Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT came under fire Tuesday from Republican members of the House of Representatives who claimed that the universities themselves had sown seeds of campus bias against Jews.
“The anti-Semitism we’ve seen on their campuses didn’t come out of nowhere,” said Virginia Foxx, a North Carolina Republican and chairwoman of a House committee that invited college presidents to testify at a hearing on anti-Semitism on campus. the campuses.
Claudine Gay of Harvard, Sally Kornbluth of MIT, and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania had come prepared to the audience with speeches about the mundane details of university governance during a crisis. They testified that as protests over the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks turned ugly, with clashes between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students, the police were called. Codes of conduct were consulted. The Jewish students were asked about their fears. Working groups on antisemitism were formed. Freedom of expression was defended.
“Any form of hate is very contrary to our values,” Magill said.
But Republican members of the House Education and Workforce Committee seemed to have little interest in speaking in academic language. They tied growing anti-Semitism on college campuses to other hot-button issues that have helped animate Republican politics in recent years.
“We need a fundamental cultural change for college campuses,” said Rep. Kevin Kiley, R-Calif.
Over the course of the four-hour hearing, Republicans cited the influence of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the inclusion of trans athletes, foreign funding for Middle East studies, the shortage of conservative professors and the increasing percentage fewer Jewish students on campus.
And so, for much of the day, the presidents of some of the country’s most prestigious universities found themselves on the defensive in the face of a largely hostile interrogation.
Since the beginning of the conflict between Israel and Hamas, presidents have struggled to balance the free speech rights of pro-Palestinian protesters with the competing claims of Jewish students, who say some of the rhetoric has spilled over into anti-Semitism. And presidents have had to deal with an increase in biased attacks from both sides.
They have also faced heavy criticism, and in some cases a donor revolt, for failing to immediately respond to Jewish students’ concerns.
Dr. Gay, the president of Harvard, said she had been no stranger to the horrors of the Oct. 7 attack, which killed about 1,200 people in Israel.
She said she would have been quicker to respond to a letter from a student that weekend blaming Israel for the Hamas attack if she had known it would be confused with the views of the university administration.
But, he testified, “the idea that Harvard didn’t react is not correct.”
She said she was busy responding behind the scenes, “focused on the action.” The first day, she said, she focused on determining whether there were Harvard students or professors in Israel who needed help getting out. The day after the attack, October 8, she attended a solidarity dinner with Hillel at Harvard, trying to support Jewish students.
The admission earned her no points with Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-New York, who graduated from Harvard in 2006. Rep. Stefanik was the de facto prosecutor of the hearing, and members repeatedly gave up the time they had left for their cross-examinations. .
At one point, he blamed Dr. Gay for rejecting a request to fly the Israeli flag in Harvard Yard. Dr Gay said it was standard practice not to fly a foreign flag except for a visiting dignitary.
But, Rep. Stefanik objected, Harvard had flown the Ukrainian flag.
That decision, Dr. Gay said, had been made by her predecessor.
“So it was an exception,” Rep. Stefanik said, leaving open the question of why an exception had not been made for the Israeli flag.
Republicans also delved into anti-Semitic discourse during the hearing. They repeatedly asked: What kind of speech justified disciplinary action? Had the students been punished and how many? Could presidents ensure the safety of future Jewish students?
For the most part, university presidents dodged the questions.
Rep. Stefanik, for example, said there were marches in which students chanted slogans in support of the intifada, which means uprising but which many Jews may feel is a call for violence against them.
He asked Ms. Magill of the University of Pennsylvania: “Does calling for genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Magill responded: “If speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”
Rep. Stefanik pressed: “I’m asking, specifically calling for the genocide of the Jews, does that constitute intimidation or harassment?”
After some back and forth, Magill said, “It could be harassment.”
Rep. Stefanik responded, “The answer is yes.”
Committee members also asked about ideological diversity. How many conservative professors did these universities employ? “We don’t track that information,” Magill said.
“But conservatives are welcome,” MIT’s Dr. Kornbluth interjected.
“I got the message,” said Joe Wilson, R-South Carolina.
At least a few Democrats were frustrated. “The primary goal of this hearing should be to identify bipartisan solutions to combat anti-Semitism,” Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, D-Ore., said well into the questioning, “not an excuse to attack higher education.”
