A single definition of anti-Semitism is an essential tool in the effort to combat anti-Semitism on schoolgrounds, college campuses, and society at large. The LDB center has long maintained that “good definitions improve prevention by increasing consistency, facilitating comparison across data collection systems, and enabling the comparison of research on intervention and prevention programs.” We have urged its adoption by the federal, state, and local governments; as well as by universities and other organizations and groups. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of anti-Semitism (the IHRA definition), which includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism, is currently the most prominent definition of anti-Semitism and widely accepted educational tool worldwide for understanding and recognizing manifestations of anti-Semitism. The IHRA definition states: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” Importantly, the IHRA working definition includes contemporary examples of anti-Semitism such as, “[h]olding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;” “applying double standards by requiring of…[Israel] behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;” and “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” In December of 2019, President Trump signed the Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, stating that “all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).” The order served as an effective vehicle for the policy change that LDB Founder and Chairman Kenneth Marcus has advanced for years, namely the primary policy recommendation from The Definition of Anti-Semitism (Oxford 2015): “For American civil rights enforcement agencies, the way forward is clear. Whatever else they may do to address resurgent anti-Semitism, the first step would be to adopt the [Working Definition of anti-Semitism].” Although the Executive Order is an effective step forward in this push to effectively combat anti-Semitism, universities and others are integral agents in the fight against anti-Semitism more widely. Adopting the IHRA definition on college campuses and in organizational groups provides the educational framework to raise awareness about the nature of contemporary anti-Semitism, regardless of whether the university contemplates a potential federal investigation into any particular incident. In addition, the Executive Order can be retracted or changed at any time with the stroke of a pen by any future president; having institutional frameworks that uphold and recognize the IHRA definition within organizations ensures that Jewish citizens, students, and group members continue to remain protected from discrimination. Some critics of the IHRA definition wrongly accuse bodies which support its adoption of curtailing free speech and liberties provided under the First Amendment. These arguments, while noteworthy to address, fail to recognize that the IHRA definition can be (and is) implemented by universities and others as an educational tool in a way that does not censor or suppress free speech. The IHRA definition can be an effective mechanism for determining intent and evaluating unlawful conduct, hitting at the root causes and manifestations of modern anti-Semitism. In addition, the IHRA definition directly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic,” providing ample space for productive, critical conversations surrounding Israel. As Jewish students face increasing hostility and discrimination on U.S. campuses nationwide, universities have adopted and endorsed the IHRA definition as a potent tool to educate their communities about what anti-Semitism looks like. For instance, in 2018, Western Washington University adopted the definition based on recommendations of the university’s Task Force on Preventing and Responding to Anti-Semitism. In August 2020, Florida State University’s (FSU) President publicly endorsed the IHRA definition and its contemporary examples and urged the FSU community to educate itself on the definition and its examples. And in September 2020, New York University agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition into its revised non-discrimination and anti-harassment policy and related training programs as part of its settlement agreement with the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights. University student body governments are following suit. In November of 2020, Brooklyn College, Northeastern University, The City College of New York, and Saint Lawrence University joined the growing number of student body governments across the country in passing resolutions that recognize or adopt the IHRA definition. This trend in student activism demonstrates the tenacity and drive of Jewish students and their allies in the fight against anti-Semitism. It also shows the growing recognition that a clear, comprehensive and uniform definition of anti-Semitism is necessary to understand, identify and effectively respond to anti-Semitic incidents on campus. As the United Nations’ Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Ahmed Shaheed, recognized in 2019, the IHRA definition provides an effective tool “for use in education and awareness-raising and for monitoring and responding to manifestations of antisemitism.” Around the world, the acceptance and use of the IHRA definition has continued to grow as well. State governments have adopted the IHRA definition, seeking to push back against rising anti-Jewish prejudice. Albania became the first Muslim-majority country to do so in November 2020, and a growing list of countries (Germany, France, Serbia, The Netherlands, and more) continue to recognize the importance of this adoption. On November 4th, the University of Cambridge General Board agreed to adopt the definition, citing its usefulness for “understanding how antisemitism manifests itself in our society,” and 20% of all universities in the United Kingdom have adopted the IHRA definition. The University of Oxford, for example, recently adopted the IHRA definition, citing its usefulness in “interpreting and understanding anti-semitism.” In Canada, Ontario became Canada’s first province to adopt the IHRA definition when Ontario’s cabinet passed an Order in Council approving Bill 168, which adopts the IHRA working definition of antisemitism as law in Ontario. The Ontario law, currently under consideration by a standing committee on justice policy, requires the Ontario government to be guided by IHRA and its eleven illustrative examples “when it interprets Acts, regulations and policies designed to protect Ontarians from discrimination and hate amounting it antisemitism.” Other organizations continue to recognize the definition’s usefulness; in October, the largest nongovernmental organization of Imams in the world, the Global Imams Council (GIC), followed suit in their adoption of the definition. The Council of the European Union additionally recently urged the broader use of the IHRA definition, citing the power that the definition holds “as a guiding tool for better identifying and addressing this scourge [of the rise of threats towards Jewish people].” As anti-Semitism surges on American campuses and beyond, an increasing number of governments, campuses, and organizations world-wide have endorsed and utilized the IHRA definition and its examples; these bodies have recognized that the IHRA definition and its examples provide a powerful and necessary framework for understanding, recognizing and responding to anti-Semitism on university campuses and beyond.