What SB 87 would do
Senate Bill 87, pending in the 136th General Assembly, would require state agencies to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism when investigating potential discrimination, according to the official bill summary. The legislation also expands Ohio’s ethnic intimidation offense to cover riot and aggravated riot when those crimes are committed because of a victim’s race, color, religion or national origin.
Under sponsor testimony, the bill’s backers argue that codifying the IHRA definition would give universities and other state entities clearer guidance in evaluating conduct directed at Jewish students and community members. Supporters say it responds to a rise in antisemitic harassment and intimidation on college campuses following the October 7 Hamas attacks and subsequent protests over the war in Gaza.
Supporters say bill targets antisemitism
Republican Sen. Terry Johnson, the bill’s sponsor, has framed SB 87 as a public safety and civil rights measure designed to protect Jewish Ohioans from threats and harassment. He has pointed to high-profile campus demonstrations and a neo-Nazi march in Columbus as evidence that existing tools are not sufficient to address intimidation motivated by antisemitism.
Jewish community organizations, including the Jewish Federation of Cleveland, have backed similar legislation, saying a clear, uniform standard will help administrators distinguish between protected speech and conduct that crosses into discriminatory harassment. They argue that formally adopting the IHRA definition would signal that Ohio’s campuses and public institutions are expected to be safe environments for Jewish students.
Critics warn of free-speech risks
CAIR-Ohio and allied civil liberties groups counter that SB 87’s reliance on the IHRA definition risks sweeping in core political speech, particularly criticism of the Israeli government and advocacy for Palestinian rights. The IHRA framework includes examples that opponents say blur the line between antisemitism and opposition to Zionism, such as questioning Israel’s policies or characterizing the state as a “racist endeavor.”
In an action alert on SB 87, CAIR warns that turning IHRA into a legal standard “potentially [silences] pro-Palestinian advocacy, academic discussions, and human rights activism” by encouraging institutions to treat such speech as discriminatory. The group argues the bill could enable selective enforcement against student protests and community organizing, especially in light of recent clashes between police and pro-Palestinian demonstrators at Ohio campuses.
Broader debate over protest and policing
The fight over SB 87 comes as Ohio universities and law enforcement agencies face scrutiny for their handling of Gaza-related protests, including mass arrests and the dismantling of encampments at Ohio State University. CAIR-Ohio has accused OSU of “forcible suppression of free speech and assembly” in response to peaceful student demonstrations, saying Muslim and pro-Palestinian students feel criminalized for expressing their views.
Critics of the bill say that, in this context, expanding ethnic intimidation to cover riot-related charges while tying state investigations to IHRA could further discourage students and community members from participating in protests that touch on Israel and Palestine. They argue lawmakers should instead strengthen existing civil rights protections and invest in education and dialogue-based responses to hate.
What happens next
SB 87 has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Johnson has delivered sponsor testimony and supporters and opponents are expected to testify. The measure is part of a broader national push by state legislatures to adopt the IHRA definition, even as civil liberties groups and some academic associations urge caution over its implications for campus debate.
Ohio senators are now under pressure from Jewish advocacy organizations to move the bill forward and from groups like CAIR-Ohio, civil rights advocates and Palestine solidarity organizers to vote it down or significantly amend it. The debate is likely to test how far lawmakers are willing to go in redefining antisemitism in statute while attempting to preserve — or restrict, critics say — the boundaries of protected political speech.