Jany Finkielsztein is a member of the Massachusetts Teachers Association and a senior education analyst at the CAMERA Education Institute.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association has long played a vital role in advocating for educators’ rights and improved classroom conditions. But with the passage on June 13 of a resolution by its board of directors, the union has taken a disturbing turn, shifting from representing teachers’ professional interests to promoting a sweeping ideological agenda.
Framed as a defense of educators’ “academic freedom” and “First Amendment rights,” the resolution paints a picture of a national campaign to suppress anti-racist, pro-LGBTQ, and pro-Palestinian voices. Beneath that framing is a political message that raises important questions, particularly for a union that benefits from a taxpayer-funded, tax-exempt status.
At the center of the resolution is its rejection of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of Antisemitism. The resolution claims that this widely adopted definition is being misused as a political tool to silence pro-Palestinian advocacy. This is a serious claim that deserves scrutiny.
The IHRA definition, however, is neither partisan nor novel. It has been endorsed by dozens of democratic governments around the world as well as many states, including Massachusetts, and academic institutions. It makes clear that criticism of Israeli policies is not inherently antisemitic. What it seeks to clarify is when rhetoric crosses a line; for example, denying Israel’s right to exist or applying double standards not used for other countries. While the definition is not legally binding, it offers a framework for identifying anti-Jewish bias in a world where antisemitism often disguises itself in political discourse.
The MTA’s resolution does not stop at opposing IHRA. In its official rationale, the resolution suggests the United States is facing a “fundamental crisis of democracy” driven by a “white supremacist curriculum” and warns of attempts to “erase not only Palestinians and Palestine, but also all marginalized groups of oppressed people.” This language, while emotionally powerful, risks blurring the line between advocacy and indoctrination, especially when issued by a public-sector union representing K–12 educators.
Public school teachers do not operate in the same academic environment as tenured university faculty. They are employees of public institutions, entrusted with delivering state-approved curricula shaped by democratic processes. That includes the responsibility to teach complex global issues, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in a balanced, age-appropriate, and pedagogically sound way.
By positioning one narrative as morally urgent and others as harmful or even oppressive, the MTA risks politicizing the classroom. The resolution’s most charged phrases, including “genocide,” “repression,” and “terrorize us all into submission,” do little to foster constructive dialogue. Instead, they may stigmatize educators, parents, or students who hold different views or who believe that multiple perspectives should be explored.
This shift matters not just for educators but for all Massachusetts residents. The MTA’s tax-exempt status exists to support its work on behalf of teachers’ working conditions, not to fund political campaigns or promote foreign policy positions. When a publicly subsidized organization adopts a stance that seeks to delegitimize mainstream definitions of antisemitism and frame opposition as morally suspect, it raises legitimate concerns about accountability and mission creep.
Supporting teachers does not require turning classrooms into political battlegrounds. At a time when trust in public institutions is already strained, the MTA should recommit to the values that first earned it the public’s confidence: educational excellence, professional integrity, and pluralism of thought.