At its Aug. 5 meeting, the board of the Beverly Hills Unified School District tabled a vote on a resolution that seeks to combat antisemitism in schools, after hearing a slew of public comments concerned over its content. The board decided instead to create a subcommittee to revise its language.
Resolution #2025-2026-02, titled “Combating Antisemitism through Education Awareness, Remembrance, and Support,” stems from the board’s concern over antisemitism as a “real and rising threat in schools and society.”
The resolution would have recognized May as Jewish Heritage Month by flying the Israeli flag at each BHUSD school, designate Oct. 7 as an annual Day of Remembrance, commemorate Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day), and recognize Yom HaAtzmaut, the fifth day of Iyar in the Hebrew calendar.
Tal Lavi, a self-proclaimed “proud Jew, proud American, and proud Israeli,” with three children in the school district, said the resolution would create a safe environment for Jewish students, citing that anti-Israel sentiment since Oct. 7 has given way to a rise in antisemitism.
“I think that for many Jews, the Beverly Hills [Unified] School District is the choice to make sure that it’s a safe place for Jewish kids to be Jewish, to express their Judaism. This school district is what makes it that safe space. That’s the reason why we, and many other families, made a choice to be part of this district,” said Lavi.
However, several Beverly Hills residents, including Jewish parents of BHUSD students, took issue with the resolution, particularly due to its language, potential First Amendment challenges, and what this means going forward for the student body.
By “completely eliminating any distinction between anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli sentiment,” Daniel Lifschitz, who is the son of an Israeli immigrant, said the resolution “seeks to destroy” decades of work done by Jewish people to combat the “dual loyalty trope.” This trope, Lifschitz stated, was posited by antisemites to “foster hatred and suspicion of Jews,” which pushes the notion that all Jews are required to be loyal to Israel, and therefore cannot be trusted to participate in American civic life.
“[The resolution] also vaguely intones that there is some nebulous false version of Jewish history that will now be banned from discussion, zero specifics provided. It makes the shocking and unprecedented demand that we fly the flag of a foreign state and pledge unwavering support for that foreign state no matter what it does,” said Lifschitz, who is an attorney. “That is not merely illiberal and authoritarian but most likely illegal and an invitation for litigation.”
Andrea Grossman, who attended El Rodeo Elementary School and Beverly Hills High School and whose three children attended BHUSD schools, said “Thank God” her children are no longer in the district. Grossman objected to the use of a Jewish calendar at a public school, adding that the resolution appears to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Grossman said she read the resolution with “concern and dismay.”
“Spoiler alert: Beverly Hills is a public school district in a diverse city with more than one religion, with more than one ethnic group, like it or not,” said Grossman. “Beverly Hills schools are not private schools. They’re not synagogues. Your resolution would be appropriate in a Jewish day school, in a private school, not funded by taxpayer dollars … It is my firm belief that this resolution will ignite rather than encourage antisemitism.”
Following the critical public comments, Board Member Sigalie Sabag defended the antisemitism resolution as “not a symbolic gesture” but a commitment to “educating about Jewish history accurately” and “standing publicly against the growing darkness of antisemitism.”
Both Board Members Russell Stuart and Amanda Stern emphasized the importance of the resolution, but agreed that its language needs to be revised.
“We have an antisemitic problem… I think this is a great step forward to recognize that,” said Stuart. “I think that there’s a few words in here that we could revisit to make sure we are following every single step that’s possible.”
“I understand that there are some real concerns that this very well-intended resolution does pose for me,” said Stern, mentioning challenges to the Establishment Clause. “We care very much about ending hatred and cruelty. And to that, I want to say that this resolution is coming from that place.”
In light of the concerns over the wording of the resolution, Board Member Judy Manouchehri will form a subcommittee with Board President Rachelle Marcus to revisit and revise it for further consideration.
