California lawmakers fail to amend controversial antisemitism law

In May, school representatives proposed exempting lesson plans and instructional materials from the "factually accurate" requirement, hoping to find common ground. This was followed by a counter-proposal seeking to affirm that the law would not restrict teaching "controversial issues" as long as they were presented in a "balanced and complete manner" with "competing views." However, the core "factually accurate" line remained.

As lawmakers broke for summer recess, education officials responded with a proposal to define "factually accurate" broadly, including a "good-faith examination of matters on which reasonable persons may disagree" and the inclusion of "disputed interpretations." This idea was rejected by lawmakers Zbur and Addis as a non-starter.

In what was described as their "last, best and final offer," Zbur and Addis presented three options that did not address the contested language. These included minor agreed-upon changes, such as removing only portions of discriminatory textbooks, the proposal that had passed the Assembly Education Committee in April, or language similar to the authors' June proposal. These were deemed insufficient by opponents.

Troy Flint of the California School Boards Association criticized the approach as "piecemeal," while Theresa Montaño of CFA’s Teacher Education Caucus called the amendments "insignificant" and a "broken promise."

Ultimately, lawmakers departed without voting on a clean-up bill. Assemblymember Addis noted that a federal judge had dismissed a lawsuit in July claiming the law has a chilling effect on students and teachers, stating, "We really tried hard to get to a place where we could all agree on making some minor changes, and unfortunately, it just wasn’t able to happen this year."