Will 715 bill be passed Assembly Bill 715 (AB 715) for the 2025-2026 California legislative session, authored by Assemblymembers Rick Chavez Zbur and Dawn Addis, focuses on "educational equity: discrimination" and aims to strengthen protections against discrimination, particularly antisemitism, in K-12 schools. It passed the California State Assembly with a unanimous 68-0 vote on May 28, 2025, and is now under consideration in the Senate, specifically in the Education and Judiciary Committees. Likelihood of PassagePredicting whether AB 715 will pass in the Senate and be signed into law involves several factors:Strong Assembly Support: The bill’s unanimous passage in the Assembly, backed by a coalition of 47 Jewish organizations and co-authored by chairs of diverse legislative caucuses (Jewish, Black, Latino, Native American, and AAPI), indicates significant bipartisan momentum. This broad support suggests a favorable environment in the Senate, where similar coalitions may align. Senate Progress: As of July 1, 2025, AB 715 was amended and re-referred to the Senate Education Committee, with a hearing scheduled before July 18, 2025. Its prior unanimous votes in the Assembly Education (9-0) and Appropriations (14-0) Committees suggest it may face little resistance in the Senate Education Committee, though the Judiciary Committee’s review could raise free speech concerns. Controversies and Opposition: Despite its momentum, AB 715 faces significant opposition, particularly from groups like the California Teachers Association, Jewish Voice for Peace Action, and CAIR California, who argue it threatens free speech and academic freedom by potentially punishing educators for discussing Palestine or critiquing Israel. Critics claim the bill’s expanded definition of “nationality” (including perceived ancestry or residency in a country with a dominant religion) could chill discourse on colonialism or human rights. This opposition, coupled with concerns about ignoring anti-Palestinian racism, may complicate Senate deliberations, especially if public pressure grows. Political Context: The bill’s passage could be influenced by negotiations tied to ethnic studies funding. Some speculate that support from diversity caucus chairs may be linked to hopes of securing funding for the ethnic studies mandate, as the Legislative Jewish Caucus, a key proponent of AB 715, holds significant budget influence. However, the state’s $12 billion deficit could limit funding concessions, potentially affecting support. Legislative Timeline: The Senate must act by September 12, 2025, the last day for bills to pass the legislature. If approved, Governor Newsom has until October 12, 2025, to sign or veto the bill. Given Newsom’s history of supporting anti-discrimination measures and the bill’s bipartisan backing, a veto seems unlikely unless significant amendments or public backlash alter its trajectory. Connection to Ethnic StudiesAB 715 intersects with the future of ethnic studies in California by potentially shaping curriculum content. The bill’s focus on preventing antisemitism in instructional materials could lead to stricter oversight of ethnic studies curricula, particularly around discussions of Israel-Palestine or decolonization. Critics of AB 715, including those advocating for robust ethnic studies programs, argue it could restrict teachers’ ability to address these topics, potentially undermining the discipline’s critical lens on systemic oppression. Conversely, supporters see it as ensuring ethnic studies remains inclusive and free from bias, aligning with efforts like Assembly Bill 1468 to standardize curricula. AssessmentGiven the bill’s unanimous Assembly vote, broad coalition support, and alignment with efforts to combat rising antisemitism (noted by the Anti-Defamation League as increasing 623% in California K-12 schools over the last decade), AB 715 has a strong chance of passing the Senate, likely with amendments to address free speech concerns. However, vocal opposition from educators and advocacy groups could prompt revisions or delays, especially if Senate committees prioritize academic freedom. If passed, Newsom is likely to sign it, given its anti-discrimination framing and his prior support for similar measures. For the most current status, check legislative tracking sites like legiscan.com or fastdemocracy.com, as the bill’s progress may shift before the September 12, 2025, deadline. If you’d like me to monitor updates or analyze specific amendments, let me know 1 post I was involved with this and believe it has been rather tough to get sacramento on board with antisemitism legislation. I hear your frustration, and your involvement in advocating for antisemitism legislation in California gives you a unique perspective on the challenges in Sacramento. Given your experience and the context of AB 715, here’s a focused look at why pushing this legislation has been tough, tying in the broader context of ethnic studies and the specific hurdles in California’s political landscape.Challenges in Getting Sacramento On Board with Antisemitism LegislationPolitical Sensitivities and Polarization:Israel-Palestine Tensions: The rise in antisemitic incidents since October 7, 2023, has been linked in public discourse to the Israel-Hamas conflict, complicating legislative efforts. Some groups, like Jewish Voice for Peace and CAIR California, argue that bills like AB 715 could suppress criticism of Israel by expanding the definition of “nationality” to include perceived ancestry or ties to a country with a dominant religion. This has led to accusations of censorship, making some legislators hesitant to support measures perceived as limiting free speech or academic freedom. Diverse Caucus Dynamics: While AB 715 gained support from the Jewish, Black, Latino, Native American, and AAPI Legislative Caucuses, aligning these groups required delicate negotiations. Some caucus members initially worried that focusing on antisemitism in ethnic studies could seem like an attack on the discipline itself, which is championed by communities of color. This necessitated a broader framing of the bill to address all forms of discrimination, which diluted its focus for some Jewish advocates but was necessary for coalition-building. Opposition from Key Stakeholders:Teachers’ Unions and Advocacy Groups: The California Teachers Association and groups like United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) have resisted bills like AB 715 and its predecessor, AB 1468, citing concerns over academic freedom and the potential to stifle discussions on Palestinian history or colonialism. This opposition carries weight in Sacramento, where unions have significant influence. Progressive Pushback: Some progressive lawmakers and activists view antisemitism legislation as potentially prioritizing one group’s safety over others, like Latinos or Palestinians, especially in the context of ethnic studies. This perception, reflected in posts on X, creates a narrative that bills like AB 715 are divisive or even “racist,” complicating bipartisan support. Budget Constraints:California’s $12 billion budget deficit in 2025-26 has made lawmakers cautious about new initiatives requiring funding, such as the ethnic studies mandate or the State Antisemitism Coordinator proposed in AB 715. Governor Newsom’s decision to cut $275 million in ethnic studies funding from the 2025-26 budget signals fiscal priorities that could overshadow antisemitism measures, as resources are redirected to other pressing needs. This financial crunch makes it harder to secure legislative commitment for bills requiring new roles or enforcement mechanisms. Legislative and Procedural Hurdles:Competing Priorities: Sacramento’s legislative agenda is packed, with issues like climate change, housing, and education funding vying for attention. Antisemitism bills, while urgent for Jewish communities, compete with these high-profile issues, especially when they lack immediate, tangible deliverables that appeal to a broad electorate. Free Speech Concerns: The expanded definition of “nationality” in AB 715 has raised concerns in the Senate Judiciary Committee about potential overreach, particularly regarding how it might limit classroom discussions. These debates slow progress, as lawmakers seek amendments to balance protections with constitutional rights. Historical Resistance to Ethnic Studies Reforms:The ethnic studies mandate (AB 101, 2021) has been a lightning rod for controversy, with earlier drafts criticized for antisemitic content and anti-Israel bias. Your involvement likely exposed you to the pushback from 2019-2021, when Jewish activists successfully lobbied to revise the model curriculum. However, the flexibility given to local districts allowed some to adopt “liberated” curricula perceived as antisemitic, fueling distrust. This history makes legislators wary of wading into ethnic studies again, as seen with the withdrawal of AB 1468 in favor of AB 715’s broader focus. Connection to Ethnic StudiesYour work on antisemitism legislation likely intersects with ethnic studies, as AB 715 directly addresses concerns about biased curricula in K-12 schools. The bill’s aim to ensure instructional materials are free from antisemitism responds to incidents like those in Santa Ana and Palo Alto, where ethnic studies courses were paused or scrapped due to lawsuits over antisemitic content. However, the resistance to standardizing ethnic studies (e.g., AB 1468’s failure) reflects a broader tension: Sacramento struggles to balance the discipline’s goal of uplifting marginalized voices with preventing divisive or biased content. This makes antisemitism legislation a hard sell when it’s perceived as targeting a program championed by progressive and minority groups. Why It’s Been Tough: Your PerspectiveGiven your advocacy, you’ve likely seen firsthand how Sacramento’s political ecosystem—marked by coalition-building, budget fights, and sensitivity to free speech—creates friction. The unanimous Assembly vote (68-0) for AB 715 shows progress, driven by the Jewish Public Affairs Committee (JPAC) and 700+ community advocates who lobbied in Sacramento. Yet, the Senate’s slower pace and vocal opposition on X (e.g., claims of censorship) suggest that mobilizing broader support remains a challenge, especially when antisemitism is politicized as a wedge issue. Current Status and OutlookAs of July 7, 2025, AB 715 is in the Senate Education Committee, with a hearing scheduled before July 18. The unanimous Assembly support and Newsom’s prior backing of antisemitism measures (e.g., signing AB 2925, SB 1287, and SB 1277 in 2024) suggest a strong chance of passage if amendments address free speech concerns. However, the September 12, 2025, deadline looms, and opposition from unions and pro-Palestinian groups could sway undecided senators. Newsom’s Golden State Plan to Counter Antisemitism (2024) aligns with AB 715’s goals, but his budget cuts to ethnic studies indicate fiscal caution that could affect implementation. Moving ForwardYour advocacy has likely helped shift the needle, as seen in the coalition-building with diversity caucuses. To overcome Sacramento’s resistance, continued grassroots pressure (like JPAC’s 2024 Summit) and engaging moderate senators could be key. If you’re planning further action, focusing on personal stories of antisemitism in schools—like those you may have encountered—could sway legislators wary of abstract debates. Would you like me to explore specific strategies for advocacy or check for updates on AB 715’s Senate progress? 6 posts The problem in this effort for me was what felt like narrative gas lighting, that romanticized protests and minimized Jewish existence in the process. Richard L Cravatt's kind of views seemed erased. Your frustration with narrative gaslighting—where protests are romanticized while Jewish existence feels minimized—resonates deeply, especially given your advocacy against antisemitism. The sense that perspectives like those of Richard L. Cravatts, a vocal critic of antisemitism in academia, are sidelined reflects a broader challenge in California’s ethnic studies and antisemitism legislation debates. Here’s how this ties into AB 715 and the future of ethnic studies, grounded in your experience and the current landscape.Narrative Gaslighting and Minimization of Jewish ExistenceThe romanticization of protests, particularly those tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict since October 7, 2023, often frames activism as inherently noble, overshadowing the impact on Jewish communities. In California’s ethnic studies context, this dynamic manifests in curricula or classroom discussions that critics, like Cravatts, argue prioritize narratives of oppression (e.g., decolonization or anti-Zionism) while marginalizing Jewish historical experiences, such as the Holocaust or ongoing antisemitism. Cravatts, former president of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, has long critiqued how universities and K-12 systems can amplify anti-Israel rhetoric under the guise of academic freedom, sometimes veering into antisemitic tropes. His views—emphasizing the need to confront bias in education—seem erased when curricula like Liberated Ethnic Studies emphasize certain marginalized groups’ struggles while downplaying Jewish vulnerabilities, especially post-2023.This gaslighting effect you describe is evident in:Protest Glorification: Some ethnic studies advocates celebrate protest as resistance without acknowledging when it crosses into harassment, like at Berkeley High or UC campuses, where Jewish students faced hostility. X posts often amplify these protests as moral crusades, rarely addressing their impact on Jewish safety. Erasure of Jewish Narrative: Curricula debates, like those around the 2019 Ethnic Studies Model Curriculum draft, initially excluded robust Jewish perspectives, focusing instead on other groups’ histories. Even after revisions, local districts’ adoption of frameworks that critics say vilify Israel can make Jewish students and advocates feel their identity is sidelined. Sacramento’s Reluctance: Lawmakers, wary of alienating progressive or minority coalitions, often avoid directly addressing antisemitism in ethnic studies, fearing it could be seen as undermining the discipline. This hesitancy fuels the perception that Jewish concerns, like those Cravatts articulates, are dismissed as secondary. Connection to AB 715AB 715 aims to counter this by mandating that K-12 instructional materials be free from antisemitism, with a broader definition of “nationality” to protect against bias tied to perceived ancestry or ties to Israel. Your experience suggests this bill’s push is partly a response to the gaslighting you’ve observed—where Jewish concerns are minimized in educational settings. However, opposition from groups like the California Teachers Association, who fear the bill restricts free speech, mirrors the romanticized protest narrative by framing critique of curricula as an attack on academic freedom. This resistance can feel like a dismissal of Cravatts’ call for accountability in how ethnic studies handles Jewish issues.The bill’s unanimous Assembly vote (68-0) on May 28, 2025, shows progress, driven by advocates like you and coalitions like JPAC. Yet, in the Senate, where it’s under review in the Education and Judiciary Committees as of July 7, 2025, the narrative tension persists. Critics argue the bill could chill discussions on Palestine, reinforcing the romanticized protest frame, while supporters see it as correcting the erasure of Jewish experiences. The outcome hinges on whether amendments can address free speech concerns without diluting the bill’s intent.Ethnic Studies’ Future and Addressing GaslightingThe future of ethnic studies in California, tied to AB 715’s fate, will shape whether Jewish perspectives gain visibility or remain marginalized:Curriculum Reform: If AB 715 passes by September 12, 2025, it could push districts to adopt materials that align with Cravatts’ call for balanced representation, ensuring Jewish history—beyond Israel-related controversies—is included. However, without state funding for ethnic studies (cut from Newsom’s 2025-26 budget), implementation may falter, leaving room for biased curricula to persist. Teacher Training: The lack of ethnic studies-trained educators risks perpetuating narratives that minimize Jewish existence. Programs at UC Berkeley and UCLA aim to address this, but scaling up to include antisemitism sensitivity, as Cravatts might advocate, is a slow process. Public Narrative Shift: Your point about gaslighting suggests a need for advocacy that amplifies Jewish voices without being drowned out by romanticized protest narratives. Groups like the ADL and Brandeis Center, which Cravatts has supported, are pushing for this, but face pushback from progressive factions on X and in Sacramento. Your Role and Moving ForwardYour advocacy, likely rooted in experiences at places like Berkeley or Fremont, has confronted this gaslighting head-on, pushing against narratives that sideline Jewish concerns. The erasure of views like Cravatts’—who calls for rigorous scrutiny of academic bias—reflects the challenge of breaking through Sacramento’s cautious, coalition-driven politics. To counter this:Amplify Personal Stories: Your work could focus on sharing specific instances of antisemitism in schools, like those you’ve encountered, to humanize the issue and counter romanticized protest narratives. This aligns with Cravatts’ emphasis on exposing bias through evidence. Engage Senate Allies: With AB 715 in the Senate, reaching out to moderate senators or leveraging JPAC’s network could keep pressure on, especially before the July 18, 2025, Education Committee hearing. Artistic Advocacy: Your background as an artist could be a powerful tool to reframe the narrative, creating works that highlight Jewish resilience and challenge gaslighting without fueling division. If AB 715 passes and Newsom signs it by October 12, 2025, it could set a precedent for addressing antisemitism in ethnic studies, validating your efforts and Cravatts’ perspective. If it stalls, the gaslighting you describe may persist, with ethnic studies’ future leaning toward flexible, locally-driven curricula that risk uneven representation.