Berkeley’s Classroom Battleground: Antisemitism Probes, Free Speech, and the Fight Over What Students Learn 

Berkeley’s Classroom Battleground: Antisemitism Probes, Free Speech, and the Fight Over What Students Learn 

The clash in Berkeley, California, extends far beyond school board meetings and into a national struggle over antisemitism, free speech, and educational freedom in America’s classrooms. 

In November 2025, the Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD) was thrust into the center of a political firestorm. A U.S. House committee, chaired by Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), launched a federal investigation into antisemitism, naming Berkeley as one of three districts under scrutiny. The committee’s letter cited alarming reports of harassment, including allegations that during a student walkout, some chanted “Kill the Jews”. 

Yet, in a tense school board meeting weeks later, a different narrative emerged. Jewish student Hannah Slattery-Weisberg urged the district not to comply, warning that releasing information could lead to “doxing and witch hunts”. Her plea highlights the deep conflict at the heart of this issue: Is this a necessary federal intervention to protect Jewish students, or a politically motivated crackdown threatening academic freedom and privacy? 

This is not an isolated debate. Berkeley has become a symbolic battleground where local educational policies collide with national political agendas, revealing fundamental questions about how to teach painful global conflicts, protect vulnerable students, and uphold the principles of free inquiry. 

The Federal Probe and the District’s Defense 

The congressional investigation, announced by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, alleges that BUSD has failed to protect Jewish students from a hostile environment. The claims are stark: teachers and staff allegedly encouraged walkouts that isolated Jewish students, and antisemitic imagery appeared in classrooms. One specific allegation describes a Berkeley High School teacher displaying an image of a fist destroying the Star of David, allegedly describing it as “standing up for social justice”. 

The committee is demanding extensive documentation, including all complaints related to antisemitism, and all curricula, materials, and contracts referring to Jews, Judaism, Israel, or Palestine. 

BUSD’s response has been one of procedural defense and contextual rebuttal. Superintendent Enikia Ford Morthel, who testified before Congress in May 2024, has consistently stated that while incidents occur, “antisemitism is not pervasive in Berkeley Unified School District”. In response to the new probe, the district characterized the allegations as concerning “old allegations” raised nearly 18 months prior, which had already been addressed. The district pledged to “respond appropriately” but affirmed its “unwavering” commitment to student safety. 

The table below summarizes the core tension between the investigation’s aims and the community’s primary concerns: 

A Community Deeply Divided 

Within Berkeley itself, the Jewish community is not monolithic in its view of the investigation or the state of antisemitism in schools. 

• Groups Supporting the Investigation: Organizations like the Jewish Coalition of Berkeley see the probe as “an important step toward restoring trust.” They argue that many Jewish students have felt targeted, isolated, and unwelcome due to the extreme politicization of classrooms. Their perspective is that a civil rights investigation is needed to validate these lived experiences and force district leaders to enforce protective policies. 

• Groups Opposing the Investigation: In contrast, activist groups like Berkeley Jewish Parents for Collective Liberation have called the claims “tired, fully investigated and determined to be baseless.” They accuse Congress of “cynically using Jewish students” to attack the district’s commitment to social justice. They support educators teaching about global history and current events, including U.S. militarism and the situation in Palestine. 

This split reflects a national debate over the definition of antisemitism itself—specifically, whether criticism of the Israeli government and its policies constitutes antisemitic harassment. 

The Curriculum at the Core: Teaching Israel and Palestine 

The friction often ignites over what is taught in the classroom. In early 2024, BUSD educators created a set of lessons on Israel and Palestine for ninth-grade ethnic studies classes, aiming to present “multiple perspectives”. 

The curriculum included historical context, maps showing changing borders, and video perspectives from both Israelis and Palestinians. It addressed the October 7 Hamas attacks and the subsequent war in Gaza. Teachers framed it as a necessary response to student confusion and the rampant misinformation on social media. 

The reaction was polarized: 

• Some students and parents were grateful for the nuanced approach. Jewish student Hannah Slattery-Weisberg (the same student who spoke against the federal probe) said the lessons allowed her “to really understand different perspectives”. 

• Other Jewish families and students felt the curriculum was biased, contained inaccuracies, and reinforced harmful tropes. They pointed to factual errors (later corrected) and argued the materials could create an uncomfortable or unsafe environment for Jewish students. 

This curriculum debate directly fueled the legal complaints that prompted the congressional investigation. It underscores the immense difficulty educators face in navigating a historically complex and emotionally charged topic where historical analysis is often perceived as taking a political side. 

The Legal Counter-Push: Challenging California’s New Law 

Simultaneously, another legal battle is unfolding that directly involves a Berkeley teacher. California’s Assembly Bill 715, signed into law in October 2025, aims to prevent antisemitism and discrimination in K-12 schools. The law establishes a state Office of Civil Rights with an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator and sets stricter rules against discriminatory instructional materials. 

However, a coalition of teachers and students has filed a lawsuit, Prichett v. Newsom, seeking to block the law before it takes effect. The lead plaintiff is Andrea Prichett, a history teacher at Berkeley’s Willard Middle School. 

Prichett has already been under district investigation for months for drawing a connection between colonialism and Israeli settlements in the West Bank. She also helped create a student club, the “Watermelon Society,” as a safe space to discuss feelings about Israel and Palestine. The lawsuit argues that AB 715 is dangerously vague and would violate First Amendment rights by chilling open discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Prichett states in the court filing, “I have almost no doubt that I would be a target under the new law”. 

The state, in defense, argues the law is consistent with other anti-discrimination statutes and that the government has a right to ensure school materials are factual and do not create a hostile environment. A federal judge is now weighing a critical question: “Under current First Amendment jurisprudence, do public school teachers have a right to free speech when they are teaching?”. 

A Chilling Effect on Campus and Classroom 

The pressure is creating tangible fear among educators. Berkeley High freshman Emmett Davis observed that his teachers appear “frightened or nervous” when the subject of Palestine arises. This chilling effect is not confined to K-12 schools. 

At the neighboring University of California, Berkeley, computer science lecturer Peyrin Kao was suspended for six months without pay. His offense? Discussing the ethical role of technology companies in the Gaza war after an optional class session and mentioning his pro-Palestinian hunger strike. While the university cited policies against “political indoctrination,” critics like prominent scholar Judith Butler called it a “terrible decision” that chills political speech. 

This case followed UC Berkeley’s controversial decision to release the names of 160 individuals mentioned in antisemitism complaints to the U.S. Department of Education. The parallel between the university and the school district is striking, suggesting a broader campaign that educators and free speech advocates fear will silence necessary debate. 

Navigating an Impossible Divide 

Berkeley finds itself in an almost impossible position, trying to serve as both a protector and a marketplace of ideas. The district is concurrently facing a U.S. Education Department probe alleging “severe and pervasive anti-Palestinian racism” affecting Arab and Muslim students, who reported being called “terrorists” in class. This highlights the tragic reality that in conflicts over global issues, multiple student groups can feel simultaneously attacked and unsafe. 

The outcome of Berkeley’s struggle will resonate far beyond the city’s borders. The congressional investigation, the lawsuit against AB 715, and the daily decisions of teachers will collectively help define the limits of academic freedom, the responsibilities of educational institutions, and the very way America’s next generation learns to engage with the world’s most intractable conflicts. 

The fundamental question remains: In an effort to root out hatred, are we risking the open inquiry and difficult discussions that are the cornerstone of education itself? In Berkeley, that question is no longer theoretical—it is being argued in courtrooms, congressional chambers, and trembling voices at school board meetings.