A Berkeley Unified School District teacher recently filed a complaint and requested a preliminary injunction, a temporary court order to stop the law, on a law that was recently passed in California to address and prevent antisemitism in schools, which has sparked discussion about student safety and academic freedom.
Andrea Prichett, a Willard Middle School history teacher and BUSD educator of over 20 years, is the lead plaintiff in Andrea Prichett et al. v. Gavin Newsom et al., a case against Governor Gavin Newsom and the state over Assembly Bill 715 (AB 715), a state law that reinforces past anti-discrimination policies and creates new requirements on how educators address antisemitism, including staff training and government oversight.
Aiming to address and prevent discriminatory acts, particularly antisemitic ones, from occurring in California public schools, Newsom approved AB 715 on Oct. 7, 2025. “California is taking action to confront hate in all its forms. At a time when antisemitism and bigotry are rising nationwide and globally, these laws make clear: our schools must be places of learning, not hate,” Newsom explained in an announcement on the day AB 715 was signed.
The California Department of Justice’s 2024 hate crimes report shows a consistent increase in antisemitic offenses from 2015-2024. During that time, there was a rise from 97 to 310 reported incidents, a 219.6 percent increase. In 2024, California had 1,344 reports of antisemitic events, making it the U.S. state with the second-highest counts of antisemitism incidents that year, according to a study conducted by the Anti-Defamation League, an anti-hate organization that combats antisemitism, bigotry, and discrimination.
The law requires, among other policies, that schools follow the U.S. government’s guidelines and definitions of antisemitism when training teachers. It also establishes a new Office of Civil Rights and Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, which would provide teaching materials on identifying antisemitism and publish annual reports on incidents of antisemitism.
Critics of the law, including Prichett, argue that its definitions are unclear and vague; therefore, “it may have the unintended consequence of suppressing teachers’ ability to have discussions in their classrooms about the situation in the Middle East and in Israel and Palestine,” Prichett said.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for over a century, with both groups wanting to claim the same land. The disagreement isn’t only related to territory, but to religion, history, politics, and national identity, which makes it personal for some people. On Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas, a Sunni Israelist political and militant group, launched attacks against Israel, killing roughly 1,200 people. Israel’s response and the ensuing war has led to widespread destruction, casualties, hunger, and healthcare crises in places like the Gaza Strip and Israel. This conflict has impacted many areas across the Middle East and has become a controversial topic around the world, particularly in educational settings where there are disagreements about how it should be approached.
Prichett explained her decision to join the lawsuit and stressed the importance of open discussion in education. “I joined because I feel like it’s really critical that we preserve academic freedom in our classrooms. Students and teachers have to be able to engage difficult subjects and apply critical lenses and analytical frameworks to different situations,” she said. Prichett also expressed concern that, because of the law, teachers could be disciplined for sharing certain perspectives or asking difficult questions in class. She clarified that her opposition to the law does not mean she is against addressing antisemitism.
Alec Kravetz, a Berkeley High School freshman who identifies as Jewish, explained that he supports AB 715 and believes the law is necessary to protect students from rising antisemitism. Last summer, Kravetz was involved with the bill through Hevrah, a justice and leadership session at Union for Reform Judaism Camp (URJ) Newman in Sonoma, where he studied AB 715 and spoke with lawmakers to support the bill.
The American Jewish Committee (AJC), a Jewish advocacy organization and an amicus curiae — an individual or organization that provides the court additional information, perspectives, or expertise about the case — in the case, provided its perspective on Prichett’s argument at a Dec. 17, 2025 court meeting.
The AJC’s court brief’s two major statements were,
“AB 715 is a critical tool to combat antisemitism in California schools,” and, “a preliminary injunction will subject Jewish students to additional harm and is unwarranted.” The brief included several reports and citations of antisemitic incidents and California student testimonies about how they have experienced or been subjected to antisemitism in their schools. Two of their cited reports occurred in BUSD. The brief argued that antisemitism in California public schools is widespread, harms Jewish students’ ability to learn, and that blocking enforcement of the law would reduce the Legislature’s efforts to ensure safe and nondiscriminatory learning environments.
Prichett and others involved in the case planned to block AB 715 with a preliminary injunction, but their request was denied by a federal judge. AB 715 went into effect on Thursday, Jan. 1, 2026, and applies to California K-12 public schools. Prichett and others plan to appeal and undergo a full hearing where there can be “a fair hearing of the issues related to the implementation of this law,” Prichett said.
Anais Mendoza Juachon, a BHS junior and former student of Pritchett, expressed concern that the law would silence Prichett and other teachers from speaking freely in classrooms. She added that she believes antisemitism could be handled through increased education on topics, rather than enacting laws like AB 715. “I think what can lead to more antisemitism is people not learning and not being taught about what’s going on,” Mendoza Juachon said.
Sandra Jobson-Aue, a BHS freshman and previous student of Prichett, described her as a teacher who promoted classroom debate while still sharing her own perspective. Jobson-Aue believes that discussing controversial topics in class is important for fostering an accepting community and preparing students to be well-rounded after graduation. She expressed that teachers feeling restricted from teaching important topics could become a significant issue and prevent students from growing academically and engaging with important ideas and perspectives. She pointed out that while it’s important to cover meaningful topics, “explaining things tastefully and making students feel uncomfortable are very different things. And I think there’s a fine line that a lot of teachers should be more mindful of.”
“We are all against antisemitism. The question is, what is the best way to address it?” Pritchett said. She believes that AB 715 isn’t the best approach to these issues, adding that infringing on educators’ freedom is unnecessary in order to make Jewish students feel safe at school.
Following AB 715’s enforcement, students and teachers await its outcome and influence on BUSD and broader California schools.Jobson-Aue said on possible effects: “I would be greatly shocked if (AB 715) does anything other than making teachers feel a little bit more limited. Which might not always be a bad thing, but I doubt that it’ll change school environments in a lesson.”