|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
House Hearing Highlights Startling Levels of Anti-Semitism on Ivy League Campuses & Total Lack of Response
Edited by: Fern Sidman
A House hearing on Tuesday saw Republican lawmakers directing sharp criticism at the presidents of three prestigious universities—Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania, Claudine Gay of Harvard University, and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The lawmakers accused the university leaders of inadequately addressing the dramatic surge in anti-Semitism on their campuses, according to a report on Tuesday on the RollCall.com web site.
The presidents of @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn were all asked the following question under oath at today’s congressional hearing on antisemitism:
Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate [your university’s] code of conduct or rules regarding bullying or harassment?
The… pic.twitter.com/eVlPCHMcVZ
— Bill Ackman (@BillAckman) December 5, 2023
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chair of the Education and the Workforce Committee, asserted that “institutional anti-Semitism and hate” were prevalent in the cultures of the universities, holding the presidents accountable for not doing enough to combat the issue, as was reported by RollCall.com. Foxx emphasized that the responsibility for addressing the problem rested on the presidents’ shoulders.
The fact that the presidents of @Penn, @Harvard, and @MIT — three leading US universities — couldn’t confirm right away that calling for the genocide of Jews is harassment is a symptom of the deeply embedded antisemitism at these universities.
It’s not just about chants of…— Israel War Room (@IsraelWarRoom) December 7, 2023
All three university leaders acknowledged a notable increase in anti-Semitic and Islamophobic incidents following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas on Israel and the subsequent Israeli military actions in Gaza. Harvard’s Claudine Gay, in her opening remarks, expressed concern about the rise in anti-Semitism globally and on college campuses, including Harvard, as was indicated in the RollCall.com report. She acknowledged the difficulties in balancing free expression and confronting hate.
“We have seen a dramatic and deeply concerning rise in anti-Semitism around the world, in the United States and on our campuses, including my own. I know many in our Harvard Jewish community are hurting. … I’ve sought to confront hate while preserving free expression. This is difficult work, and I know I have not always gotten it right,” Gay said, as was reported by RollCall.com.
.@EliseStefanik asked a simple question. Now that you have consulted your lawyers, thanks for clarifying. You should still be fired! https://t.co/OOgCykO9tc
— Jared Moskowitz 🟧 (@JaredEMoskowitz) December 7, 2023
“We cannot sanction individuals for their political views or their speech,” she said. “When that crosses into conduct that violates our behavior-based policies against harassment and discrimination, we take action.”
The hearing delved into the challenge of preserving free speech while protecting Jewish and Muslim students from abuse. RollCall.com also reported that Gay emphasized that while individuals couldn’t be sanctioned for their political views or speech, actions violating behavior-based policies against harassment and discrimination would be addressed.
According to a statement put out by Stephanie Clendenin, Program Officer for Title VI, Title VII and Professional Conduct at Harvard, “Discriminatory harassment is unwelcome and offensive conduct that is based on an individual or group’s protected status. Discriminatory harassment may be considered to violate Harvard University Policy when it is so severe or pervasive and objectively offensive that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive and denies the individual an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the workplace or the institution’s programs and activities.”
She added that university policy indicated that Harvard Griffin GSAS is committed to cultivating a community that is open, welcoming, and inclusive, and that supports all community members in pursuit of the University’s mission of learning, teaching, research, and discovery. As outlined in the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities (1970), the University is “characterized by free expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change.” Bullying, hostile and abusive behavior, and power-based harassment directly threaten the ability of community members to engage in the free exchange of ideas and pursue their educational and professional goals. Bullying, as defined in Harvard University’s Anti-Bullying Policy, effective September 1, 2023, is prohibited. “
Yesterday, the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and Penn spoke before Congress. They had one simple question to answer, does calling for the genocide of Jews break the university code of conduct and is it considered harassment? It should have been a simple yes. Instead they said it… pic.twitter.com/mdoXq0wWv2
— (((noa tishby))) (@noatishby) December 7, 2023
A recent survey released by the Anti-Defamation League’s Center for Anti-Semitism Research, College Pulse, and Hillel International revealed that 73 percent of Jewish college students experienced or witnessed some form of anti-Semitism since the beginning of the 2023-24 school year.
During the hearing, GOP lawmakers attributed the rise in anti-Jewish bias to university diversity policies, perceived failures to read the Bible, and a campus climate that allegedly silences conservative voices, as was reported by RollCall.com. Some Republicans referenced a Harvard Crimson survey indicating that only 1 percent of the faculty of Arts and Sciences identified as conservative, suggesting a lack of ideological diversity.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) shared a concerning anecdote about a Jewish student at Penn who felt physically afraid to go to the library at night, the report added. Magill expressed devastation upon hearing this and emphasized the university’s commitment to the safety and security of its campus.
As Anti-Semitism Soars on University Campuses Across the Country, Listen to Frightening Testimony of What Jewish Students Face Each Day at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sounds like Berlin 1938. @MIT @Penn @Harvard @Columbia @CUNY @_SAFECAMPUS @antisemitism… https://t.co/px5qOamPc9
— The Jewish Voice (@JewishVoice) December 6, 2023
New York Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik pressed Harvard University President Claudine Gay on the enforcement of free speech policies, pointing to instances where Harvard took action against students for offensive content but seemingly overlooked those using pro-Palestinian phrases questioning Israel’s right to exist, the RollCall.com report said.
Gay also did not say directly whether students chanting “intifada” on Harvard’s campus violated the university’s code of conduct, as was reported by the Jerusalem Post.
“That type of hateful, reckless, offensive speech is personally abhorrent to me,” she said. But when asked whether Harvard would discipline it, she responded more generally, “When speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies, including policies against bullying, harassment or intimidation, we take action and we have robust disciplinary processes that allow us to hold individuals accountable.”
Gay faced particular scrutiny for the delay in condemning Hamas after the October 7 attacks. The JPost report said that while she later issued condemnations, the initial response led to criticism from various quarters. A coalition of Harvard student groups swiftly blamed Israel for the attacks, contributing to the contentious atmosphere on campus.
After talking to @Harvard and @Penn alum who give money to the schools, the betting is that neither Liz Magill nor Caudine Gay makes it maybe past the weekend. Rumors of @Penn board meeting thurs as pressure to oust Magill grows following disastrous appearances before Congress
— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) December 7, 2023
Republican Rep. Julia Letlow also pressed Gay during the hearing, urging her to consider expelling students who signed a letter, which, according to Letlow, encouraged sexual violence towards women, as was noted in the JPost report. The controversy has made Harvard a target of donor displeasure, with billionaire investor and alumnus Bill Ackman leading an effort to withhold donations over the university’s handling of the Israel crisis.
Harvard has witnessed protests from hundreds of Jewish alumni, expressing their dissatisfaction by either donating only $1 or directing their contributions to Harvard Hillel, the JPost report said. This discontent reflects broader tensions on campuses grappling with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
All three university presidents affirmed Israel’s right to exist and condemned the Hamas attacks. They also expressed institutional opposition to the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement targeting Israel. The JPost also reported that Gay and Magill emphasized their commitment to incorporating anti-Semitism training into broader anti-bigotry efforts.
MUST WATCH 🎥 @harrisfaulkner and I discussed yesterday’s testimony from the Presidents of these so-called “elite” universities. @Harvard, @MIT, and @Penn University Presidents don’t deserve the dignity of resigning. They should be fired. pic.twitter.com/sqhmvId9iA
— Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) December 6, 2023
During the hearing, Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth, the only Jewish university president among the three, affirmed that anti-Semitism training is a component of her university’s diversity, equity, and inclusion office, according to the JPost report. Magill mentioned that Penn was in the process of including anti-Semitism training in its anti-bigotry initiatives.
The exchange highlighted the complex balance universities must strike between preserving free expression and addressing anti-Semitic incidents. Stefanik, who has called for Gay’s removal as Harvard’s president, underscored concerns about the selective application of university policies.
Stefanik asked all three presidents directly if “calling for the genocide of Jews” is against the universities’ respective codes of conduct, they all said the answer depended on the context, as was reported by the Jerusalem Post.
“It is a context-dependent decision,” Penn President Liz Magill responded, leading Stefanik to reply, “Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent on the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer ‘yes,’ Ms. Magill.”
The JPost also reported that in response to the same question, Harvard President Claudine Gay said, “When speech crosses into conduct, we take action.” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said that such language would only be “investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.”
Historian Pamela Nadell, chair of the Jewish studies program at American University, offered insight into the broader context, emphasizing that anti-Semitism on campuses is not a new phenomenon but part of a long history of bias against Jewish communities, RollCall.com reported. She cited examples like the 2017 Charlottesville protests where right-wing demonstrators chanted anti-Semitic slogans.
“I know some Israeli and Jewish students feel unsafe on campus,” Kornbluth said, according to the JPost reported. “As they bear the horror of the Hamas attacks and the history of antisemitism, these students have been pained by chants in recent demonstrations.”
On Wednesday, Gay put out another statement amid the backlash the presidents have received for their responses at the hearing.
“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” Gay said. “Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they
Tuesday’s hearing was at least the fourth the Republican-led House has held on the subject of campus anti-Semitism since the October 7th Hamas massacre that launched the war in the Gaza. The hearing was called by the House education and workforce committee and it lasted more than five hours, the JPost reported. It was, however the first to summon university presidents to testify.
It came on the same day that the House endorsed a resolution initiated by the two Republicans in Congress that equates anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.
While the resolution received overwhelming support, it faced opposition from a group of Jewish Democrats who urged fellow caucus members to vote “present.” The Hill reported that such prominent figures including Reps. Jerry Nadler, Jamie Raskin, and Dan Goldman criticized the resolution, labeling it as an attempt by Republicans to exploit Jewish pain for political gain. They argued that the resolution oversimplified Judaism and failed to acknowledge diverse perspectives, citing the example of the Satmar sect, an anti-Zionist Hasidic Jewish movement.
Despite this pushback, the House proceeded with the resolution, with 92 members voting “present.”
House Passes Resolution Condemning Anti-Semitism Amidst Fractured Democratic Vote https://t.co/cdAwScQuZe @USHouseNews #resolution @antisemitism @ADL_NYNJ #fractured #DemocraticVote #HamasislSIS #IsraelAtWar #October7massacre @RepJerryNadler
— The Jewish Voice (@JewishVoice) December 6, 2023
According to the report on TheHill.com web site, thirteen Democrats voted against the resolution: Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Summer Lee (Pa.), Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.), Jesús “Chuy” García (Ill.), Jamaal Bowman (N.Y.), Gerry Connolly (Va.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.). Rep. Thomas Massie (Ky.) was the only Republican to oppose the measure.
The House hearing on campus anti-Semtiism triggered varied responses, with Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, criticizing Magill’s testimony as a “failure of leadership.” Shapiro deemed Magill’s comments on calls for genocide as “absolutely shameful” and called for a serious decision by the university’s board of directors.
Magill, who did not condemn calls for genocide during the hearing, is facing growing pressure, with over 1,500 UPenn alumni, donors, and students calling for her resignation. While the Pennsylvania governor did not exp
licitly endorse the resignation calls, he emphasized the need for the university’s board to make a “serious decision” soon.
During the hearing, Liz Magill condemned a pro-Palestinian-led attack on a Jewish-owned restaurant in Philadelphia connected to protests near her campus. She labeled the incident as a “troubling and shameful act of anti-Semitism” in her opening remarks, as was reported by the JPost.
However, Magill faced tough questioning regarding the chants by protesters, including one calling for an “intifada,” a term associated with Palestinian uprisings. Moreover, the JPost report indicated that when pressed on whether such chants amounted to incitement to violence under the university’s code of conduct, Magill acknowledged the disturbing nature of the speech but hesitated to categorize it as incitement. She highlighted the challenge of determining whether the chants met the specific criteria for incitement under the policies guided by the United States Constitution, the report added.
The university president also addressed the controversial Palestinian literature festival held on campus, featuring speakers such as notorious anti-Israel basher and Pink Floyd front man Roger Waters, the report in the JPost said. Critics accused some speakers of endorsing Israel’s destruction. Magill defended the decision not to cancel the conference, citing the importance of preserving academic freedom and free expression. She acknowledged finding some views objectionable due to anti-Semitism but maintained the need to balance diverse perspectives.
The White House also weighed in on the matter during a press briefing, condemning “calls for genocide” as “antithetical to everything we represent as a country.” Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, however, refused to comment on whether the university presidents should resign, stating that the White House does not interfere in private university processes.
While Republicans at the hearing attributed the rise in anti-Semitic incidents to a progressive culture on campuses, Democrats countered by accusing their counterparts of hypocrisy. RollCall.com reported that lawmakers pointed out that some Republicans support a significant budget cut to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, responsible for investigating instances of anti-Semitism and other hate crimes. This office is currently investigating reports of discrimination against Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and other renowned institutions of higher learning.
University presidents outlined their efforts to address anti-Semitism, including increased police presence, strengthened mental health services, and educational initiatives. The hearing underscored the ongoing challenges universities face in fostering inclusive environments while safeguarding free expression and combating discrimination. Democrats urged a commitment to concrete actions, emphasizing that budgets reflect the true willingness to address these issues. The debate highlighted the need for nuanced approaches to balance free speech and address anti-Semitism on college campuses.
The pervasiveness of visceral anti-Semitism on Ivy League university campuses in not a contemporary societal malady that just recently emerged.
According to an article titled, “Anti-Semitism in the U.S.: Harvard’s Jewish Problem” by Michael Feldberg, PhD, that appeared on the Jewish Virtual Lirbrary website, during the aftermath of World War I, American Jewry faced a resurgence of anti-Semitism, with Ivy League universities, including Harvard, grappling with nativism and intolerance. In the 1920s, Harvard, led by President A. Lawrence Lowell, proposed restricting Jewish enrollment, prompting a spirited response from Jewish students such as Harry Starr. This historical episode sheds light on the complexities of identity, discrimination, and the fight for inclusivity in higher education.
Post-World War I, segments of the white Protestant population in the United States directed nativist sentiments towards both Eastern European Jews and Southern European Catholics. Dr. Feldberg writes. Within this context, higher education institutions, including Ivy League schools, experienced a surge in anti-Semitic attitudes. Resentment towards Jewish students intensified as their academic achievements grew, winning a disproportionate share of prizes and academic recognition.
In 1922, Harvard’s President Lowell proposed a quota system, aiming to limit Jewish admissions to 15%, under the belief that Harvard’s survival depended on a majority from “old American stock,” according to Dr. Feldberg’s article. Lowell argued that such restrictions would curb rising anti-Semitic sentiments among students, predicting an escalation if the Jewish population reached 40%.
Harry Starr, an undergraduate and son of a Russian immigrant, emerged as a prominent figure in the fight against quotas. As president of the Menorah Society, Harvard’s main Jewish student organization, Starr organized meetings between Jewish and non-Jewish stakeholders to discuss Lowell’s proposal, Dr. Feldberg said in his article. The discussions revealed a prevailing sentiment that too many Jews were not welcomed, regardless of individual qualities.
Starr vehemently rejected the notion of a “Jewish problem” at Harvard or in America. He emphasized the full American identity of Jews, born or naturalized in the country. Dr. Feldberg wrote that Starr argued against limiting Jewish admissions based on an antiquated concept of “pure” American stock, advocating for tolerance and inclusivity.
Facing public criticism, Harvard appointed a committee, including three Jewish members, to address the “Jewish problem.” The committee rejected a Jewish quota but recommended fostering “geographic diversity” in the student body, Dr. Feldberg wrote. By 1931, Harvard shifted its admissions policy, admitting top-ranking students from around the nation, reducing Jewish enrollment to 15%.
In the late 1930s, President James Bryant Conant eased geographic distribution requirements, allowing Jewish students to be admitted based on merit. Starr, who battled against discrimination in 1922, continued to contribute to the American Jewish community, showcasing resilience and commitment to inclusivity, Dr. Feldberg wrote.
Harvard’s historical struggle against Jewish quotas in the 1920s, epitomized by Harry Starr’s efforts, serves as a poignant reminder of the challenges faced by minority communities in higher education. The episode underscores the importance of battling the scourge of anti-Semitism and upholding principles of tolerance and diversity on college campuses.
Speculating on reasons for the escalation of anti-Semitism on college campuses, a report on the Anti-Defamation League web site says that another factor that has allowed anti-Semitic arguments to proliferate on campuses is the notion that the First Amendment requires their airing. “The Constitution, however, does not oblige universities to host everyone who wants to speak or write there, nor does it require campus newspaper editors to publish every item submitted to them. Campus leaders and journalists have the job of responsibly drawing a line between valid, fact-based opinions and outright bigotry. Moreover, free speech is a two-way street. Students and school administrators have the right and responsibility to condemn and counter hatred. Their failure to do so not only contributes to the spread of hate-filled rhetoric, but causes victimized students to feel defensive, angry and isolated,” according to the ADL report.
“Instead of remaining a place where ideas and backgrounds mix harmoniously, or at least contend civilly, many campuses are becoming polarized along ethnic lines and riven by suspicions. The symptoms range from acts of vandalism to hate-filled rallies to ethnic stereotypes that are tolerated in student publications.
While a growing number of university presidents have responded strongly to the importation of bigotry to their campus, many others, regrettably, have not used their platforms to forcefully counter the hatemonger. Some college presidents have issued anemic and generic responses to naked anti-Semitism, using the shield of free expression as an excuse not to condemn extremism at their schools. Responses are often delayed, and then come only as a reaction to pressure from students, alumni, faculty and the surrounding community. Some college heads seem to believe that a response from the president will only fan the flames and keep an unwelcome incident in the public eye, “ the ADL reported.
The ADL added that Administrators also do a disservice to their students when they hesitate to criticize students’ spoken or printed words that eschew the standards of accountability and accuracy applied in most American workplaces. Instead of preparing them for the professional world, where one’s work is usually subject to scrutiny and corrective review, these school officials allow students to think that their actions will never have consequences or ramifications beyond the walls of academia.
The hesitancy on the part of certain school heads in responding to anti-Semitism only seems that much more glaring when compared to the positive, timely statements made by some of their peers. University presidents who unequivocally and immediately condemn expressions of bigotry on their campuses send a clear message to students about the line that separates academic freedom from racism.
