By: Fern Sidman

Two U.S. states that consistently rank near the top of the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) annual “Antisemitic Incidents by State” report have taken significant legislative and policy steps aimed at reversing troubling trends in anti-Jewish hate crimes and discrimination. As The Algemeiner reported on Tuesday, these local actions arrive at a moment when Jewish civil rights groups are urging lawmakers nationwide to adopt stronger measures to counter an unprecedented surge in antisemitism.

On Monday, the Highland Park City Council, in a suburb just north of Chicago, voted unanimously—7-0—to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. The decision makes Highland Park the first city government in Illinois to formally implement the IHRA definition, an intergovernmental standard recognized by dozens of countries, including the United States and Israel.

According to the Jewish civil rights organization StandWithUs, the definition will be embedded in the city’s “employment and anti-discrimination” policies. The Algemeiner report noted that by integrating the IHRA framework into municipal law, Highland Park seeks to better identify, address, and prevent antisemitic behavior within the community and its institutions.

The IHRA definition, first adopted in 2016, characterizes antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and notes that “rhetorical and physical manifestations” can target both Jewish and non-Jewish individuals, their property, and Jewish communal or religious facilities. It includes 11 illustrative examples—ranging from Holocaust denial to contemporary manifestations, such as demonizing Israel, denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and applying double standards to the Jewish state not demanded of other democracies.

Peggy Shapiro, StandWithUs director of policy outreach, told The Algemeiner that Highland Park’s move is a “critical first step” in addressing antisemitism’s rapid spread. “Antisemitism is surging—across the world, across our nation, and right here in Highland Park,” Shapiro said in a statement. “In order to combat this hatred, we must first clearly define it.”

Highland Park’s action comes amid a sharp rise in antisemitic hate crimes in the greater Chicago area—58 percent higher than in the previous reporting year. Just two months ago, the suburb was the scene of a disturbing antisemitic incident in which a threatening letter containing violent rhetoric was mailed to a resident’s home. The letter’s contents were deemed so severe that the FBI and the Illinois Terrorism and Intelligence Center became involved, and as a precaution, the city temporarily closed all religious institutions.

Council member Annette Lidawer underscored the significance of the ordinance, noting that the definition will aid the city not only in condemnation but also in practical enforcement. “Not only do we condemn all forms of discrimination, including antisemitism, but we can now identify such behavior in order to combat it and to teach others to do the same,” Lidawer said, as was reported by The Algemeiner.

In Massachusetts—ranked by the ADL as having the fifth-highest number of antisemitic incidents in 2023—a Special Commission on Combatting Antisemitism (SCCA) convened by the state legislature issued sweeping recommendations last Friday for the K–12 public school system.

The Algemeiner reported that according to the SCCA, Jewish students and educators have experienced “hate, bullying, harassment, and discrimination” that require systemic responses. The recommendations include curriculum modules on antisemitic tropes and myths, new programs to mark Jewish American Heritage Month and a statewide incident reporting system to facilitate timely responses to antisemitic acts.

Governor Maura Healey and Lieutenant Governor Kimberly Driscoll released a joint statement emphasizing education as the foundation of long-term change. “As a state, Massachusetts is committed to doing everything we can to address antisemitism,” they said. “That starts in our schools. If we want to combat antisemitism and protect the members of our Jewish community, it starts with educating our children, building a better understanding of the Jewish experience, and making it clear that antisemitism has no place in Massachusetts.”

Both Illinois and Massachusetts’ measures coincide with the ADL’s launch of the Jewish Policy Index (JPI), described by the organization as the first interactive tool to track and evaluate state-level policies combating antisemitism. As The Algemeiner has reported, the JPI categorizes states into three broad groups—“Leading States,” “Progressing States,” and “Limited Action States”—based on their adoption of a recommended policy agenda.

Currently, nine states—Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia—are rated as “Leading States” for having enacted comprehensive legislative responses to antisemitism. Twenty-nine states are labeled “Progressing,” having adopted some but not all recommended measures. Twelve are designated “Limited Action States,” showing little systemic effort to address antisemitism through policy.

The JPI aims to “empower residents” to hold state governments accountable for protecting Jewish communities. Eric Fingerhut, CEO of the Jewish Federations of North America, stated, “The most important responsibility of government is keeping its citizens safe. The Jewish Policy Index is an important tool to help inform and advance how state governments respond to antisemitism.”

The urgency behind these initiatives is underscored by newly released FBI statistics. While hate crimes against most demographic groups declined last year, those targeting Jews increased by 5.8 percent in 2024, reaching 1,938 incidents—the highest number recorded in over three decades of federal tracking. Of those, 178 were classified as assaults.

Jews, who represent roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population, were the victims in a staggering 69 percent of all reported religion-based hate crimes. The Algemeiner report indicated that according to the FBI, 2,041 out of 2,942 religion-based incidents in 2024 were antisemitic in nature. By contrast, Muslims—the second most targeted religious group—experienced 256 offenses, or about 9 percent of the total.

As The Algemeiner has frequently noted, this disproportionate targeting reflects both traditional antisemitic narratives and newer expressions tied to geopolitical events in the Middle East.

The IHRA definition has gained prominence as both a symbolic and practical tool. Its adoption allows institutions to more easily identify conduct that qualifies as antisemitic, whether rooted in ancient stereotypes or modern-day political rhetoric. While critics argue that its inclusion of anti-Israel examples may stifle political speech, proponents counter that it draws a necessary distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli policies and rhetoric that crosses into delegitimization or demonization of the Jewish state.

In Highland Park, embedding the definition into employment and anti-discrimination policies could have tangible impacts on municipal hiring, training, and complaint-handling processes. As The Algemeiner has reported in similar cases elsewhere, such measures often require city agencies to incorporate the definition into staff training, internal investigations, and public awareness campaigns.

Massachusetts’ SCCA recommendations focus on prevention through education. Advocates say that early intervention—teaching students about antisemitism’s history and its modern iterations—can help dismantle prejudices before they solidify.

The proposal to create a centralized incident reporting system mirrors a trend in other civil rights contexts, such as Title IX enforcement for gender-based harassment. By ensuring that antisemitic incidents are documented and addressed systematically, Massachusetts aims to close gaps in accountability that have allowed bias incidents to go unpunished.

As The Algemeiner has pointed out in coverage of similar educational reforms, success often hinges on implementation. Curriculum changes require teacher training, resource allocation, and ongoing evaluation to ensure they translate into measurable improvements in student attitudes and behavior.

Highland Park’s municipal action and Massachusetts’ educational policy push both highlight the increasingly local nature of the fight against antisemitism. While federal civil rights laws provide a legal framework, enforcement and prevention often depend on state and local governments adopting specific measures tailored to their communities.

Jewish civil rights organizations have been pressing for this dual approach: clear legal definitions to guide enforcement, and comprehensive educational programs to address root causes. As The Algemeiner has documented, cities and states that adopt the IHRA definition often complement it with training, outreach, and partnerships with Jewish communal groups.

Despite these advances, the ADL’s JPI reveals that most states have yet to adopt comprehensive antisemitism policies. The gap between “Leading” and “Limited Action” states underscores the unevenness of protections available to Jewish communities depending on geographic location.

Moreover, while definitions and education are vital, experts caution that enforcement remains key. Without robust investigative procedures, sanctions for violators, and transparent reporting, even the most well-crafted policies can fall short.

The measures adopted in Highland Park and Massachusetts represent two distinct but complementary approaches to combating antisemitism: defining it clearly for legal and policy purposes, and addressing it through education in the public school system. Together, they respond directly to the alarming trends documented by both the ADL and the FBI, which show antisemitic incidents at historic highs.

As The Algemeiner report emphasized, these actions are part of a broader national conversation about the role of local and state governments in protecting Jewish communities. The hope among advocates is that they will inspire other municipalities and states—particularly those in the ADL’s “Limited Action” category—to follow suit.