wrote to Hobbs that signing it "will chill the First Amendment rights of students, teachers, speakers and administrators," and targets those who criticize Israel. State Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, who supported the bill, rejected that idea. The bill wasn't about limiting speech but rather protecting a threatened group, he said. He urged other lawmakers to stand their ground and protect a persecuted community, pondering how such a law may have helped Black Americans in the past. "If you study your history, this sort of thing in schools were happening to Black Americans. And there wasn't a law to protect Black Americans from anti-Black speech in schools, particularly in the South," Blackman said. "This group of people, the Jewish community, this is a long time coming — to protect their identity, their community, their demographics," he said. In addition to banning antisemitic instruction in the classroom, the bill also seeks to restrict the use of public funding for training that promotes antisemitism and bans schools from penalizing or discriminating against a teacher who refuses to teach or promote antisemitism. The bill lays out a formal investigation and appeal process, involving school officials, governing boards and state education agencies. Any member of the public could file a complaint to kick-off the process. Accused officials found in violation could face consequences ranging from formal reprimands to suspension without pay to termination and losing their teaching certificate. The proposal also allows students and their parents to pursue civil litigation after an investigation ends, and says officials can be held personally responsible to pay damages or attorneys fees, if a court awards them. It is unclear who would pay the costs if a public institution itself was found in violation by a court. The bill says taxpayers funds could not be used. Way — who refused to answer questions when reached by phone and insisted on communication by email — told The Arizona Republic that decision would be left to the courts. There are varying opinions on how much of the proposed law, or which portions, would violate the First Amendment. If it became law and was challenged, courts could strike down parts of it and let others take effect. First Amendment expert Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the UCLA School of Law, said the parts of the bill banning what teachers couldn't teach in K-12 were probably OK. However, courts could find the bill's definition of antisemitism too vague to warrant punishment like termination, he added. The provision targeting university student groups, however, was "pretty clearly unconstitutional," Volokh said. "Generally speaking, the government can control what is taught in the public schools. It's sort of the government speech," he said. That dynamic changes in higher education, though. "Courts have recognized indeed that faculty members have very broad rights to speak out in public and in their scholarship. And in-part because we're talking not about kids as students but adults as students, that you can't just fire a faculty member simply on the grounds that the speech he said causes tension with people or disrupts morale ... . It would have to be very, very high bar," Volokh said. A few sections that appeared to restrict teachers' speech outside of the classroom also are constitutionally questionable. Volokh pointed to a section that would ban teachers or officials from calling for the genocide of a group of people or the "murder of members of a particular group." Because that section didn't specifically indicate that doing so was banned while teaching, it might be a First Amendment violation, Volokkh said. The First Amendment prohibits the government from banning speech, including offensive and uncomfortable ideas. Those protections are limited when the speech, by its very utterance, incites a clear and present danger — a high threshold. Hobbs, a Democrat whose 2026 re-election chances are widely seen as at risk, has not indicated her position on the bill. She is required to sign or veto it by June 10. It passed the Arizona Senate on May 28 along party lines, with Republicans in support. The House of Representatives passed it June 4, with Democrats Alma and Consuelo Hernandez of Tucson and Lydia Hernandez of Phoenix joining the Republicans. The Hernandez sisters, who are Jewish, are vocal proponents of laws that clamp down on antisemitism. Alma Hernandez, before casting her vote of approval, said the law was needed to address issues like schools displaying Palestinian flags. "That flag is not a flag of a country. That flag is a political statement, which should not be allowed in our public schools," Hernandez said. Taylor Seely is a First Amendment Reporting Fellow at The Arizona Republic / Do you have a story about the government infringing on your First Amendment rights? Reach her at tseely@ or by phone at 480-476-6116. Seely's role is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input. This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona bill to ban teaching of antisemitism is First Amendment issue

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store