Assemblymember Dawn Addis supports Assembly Bill 715, California’s 2025 law addressing discrimination and antisemitism in public schools. The law establishes a state Office of Civil Rights, creates an antisemitism prevention coordinator, strengthens procedures for addressing discrimination, and requires schools to address discriminatory content and bias.
I agree with protecting Jewish students. They should never face antisemitic slurs, harassment, intimidation, or discrimination. Antisemitism is real, and schools have an obligation to confront it.
But there is another obligation that should concern every Californian who values education and free expression: Schools must remain places where students and teachers can discuss controversial political issues without fear of punishment for their views.
That is where AB 715 becomes troubling.
Addis was not merely a vote in favor of the legislation. She was a joint author who repeatedly advocated for the bill during legislative hearings. After Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 715 in October 2025, Addis called it a “historic first in the nation effort” and said protecting Jewish students was a step toward protecting all students from hate and discrimination.
Those are consequential claims. They deserve to be discussed publicly—not just in Sacramento, but with the teachers, parents, and students who will live with the consequences.
Yet, despite her advocacy for AB 715, I have found no evidence that Addis has participated in a public community forum specifically addressing concerns about the law’s implications for classroom discussion of Israel and Palestine. And it hasn’t been mentioned in her newsletters.
That silence is disappointing.
Not theoretical
Supporters insist AB 715 is about antisemitism, not criticism of Israel. If that is the case, I would welcome a public discussion with Addis about exactly where that line is drawn.
There are already examples of teachers facing scrutiny over how they have addressed Israel and Palestine.
Consider Kauser Adenwala, a Santa Clara Unified School District teacher. According to court filings, she faced complaints involving classroom material about Israel and Palestine. One complaint concerned a slide showing the separation barrier in the West Bank; another, which was ultimately not sustained, concerned a video featuring a Holocaust survivor condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The filing says that after AB 715 was introduced, educators experienced increased anxiety about allegations of antisemitism.
This is not a simple story in which one side is obviously right. Critics can legitimately argue that classroom instruction should provide context and multiple perspectives. But the case also illustrates the question AB 715 raises:
When does teaching controversial material become impermissible advocacy, and who decides?
Teachers and students
The strongest evidence of a potential chilling effect came from a federal lawsuit challenging AB 715. The plaintiffs included California public school teachers and students who said they wanted to continue teaching and learning about Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East but feared that critical perspectives could result in discrimination complaints or discipline.
The federal court’s December 2025 order specifically describes teachers who had taught about Palestine and Israel and who feared AB 715 could expose them to complaints and discipline for instructional materials or ideas considered critical of Israel.
The lawsuit was ultimately dismissed in July 2026. The court therefore did not establish that AB 715 unlawfully censors teachers. But the concerns raised by the plaintiffs remain relevant to the public debate.
Legitimate concerns
It is important to acknowledge that some complaints about classroom instruction are legitimate.
In San Jose, a California Department of Education investigation found that two ethnic studies teachers at Branham High School had presented biased material concerning Israel and Palestine. Investigators found problems with the presentation of perspectives, including a lesson presenting only the view that Israel is a settler-colonial state and a teacher’s failure to provide additional context following a student presentation about Palestinian genocide.
Those findings should not simply be dismissed as attempts to silence criticism of Israel.
The lesson, however, should be balance, not silence. But requiring balance should not become a mechanism for eliminating Palestinian perspectives altogether.
Special attention
AB 715 created a specifically designated antisemitism prevention coordinator. Senate Bill 48 subsequently created four additional statewide coordinators addressing religious, racial and ethnic, gender, and LGBTQ discrimination.
The question is not whether antisemitism matters. It is whether California should continue creating increasingly specialized identity-based offices or instead ensure that every student receives equal protection from discrimination.
The principle should be simple: Protect people from harassment and discrimination while also protecting political speech and criticism of governments.
That distinction becomes especially important when the subject is Israel and Palestine.
Newsom’s warning
When Newsom signed AB 715, he acknowledged that teachers, administrators, school boards, students, and civil rights organizations had expressed “urgent concerns about unintended consequences.” He said the authors had committed to working quickly on follow-up legislation to address those concerns.
If the governor believed the law needed further attention, Californians have a right to ask what happens next. So far, no progress has been reported on the follow-up meetings.
Teaching Palestinian history and the Nakba, discussing Israeli government policies, examining competing views of Zionism, discussing allegations of violations of international law, and advocating Palestinian rights should not automatically be treated as antisemitism. At the same time, targeting Jewish, Palestinian, or Muslim students because of their identity must remain prohibited.
Political criticism is not the same thing as discrimination against a people.
A public conversation
Dawn Addis helped write AB 715, advocated for its passage, and celebrated its enactment. That gives her a special responsibility to explain how the law is supposed to work.
Can California protect Jewish students from antisemitism without making teachers afraid to discuss Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East?
That is a reasonable question.
Addis, as our state government representative, should be willing to answer it in a public forum, not merely in legislative hearings or press releases. ∆
Jill Stegman is a retired education who writes to New Times from Grover Beach. Send a response for publication to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Sept 3-10, 2026.
