In a recent legislative session, an amendment aimed at expanding a bill on discrimination to include anti-black and anti-indigenous biases was introduced by Sen. Terrell McKinney. Although the proposal was straightforward, it sparked discussion on the broader implications of addressing various forms of discrimination within legislation.
McKinney articulated the need for inclusivity in educational content, stating, “It’s very simple: either we teach these things or we don’t, and I don’t think we can just single out one sector of our communities and say this should be taught, but when there’s bias and hate in these other parts of our community that we don’t want to do that.” Despite the compelling rationale, the amendment was narrowly defeated with a 25-15 vote.
When questioned about his opposition to the amendment, Sen. Hardin expressed that while he supports the concept, he believes it deserves its own dedicated legislation. “I think this is a very worthy idea, so worthy that, in fact, it needs to be a bill of its own, not something that comes on to another bill as an amendment that’s not been considered or addressed in advance,” he explained.
The original bill, sponsored by Hardin, includes a definition of antisemitism from the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). This definition states that “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” and highlights that antisemitism can also manifest in targeting the state of Israel.
Concerns were raised by Sen. Megan Hunt regarding the definition used in the bill, prompting further debate on how best to address and define discrimination in legislative terms.
