By: Fern Sidman

In a high-profile congressional exchange on Tuesday, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik sharply questioned City University of New York (CUNY) Chancellor Dr. Félix Rodríguez over the university system’s handling of repeated incidents of antisemitism on its campuses. The tense dialogue, which unfolded during a House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, illustrated the deepening concerns among lawmakers, Jewish community leaders, and advocacy organizations about the pervasive campus climate and administrative inertia at CUNY.

As The Jewish Voice has previously reported, CUNY has found itself at the center of repeated controversies involving antisemitic harassment, faculty activism hostile to Israel, and accusations of institutional indifference. Stefanik, who has emerged as one of the most vocal defenders of Jewish students in Congress, made it unequivocally clear that she finds the university’s responses woefully inadequate.

“Chancellor Rodríguez, are you aware that Jewish freshmen at Baruch College were met with antisemitic slurs, including grotesque references to the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks?” Stefanik asked pointedly, referencing chilling reports of verbal abuse directed at Jewish students during campus events. While Rodríguez acknowledged that such statements were “deplorable” and assured the committee that investigations had been launched where necessary, he conspicuously sidestepped questions about whether any concrete disciplinary action had followed. His insistence that the matter was under review with local law enforcement did little to assuage critics demanding transparency and accountability.

Stefanik next turned to a disturbing incident at Hunter College, where a swastika was scrawled outside a main university building while Jewish students were attending class inside. According to Stefanik, the swastika remained on display despite repeated appeals from faculty, including the director of Jewish Studies at Hunter, who was reportedly met with bureaucratic stonewalling. Rodríguez condemned the delay as “totally unacceptable,” yet again failed to provide clarity on whether the administrator responsible for the inaction faced any consequences.

The hearing intensified as Stefanik scrutinized CUNY’s appointment of a senior diversity officer who had previously worked for the Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR), a group criticized by many for its associations with extremist rhetoric. Rodríguez confirmed that the individual in question remains on CUNY’s payroll, asserting that all employees are expected to comply with university policies and that any violations would prompt an internal review. Stefanik challenged this rationale, questioning whether New York taxpayers should be funding positions occupied by individuals linked to organizations accused of undermining Jewish community safety.

Adding further fuel to the controversy, Stefanik spotlighted CUNY CLEAR—the university’s clinical legal program—highlighting reports that its founder had allegedly provided legal support to Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent activist associated with pro-Hamas demonstrations and campus unrest. Rodríguez deflected, stating that clinical representation decisions fall under the jurisdiction of individual campuses, though he reiterated that antisemitism would not be tolerated on his watch. Stefanik, unsatisfied with the response, pressed harder: “Is it acceptable under your leadership for a CUNY-affiliated legal clinic to support individuals tied to antisemitic agitation on campus?” Rodríguez responded with assurances of policy compliance reviews but offered no definitive course of action.

Throughout the hearing, Stefanik repeatedly emphasized her frustration with a troubling pattern at CUNY—investigations without meaningful consequences. “Let me make a prediction,” she said. “No disciplinary action will be taken. This is all words, no action. You have failed the people of New York and you have failed Jewish students in New York State.” Her words echoed growing sentiments among Jewish leaders who have voiced similar concerns about CUNY’s leadership and its perceived failure to confront antisemitism with seriousness and resolve.

Rodríguez defended the university’s overarching commitment to student safety and diversity. He pledged that any violations of CUNY’s code of conduct would be met with appropriate action. Yet his inability to cite specific disciplinary outcomes, even in high-profile cases that had drawn public attention, only served to strengthen the perception that the university’s response mechanisms are reactive, opaque, and ultimately ineffective.

The hearing shone a spotlight on a broader, simmering crisis within higher education—a sector increasingly criticized for allowing radicalized campus climates to fester without sufficient institutional oversight. With antisemitic incidents rising sharply across American universities, including at Ivy League institutions like Columbia University, lawmakers such as Stefanik are stepping up pressure on academic leaders to move beyond platitudes and embrace decisive measures.

At CUNY, critics argue that the stakes are especially high. As one of the largest public university systems in the United States, CUNY serves a diverse student population and receives substantial taxpayer funding. Its leaders are thus seen as bearing a heightened responsibility to foster a safe, inclusive environment for all students—including those who identify as Jewish or Zionist.

Stefanik’s sharp line of questioning reflects a growing consensus among federal and state legislators that antisemitism in academic spaces must be met with robust enforcement of institutional standards—not just internal reviews or reliance on local law enforcement. Her criticism also underscores the political and public relations risks facing university administrators who fail to act decisively in the face of documented harassment.

As the political scrutiny intensifies, the challenge for CUNY—and for Rodríguez personally—will be to convert stated commitments into demonstrable action. Jewish leaders and civil rights advocates are watching closely, with many signaling that continued administrative passivity could spark calls for broader oversight or legislative intervention. Whether this congressional hearing marks a decisive turning point remains to be seen, but one outcome is clear: the issue of accountability at CUNY is no longer confined to campus corridors—it has now entered the national arena.

For Rodríguez, the clock is ticking. The coming months may well determine whether CUNY can restore trust among its Jewish students and the broader public—or whether it will stand as yet another cautionary tale of administrative complacency in the face of rising antisemitism.