    [House Hearing, 119 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        BEYOND THE IVY LEAGUE: STOPPING
                         THE SPREAD OF ANTISEMITISM ON
                               AMERICAN CAMPUSES

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   Before The

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                  HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 7, 2025

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 119-11

                                   __________

        Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov

                                       _______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    61-619 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2025

                      COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE

                        TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Chairman

    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina            Virginia,
    GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member
    GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
    ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
    RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia               SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
    JAMES COMER, Kentucky                MARK TAKANO, California
    BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
    LISA C. McCLAIN, Michigan            MARK DeSAULNIER, California
    MARY E. MILLER, Illinois             DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
    JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              LUCY McBATH, Georgia
    KEVIN KILEY, California              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
    MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio               ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
    JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
    ROBERT F. ONDER, Jr., Missouri       GREG CASAR, Texas
    RYAN MACKENZIE, Pennsylvania         SUMMER L. LEE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL BAUMGARTNER, Washington      JOHN W. MANNION, New York
    MARK HARRIS, North Carolina          VACANCY
    MARK B. MESSMER, Indiana
    RANDY FINE, Florida

                         R.J. Laukitis, Staff Director
                  Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on May 7, 2025......................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

        Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Committee on Education and
          Workforce..................................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................    17
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
          Education and Workforce....................................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    22

                                   WITNESSES

        Raymond, Dr. Wendy, President, Haverford College.............    24
            Prepared statement of....................................    26
        Manuel, Robert, President, DePaul University.................    32
            Prepared statement of....................................    34
        Cole, David, Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown
          University Law Center......................................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    45
        Armstrong, Dr. Jeffrey, President, California Polytechnic
          State University...........................................    55
            Prepared statement of....................................    57

                             ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

        Walberg, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Michigan:
            Letter dated May 6, 2025, from the ROHR Center for Jewish
              Life...................................................     4
            ADL Campus Antisemitism Report Cards for California
              Polytechnic State University, DePaul University, and
              Haverford College......................................   106
            Statement dated May 16, 2025, from Adira Fogelman........   134
            Letter dated May 5, 2025, from Jewish Federations of
              North America..........................................   138
        Bonamici, Hon. Suzanne, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Oregon:
            Letter dated May 1, 2025, from Northwestern University...    62
            Article from jewishpublicaffairs.org, titled ``Broad
              Coalition of Mainstream Jewish Organizations Release
              Statement Rejecting False Choice Between Jewish Safety
              & Democracy''..........................................    68
        DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California:
            Letter dated May 2, 2025, from Jewish students attending
              California Polytechnic State University................    99
            Letter of support from Jewish organizations..............   102
        Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', a Representative in Congress
          from the State of Virginia:
            Press release from ADL, titled ``U.S. Antisemitic
              Incidents Skyrocketed 360% in Aftermath of Attack in
              Israel, according to Latest ADL Data''.................   129
            NBC article, titled ``Jan. 6 rioter in `Camp Auschwitz'
              hoodie sentenced to 75 days in prison''................   130
        Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Minnesota:
            Letter dated March 18, 2025, from Mahmoud Khalil.........   141
            Article dated May 2, 2025, from The New York Times,
              titled ``I Was Detained for My Beliefs. Who Will Be
              Next?''................................................   143

                        BEYOND THE IVY LEAGUE: STOPPING
                         THE SPREAD OF ANTISEMITISM ON
                               AMERICAN CAMPUSES

                                  ----------

                             Wednesday, May 7, 2025

                      House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and Workforce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:16 a.m. in
    Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg,
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Walberg, Wilson, Foxx, Grothman,
    Stefanik, Allen, Owens, McClain, Miller, Kiley, Rulli, Onder,
    Mackenzie, Baumgartner, Harris, Messmer, Fine, Scott, Courtney,
    Bonamici, Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, McBath, Hayes, Omar,
    Stevens, Casar, Lee, and Mannion.
        Staff present: Jenna Berger, Investigative Counsel; Lexi
    Boccuzzi, Investigator; Antonette Bowman, FDD Fellow; Vlad
    Cerga, Director of Information Technology; Maren Emmerson,
    Intern; Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human
    Services Policy; Libby Kearns, Press Assistant; Isaiah Knox,
    Legislative Assistant; Campbell Ladd, Clerk; R.J. Laukitis,
    Staff Director; Danny Marca, Director of Information
    Technology; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; Daniel
    Nadel, Legislative Assistant; Ethan Pann, Deputy Press
    Secretary and Digital Director; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant;
    Carl Rifino, Intern; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Kent
    Talbert, Investigative Counsel; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director of
    Education and Human Services Policy; Ann Vogel, Director of
    Operations; Ali Watson, Director of Member Services; James
    Whittaker, General Counsel; Ilana Brunner, Minority General
    Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Policy Aide & Internship
    Coordinator; Bryan Gonzalez, Minority Grad Intern; Rashage
    Green, Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel;
    Christian Haines, Minority General Counsel; Stephanie Lalle,
    Minority Communications Director; Raiyana Malone, Minority
    Press Secretary; Marie McGrew, Minority Press Assistant; Ben
    Noenickx, Minority Intern; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff
    Director; and Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
        Chairman Walberg. A quorum is present. The Committee meets
    today pursuant to notice. Without objecting, the Chair may
    recess the Committee at any point. Good morning. The Committee
    on Education and Workforce has been instrumental in exposing
    the antisemitism that has infected--I hate using that term, but
    it is true, infected our Nation's oldest and best-known
    institutions of higher education.
        Schools like Harvard and Columbia, Northwestern. We have
    held, and will continue to hold these universities accountable,
    as they choose to stand idly by, rather than meaningfully
    addressing the harassment and the discrimination against Jewish
    students on their campuses.
        As we will see today, the scourge of antisemitism has taken
    root far beyond the country's best-known ivory towers. It is
    our responsibility as a committee to unearth and address
    antisemitism at these schools too, and others, especially as
    antisemitism is at a historic high in the United States.
        Antisemitism is proliferating at colleges across the
    country, both private, public, rural, urban and suburban
    settings. What does antisemitism look like? It manifests in
    faculty, who create a hostile environment on campus, of all
    places, by expressing support for known terrorist groups,
    verbally harass Jewish students and call for the destruction of
    Israel.
        It manifests itself in students who lob antisemitic slurs
    at Jewish students, and display signs glorifying violence
    against Jews, while cowardly shielding their own identity
    behind masks. It manifests itself in organizations like Faculty
    and Staff for Justice in Palestine, Students for Justice in
    Palestine, and American Muslims for Palestine, which all
    support this infrastructure of hate.
        It manifests itself in administrators, some of whom appear
    antisemitic themselves, while others are complicit in creating
    a hostile environment through their indifference to the
    harassment of Jewish students. We will hear today about
    antisemitism at three institutions. Haverford College, DePaul
    University and California Polytechnic State University, San
    Luis Obispo.
        The incidents we will be discussing with our witnesses
    today are truly appalling and shameful. Take Haverford, for
    instance, a small liberal arts college located in suburbs
    outside of Philadelphia. From the time of October 7, 2023,
    terrorists attack in Israel to the present, the Haverford
    administration has consistently refused to act against severe
    antisemitic harassments on campus.
        It has refused to even condemn these incidents of
    harassment or hostility in a clear, unequivocal statement, much
    less meaningfully discipline the students responsible for these
    incidents. Instead, the University has exhibited an all-
    consuming commitment to dialog, even when that dialog is
    dominated by antisemitic conspiracy theories or cause the
    violence.
        What is more, Haverford employs faculty members who engage
    in blatant antisemitism with no apparent consequences. For
    example, one professor declared online that Zionism is Nazism.
    The Haverford administrations' failure to address antisemitism
    on campus is taking a painful toll on students, faculty and
    staff.
        Without objection, I would like to enter into the record a
    letter from Haverford's Chabad House that was sent just
    yesterday, yesterday afternoon, to the Haverford Board of
    Managers. The letter says, ``Under this administration Jewish
    students have been marginalized, ostracized and at times
    outright attacked. Meanwhile, their pain has been met with
    indifference.''
        I was also caught with their early statement and letter
    where it says ``We've never spoken out against the college.
    We've never publicly criticized this leadership. We've simply
    tried to serve to support Haverford and its students in every
    way we could, but today we can no longer remain silent.''
        I submit this for the record, and without objection, it is
    submitted.
        [The Information of Chairman Walberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. At DePaul meanwhile, there have been
    multiple, yes multiple instances, of physical violence against
    Jewish students. Last May, the University permitted a multi-
    week encampment that was so disruptive and violent that the
    nearby elementary school had to cancel recess.
        After finally forcibly shutting down the encampment, DePaul
    still ended up giving in to agitators' demands. We have a
    student here today who had surgery as a result of the attack on
    him, and a colleague. At Cal Poly, at least one faculty member
    has been complicit in harassing Jewish students who were trying
    to attend an Israel related special lecture.
        My colleagues and I are committed to holding these three
    universities, and others accountable for perpetuating
    antisemitism. We are committed to enacting policies that create
    a safe environment for Jewish students. One in which faculty,
    staff, and administrators are held accountable for the
    antisemitism that consumes their campuses.
        I look forward to hearing your testimony today, as it will
    certainly inform this Committee's future work. With that, I
    yield to the Ranking Member for an opening statement.
        [The Statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
    witnesses for being with us today. The month of May marks
    Jewish Heritage Month. It is when we celebrate the generations
    of Jewish Americans who have made incredible contributions to
    this country.
        This month we reaffirm our commitment to combat the rise of
    antisemitism, both on and off college campuses. No one should
    be discriminated against because of who they are, or how they
    worship. All students have the right to learn in a safe
    environment, free from discrimination in compliance with Title
    VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
        Unfortunately, instead of properly enforcing Title VI, this
    Committee is holding the eighth hearing describing the problem,
    and complaining about antisemitism on college campuses, instead
    of taking any meaningful action to actually solve the problem.
        Curiously, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    have not had any hearings addressing other forms of
    discrimination and hate, such as racism, Title IX gender
    violations, islamophobia, homophobia, or the challenges of
    meeting the needs of students with disabilities.
        This is particularly concerning since we know from reports
    from the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights that
    on January 11th of last year, there were 12,000 open cases
    alleging discrimination and violation of Title VI, 12,000. Of
    those 12,000 cases, only 144 could be Title VI violations
    involving antisemitism.
        We know the solution of this problem is better enforcement
    of Title VI, so instead of holding another problem, another
    hearing, talking about the problem, which complains about the
    problem, we ought to be holding a hearing on what is going on
    in the Office of Civil Rights, OCR, the Department of
    Education.
        This administration is in the process of dismantling the
    Office of Civil Rights, and it raises reasonable doubt about
    the plans for addressing antisemitism on campus, as well as
    racism, homophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, the needs of students
    with disabilities.
        Again, we should be focused on trying to solve the problem,
    rather than just complaining about it. For centuries college
    campuses have served as centers for debate and discussion on
    polarizing issues in our country. Unfortunately, this also
    means that they can become flashpoints for controversy.
        It is fundamental for us to understand that we must protect
    students' safety, while also fostering college campuses as a
    place of learning where difficult topics can be discussed
    civilly without fear of retribution.
        OCR has typically and historically played a vital role in
    preserving that balance. When a suspected incidence of
    discrimination occurs on college campuses, OCR can investigate
    the claim, and when I say investigate, you have produced a
    letter from Jewish students on campus, administration has
    letters from Jewish students on campus.
        It is nice to have an investigation to find out what the
    facts are, but the OCR could investigate the claim, and there
    is an established process.
        Should an institution be found to violate its duty to
    provide a safe learning environment, OCR's process is to work
    with the school, will allow it to address the harm.
    Specifically, the institution is expected to take appropriate
    action to ``end the harassment, eliminate the hostile
    environment, prevent its reoccurrence and address its affect as
    appropriate.''
        If this does not happen, the Department of Education can
    begin to withhold funds from the part of the institution which
    is in violation. Over the first 3 months of the Trump
    administration, it is closed out 7 of 12 OCR regional offices,
    all of which conduct investigations into discrimination, and
    all of which conduct investigations into the discrimination on
    campus whether based on antisemitism or race, national origin,
    gender or disability.
        According to public reports nearly half of the OCR staff
    has been laid off, and so one is left to wonder--how can OCR
    carry out its important responsibilities with half the staff?
    My concerns have been confirmed by other reporting of students
    struggling to get assistance with ongoing cases because their
    attorney has been laid off.
        Moreover, instead of conducting investigations according
    with the law, the Trump administration has taken a sledgehammer
    to due process rights of institutions. In fact, the public has
    seen broad reports of this administration taking action without
    any investigation, such as taking away Federal funding,
    students and professors having their international visas
    revoked, students who have disappeared into detention centers,
    and threats to revoke tax exempt status of multiple
    universities.
        Schools are also told to accept a list of the
    administration's demands, all without OCR first conducting a
    fact-finding investigation. In short, that is not due process.
    For some of us, this does not come as a surprise. After all,
    just this past weekend the President appeared on NBC News and
    was asked whether he believes that he should uphold the
    Constitution, and he responded, ``I don't know.''
        Of course, one could not forget that this is also the same
    President who thought that, ``There were very fine people on
    both sides,'' after a White Supremacists marched through
    Charlottesville in 2017 chanting, ``Jews will not replace us.''
    What everyone, including people you may disagree with, everyone
    is entitled to due process, and all students should be able to
    seek recourse if they have been discriminated against.
        Similarly, institutions should be given a chance to address
    the harms on their campus without fear of political
    retribution, and perhaps we should be proactive and utilize
    agencies and Federal Government like the Community Relation
    Services at the Department of Justice, which can serve as a
    peacemaker when there are problems in communities.
        Of course, regrettably, the Community Relations Service is
    on the chopping block right now at the Department of Justice.
    We hope we can have a productive conversation today. The
    Centers of Students and higher education, but hopefully 1 day
    we will begin having a hearing on solutions, rather than
    continuing to complain about the problem.
        Now, before I yield back, when I said 12,000, that are the
    cases, total cases in the backlog, not the total number of
    cases, so that the point, obviously, is that the number of
    antisemitism cases of all of the cases is a very small number,
    and if we are going to investigate Title VI violations, we
    ought to be investigating all of them, and we ought to be
    looking at what is going on at OCR, because that will be
    ultimately the solution to the problem.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        [The Statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to
    Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written
    statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the
    Committee Clerk electronically in Microsoft Word by 5 p.m., 14
    days after this hearing.
        Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for
    14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material
    noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official
    hearing record.
        I will now turn to the introduction of our four witnesses.
    Our first witness is Dr. Wendy Raymond, the President of
    Haverford College in Haverford, Pennsylvania. Welcome. Our
    second witness is Dr. Robert Manuel, the President of DePaul
    University in Chicago, Illinois, welcome.
        Our third witness is Mr. David Cole, the George J. Mitchell
    Professor in Law and Public Policy at the Georgetown University
    Law Center in Washington, DC. Mr. Cole was formerly the
    National Legal Director for the American Civil Liberties Union,
    welcome.
        Our last witness is Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, the President of
    California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo,
    California. We thank the witnesses for being here today.
    Pursuant to the Committee Rules, I would ask that you each
    limit your oral presentation to a 3-minute summary of your
    written statement. The clock will countdown from 3 minutes, as
    Committee members have many questions for you, and we would
    like to spend as much time as possible on questions.
        Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, the Committee practice,
    however, we will not cutoff your testimony until you reach the
    5-minute mark. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be
    aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information
    to the Committee.
        I will first recognize Dr. Raymond for your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF DR. WENDY RAYMOND, PRESIDENT, HAVERFORD COLLEGE,
                        HAVERFORD, PENNSYLVANIA

        Ms. Raymond. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott,
    Committee members, thank you for the opportunity to testify
    today. Before I begin, I want to make it clear that Haverford
    condemns in the strongest, possible terms, antisemitism in all
    its forms.
        Haverford College is a liberal arts college outside
    Philadelphia, with about 1,500 undergraduate students. It has
    been a privilege to serve as President for the last 6 years.
        We are a secular institution established in 1833 by a group
    of Quakers, that Quaker history is one of the many qualifies
    that make Haverford the distinctive place it is today.
        Small and closeknit, the college encourages, and values
    open inquiry and free expression, core tenets of academic
    freedom. Education here is grounded in the Quaker assumption
    that intellectual and ethical growth are never complete. In the
    past few years, we have been tested like never before.
        The horrific terrorist attacks by Hamas against Israel
    caused unfathomable pain on our campus and around the world.
    Moreover, the ongoing war and loss of innocent lives in Israel
    and Gaza have left many shaken.
        In the wake of these events, we have seen a troubling rise
    in antisemitism in our communities, and on our campuses. In the
    days following the attacks, I was inspired by how the Haverford
    community came together.
        At the same time, events have occurred on our campus that
    are inconsistent with our values. I take these incidents and
    Haverford's response very seriously. We have taken significant
    steps to address these issues and strengthen our policies.
        That includes updating our policies, strengthening campus
    safety programs, deepening engagement with the Jewish
    community, launching programs to combat antisemitism, informing
    our ad hoc committee on free expression. I recognize that we
    have not always succeeded in living up to our ideals.
        Many have wished that the college, or I, as President, had
    responded differently to various actions, and we continue to
    make progress and invest in the quality of the campus
    experience for all Haverford students.
        In closing, I would like to address the Haverford community
    directly. You are the ones pushing us to be better. I hear you
    and acknowledge that we can do better, and I can do better. To
    our Jewish students, some of you who are here today, I wish to
    make it unmistakably clear that you are valued members of our
    community and on our campus.
        I am sorry that my actions and my leadership let you down.
    I remain committed to addressing antisemitism, and all issues
    that harm our community members.
        I am committed to getting this right. This is an
    unprecedented time in our college's history, and I continue to
    believe in the Haverford community.
        I thank you for demonstrating how together we can work
    toward creating a better and more peaceful world. Thank you,
    and I look forward to your questions.
        [The Statement of Dr. Raymond follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. Thank you, President Raymond. Now Dr.
    Manuel, we recognize you for your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT MANUEL, PRESIDENT, DEPAUL UNIVERSITY,
                           CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

        Mr. Manuel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Walberg,
    Ranking Member Scott, members of the Committee, I want to thank
    you for this opportunity to discuss DePaul's efforts to combat
    antisemitism and keep our campus safe. More than 125 years,
    DePaul's Catholic Vincentian Mission has been grounded in the
    belief that every human being possesses inherent dignity, and
    worth.
        A belief that compels us to stand firmly against
    antisemitism in all its forms. Since the terrorist attacks by
    Hamas on October 7th, we have taken strong steps to support our
    Jewish community members, prioritizing campus safety and
    student well-being. We have made mistakes along the way. As
    DePaul's leader, I want to acknowledge that openly.
        To our students, our parents, our faculty, our staff, our
    alumni and our friends, I am deeply sorry. I know there are
    areas where we must and will do better. I also wish to speak
    directly to two of our students who were attacked last
    November. What happened to them was a hate crime. No one should
    ever be attacked because of who they are, and I am sorry for
    the pain that they are experiencing.
        For the past year and a half, we have taken concrete steps
    to ensure Jewish students, and all students are safe on our
    campus. For example, we just implemented a new ID verification
    and mask policy. We have introduced new limits on campus
    protests through our time, place and manner restrictions.
        We have enforced them. The operations for students for
    Justice in Palestine are currently suspended from the campus,
    and we banned a group, not a student group, Behind Enemy Lines
    from our campus. We have hired a former ADL professional to
    assist in our Jewish engagement on campus.
        We have created a dedicated task force on antisemitism. We
    supported the creation of the Jewish Faculty Staff Alliance,
    and now we are also launching a Jewish alumni group. We have
    also made substantial investments to increase security and
    safety across our urban Chicago campuses, and I commissioned an
    external review of our security programs to improve campus
    safety.
        As an institution founded on Catholic principles, we
    believe this moment demands moral clarity. Antisemitism is not
    only a threat to Jewish students, faculty and staff, it is a
    threat to the very fabric of our American society. I recognize
    that for many in our Jewish community, Israel is a core part of
    their identity.
        Those community members, and every community member
    deserves to feel safe on campus without exception. We began
    this work over a year and a half ago. While there is more work
    to be done, the changes we have made are already fostering a
    culture of accountability on our campus. We recognize the
    vigilance on this topic, and it will need to be focal point of
    our work going forward. You have my commitment that we are
    focused on continuing to make real progress and take action.
        As a person of faith, I am personally committed to
    confronting antisemitism wherever it appears in our
    institutions, in our communities, and in ourselves. I want to
    thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
    forward to the questions.
        [The Statement of Dr. Manuel follows:]

         [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Dr. Manuel, and now I
    recognize Mr. David Cole for your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID COLE, GEORGE J. MITCHELL PROFESSOR IN
     LAW AND PUBLIC POLICY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER, AND
    FORMER NATIONAL LEGAL DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
                            WASHINGTON, D.C.

        Chairman Walberg. Press the button and turn the mic on
    there, please.
        Mr. Cole. Sorry.
        Chairman Walberg. Thank you.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, much better, and
    Ranking Member Scott for inviting me to testify today. I come
    not so much to comment on the specifics of what happened in
    Haverford, DePaul or Cal Poly, but to provide a legal framework
    and a cautionary note.
        In my work with the ACLU and others, I have defended the
    speech rights of everyone from the National Rifle Association,
    which I represented successfully in the Supreme Court just last
    year, to fundamentalist Christians, to Palestinian students. I
    have also challenged discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
    and religion.
        I care deeply about both values, free speech and equality,
    and both are at stake here. I have three points. First,
    antisemitic speech, while lamentable, is constitutionally
    protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech, and
    homophobic speech is. The Supreme Court protected the rights of
    the Nazi party to march in Skokie, the home of Holocaust
    survivors. Sorry, I just turned my thing off.
        It protected the rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to
    hurl homophobic slurs at a military funeral, and it protected
    the rights of the Ku Klux Clan to burn crosses and engage in
    racist speech. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in the
    Westboro Baptist Church case, while such speech obviously
    causes deep harm, the greater danger is giving government
    officials the power to censor speech by labeling it
    antisemitic, racist or sexist.
        Second, Title VI does not prohibit antisemitic speech. It
    prohibits only the discriminatory denial of equal access to
    education. An antisemitic slogan at a protest, or online, does
    not deny equal access to education anymore than a sexist or a
    racist comment at a rally does.
        Antisemitic speech implicates Title VI in only two narrow
    circumstances. First, where it constitutes harassment targeted
    at an individual because of that individual's Jewish identity.
    Not because he supports Israel, but because of his Jewish
    identity specifically.
        Second, where the speech is not targeted, say at a rally,
    where it is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that
    it denies equal access to an education. That is a very high
    standard. It has almost never been met in the case law. That
    means most antisemitic speech does not implicate Title VI at
    all. Therefore, a school committed to free speech should be
    tolerating it, not suppressing it, as this Committee would ask.
        Title VI governs only colleges, not students, so when a
    student harasses another student that student has not violated
    Title VI, and the college has not violated Title VI because the
    student does not speak for the college. The college only
    violates Title VI if it is deliberately indifferent to the act,
    deliberately indifferent, again, a very high standard set forth
    by the Supreme Court in the Davis case, and almost never met.
        That is basically you ignore what has happened rather than
    respond. Deliberate indifference is not responding to
    antisemitism in a way that this Committee does not think is
    sufficient. That leads me to my third and final point. The line
    between protected antisemitic speech and prohibited antisemitic
    discrimination is necessarily fact intensive.
        It requires a careful assessment of what was said to whom,
    and why it was said. As a result, it is not sufficient to make
    general accusations of antisemitism, as members of this
    Committee have repeatedly done in all of the prior hearings,
    and already today. Any more than it is sufficient under Title
    IX to label an encounter between two students' sexual
    harassment.
        You need to look at what happened, hear both sides of the
    encounter, and make a legal assessment, not a political
    harangue. Therefore, getting to the bottom of what happened
    here requires fair hearings where both sides are heard with
    about specific incidents.
        This Committee room is not the place to do that. This
    Committee has not held a single hearing looking into a specific
    incident, having the perpetrator and the complainant testify,
    and trying to figure out what has happened.
        Instead, it has engaged in broad based charges of
    antisemitism without any factual predicate. With all due
    respect, these proceedings have had more in common with those
    of the House American Un-Activities Committee----
        Chairman Walberg. I ask the gentleman to conclude. You have
    gone past the 5-minutes.
        Mr. Cole. Yes, I am sorry. If I could just--I have one
    final comment. It will take me a second.
        Chairman Walberg. Very quick.
        Mr. Cole. Yes. These proceedings, with all due respect,
    have more in common with those of the House Un-American
    Activities Committee. They are not an attempt to find out what
    happened, but an attempt to shield protected speech.
        Chairman Walberg. Thank you for your testimony.
        Mr. Cole. That was a mistake then, and it is a mistake now.
        [The Statement of Mr. Cole follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. Thank you for your testimony, and I think
    we did not step on your testimony.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you.
        Chairman Walberg. Now, I recognize Dr. Armstrong for your
    testimony.

       STATEMENT OF DR. JEFFREY ARMSTRONG, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA
       POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Armstrong. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking
    Member Scott, and members of the Committee. For the past 14
    years it has been my privilege to serve as President of Cal
    Poly in San Luis Obispo, California. At Cal Poly we emphasize a
    learn by doing approach, providing hands on, practical
    experience, learning from experiences, and constantly getting
    better.
        Over the past 18 months questions have been asked about how
    higher education institutions confront, prevent, and combat
    antisemitism that escalated after the 2023 Hamas attacks
    against Israeli citizens. The October 7 attacks on innocent
    men, women and children were horrific.
        The violence perpetrated that day must be condemned without
    equivocation. The targeting of Jewish students on campuses
    across the U.S. that followed was terrible and unacceptable.
    Both as a university President, and a human being, this is a
    matter I take particularly seriously. We have to do better. At
    Cal Poly, when people do not live up to our commitment to
    prohibit prejudice and bias, we hold them accountable.
        We have dealt with antisemitism and other forms of
    discrimination by faculty staff, visitors and students. We do
    not tolerate threatening activity. We deploy campus police
    whenever there is potential for threatening activity, or
    trouble, and they make arrests and file criminal charges when
    justified.
        In addition, when alleged antisemitism or harassment
    occurs, we investigate and impose immediate university
    discipline. At Cal Poly, we have enjoyed a vibrant Jewish
    community for many years. Stakeholders rate Jewish life on our
    campus at a high level, and the number of Jewish students has
    doubled since 2011.
        Hillel and Chabad are registered Cal Poly student
    organizations, and I and my wife have been invited to and
    proudly participated in some of their activities. I am grateful
    to the Jewish student leaders who traveled across the country
    to join me here today. In addition to those long-standing
    partnerships, we have been working with the ADL and other
    Jewish leaders on several ongoing and some new initiatives.
        First, we have continued to be certain to speak out to
    oppose antisemitism. Second, we are enhancing our mandatory
    student orientation and biannual employee training to provide
    greater education and awareness about antisemitism. Our team is
    participating in the fifth cohort of Hillel's Campus Climate
    Initiative.
        To date, our administrators have attended eight training
    sessions. Third, we are establishing a new Presidential
    Antisemitism Task Force that will develop an action plan
    focused on Jewish student life, antisemitism, education and
    cultural awareness.
        Fourth, we are continuing to fundraise to endow a Chair in
    Jewish Studies and build an interfaith center that includes
    Jewish students. Our efforts to support Jewish students and
    combat antisemitism have made progress.
        I want to emphasize that our goal is continuous
    improvement. We will work to give each student the safest
    possible environment, free from discrimination and religious
    intolerance, so they can learn, grow and succeed. We call it
    being ready day one. We will continue to strongly confront any
    antisemitic conducts or threats.
        In conclusion, I want to thank you for the important work
    on this issue and pledge our continuing support.
        [The Statement of Dr. Armstrong follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. Thank you, Dr. Armstrong. Under Committee
    Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute rule.
    I will recognize myself for the first 5 minutes. This question
    is for all three Presidents. All of your schools have been hot
    beds of antisemitism at some point.
        Please tell me how many students at your schools have been
    suspended, and how many have been expelled for antisemitic
    conduct since October 7, 2023.
        President Raymond.
        Ms. Raymond. We do not publicize those numbers, and we use
    suspension and expelling as normal parts of our disciplinary
    process.
        Chairman Walberg. You do not have numbers to give us, so we
    assume there have been none.
        Ms. Raymond. We do not talk about those numbers publicly.
        Chairman Walberg. Mr. Manuel.
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for the question. Post-October 7th,
    there were eight student groups investigated. Two were
    suspended and put on probation. I believe there were two
    arrests after the encampment dissolution, one of them I believe
    was a student.
        Chairman Walberg. Thank you.
        President Armstrong.
        Mr. Armstrong. As a result of events in 2024, we have had a
    total of six students disciplined, with the discipline ranging
    from two quarters suspension to deferred suspension to
    probation.
        Chairman Walberg. President Manuel, you say you are
    committed to addressing antisemitism on campus. The group,
    Students for Justice in Palestine or SJIP, is at the very
    center of your antisemitism problem. Students have been
    physically and verbally assaulted at multiple SJIP protests.
    SJIP was central to the May 2024 encampment, which caused
    $500,000 in damage.
        SJIP has also circulated deeply antisemitic posts on
    Instagram, including a recent post accusing Israel of being
    just like the Nazi's. President Manuel, considering SJIP's
    history of harassment and violence against Jewish students, and
    its repeated refusal to abide by university policies, will you
    commit to finally, permanently, permanently, banning SJIP from
    campus?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for the question. SJIP has been
    suspended. They are on probation, and this post that I think
    you are referring to happened on Thursday. They were
    immediately suspended, and all their operations from campus
    pending a new hearing. The cumulative effect of their work will
    be considered in the results or the outcomes of that next
    hearing. I would be happy to report back to you on their
    findings.
        Chairman Walberg. I would be glad to receive that. The
    cumulative effects seems like it is gone on and on. I believe
    it would be a point in time for banning. President Raymond, in
    March the Haverford and Bryn Mawr group Faculty and Staff for
    Justice in Palestine, or FSJIP praised a Palestinian terrorist
    who led an attack in 1978 that killed 38 Israelis, including 13
    children.
        FSJIP claimed that the terrorists, and I quote,
    ``Sacrificed herself for her country, and fought for the
    freedom of many Palestinians.'' Does praising the murder of
    Jews violate any Haverford policies?
        Ms. Raymond. Of course it does.
        Chairman Walberg. Thank you.
        Ms. Raymond. There is no place for that, ever, anywhere.
        Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Another FSJIP post applauded a
    member of the Popular Front for Liberation of Palestine, a U.S.
    designated terrorist group because she trained for military
    operations. Did Haverford professors in this group face any
    consequences whatsoever?
        Ms. Raymond. I am not aware of that particular post, and
    antisemitism in any of its forms is not tolerated at Haverford
    College.
        Chairman Walberg. Well, with these faculty it seems to have
    been. I am going to ask you a few questions about statements we
    have heard on Haverford's campus since the October 7th
    terrorist attack against Israel. Again, I will not display all
    that is in this book, but this reminds us that the attack was
    not from Israel. The attack was from Hamas, brutal, unprovoked
    attack as well.
        Is the phrase, ``Long Live the Intifada,'' protected speech
    on Haverford's campus? Yes, or no?
        Ms. Raymond. That is an antisemitic form of speech.
        Chairman Walberg. Is the phrase, ``From Gaza to Lebanon,
    Israel Will Soon Be Gone,'' protected speech on Haverford's
    campus?
        Ms. Raymond. That is repugnant speech. I disavow it. It is
    antisemitic.
        Chairman Walberg. Happening. Is the phrase, ``Resistance is
    not terrorism,'' protected speech on Haverford's campus?
        Ms. Raymond. Any antisemitic speech I will not defend, and
    at Haverford we do protect speech.
        Chairman Walberg. Do these statements call for the genocide
    of Jews?
        Ms. Raymond. There is no tolerance for any such speech that
    would call for that.
        Chairman Walberg. Well, we hope we see that soon to come.
    Hamas is gaining support and comfort from schools that allow
    this to go on, and these go beyond just simply words. They
    include faculty and students blocking the freedom of education,
    and life itself for Jewish students. I yield back, and now I
    recognize Representative Bonamici, the gentlelady from Oregon,
    for her questioning.
        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I have said
    before on this Committee, there has been an undeniable rise in
    antisemitism and hate speech across the country and around the
    globe. Antisemitism is a real problem that has existed for
    thousands of years and should be taken seriously by schools and
    universities, and by elected officials.
        Jewish students deserve to feel safe and be safe on campus
    and everywhere. No one should be afraid of harassment or
    discrimination because of their faith, and I strongly condemn
    acts of violence, and want to emphasize that people who break
    the law must be held accountable.
        Instead of engaging with this topic genuinely and
    constructively, we have another performative hearing, during
    which the majority will try to blame the left, and what they
    consider liberal or elitist institutions and college for acts
    of antisemitism. It is another chapter in the majority's battle
    against higher education.
        As we have discussed repeatedly, but it is worth restating,
    when white supremacists marched in Charlottesville with burning
    tiki torches chanting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' President
    Trump said there were fine people on both sides, and I do not
    recall the Republican majority calling that out.
        General Kelly, who served as Chief of Staff in the first
    Trump Administration said that Donald Trump spoke favorably
    about Hitler, saying that Hitler had done some good things.
    Some Republican Members of Congress have promoted conspiracy
    theories, like Jewish space lasers that control weather, and
    have accused ``Jewish globalist elites,'' of pulling strings
    behind the scenes of government.
        Another, a member of this Committee, quoted Hitler on the
    steps of the capitol. Several members of President Trump's
    inner circle have public and prominent ties to white
    nationalist and white supremacist groups, there are more
    examples, but I have made the point.
        If this Committee is going to tackle the rise in
    antisemitism, let us start there. Let us denounce and condemn
    all instances of antisemitism, including from colleagues and
    the administration. If we truly want to protect Jewish
    Americans, we need to speak out regardless of the source and
    not turn a blind eye when antisemitic attacks come from leaders
    of a political party.
        For those of us who do want to stop the rise of
    antisemitism on college campuses, I remind you that the Federal
    Government already has an entity in place to investigate and
    resolve antisemitic instances, the Office of Civil Rights. It
    is housed, at least for now, in the Department of Education.
        Unfortunately, Secretary McMahon has fired almost half of
    OCR's staff and closed 7 of their 12 regional offices.
    President Trump's recent budget called for a 35 percent cut to
    the Office of Civil Rights. Will any of the Republicans on this
    Committee stand against the dismantling of the Office of Civil
    Rights?
        I doubt it, because that would require a real commitment to
    combating antisemitism. If you truly want to stand up for the
    Jewish people, condemn the White Christian Nationalism seeping
    into the policy in the White House. Speak up against the
    attempts to end the separation of religion and government, show
    your support for freedom of religion.
        It is unconscionable to weaponize the real problems of the
    Jewish community for political gain, and I am not going to
    engage in more back and for in this hearing with people who
    call out antisemitism, when it is part of their Anti higher
    education agenda, but not when it is coming from their side of
    the aisle.
        Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter a
    statement into the record from Northwestern University, in
    which more than 100 Jewish faculty and staff members raised
    serious concerns about how Congress is addressing antisemitism.
        They say we come from different points on a political
    compass. We express our identities as Jews in a myriad of ways,
    but we are united by the conviction that our Jewishness must
    not be used as a cudgel to silence the vigorous exchange of
    ideas that lie at the heart of university life.
        I also request unanimous consent to insert into the record
    a statement from the Jewish Council on Public Affairs, and a
    broad coalition of Jewish groups in which they emphasize that
    they, ``firmly reject the false choice between confronting
    antisemitism, and upholding democracy.''
        Our safety as Jews has always been tied to the rule of law,
    to the safety of others, to the strength of civil society, and
    to the protection of rights and liberty for all. It continues,
    it is both possible and necessary to fight antisemitism on
    campus, in our communities, and across the country without
    abandoning the Democratic values that have allowed Jews and so
    many other vulnerable minorities to thrive.
        Mr. Chairman, as a mother who raised her children in the
    Jewish home----
        Chairman Walberg. Without objection, they will be received.
        [The Information of Ms. Bonamici follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the mother of
    children she raised in a Jewish home, and is an active member
    of my synagogue for more than 25 years, I can no longer pretend
    that this is a good faith effort to root out antisemitism,
    especially when the Trump administration and majority party are
    regularly undermining Jewish values, including justice, loving
    kindness, free speech, freedom of religion, and the Jewish
    responsibility of Tikkun Olam, to repair the world. I yield
    back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I now
    recognize the gentleman from South Carolina, Representative
    Wilson.
        Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Chairman Tim Walberg, and
    I appreciate your leadership for promoting real academic
    freedom with real diversity of ideology with equality and with
    real political inclusion. With that in mind, all Americans in
    good faith want college education to be uplifting for students,
    and to achieve the American dream.
        Unfortunately, the barbaric mass murder of October 7th by
    Iranian puppets of Hamas invading Israel, has shockingly
    revealed that many college campuses are antisemitic in
    defending the maniacal Hamas agenda.
        The world should know the Hamas covenant of August 18,
    1988, declares in the midst of insane provisions, Article VII,
    ``The day of judgment will not come about until Muslims fight
    the Jews, killing the Jews. When the Jew will hide behind
    stones and trees.
        These stones and trees will say oh, Muslim, there is a Jew
    behind me, come and kill him.'' That's their ideology. Free
    Palestine from the river to the sea is a code for death to
    Israel, death to America. We know that anti-Zionism is
    antisemitism. I'm very grateful that I grew up in South
    Carolina and represent South Carolina.
        At the time of the American Revolution, the largest Jewish
    population in the New World was in Charleston, South Carolina.
    The very first Provincial Constitution recognized Judaism was
    the Provincial Constitution of South Carolina. The first Jewish
    American elected official in the New World was the Provincial
    Assembly of South Carolina, and sadly the first Jewish American
    killed in the Revolution was in Charleston, South Carolina.
        That is the environment I grew up. In South Carolina we do
    not tolerate antisemitism. We promote diversity of ideology,
    equality, and we promote--additionally, ideologically
    inclusion. President Raymond, we know that unfortunately
    antisemitism has existed long before the murderous atrocities
    of October 7th, and sadly, I had the--I visited Kibbutz Nir Oz.
        I visited the music site where the slaughters occurred, the
    mass slaughters. The Committee recently learned that in 2020
    you met with a Jewish student about the severe harassment and
    cyberbullying that he was experiencing at Haverford because of
    his Jewish identity.
        In response, you allegedly gave him a book by a Buddhist
    Monk, and told him that he should accept the harassment, and
    ``let it wash over.'' Should Jewish students at Haverford
    simply let the experience of antisemitism wash over them?
        Ms. Raymond. Our Jewish students, and our Jewish community
    are highly valued at Haverford. They have been an important
    part of our community for a long time. My top priority is
    ensuring the well-being and safety of all of our students.
        Mr. Wilson. I am confident you had changed policies since
    then. With this, Dr. Armstrong, you identified as an outspoken
    DEI proponent. I believe that DEI, it chills, and actually
    restricts and restrains academic freedom. It has been my view
    that diversity means no ideological diversity, no conservative.
        I remember in college with my national review, I folded it
    in half, because I did not want my professors to see. I was
    reading the writings of William F. Buckley, Jr., Seditious,
    with the equity. What that means is that all are the same
    regardless of what is the achievement level, and it denies
    equality of opportunity.
        Inclusion, again, is so political. That means no
    Republicans. I remember that I have, in my undergraduate and
    law school, one Republican professor, Professor J.D. Fudge,
    III, of Baltimore, and I knew where the others were coming
    from, and so what is your interpretation of DEI because as it
    is being experienced, it is chilling, as Mr. Cole said. What is
    your experience?
        Mr. Armstrong. Well, thank you for your question. You know,
    I got back to Cal Poly, since I have been there, we have
    focused on student success and all student success, so we can--
    --
        Mr. Wilson. Does that mean equity for everybody? They all
    get the same grade?
        Mr. Armstrong. Oh, no, sir. Cal Poly is a very competitive
    university.
        Mr. Wilson. You should be.
        Mr. Armstrong. We have been admitting students under Prop
    209 has been in existence for more than 25 years in California,
    so we have been operating under an affirmative action ban
    during that time, and we have had significant changes in the
    makeup of our population because we have increased financial
    aid, and made students more able to----
        Mr. Wilson. Perhaps we can conclude. I would really like to
    know the percentage of conservatives on your--of professors,
    the percentage of Republicans, because I am sadly concerned
    there are none, or very few. Thank you. I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize the
    gentlemen from California, Representative Takano.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want
    to associate myself with the remarks of my colleague, Suzanne
    Bonamici. I know of no member who exemplifies more the
    principle of Tikkun Olam than her, to repair the world. I saw
    some rolling of the eyes, which is of course, people are
    entitled to their opinions, and we are a country that have
    different viewpoints.
        We must seek not only tolerance, but encouragement of a
    difference of a point of view. I too condemn antisemitism.
    Unequivocally. I condemn Islamophobia unequivocally. I condemn
    all discrimination based on religion. Universities must set
    that principle, but you know, we have a system. We have in
    place legal mechanisms to hold the universities accountable who
    receive Federal money to hold them accountable for
    discrimination that occurs on the basis of religion.
        Mr. Cole, if a student or faculty member feels that their
    Title VI Civil Rights, their ability to not be discriminated
    based on their religion, that those Title VI rights have been
    violated, what Federal agency is tasked with the investigation
    of their claim, and enforcement of the Civil Rights law?
        Mr. Cole. The Office of Civil Rights of the Department of
    Education.
        Mr. Takano. The Department of Education's Office of Civil
    Rights, which prior to the Trump administration was the largest
    Federal agency tasked with the enforcement of civil rights in
    the country, and that would include Title VI rights, which
    involve religious discrimination?
        Mr. Cole. That is right.
        Mr. Takano. How many OCR field offices have been closed
    under the Trump administration?
        Mr. Cole. My understanding is 7 of the 12, so more than
    half have been closed.
        Mr. Takano. 7 of the 12, and the remaining offices we hear
    anecdotally that some attorneys are being tasked with up to 300
    cases per staffer. How long typically does one case take to get
    resolved?
        Mr. Cole. It can take a very long time to get resolved, and
    if you cut the staff in half, it is going to take twice as
    long.
        Mr. Takano. Why does it take so long? You mentioned earlier
    in your testimony----
        Mr. Cole. It takes so long for a couple of reasons. One, is
    you actually have to look at the facts, not make broad
    allegations as this Committee seems to do but rather look at
    the actual facts of what happened, assess both sides of the
    story, not just one, then make a determination as to whether it
    is actually discrimination. Then if it actually constitutes
    discrimination, then you go to the university and you say how
    did you respond?
        If the university responded by holding a hearing and making
    an assessment, no violation has occurred. Only if the
    university was deliberately indifferent--ignored the violation,
    an established violation, is it ultimately responsible. You
    have to actually have a fair hearing. You have to look at the
    facts.
        You have to hear both sides, not simply come into a
    committee room and make broad allegations without any
    assessment of what the actual facts are.
        Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Cole. I note here that we have
    universities that are near San Francisco, Chicago and
    Philadelphia, all three of those offices of OCR, Office of
    Civil Rights for the Department of Education, those field
    offices have been closed, so what would happen to a student who
    had a claim of religious discrimination in any one of these
    three universities? What is their recourse now?
        Mr. Cole. I do not think they have much recourse.
        Mr. Takano. The concern over this Committee about
    antisemitism, in reality seems to be very hollow and empty
    because they are not concerned about how you actually
    investigate and adjudicate a claim of religious discrimination.
    Am I correct?
        Mr. Cole. Right. They should be calling Secretary of
    Education McMahon before the Committee and asking her why she
    has decimated the very office that is supposed to be enforcing
    antidiscrimination law.
        Mr. Takano. Mr. Cole, do you view universities as kind of
    places of independence that government should not be imposing
    its politics on a university? I mean, I heard implied here that
    maybe there should be some influence over who gets hired as
    faculty?
        Mr. Cole. Yes. Not only do I believe that, but the Supreme
    Court believes that. It has said that academic freedom is a
    special concern of the First Amendment. What academic freedom
    means is that government officials, including Members of
    Congress, do not have the power to decide that a particular
    university has too many liberal professors, or too many
    conservative professors. That is for the university to decide.
        It does not empower members of this Committee to complain
    about DEI programs that they do not like. That is for the
    university to decide under academic freedom, under the core
    principle of the First Amendment that universities make these
    decisions, not politicians.
        Mr. Takano. I yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
    the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
        Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you. A
    question for each of you. Is calling for the genocide of Jews
    protected speech on your campus, starting with Haverford?
        Ms. Raymond: No. Of course not.
        Ms. Stefanik. What disciplinary action has been taken, or
    would be taken if someone made that call?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, there have been no such calls,
    and we would use all of our disciplinary actions to follow
    through on any such call. I would never expect that to happen
    at Haverford, and if it would, we would deal with that swiftly.
        Ms. Stefanik. Well, let me ask you a specific question
    then. There was a student group on Haverford's campus who
    called for the complete dismantling of the Apartheid settler
    colonial State of Israel by all means necessary. What does by
    all means necessary mean to you?
        Ms. Raymond. Invoking that kind of terminology is repugnant
    because of what it can mean, and I will not----
        Ms. Stefanik. So, does that depend on the context?
        Ms. Raymond. I will not defend that statement.
        Ms. Stefanik. What disciplinary action was taken against
    that group for those individuals who made that call? Any
    disciplinary action? Was there any disciplinary action taken
    against that group, or those individuals?
        Ms. Raymond. Those kinds of statements are----
        Ms. Stefanik. I am not asking you if they are repugnant, I
    am asking about the disciplinary action. You were the one
    university President who failed to lay out if any disciplinary
    action has been taken, if any suspensions or expulsions, so I
    am asking you was there any disciplinary action taken?
        Ms. Raymond. Disciplinary action can include expulsion
    and----
        Ms. Stefanik. I am not asking what it can include. I am
    asking was it taken?
        Ms. Raymond. I will not be talking about individual cases
    here, and I am saying that that is----
        Ms. Stefanik. Have there been any disciplinary actions
    taken by Haverford related to antisemitism? Any?
        Ms. Raymond. Disciplinary actions are absolutely in our
    work----
        Ms. Stefanik. Have they been taken?
        Ms. Raymond [continuing]. Against antisemitism.
        Ms. Stefanik. Have they been taken by Haverford?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, there have been some.
        Ms. Stefanik. I want to ask you another example. There was
    a professor of mathematics and statistics, who posted after the
    October 7th Hamas terrorist attacks, ``We should never have to
    apologize for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people
    breaking free from their chains. This was a historic moment to
    be recorded in their history books.''
        Jewish students have reported that you said this post could
    be ``perceived in many ways.'' Does this post simply depend on
    the context, President Raymond, and were there any disciplinary
    actions taken against this professor?
        Ms. Raymond. Such posts have been incredibly harmful to our
    entire community, and I disavow them, and that outcome for us.
        Ms. Stefanik. Was there an investigation of the professor?
        Ms. Raymond. Investigations happen in all such cases.
        Ms. Stefanik. Yes, in this case?
        Ms. Raymond. Investigations happen in all such cases, as I
    have said, and we follow----
        Ms. Stefanik. This is a simple question. The other
    Presidents are answering this straightforward as to
    disciplinary action. Again, these university Presidents who are
    former Presidents, failed to answer these direct questions. In
    this case, was there disciplinary action taken on investigation
    of this professor?
        Ms. Raymond. Respectfully, Representative, I will not be
    talking about individual cases.
        Ms. Stefanik. Respectfully, President of Haverford, many
    people have sat in this position who are no longer in the
    position as President of a university for their failure to
    answer straightforward questions. Another question I have,
    because this is a theme at Haverford. There was an
    administrator who said that ``Racial minority students have
    never felt safe at Haverford, and that Jewish perspective
    students should not expect to feel safe and should instead be
    brave.''
        This was according to litigation against your college. Was
    there any investigation into this administrator for making
    those statements?
        Ms. Raymond. That report does not reflect the
    administrators that I know who stand strongly with me, and the
    entire college, against antisemitism.
        Ms. Stefanik. That did not happen is your position? Was
    that statement not made by that administrator?
        Ms. Raymond. That statement does not comport with those
    administrators that I know. No.
        Ms. Stefanik. I am not asking if it comports with the
    administrators that you know. I am saying is it your testimony
    that that statement did not happen, even though it is coming
    out in litigation? Are you saying it did not happen?
        Ms. Raymond. What I am saying is that I cannot imagine that
    happening from those colleagues of mine.
        Ms. Stefanik. Well, let me ask you, if it did happen, what
    disciplinary action would Haverford take against that
    administrator?
        Ms. Raymond. At Haverford, we do not tolerate
    discrimination or harassment, or bias.
        Ms. Stefanik. What does that mean, ``not tolerate?'' Does
    that mean suspension, firing of that individual? What does that
    mean?
        Ms. Raymond. It means following all of our policies, which
    begin with investigation, and then can lead to any of the
    aspects that you listed.
        Ms. Stefanik. For the American people watching, you still
    do not get it, Haverford still does not get it. It is a very
    different testimony than the other Presidents who are here
    today who are coming with specifics, so again, this is
    completely unacceptable, and it is why this Committee has
    stepped in because higher education has failed to address the
    scourge of antisemitism, putting Jewish students at risk at
    Haverford and other campuses across the country. I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize now
    the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ranking Member Adams.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean as a former
    college professor, I really hate to see we are threatening our
    leadership of these schools, but thank you Mr. Chair. We are
    here today to discuss something that should never be up for
    debate. Every student, regardless of background deserves to
    feel safe and welcome and protected on campuses, on all
    campuses, and that includes Jewish students. That includes
    Muslim students. That includes every student.
        Antisemitism is real, it is rising, and it has no place in
    our schools, our communities, or in our country. I want to be
    real clear about that. This week my office and I met with a
    group of Jewish students from Columbia, students who came to
    Washington, not to cause controversy, but to be heard.
        They told me what they are living through. Jewish students
    denied housing after participating in a protest, religious
    observances disrupted, students locked out of dining halls
    during Kosher, Passover, or unable to gather for Shabbat.
        Others disciplined for simply wearing shirts that say ICE
    off campus. Perhaps most troubling, students forced into
    antisemitism training, led by someone who really was not even
    Jewish. I share these stories not to spark outrage, but because
    they are real.
        I believe that we cannot confront hate unless we listen to
    the people living with it. When Jewish students say that they
    feel unsafe, we have to take that seriously. That also means
    upholding civil rights under Title VI, not replacing legal
    standards with partisan scorecards. That means that resourcing
    the Office for Civil Rights, not cutting it.
        That means fostering interfaith efforts that build bridges,
    not eliminating DEI programs that were designed to create
    belonging for everyone. Let me just say that plainly, Jewish
    safety and free expression are not mutually exclusive. We can,
    and we must protect both, and that is why I was encouraged to
    hear about Cal Poly's interfaith center, a space designed to
    include Jewish students, not just in name, but in purpose.
        When students gather across faiths and backgrounds to talk,
    to grieve, to organize together, that is how we build
    resilience, and that is how we push back against hate. That is
    how we remind each other that the loudest voices are not always
    the ones speaking for all of us.
        Today I do want to urge our committee to move forward
    carefully. Let us not act on face, not fear. Let us not address
    hate, not weaponize it, or let us address hate and not
    weaponize it, and let us protect students, not politicize their
    pain. It is prevention, it is education, and it is showing
    every student from the Ivy League to the community college that
    they belong.
        Dr. Raymond, we have seen members of this Committee, and
    even the President, blame diversity, equity and inclusion
    efforts for the rise of antisemitism on college campuses, but I
    have always believed DEI when done right, help build
    understanding and safety for all students. My question, how is
    your campus making sure that antisemitism is directly
    addressing your inclusion efforts, not ignored or sidelined?
        How do you ensure that Jewish students feel seen, included
    and protected in these efforts? Have you found that this kind
    of work supports Jewish students' safety, rather than
    undermines it?
        Ms. Raymond. Inclusion work at Haverford is just that. It
    includes everyone. We are committed to supporting all students
    in our Jewish community, and all of our Jewish community, and
    our work in inclusion and belonging is exactly that.
        We have three Jewish student groups on the campus who are
    very active. We have an active staff and faculty Jewish group,
    and all those come under the arch and the arc of inclusion and
    belonging.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you very much. Dr. Armstrong, in your
    written testimony you noticed that Cal Poly is establishing an
    interfaith center, which includes participation from Jewish
    students, and I have heard from students across the country who
    said that their interfaith spaces, when done thoughtfully, can
    make a real difference.
        Could you share a little bit more about how that initiative
    was developed, who was involved, and how has it helped build
    trust, or provide support for students who may feel targeted,
    especially in this tense moment on so many campuses?
        Mr. Armstrong. Well, thank you for that question. We have
    been working over a number of years to make sure all students
    have a way to connect. We have been talking with Chabad and
    Hillel about this project, as well as other religious leaders
    for several years, and you know, COVID, like anything, slowed
    us down a bit, but we view that as an opportunity where
    students can come together, where they could have the dialog.
        We recently had a presentation that brought together a
    Palestinian and an Israeli view, and it was university and
    Chabad and Hillel participating in that.
        Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir. I am out of time, and Mr.
    Chairman, I am going to have to yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. She yields back,
    and I now recognize Representative Miller, the gentlelady from
    Illinois.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you. President Manuel, of the three
    schools represented here today, DePaul had the worst
    encampment. From the days the tents went up, the encampment on
    DePaul's campus was a hotbed of antisemitism. Signs featuring
    terrible, antisemitic slogans and images glorifying terrorism
    were displayed in the encampment.
        We saw images of a flag depicting the spokesman of the
    terrorist group Hamas. We saw a sign that said, ``Jewish safety
    cannot be achieved until Palestine is free.'' There were
    reports of people at the encampment threatening to slit Jews
    throats. One student walking through the university--well,
    there were 1,000 complaints from students and the community.
        The encampment remained in place for 17 days. President
    Manuel, how many students were suspended for their conduct at
    the encampment?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for the question. Security and safety
    of our students is the top priority in that moment, the moment
    we realized that safety was being jeopardized, we moved with
    Chicago Police Department to abandon the encampment. Please
    know that our public safety officers are not sworn officers,
    and we need to work with CPD to make that happen.
        In review of the encampment, there were eight groups, eight
    student groups that were brought in for investigation, two of
    them were immediately suspended, and put on probation, which
    means they cannot access university resources, including
    financial resources. There were two students--I am sorry, there
    were two people that were arrested. I believe one of them was a
    student in the aftermath of that.
        What happened in the aftermath of that is we realized our
    inadequacies in that moment and were able to put together a
    culture of accountability that includes new masking and ID
    policies, new time, place and manner policies. Since that
    moment, we have been able to repel four such efforts for
    outside entities to come and take over campus properties.
        Mrs. Miller. I am glad to know that you are moving forward
    on better policies. You are saying that this encampment
    remained in place for 17 days, and over $500,000 worth of
    property damage, and you were only able to suspend two
    students?
        Mr. Manuel. I am saying that the lessons we learned from
    that moment activated it.
        Mrs. Miller. Two students--two students were arrested. I
    mean not arrested, suspended?
        Mr. Manuel. Two student groups were suspended. Two people
    were arrested, I believe one was a student.
        Mrs. Miller. For $500,000 worth of damage in 17 days. You
    got two. Woo. OK. The DePaul Student Conduct Code also states
    dismissal is a permanent separation from the university. How
    many students were dismissed from DePaul as a result of the
    encampment?
        Mr. Manuel. Our codes have been updated as a result of what
    we have learned from the encampment. From that encampment, I do
    not believe any students were permanently dismissed or
    expelled, but the new accountability code we have has prevented
    these actions from happening again.
        Mrs. Miller. Before you have your new accountability code,
    you did not have anything in place where a student was--could
    be dismissed for violence, violent speech, and for causing
    $500,000 worth of damage?
        Mr. Manuel. Anybody who caused violence or damaged property
    could go through that process. Regarding the encampment, that
    is where we learned we need to do better at applying ourselves
    to those policies, and that is where the policy engagements
    came in place, that is where the changes.
        Mrs. Miller. There were 1,000 complaints, 16 instances of
    intimidation, 4 credible threats of violence, 77 reports of
    individual safety concerns, 4 allegations of battery, 13
    harassment allegations, and at least one death threat, and you
    allowed this encampment to continue for 17 days and two people
    were suspended, none were dismissed.
        Again, President Manuel, during the encampment, one Jewish
    student told our committee last month that when she reached her
    dorm lobby, two students shouted at her, ``We don't F with the
    Zionists,'' even though she was not wearing anything to
    publicly indicate a Jewish or Israeli identity.
        She did not know either of them, but the incident made her
    think that they knew who she was. Were these individuals
    disciplined?
        Mr. Manuel. Every individual that was reported that came
    through our system was investigated and results happened. I
    agree with you, Representative.
        Mrs. Miller. Were they disciplined, suspended or dismissed?
        Mr. Manuel. I gave you the result of our--of who was
    suspended and arrested. I do not know of all the incidents that
    were there. I will tell you that the numbers that you mentioned
    were on a website that I released, so that I could educate the
    community about the dangers of that encampment. That is when we
    learned we had to do better, and we had to create a culture of
    accountability.
        Mrs. Miller. Much of the information I read earlier
    regarding hundreds of complaints and violent antisemitic
    signage had been posted online, however, the university has
    taken that website down.
        Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
        Chairman Walberg. Let me move on. I recognize the
    gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
        Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
    and also Ranking Member Scott, and thank you to our witnesses
    for taking the time to be with us here today. I also want to
    thank the students, any students that are with us, any students
    that are watching this morning. I do say that I am very, very
    sorry to those who are victims of hate crimes.
        My son, Jordan, was unfortunately killed in a racially
    motivated shooting, so I know what it is like for your family
    to be attacked solely because of who you are, or how you were
    born.
        Antisemitism remains a growing threat on college campuses
    today, but the actions taken by President Trump and House
    Republicans seem to be motivated more by going viral on social
    media, than rooting out antisemitism and other forms of hatred
    on campus and in our society.
        The actions taken and supported by the majority will not
    improve this situation. They will only foster distrust between
    ethnic and religious groups on and both off campus. Instead of
    taking real steps to address antisemitism, the majority has
    chosen to cut the funding and fire the Federal employees that
    are tasked with responding to these incidents on our school
    grounds.
        They have paused, and threatened funding meant to protect
    synagogues, and other Jewish community centers from shootings
    and other threats through the nonprofit security and targeting
    violence and terrorism prevention grant programs.
        They have pardoned and defended the actions of violent
    felons and rabid antisemites, criminals that were directly
    involved in attacking police and killing an officer here on
    Capitol Hill January 6th.
        When white supremacists marched through the University of
    Virginia wielding torches with the purpose of publicly
    intimidating Jews and other minorities, the President said that
    they were very fine people on both sides. They are not the
    actions of a party or a President who is engaging in good faith
    to address this very real crisis and problem.
        Any attempt to explain away one of the oldest forms of
    ethnic and religious hatred, solely for political gain is truly
    a disservice to the American people. It cheapens and it
    undermines the centuries of sacrifice and interfaith struggle
    to build bridges, and take the difficult, but very necessary
    steps that will bring peace, and allow people to practice their
    faith free from intolerance.
        Fighting antisemitism should not be used as a political
    tool. The work is simply too important, and the stakes are
    simply too high. Today, my State is home to the largest Jewish
    population in the deep south. Georgia has become a beacon of
    prosperity for Jewish families, hoping to live together in
    peace, free from judgment regarding their faith, but it has not
    always been this way.
        I live just a few miles from the site of one of the most
    heinous and violent acts of antisemitism in the history of this
    country, the lynching of Leo Frank. I have been to the halls of
    names at Yad Beshim in Jerusalem a number of times. It takes
    commitment from every single one of us to ensure that the
    atrocities of the past never repeat themselves.
        I ask the American people, and all those who care, truly
    care about religious freedom in this country, all those who
    want this country to live up to the promise that all of us,
    every single one of us is created equal, to compare what they
    hear from my Republican colleagues today, to the actions that
    they take when the cameras are not rolling, and I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the
    gentlelady for her experience that informs her as well. Now, I
    recognize the gentlewoman from Michigan, Ms. McClain.
        Ms. McClain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I happen to agree
    with my colleague, actions speak louder than words, and we need
    action. That is what I hope that we see here today, not just,
    you know, in the week leading up to this hearing we all of a
    sudden find a conscious and start action.
        Let me start with you, Dr. Manuel. On October 18th, 1923,
    DePaul Students for Justice in Palestine held a rally calling
    for the Intifada Revolution, encouraging terrorist attacks to
    be perpetuated against Jewish civilians.
        On the same day, Jewish student leaders contacted DePaul
    administrators, expressing feelings of increasingly--saying
    that they were increasingly scared that the safety, and for the
    safety of the Jewish community. Does that ring a bell?
        OK. The following day, October 19th, 2023, Pro Hamas
    rallies on campus resulted in the physical assault of a Jewish
    student. Sound familiar? Six months later, on April 29, 1924, a
    Pro Palestinian and Pro Hamas mob occupied DePaul's Lincoln
    Park Campus, so there was an encampment on April 29th, correct?
        Mr. Manuel. Correct.
        Ms. McClain. Did you remove or disable it on that day?
        Mr. Manuel. No, we did not.
        Ms. McClain. OK. Why?
        Mr. Manuel. Representative, we learned an awful lot from--
    --
        Ms. McClain. I am not asking what you learned. I am asking
    why you made the decision because I am going to refer you to
    your policy that you have in place. Why did you not follow your
    policy?
        Mr. Manuel. Our immediate instinct was to work with our
    students, the reference----
        Ms. McClain. How did that go?
        Mr. Manuel. Not very well.
        Ms. McClain. Do you want to ask Michael how that went?
        Mr. Manuel. Yes. It did not go very well.
        Ms. McClain. Thank you.
        Mr. Manuel. I apologize for that.
        Ms. McClain. Your apologies are a little hollow. On May
    10th, you issued a statement, so the encampment is still there,
    April 29th, it is now May 10th. On May 10th you issued a
    statement titled quad safety concerns, so you knew there was a
    safety issue, hence, issuing the statement. Here was the
    statement, you urged all members of the DePaul community to
    avoid the quad.
        Well, that is great. Again, hey, let us make sure that we
    attack the law-abiding citizens, but not deal with the problem
    of the encampment. You knew yourself there was a problem but
    decided not to remove it. Why?
        Mr. Manuel. At that moment we realized that the security
    and safety of everybody was in jeopardy. That is the moment
    that we decided to work with CPD.
        Ms. McClain. It took you 6 days?
        Mr. Manuel. Our public safety officer----
        Ms. McClain. I mean no, it took you 6 days because you knew
    it was dangerous. You did not remove it on the 10th. You did
    not remove it until 6 days later, so it took you 6 days to
    coordinate an effort to remove an encampment?
        Mr. Manuel. It took us, the moment we realized, we went to
    CPD, and asked for their----
        Ms. McClain. Which was when? When did you realize you had a
    problem?
        Mr. Manuel. We started working with CPD from the first day,
    so that they were aware of those situations.
        Ms. McClain. OK, so 3 weeks. It took you 3 weeks?
        Mr. Manuel. It took us from the time you mentioned until
    the 16th or 17th to coordinate with CPD to get them.
        Ms. McClain. Do you think that is acceptable?
        Mr. Manuel. I do not.
        Ms. McClain. OK. Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. I don't
    think the issue is more policies, I think the issue is action,
    so the people that are in charge, would you say that that is an
    acceptable amount of time for action?
        Mr. Manuel. I would agree with you that we need to do
    better.
        Ms. McClain. Great. Would you agree with me also that
    almost 3 weeks from the 29th to the 16th is not an acceptable
    time for security to take action to disassemble an encampment?
    Would you agree with me on that?
        Mr. Manuel. I would, and----
        Ms. McClain. Thank you very much. Who has been fired, or
    who has been replaced, because that does not seem real tough to
    me. Anybody?
        Mr. Manuel. What we have learned----
        Ms. McClain. Anybody been replaced?
        Mr. Manuel. There has been turnover.
        Ms. McClain. I am not asking turnover. What consequences
    happened for the people who were supposed to be in charge?
        Mr. Manuel. The development of our accountability----
        Ms. McClain. Any consequences? Yes? Were there--just, let
    us start with a simple, let us start with a simple one. Any
    consequences?
        Mr. Manuel. To student groups, yes.
        Ms. McClain. No, not just, I am talking to the people who
    did not follow your procedures of 3 weeks because let me just
    read it just in case you do not know your policy but let me
    read it. This is from your policy. ``May not impede passage in
    or out of any facility, may not involve activity that is
    violent, or otherwise threatens the safety of demonstrators, or
    any members of the community.
        May not interfere with business or academics of the
    university. These are your policies that--did anyone get like
    reprimanded for that?
        Mr. Manuel. What I mentioned is that we had done
    significant review and learned from this. Our----
        Ms. McClain. You do not need to do review. Did anyone, was
    anyone held accountable, other than Michael, and his friend
    that sustained a concussion and a broken wrist? What actions
    changed? You have got great policies, and you have got great
    lip service.
        The problem is you need action, and unless you, as the
    President of the university is willing to take action, not lip
    service, I can talk about working out all day long, but there
    is a lot of difference between me working out, and me talking
    about it.
        My question is----
        Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. McClain. If there is another encampment on it, are you
    taking it down that next day?
        Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Mr. Manuel. Yes.
        Ms. McClain. Thank you.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, now I recognize
    the gentlewoman from Connecticut, Representative Hayes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Good morning, and thank you to our witnesses
    for being here, and to all of the students who are following
    along and paying attention to this hearing. It is incredibly
    painful for me as a Member of Congress to sit and witness
    antisemitism and discrimination against students on college
    campuses being politicized over and over and over again.
        As the Ranking Member stated, we have had eight hearings on
    this topic. There are members on the other side who only show
    up for hearings on this topic, and yet, no real action has been
    done. When we talk about actions that are taken, I heard
    members talking about property damage.
        There was over 2 billion dollars in property damage and
    expenses to taxpayers as a result of the January 6th
    insurrection, and the President gave sweeping clemency to 1,600
    people, and it has been celebrated by the other side.
        A Confederate flag was flown inside of the United States
    Capitol for the first time in our history, and the people who
    did that are being celebrated. We have to take a stand against
    discrimination in all forms on this Committee, and all students
    on all campuses should feel free from discrimination, and
    protected, and have the right to learn in an environment.
        To the college Presidents, you will find no safe harbor
    here if you have not taken actions, and steps to ensure that
    students are safe on your campuses, all students. Hostility and
    prejudice against Jewish students is wrong, and similarly other
    students who are not feeling safe on campuses is also wrong,
    and this Committee has done nothing.
        Actually, some of the actions taken by this Committee have
    targeted some of those students and literally made them unsafe
    on campus. We need to all agree that discrimination is
    intolerable on college campuses, and you have a duty and a
    responsibility to ensure that the civil rights of students are
    protected.
        I have a bunch of questions, but because I want to know
    about actions, but just please yes, or no. I am going to just
    go down. Dr. Raymond, are you prioritizing the physical safety
    of students on your campus today?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes. Safety is top priority.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Manuel, do you believe that teaching the
    history of discrimination, even when it is painful is
    incredibly important for our institutions of higher education?
        Mr. Manuel. Yes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Cole, have you clarified and publicized the
    rules surrounding campus protests for all students to see?
        Mr. Cole. I am not speaking here on behalf of Georgetown,
    but we have a clear policy at Georgetown.
        Mrs. Hayes. Is it publicized?
        Mr. Cole. Absolutely. It is on our website. I was the Chair
    of the working group on free speech and campus culture. We
    believe in free speech, and we believe in protecting people
    from discrimination, and we believe in making a distinction
    between the two, which unfortunately, many members of this
    Committee do not believe in.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Dr. Armstrong, have you implemented
    reporting mechanisms for incidents of bias on your campus?
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Raymond, have you clarified and raised
    awareness around university standards for anti-discrimination
    educational programs?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, we have.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Manuel, do you believe that it is important
    that students see themselves reflected in the faculty at your
    university?
        Mr. Manuel. I do. Ideologically, and every other category
    as well, yes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Cole, not on behalf of your university, but
    are students allowed to connect and engage with members in
    faith-based groups on campus, so that they can express their
    ideas and ideologies in a protected way?
        Mr. Cole. On every campus that I am aware of, yes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. Dr. Armstrong, have you convened a
    task force to combat anti-discrimination on campus?
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
        Mrs. Hayes. Dr. Manuel, do you understand the role of the
    Office of Civil Rights--the role that the Office of Civil
    Rights at the Department of Education plays in protecting
    students from discrimination at colleges and universities, and
    do you think that this would be helpful as you move forward
    trying to keep students safe on campus?
        Mr. Manuel. I do, and the OCR has been very helpful in
    helping us understand how to comply with the law.
        Mrs. Hayes. Thank you. With that, I think that this
    Committee should be working on keeping OCR together to help you
    enforce these policies moving forward, so that all students are
    protected on college campuses. With that I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize
    the gentleman from North Carolina, Representative Harris.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you to all
    the panelists that have been a part of this day, for your
    perseverance and your time. I want to address a question to
    President Raymond. President Raymond, days after the October
    7th attack on Israel, Haverford College released a statement
    that highlighted tragedies across the globe that occurred,
    ``since the start of the semester.''
        The email mentioned earthquakes in Morocco and Afghanistan,
    wildfires in the United States and Canada, and a 2-year long
    war in Ukraine. The email only made a passing reference, and I
    quote, ``The outbreak of war in Israel and Gaza that had taken
    place just 48 hours before.''
        We all know in this room October 7th, was not a mutual
    ``outbreak of war between two countries.'' In fact, it was a
    terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel. Babies were butchered.
    Women were raped. 1,200 innocents were slaughtered, and over
    250 people were kidnapped.
        I have to ask, why did Haverford lack the moral clarity to
    immediately and clearly condemn the attack on Israel?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative Harris, we did condemn the
    attack by Hamas on Israel, and it was not--you are correct, in
    that email, which I was responsible for. I would do it
    differently now. This is an example of a difficult period of
    learning where I did not get it right.
        Mr. Harris. OK. You say in your testimony, and I have read
    your testimony beforehand, the written testimony we received,
    that ``any failures and fractures at Haverford are ultimately
    my responsibility as President.'' Do you take responsibility
    for this failure to call the attack what it was immediately?
        Ms. Raymond. I take responsibility for the judgment about
    that communication, that is right.
        Mr. Harris. OK. Well, on January 4th, 2024, an anonymous
    author, presumably a Haverford student, published an article on
    the political science department website, expressing dismay for
    the response of the campus to October 7th.
        The article highlights the morally bankrupt responses of
    students to the violence, for example, sharing how students
    posted phrases like, ``Freedom has only ever been achieved
    through resistance. Stand with Palestinian resistance.''
        The author wrote in reaction to seeing these statements
    posted on his or her classmates that, ``Up until October 7th, I
    had truly believed that at a liberal arts institution like
    Haverford, there was no place for antisemitism, but I do not
    know how else to label cheering the death of innocent Jews.''
        Many student activists across the country have used the
    slogan, ``Resistance is justified when people are occupied,''
    as their motivation for praising the violence that was
    perpetrated against Israel. I ask you, President Raymond, yes
    or no, was the October 7th attack on Israel justified?
        Ms. Raymond. Absolutely not.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, ma'am.
        Ms. Raymond. No.
        Mr. Harris. I agree, and it is good to hear you confirm
    that, and I certainly hope and pray that students around the
    country, including those enrolled at Haverford, come to realize
    this very thing as well. I want to turn in my last minute or so
    to President Manuel. I want to ask you a series of questions if
    I will.
        Have there been violent protests on your campus in response
    to the war in Sudan?
        Mr. Manuel. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Harris. Did DePaul experience encampments over the war
    in Ukraine?
        Mr. Manuel. Also, not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Harris. Have there been chants calling for the
    eradication of other people groups on your campus besides the
    Jewish people?
        Mr. Manuel. Again, not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Harris. Thank you, sir. I think we all know why there
    is no such focus on the world. Well, there is such a focus on
    the world's only Jewish State. Unfortunately, antisemitism has
    been spreading like wildfire among our Nation's campuses, and
    as a result, anything Israel does to defend itself and its
    people faces increased scrutiny that no other nation on earth
    seems to face.
        I am glad we are having this hearing today, and I commend
    our chairman for helping us shine a light on this very
    important problem that is plaquing American higher education.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
    the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Casar.
        Mr. Casar. The Republican majority has called a hearing on
    antisemitism, and so I have some questions for my colleagues on
    the Committee. Donald Trump said after neo-Nazis marched
    through Charlottesville that they were, ``very fine people on
    both sides.''
        If you condemn Donald Trump saying this, will you raise
    your hand? RFK, the head of Health and Human Services, spread
    an antisemitic conspiracy theory that COVID was engineered to
    target white and black people, but spare Jewish people. If you
    condemn the head of the U.S. Health and Human Services for
    spreading this antisemitic conspiracy theory, will you please
    raise your hand? Nobody.
        Chairman Walberg. I suggest the hearing is to question the
    witnesses that are here who have spent time and energy to come
    here today.
        Mr. Casar. I have a question for you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Walberg. I think the questioning is--I am not on
    the witness stand.
        Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman, this is my time, and I am happy to
    ask you then. Would you condemn Donald Trump for pardoning a
    January 6th rioter who praised Hitler, and encouraged more
    killing of Jewish people? Mr. Chairman, since you just used
    some of my time, you can use more of it. Will you condemn Trump
    for pardoning an antisemitic rioter?
        Chairman Walberg. I am seeing four witnesses waiting for
    your question.
        Mr. Casar. I am asking you a question, Mr. Chairman. Your
    microphone works. Do you condemn this?
        Chairman Walberg. I will yield time to the witnesses to
    answer questions that are pertinent.
        Mr. Casar. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, not a single Republican
    today has been willing to condemn any of this antisemitism.
    Unfortunately, the party of very fine people on both sides, or
    Jewish space lasers, does not give a damn about stopping
    antisemitism.
        If my Republican colleagues want to stop the spread of
    antisemitism, maybe they should stop apologizing for and
    promoting antisemites. With all due respect to the
    Congresswoman from New York, who is back to join us, if
    Republicans want to fight antisemitism, they should not go
    groveling to the most antisemitic President in modern American
    history.
        They should not be trying to quell questions about the
    antisemitism that we see at the White House and in the cabinet
    at the Department of Health and Human Services. In my city of
    Austin, Swastikas have been drawn on the doors of schoolhouses.
    Synagogues have been firebombed. Antisemitism is an assault on
    our community safety, and on all of our values.
        We could do something to combat antisemitism. In Congress,
    we could strengthen the Department of Education's Office of
    Civil Rights, but instead, Trump has cut it, and my Republican
    colleagues have done nothing about it. Congress could
    strengthen anti-hate crime programs, to address antisemitic
    violence.
        Trump has cut those programs. Again, Republican Members of
    Congress have done nothing about it. We could fully fund the
    security programs we have for Jewish nonprofits and synagogues,
    but Trump has frozen those programs.
        Republicans have called this hearing on antisemitism, but
    they have cut back our ability to address hate crimes, have cut
    back our ability to protect synagogues, have cut back our
    ability to protect students from discrimination.
        What they have ramped up is deporting students for writing
    op-eds in their campus newspaper advocating for peace. What
    they have ramped up is arresting nonviolent professors and
    students, Jewish and not Jewish, just because they dare talk
    about the killing and starvation in Gaza.
        This hearing, called by the Republican majority, is all
    about Trump Republicans distorting the definition of
    antisemitism to silence anyone, including Jewish students, who
    speak out non-violently against what the Israeli government is
    doing. The Republican plan is not about keeping Jewish students
    safe. It is about keeping the Israeli government safe from any
    form of criticism.
        That is a disservice to the truth. It is a disservice to us
    and our job as Members of Congress, and it is a disservice to
    the safety of everyone, including and especially Jewish
    Americans. I yield back
        Chairman Walberg. The gentleman yields, and now I recognize
    the Chairman Emeritus of this Committee, the gentlelady from
    North Carolina, Ms. Foxx.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
    witnesses for being here today. President Raymond, in August
    2024, Guangtian Ha, a religious professor at Haverford wrote on
    X that, ``The State of Israel must be dismantled, and the
    society denazified. Zionism is Nazism, it is Fascism, Zionists
    areracist.''
        Professor Ha also wrote, ``The only way to deal with
    Zionists is to stop talking to them and refuse to let them
    waste your time. Liberal Zionists, in particular. And I learned
    a new term, reluctant Zionist, and I guess there were plenty of
    reluctant Nazis too, perhaps the majority of them were.''
        Do you believe there is a distinction between anti-Zionism
    and antisemitism?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative Foxx, first I want to----
        Mrs. Foxx. Just a quick answer, yes or no.
        Ms. Raymond. I want to say that we support all of our
    Zionist students, staff and faculty at Haverford, and we are
    squarely against antisemitism.
        Mrs. Foxx. Do you believe anti-Zionism is any more
    acceptable than antisemitism?
        Ms. Raymond. Antisemitism is unacceptable. There is no
    place for it.
        Mrs. Foxx. How about anti-Zionism?
        Ms. Raymond. There is room for criticizing the government
    of any nation.
        Mrs. Foxx. The State of Israel has existed for almost 80
    years. Under the premise of anti-Zionism, the Jewish State as
    it exists today should not exist. Is that what you believe that
    Israel should not exist?
        Ms. Raymond. Pardon me, that is not at all what I said, or
    what I meant here.
        Mrs. Foxx. OK. What are anti-Zionists actually advocating
    for when the Jewish State has existed for nearly 80 years? 80
    decades, excuse me, 8 decades?
        Ms. Raymond. I do not support those statements at all.
        Mrs. Foxx. That is a professor at your university. On the
    extreme, this means the genocide of Israelis. At the very least
    it reveals national origin discrimination violations done in
    programs or activities in higher ed. Dr. Raymond, do you
    believe that Professor Ha's instance that Zionists should not
    be engaged with, and that they should be compared to Nazis,
    could be a violation of the Department of Education Civil
    Rights protections, yes or no?
        Ms. Raymond. We do not tolerate discrimination, harassment
    or bias at Haverford College, and----
        Mrs. Foxx. For Dr. Armstrong, according to reports, Cal
    Poly's history department hosted U.C. Berkeley Professor Ussama
    Makdisi, a self avowed anti-Zionist. Do you believe anti-
    Zionism could constitute national origin discrimination, yes or
    no?
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes.
        Mrs. Foxx. Dr. Manuel, does DePaul University support BDS?
        Mr. Manuel. We do not, and we have come out strongly
    against it, at least in the two and half years that I have been
    there including a rebuke of a student government.
        Mrs. Foxx. Will you supply that statement to me after this?
        Mr. Manuel. I would be happy to.
        Mrs. Foxx. Dr. Armstrong, does Cal Poly support BDS?
        Mr. Armstrong. No.
        Mrs. Foxx. Dr. Manuel, it is my understanding you gave in
    to some demands made by the student coalition behind DePaul's
    violent antisemitic May 24 encampment, even though the
    encampment had to be forcibly removed. The encampment coalition
    demanded that DePaul eliminate, ``Discriminatory study abroad
    programs, trips to Israel, that propagandize and normalize that
    occupation.''
        As you may know, this has been a key goal of antisemitic
    BDS activists at universities across the U.S. In June, DePaul
    said it agreed to discuss inclusivity with regard to its Israel
    study abroad program. Does inclusivity mean--what does it mean
    in this context?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for the question. The ten demands
    that were delivered by the students were rejected, and none of
    them were adhered to. None of them were agreed to.
        Mrs. Foxx. OK. What my question is, what does inclusivity
    mean?
        Mr. Manuel. I believe that the program you are talking
    about, students were concerned that there was a limitation on
    who could take it based on visas given from Israel, and we
    still support that program.
        Mrs. Foxx. Do you commit to continuing the university study
    abroad program in Israel?
        Mr. Manuel. I commit to studying--to continuing all study
    abroad programs through and compliant with the law.
        Mrs. Foxx. Do you reject--do you commit to rejecting
    changes that demonize or delegitimize Israel?
        Mr. Manuel. Yes.
        Mrs. Foxx. Do you commit to ensuring that the study abroad
    program affirms the Jewish people's right to self-
    determination?
        Mr. Manuel. Yes. I believe self-determination and the right
    for Israel to exist is a primary function.
        Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady, and I recognize
    the gentleman from Georgia, Representative Allen.
        Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank our
    witnesses for being here today. Obviously, and you have heard
    this over and over, we are all extremely troubled by the
    antisemitic activities occurring on college campuses across the
    country. Our country has made tremendous strides in hopefully
    getting along with our friends from all over the world.
        Our institutions of higher education seem to be serving as
    breeding grounds for antisemitic activities. This antisemitic
    rhetoric has reached institutions beyond just the so-called
    elite schools, like Columbia or Harvard, which we had
    questioned some time ago.
        As I stated before, as the oldest and most established
    democracy in the region, Israel exemplifies the core values of
    freedom and democracy. Jerusalem is the center of the universe.
    A lot of people think Washington is, but that is where it is
    going to happen.
        Of course, you know, for those who are familiar with the
    Bible, the book of the Word of God, Gensis 12:3 states, ``I
    will bless those who bless you,'' talking about Israel. ``And
    whoever curses you I will curse.'' And that is a serious issue.
    In fact, it also goes on to say that all nations will be
    blessed through Israel.
        In fact, in John 4:22, Jesus said, ``Salvation, even for
    gentiles will come through the Jews.'' Dr. Cole, this is a
    serious, serious issue we are talking about. In fact, it has
    eternal consequences, and I mean DePaul President, Dr. Robert
    Manuel, with that being said, antisemitic extremist group
    behind enemy lines continues to trespass on DePaul's campus and
    harass Jewish students.
        This is the same group that made a wanted poster featuring
    a Jewish Israeli student at DePaul. In January, the group
    handed out flyers on campus that urged students to get
    dangerous. Then, just this past March the group was able to
    infiltrate a DePaul building as part of its week of defiance.
        Dr. Manuel, were any arrests made in either of these
    instances?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for the question, Representative.
    Once we saw that post we immediately trespassed BEL from our
    campus. We are an urban campus with many public streets and
    right of ways. We are working with our elected officials to see
    if there is not more we can do to stop the harassment of BEL
    against our students.
        Mr. Allen. Were any of these students arrested?
        Mr. Manuel. We can be--we kept BEL from being on our
    campus. We had a number of occasions where they were involved
    in protests. Our relationship with CPD prevented them from
    coming onto our campus to engage our students.
        Mr. Allen. What are you doing to prevent this from
    happening again?
        Mr. Manuel. We are training our public safety officers. We
    are working with the aldermen, the elected officials in our
    area to see if we cannot get broader protections in the public
    space, and we continue to report things like you mentioned in
    social media both to the FBI and to the CPD, and to the Chicago
    Police.
        Mr. Allen. President Raymond let us talk about restorative
    practices, a group to resolve disciplinary issues in your
    university. Directors of the group, Dr. Mahn McHenry and Dr.
    Jill Stauffer, both publicly support the academic boycott of
    Israel, and Dr. McHenry is a member of the Haverford Faculty
    for Justice in Palestine.
        On December 24 liked an Instagram post glorifying a member
    of the popular front of the liberation of Palestine, a U.S.
    designed terrorist organization with a history of murdering
    Jews. The caption reading, ``From the River to the Sea,
    Palestine will be free.'' Would a Jewish student feel
    comfortable with Dr. McHenry leading restorative practice,
    given her glorification of violence against Israel?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, we are committed to supporting
    our entire Jewish community. We are proud of it, and
    intersections with all aspects of our disciplinary processes
    are ones that I take very seriously. They must be done well.
        Mr. Allen. Well, it would seem that you would put into
    practice those things that I mean, your--I mean we are hearing,
    and it has been, if the testimony is correct about what is
    going on in these campuses, but you know, the action that we
    are hearing, you know, like I said we have got to fix this, and
    so with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Utah, Vice Chairman of this Committee,
    Representative Owens.
        Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is really
    unfortunate that it has been over a year since our first
    hearing on antisemitism, a year and a half since October 7th.
    It was talked about and still talk about rooting out
    antisemitism on our college campuses.
        The division of our educational institutions from our very
    founding has been taxed, and aspirations of our Nation State in
    the Preamble of the Constitution to become a more perfect
    union. We are failing our kids. What we are getting instead,
    students graduate with enormous debt, knowing nothing about our
    country's history, culture, vision, or sacrifices.
        Students are angry, lacking common sense and common decency
    toward anyone who looks different than them, or holds a
    different opinion. Our education institutions become the
    feeding grounds for Marxists, an ideology that abhors our
    culture of faith, family, the free market and wisdom through
    education. Young people who supposedly are our future leaders,
    are being taught to hate America, hate Israel.
        They have no shame in running around in gangs, hiding their
    faces as they burn and break other people's property. They
    intimidate, threaten and attack people who they do not know,
    because they have been taught to hate by their college
    professors. These cowardly bullies feel no threat about
    accountability because apparently the adults in charge have
    empowered them to negotiate the antisemitism, antisemitic views
    on their terms.
        We are seeing too many words, and too little action. As an
    observation as someone who grew up in the deep south, 1960's
    Jim Crow's deep south, the KKK will love the environment that
    we are now seeing on too many of our colleges. Many of them
    would have graduated with honors.
        With our new administration and a majority in the House and
    the Senate, this is going to come to a screeching halt.
    Accountability is back. Dr. Raymond, Haverford's social honor
    code, where students are required to place to the net, states
    that the acts of discrimination, micro-aggression and
    harassment, including and not limited to acts of racism,
    sexism, homophobia, transphobia, classism, ablism, which I have
    no idea what that is;
        Tokenism, coach or insensitivity, discrimination based on
    citizenship status, discrimination based on religion, and
    discrimination based on natural origin, accent, dialect, or
    usage of the English language are devoid of respect, and
    therefore by definition violate this code.
        First of all, Dr., who made this code? Who are the authors
    of this code of conduct?
        Ms. Raymond. Our Honor Code, which is both governing our
    social action and academics at Haverford, is written by
    students and approved by students, and I take responsibility.
        Mr. Owens. It sounds like it. OK, yes. Thank you. Thank
    you. It sounds like students that have been taught how to be
    Marxists by the way. Part of this--the uses of the English
    language, is that now a form of discrimination? I see this in
    the code. The usage of the English language. What does that
    have to do with the Code of Conduct?
        Ms. Raymond. We are actively revising that code to better
    meet the moment.
        Mr. Owens. All right. They also State that Haverford
    students commit to being--just a second here, commit to being
    actively anti-racist, and particularly commit to reject an
    anti-blackness, recognizing white privilege, challenging
    structures of whiteness and white comfort, and crediting the
    work of black, indigenous and people of color, and especially
    women of color.
        Are Jewish people considered white privileged by chance?
        Ms. Raymond. We do not tolerate any discrimination or bias
    at the college, and as I said, that code is under active
    revision.
        Mr. Owens. I would suggest that you put somebody in charge
    that are adults, all right, because obviously, this is from
    folks who have been trained how to hate. Now it is becoming a
    policy of the college, it should not be acceptable.
        Dr. Manuel, first of all I am impressed with the actions
    you are saying you are going to take. We look forward to
    following up on that. I think part of the problem is what is
    the teaching that is going on in between.
        You have someone, Terrin Webb, who made some very appalling
    statements about Jewish people--says, ``The historical fact
    that American Jewish immigrants have always been the
    foundational building block for white supremacist
    infrastructure in this country.''
        He also said, ``The State of Israel, much like U.S., is
    facilitating a white supremacist racial cast.'' Let me just say
    this. Leadership has to figure out how to get rid of this rot
    within your colleges. It is great to say these great things,
    but if you have people that hate our kids, and hate each other,
    and teach that, this has not changed.
        We will have to address it on the Federal level if we
    cannot change it on your area, OK, so with that I yield back. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
    the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    witnesses for being here today. President Raymond, despite your
    opening statement that you condemn antisemitism, multiple
    Jewish students on the campus you preside over report feeling
    ostracized by the sole fact they are Jewish. Do you think
    Haverford still has an antisemitic problem?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, I know that the effects of
    what has happened at Haverford have been very concerning, to me
    and to many of our Jewish students, staff and faculty. It has
    been a troubling time for many of us, and we are working to
    combat antisemitism.
        Mr. Messmer. OK. Well, other than describing as being
    antisemitic, how else would you describe the campus where a
    Jewish student wrote that multiple classmates have refused to
    speak to me after learning I am Jewish, or how could you
    possibly interrupt signs at a protest that say,
    ``Decolonization is not a metaphor.''
        Those Harvard faculty and students participating in these
    acts are sending a clear message to the Jewish student body, or
    anyone, any student with ties to Israel. You are not welcome
    here, and its termination of Israel and the Jewish people who
    sought refuge there is our goal.'' This is a very serious
    matter.
        One student said they felt safer in Israel, which is a
    combat zone, than attending your school in the fall. They
    wrote, ``I'm scared. I'm not going to learn, and I'm not going
    to be safe.'' President Raymond, are you comfortable with
    Haverford driving away Jewish students that have been accepted
    for admission, or are you going to establish more useless
    listening sessions, and ad hoc committees, or putting out bland
    statements approved by lawyers to cover your legal obligations?
        Is that really what your students at Haverford deserve?
        Ms. Raymond. What you read, Representative, pains me
    deeply. Those experiences of our Haverford students are not
    experiences that they should have on our campus or anywhere. I
    commit to the work of this campus to making it a much more
    welcoming place for all of our Jewish students, and staff and
    faculty.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Are protests calling for the
    genocide of Jews a violation of your university's rules or code
    of ethics? If they are, and such statements are made, what is
    the repercussion for students and faculty who make them?
        Ms. Raymond. Such calls are horrific, and absolutely not
    acceptable anywhere in the world. No such calls have been made
    at Haverford College. Any such calls would be, of course,
    followed up immediately with all of our disciplinary processes.
        Mr. Messmer. What would that discipline be?
        Ms. Raymond. The discipline would be what that process
    would eventually call for.
        Mr. Messmer. All right. Dr. Manuel, how about at your
    university? If there is a protest calling for the genocide of
    Jews, what would be the repercussion for a student or faculty
    that made them?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you. Representative, anybody who would
    make those kinds of statements for the genocide or killing of
    anybody would be immediately brought in through our
    adjudication processes. The result would be anything up to and
    including an expulsion.
        Mr. Messmer. Dr. Armstrong, same thing?
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes, sir. Anyone calling for the deal of any
    group or harassing or discriminating would be subject to
    discipline.
        Mr. Messmer. What would that discipline be?
        Mr. Armstrong. Well, for students it could be suspension.
    It could be, if repeated, expulsion, and then we also have
    procedures for our faculty and staff that result in discipline.
        Mr. Messmer. Thank you. Dr. Manuel, instead of checking IDs
    for protectors that are wearing masks, why not prohibit the
    wearing of masks for those that are protesting? How is that
    part of their free speech rights?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you. We have people on our campus who are
    immunocompromised, folks have religious beliefs, we wanted to
    accommodate that. We also wanted to prevent people from evading
    identification during critical moments on campus.
        What I mentioned in my ID masking policy that we adopted,
    is part of the larger culture of creating accountability, the
    changes in our time, place and manner, the additional 30
    percent spent on our public safety, the bringing in of the ADL
    expert to help a Jewish engagement.
        Together they represent a changed action in the way that we
    hold ourselves accountable to our community.
        Mr. Messmer. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for all
    being here, and I yield back my time.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
    the gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
        Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. It is abundantly clear that
    the cynical work of the majority party on this Committee is now
    being expanded and weaponized by the administration seeking to
    squash dissent. We are seeing the heavy hand of the State
    through this administration and the body being brought down
    against students and faculty for engaging in protected speech.
        We saw this in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, who on March 8th
    became one of the first student activists to be detained by
    ICE, despite not being criminally charged, and despite the
    agents lying about having a warrant.
        We saw this in the case of Mohsen Mahdawi who was abducted
    by ICE at a citizenship neutralization interview for his role
    in campus protests. We saw this in the case of Rumeysa Ozturk
    who was accosted in broad daylight by a group of masked, and
    unidentified agents after writing a critical article in her
    student newspaper last year.
        There have been more. Georgetown Professor Badar Khan Suri,
    Ph.D. candidate, Ranjani, Sherif Ni Vassan, a 21 year-old
    student, Yu Son Jang, and many more. Political protests,
    antiwar protests, Pro-Palestinian protest.
        This is all protected speech under the First Amendment,
    regardless of citizenship status. Using immigration authorities
    to target, abduct, and illegally detain non-citizens for their
    activism is a clear violation of their rights and a hallmark of
    an authoritarian government.
        As Mahmoud Khalil wrote, from inside the Louisiana
    Detention Center where he remained for 60 days, who has the
    right to have rights? As Mohsen Mahdawi wrote after being freed
    from detention, when they look at my case all Americans should
    ask themselves what is left of our democracy, and who will be
    targeted next?
        In 1987, almost 40 years ago, eight immigrants in Los
    Angeles were arrested as a result of their pro-Palestinian
    activism. In a shockingly similar circumstances, as the arrests
    and abductions by ICE that we are seeing today. Professor Cole,
    you legally represented the LA8 for 20 years against the U.S.
    Government, as the charges were dismissed. The Judge called the
    proceedings an embarrassment to the rule of law.
        What similarities have you seen between that cold war Era
    case and the cases we are seeing today, and what findings were
    made at the time regarding the First Amendment rights of
    noncitizens?
        Mr. Cole. Thank you for that question. There are many
    parallels. The charges actually against the group of
    Palestinian students back then, the initial charges were being
    advocates of world communism. The McCarthyism trope was used
    against them at that time.
        We challenged that provision of the McCarran-Walter Act in
    Court, arguing that all people in the United States have First
    Amendment rights, whether you are a citizen or a noncitizen.
    The Supreme Court has said even corporations have speech rights
    because the First Amendment protects speech, not speakers, and
    the Court agreed, and struck down that provision of the
    McCarran-Walter Act, saying all persons, including foreign
    nationals in this country have the same First Amendment rights.
        Mahmoud Khalil has the same First Amendment rights. Badar
    Khan Suri has the same First Amendment rights, and yet this
    administration is targeting them for nothing more than speaking
    out in ways that the administration disagrees with. That is
    contrary to the core principle of the First Amendment.
        In the same way that the effort to use charges of
    antisemitism to target universities and try to micromanage how
    they discipline particular incidents is contrary to the core
    conception of the First Amendment.
        Ms. Omar. Mr. Cole, it is refreshing. Professor Cole, it is
    refreshing to have a witness who understands the legitimate
    McCarthy-like approach the majority is taking on this
    Committee. For them it is easy to target peoples' rights to
    speech and to assemble when they advocate for Palestine. It is
    easy to dismiss the rights of those who are not yet citizens.
        Professor Cole, from your decades of experience as a First
    Amendment scholar and champion, does it ever stop at the easy
    targets?
        Mr. Cole. No, it does not stop at the easy targets. You
    could again, look back at McCarthyism. It was targeted at a
    problem. There were Communists in this country that were spying
    for our enemy, but that is not what the McCarthyism was about.
    It was not about identifying those spies. It ultimately reached
    millions of Americans who were subjected to investigations.
        People lost their jobs, were black-listed merely for their
    ideas.
        Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time is expired.
        Ms. Omar. I will say those who do not learn from history
    repeat it, so thank you so much.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize
    the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
        Mr. Kiley. President Raymond, there is a professor in your
    faculty, Professor Mendelson, is that correct?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes.
        Mr. Kiley. He is an Israeli professor, and he has posted
    that Haverford College's study body is led by Hamas apologist
    and tainted by antisemitism. He said if I am a parent of a
    Jewish student, I will not send them to Haverford College. Do
    you think there is reality reflected in his sentiments?
        Ms. Raymond. I am sorry, I did not hear you. Do I----
        Mr. Kiley. Do his sentiments reflect the reality on that
    campus?
        Ms. Raymond. I think that Professor Mendelson has the right
    to express himself as he wishes, and I do not think that
    expresses the overall reality of Haverford.
        Mr. Kiley. Was he investigated by your administration?
        Ms. Raymond. I will not talk about individual
    investigations.
        Mr. Kiley. OK. I am not asking you the content of the
    investigation, I am saying yes or no, was this professor
    investigated?
        Ms. Raymond. I will not talk about whether an individual--
    --
        Mr. Kiley. I think we will take that as a yes. You have
    professors who are making antisemitic comments, who are
    inciting violence, rather than investigate them, you
    investigate the Israeli professor who is calling attention to
    the horrors that are taking place on the campus.
        There was an incident in 2024 where you had posters for
    Chabad events, for other events in the Jewish community for
    antisemitism events that disappeared. You said that this was
    from benign mechanisms, and you said it was the wind. Was it
    the wind that caused the posters to come down?
        Ms. Raymond. We do not tolerate any discrimination or bias,
    which----
        Mr. Kiley. That was nowhere close to my question. Was it
    the wind that caused these posters to come down? What you said
    it was.
        Ms. Raymond. When posters are taken down intentionally, not
    by the wind, then that would be antisemitism.
        Mr. Kiley. Not the kind of wind that only goes after one
    particular type of poster. There was also an event on your
    campus that you have acknowledged by the ADL, the Anti-
    Defamation League that was disrupted, at an event specifically
    designed to counter antisemitism. You had antisemites that came
    and disrupted it.
        Apparently, the only thing you had them do was write a
    letter of apology. Is that correct?
        Ms. Raymond. Having the disruption of that antisemitism
    awareness event was not acceptable, and a horrible moment.
        Mr. Kiley. All they had to do was write a letter of
    apology. There was also apparently doughnuts were going to be
    ordered for commencement from a Jewish bakery. A group of
    antisemites on campus asked for a boycott saying, ``Say no to
    blood doughnuts.'' Did you abide by their calls for a boycott?
        Ms. Raymond. We purchased and enjoyed those doughnuts.
        Mr. Kiley. Did the students receive the doughnuts?
        Ms. Raymond. They were eaten at commencement.
        Mr. Kiley. They were eaten. That is an odd passive way. Did
    the students get any?
        Ms. Raymond. Pardon me. They were available at
    commencement.
        Mr. Kiley. To students?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, they were available during the
    commencement.
        Mr. Kiley. OK. To students. We also had a takeover of
    Founder's Hall take place on your campus, and you said that you
    negotiated with those who were involved in this, did you not?
        Ms. Raymond. I had conversations with those students when
    we brought that to a close.
        Mr. Kiley. Students who physically took over this building,
    and in fact you said that the only punishment, the only
    consequences for them were restorative, not punitive action. Is
    that right? Restorative, not punitive?
        Ms. Raymond. When that disruption disrupted our campus
    activities, according to our policies and our practices, we
    took--we closed that off and it ended.
        Mr. Kiley. There was also an antisemitism awareness
    basketball game that was organized, but the organizers were
    told that this might prove too antagonistic to the pro-
    Palestinian students, and the game did not happen. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Raymond. We are committed to fighting antisemitism.
        Mr. Kiley. That was not the question. Was the game
    canceled? Were the students told it would be too antagonistic
    to pro-Palestinian students?
        Ms. Raymond. That is not what happened.
        Mr. Kiley. Can you look--would you be able right now to
    look the parents of a perspective Jewish student in the eye,
    and assure them that their son or daughter would feel safe and
    welcome on your campus?
        Ms. Raymond. I can assure all applicants to Haverford
    College that we are a place that promotes inclusion and
    belonging for all.
        Mr. Kiley. Would you be able to look the parents of a
    perspective Jewish student and say your son or daughter will
    feel safe and welcome on my campus?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, I would.
        Mr. Kiley. This is all, Mr. Cole, just McCarthyism to you,
    right? You have testified, you have likened our committee's
    antisemitism investigation to the House Un-American Activities
    Committee, is that right?
        Mr. Cole. That is absolutely right.
        Mr. Kiley. Have you forgotten the hearing with say the
    Columbia President where during her testimony there was an
    illegal encampment that had taken over that campus. The House
    Un-American Activities Committee's problem was that it was
    dredging up distant affiliations, real or imagined, in order to
    impugn people.
        Nothing could be more different than what is going on. I do
    not know if you have talked to the students at places like
    Haverford, or Harvard, or Northwestern, or UCLA, who are afraid
    to wear a Star of David, afraid to wear a Yarmulke, or are
    afraid to express their identity in any way because they will
    be ostracized.
        They will be subject to discrimination and potentially acts
    of violence, who have to face checkpoints from antisemitic
    lunatics on the campus, not letting them even access public
    facilities, or cross the quad. Nothing could be more different.
    This is a shocking problem that has engulfed much of higher
    education, and had been building for many years, but in
    particular, over the last year and a half.
        I simply cannot believe that you would say that, that the
    Democrat witness from the ACLU would come here and liken this
    to McCarthyism. We have a long way to go in reforming higher
    education. I yield back.
        Mr. Cole. Can I respond?
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlemen----
        Mr. Cole. Do I get to respond, or, no?
        Mr. Scott. Could the gentleman respond?
        Chairman Walberg. The gentleman can respond when he is
    given the opportunity. I now recognize the gentleman from
    California, Mr. DeSaulnier.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Cole, I want to give you a chance to
    respond on my time, and I just want to agree with your
    sentiment, and taken by a comment in that point of history,
    have you no shame, and sorry he is leaving.
        It is a shameless behavior, so I will give you a few
    minutes to explain.
        Mr. Cole. I guess he did not want to hear the answer.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Apparently, so go ahead. If you need more
    time, it is on me.
        Mr. Cole. The answer is of course there is a problem with
    antisemitism. There is a problem with Islamophobia. There is a
    problem with racism. There is a problem with sexism. This
    hearing, this set of hearings that this Committee has engaged
    in, is not a solution to that problem, just as there was a
    problem with Communist spies.
        We now have evidence that there were in fact Communist
    spies, but the McCarthy Era and the HUAC hearings were not
    about that. They were about bringing people in, condemning
    them, not looking into the facts, but making broad accusations,
    and I have heard that again here today, again and again.
        Lumping together criticism of Israel, which is protected
    speech, with antisemitism. Criticism of Zionism, which is
    protected speech, with antisemitism. No effort to discern the
    difference between protected speech and discrimination. Our
    Constitution requires that we make that distinction. This
    Committee has not made any effort to make that distinction.
        That is why I draw the comparison to HUAC.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. I completely agree with you, and that
    comment to Senator McCarthy at that time I think is appropriate
    today. ``After all this, sir, do you have no shame?'' Because I
    actually think it makes a higher risk for violence on the
    campuses.
        Mr. Cole. Exactly, and we did ultimately recognize that Joe
    McCarthy made a mistake, and I think history will show that
    this Committee followed and repeated that same mistake.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Absolutely, absolutely. Appreciate it.
    President Armstrong, I want to talk about what we have done in
    California in the University of California system that some of
    my colleagues are anxious to criticize.
        In your instance, as a member of the Transportation
    Committee, you are getting people out to help us spend that
    money that we did not in the Biden administration, to provide
    valuable resources to the economy and transportation. You have
    one of the highest returns on investment for students.
        When your graduates get out, they go out to work and make a
    good return on investment. Thank you for that, and you have
    done really good work on this instance. Mr. Chair, I would like
    to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two letters
    from students and organizations at Cal Poly, St. Luis Obispo,
    which speak positively about President Armstrong's leadership
    and the atmosphere the school has created for Jewish students.
    I would ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit those to
    the record.
        Chairman Walberg. Without objection, they will be
    submitted.
        [The Information of Mr. DeSaulnier follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. DeSaulnier. Can you followup on your work with local
    police, who have jurisdiction over this at Cal Poly, that has
    been successful to protecting all of your students,
    particularly Jewish students?
        Mr. Armstrong. Yes, thank you for that question. We work
    very hard to make sure all students have a safe learning
    environment. We want to make sure they are free from harassment
    and discrimination, but we also balance that with free speech.
    Our university policy partner with off campus, the city police
    in a very positive way.
        First, we make sure that our students who have invited
    speakers or departments that it is done properly, and everyone
    is safe, so that is with our time, place and manner rules. Then
    we have a great relationship with the city. They provide aid.
    We also support them, so I appreciate that question.
        Mr. DeSaulnier. Thanks. Mr. Cole, I want to ask you a
    question. In the area I represent, Region 9 in San Francisco,
    is being cutback all the departments, but the Department of
    Education, so its ability to defend vulnerable students, could
    you speak to that? If you do not have the staff in the regions,
    what does that do to potential violence or protections for
    interest of the disabled community?
        Mr. Cole. Well, it decimates the ability, the real ability
    of government to try to protect Jewish students. If this
    Committee really cared about Jewish students, it would be
    condemning the Department of Education. It would be bringing in
    the Secretary, as I suggested earlier, and saying why are you
    cutting in half the Office of Civil Rights? We have a problem
    with antisemitism, we have a problem with racism, we have a
    problem with sexism, let us deal with the problem.
        Instead, the Committee brings in Presidents, dredges up
    allegations that have not been determined to be true or false,
    and just throw them out as if that somehow is solving the
    problem. It is not solving the problem in any way shape or
    form. What would solve the problem----
        Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Mr. Cole [continuing]. Calling the Secretary of Education
    here.
        Chairman Walberg. I now recognize Mr. Fine.
        Mr. Fine. Thank you. This has been hard to sit through, and
    for all the Jews that are out there, I want to apologize to you
    because it has been tough for me listening to a lot of the
    repulsive and repugnant commentary that has been made both in
    those asking questions, and those answering them.
        God puts us where he wants us to be. My 17 year-old this
    morning told me to wear my kippa, which I do not do often, but
    that may change in honor of all of the students at these
    campuses that do not feel safe to wear it themselves. For
    anyone who doubts my commitment to fighting on these issues, no
    matter what side of the aisle they are on, they can go talk to
    the two Chairman of the Board, and the one university President
    in Florida who no longer have their jobs because of me.
        I encourage you to keep that in mind when you answer my
    questions. I think we heard a lot of lip service here, and Mr.
    Cole talked about the importance of free speech and equal
    access to education, so I am going to start with those
    questions with Dr. Raymond.
        Dr. Raymond, and I encourage you--this may be happening
    right now. If a student is on your campus right now with a sign
    that says, ``No Blacks on Campus,'' what will happen to that
    student?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative Fine, I first want to say----
        Mr. Fine. I do not want to hear that. I want you to answer
    my question. A student--if someone, a student on your campus
    right now walking around campus saying, ``No Blacks on
    Campus,'' what will happen to that student? They are--just
    allowed to walk around, ``Good job. Free Speech, we love
    that.'' Is that what would happen on your campus?
        Ms. Raymond. No.
        Mr. Fine. OK, good. Would they be invited to go get an
    education somewhere else, which is what I hope the answer is?
        Ms. Raymond. It would be the same as someone who is
    inappropriately and repugnantly----
        Mr. Fine. Would they be kicked out of campus if the student
    walked around your campus saying, ``No Blacks on Campus,'' or
    would we like sit around a drum circle and talk about how great
    it is? What would happen? Would they be kicked off, or is that
    free speech at Haverford College, no Blacks on campus?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative Fine, there is no room for
    discrimination, or----
        Mr. Fine. There is room, because at your campus in front of
    you at a protest, students held up a sign saying, ``No Zionists
    on Campus.'' They said--and there was no consequence for that,
    and you were at that event, and it happened on--it happened,
    sorry, it happened on September 30th, 2024. You were there.
        My second question, I am going to go to, do you believe the
    Jews are responsible for COVID? Is that some sort of conspiracy
    that we came up with to go after people, the Jewish students on
    your campus, and professors, we are responsible for COVID, and
    it was like unleashed on people. Is that what you believe?
        Ms. Raymond. Of course it is not.
        Mr. Fine. OK. Then why did you say when a group, a
    terrorist group, wanted to have a presentation called ``COVID
    in times of Genocide, How Israel uses COVID as a tool for
    Settler Colonialism in Palestine.'' Your response to that name
    was that it was thoughtful and considerate.
        See, we can talk about what other people did, I am
    interested in what you did, and in both of these instances you
    are the one that did it. Do you think that title, ``COVID in
    times of Genocide, how Israel uses COVID as a tool for Settler
    Colonialism in Palestine?'' Was that thoughtful and
    considerate? Do you still belief that today?
        Ms. Raymond. I did not say that about that title, and I do
    not believe that today, and Zionists are welcome on our campus,
    and Zionists are Jews and not Jews, and to go back to your
    other point, we do not tolerate discrimination against----
        Mr. Fine. Well, then let us get on to that. Zionists are
    welcome on your campus. We will now talk about a professor that
    is on your campus, and I am actually going to give some of my
    time to Mr. Cole on this one because he talked about equal
    access to education.
        You have a professor named Guangtian Ha, and I apologize,
    who said in August 2024, the only way to deal with Zionists is
    to stop talking to them and refuse to let them waste your time.
    Now, I do not know what Professor Ha teaches, but I would
    assume there are some students in his class that are actually
    Zionists.
        Would it be--would it reduce their access to education if
    their professor publicly says I should stop talking to
    Zionists, and I should not waste my time on them. How is that
    acceptable on your campus?
        Ms. Raymond. Discrimination of any form is not acceptable.
        Mr. Fine. OK. Does he still work on your campus? Does he
    still work there?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, he does.
        Mr. Fine. He does, and he also said something, he said,
    ``The State of Israel must be dismantled and society
    denazified. Zionism is Nazism, and is Fascism, Zionists or
    racists.'' That is OK, and you can continue to work on your
    campus when you make those statements, that is OK, keep the
    job.
        Ms. Raymond. Those statements are repugnant, and I do not
    defend those statements.
        Mr. Fine. You do because here is the last one I am going to
    do. You had a graduate student, let me see if I can find it
    here, you had a graduate student who before he was hired, made
    a statement--oh, can I find it here? The problem with your
    place is there are so many.
        October 7, 2023, you had a visiting assistant professor
    write, ``October 7th is a beautiful sight to wake up to this
    morning,'' and after this person made this statement, your
    school offered them another position in June 2024. Why would
    you hire someone who says that October 7th was a beautiful
    sight to wake up to. Why would you hire that person?
        Ms. Raymond. I am very sorry that I had someone on the
    faculty that would espouse those kinds of views.
        Mr. Fine. Good. You can go back, and you can fire him. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I would ask to
    submit for the record the most recent ADL Campus Antisemitism
    Card, that includes a report card that includes the three
    universities here, as well as others, including some that have
    been in front of us where if it is conjecture that this
    Committee in our activities with hearings are not having an
    impact, we will see that there has been impact and better
    grades that are coming on for some, still terrible grades for
    others.
        Without objection, I submit this for the record.
        [The Information of Chairman Walberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Walberg. I now recognize the gentlelady from
    Michigan, Ms. Stevens.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to give
    the first, you know, 15 to 20 seconds to Mr. Cole to finish
    your last thought from the previous question if you wanted to.
        Mr. Cole. From which question?
        Ms. Stevens. From Mr. DeSaulnier?
        Mr. Cole. I am not even remembering.
        Ms. Stevens. Oh, well, that is good.
        Mr. Cole. I think I did finish it.
        Ms. Stevens. I think the Committee wanted to make sure you
    could finish your thought, but if it is finished.
        Mr. Cole. I think I have said what I needed to say about
    the analogies between this Committee's work and HUAC
    Committee's work, and I think history will reflect that is
    exactly the analogy that we should draw.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, I think we can all agree that
    combatting antisemitism is a nonpartisan issue, and needs to be
    treated as such, and this is now the fourth or fifth Committee
    hearing that we have held on this topic of antisemitism on our
    college campuses.
        I do not believe it is a false obsession. We know in the
    United States of America that we have rising antisemitism, and
    it is actually exploding. Dr. Raymond, it was nice to hear you
    say that Zionists are welcome on campus, whether a Zionist is a
    Jewish student, or a non-Jewish student. That is important to
    hear. That is important to say and even displaying that more
    prominent I think for all of you, it would be certainly
    welcome.
        I am myself a Zionist, and I am not Jewish, and I am proud
    of that designation. Now, there might be some people who are
    not Zionists, and maybe you are going to say that non-Zionists
    are welcome as well, anti-Zionists are welcome.
        One of the challenges that those of us who have studied
    this issue have come across is that while it might sound good
    to say that non-Zionists, anti-Zionism, is not antisemitism. We
    have not yet really see that exist, and so we want to be very
    careful with, you know, embracing this modality of thinking
    that is anti-Zionism that very quickly bleeds into
    antisemitism.
        The other thing that we want to respect and recognize is
    universities, as places of free thought and deep thinking. I
    myself have a master's in philosophy. I did graduate this
    century, that is nice. In a different time where this level of
    antisemitism was not at its boiling point.
        We are having experiences from the Jewish community in
    particular, even pre 10/7 where we knew it was difficult for
    students--Jewish students, to be on college campuses. After 10/
    7 it became on some of the campuses, very difficult, and
    students--we had testimony in another--it was a type of hearing
    that we had, where a student said he was wearing his yarmulke.
        He was raised by a single mother in Brooklyn, openly
    Jewish, had never been to Israel, and is now being attacked on
    his college campus. We all have to ask ourselves why that is
    happening, and we have to do the work to make sure that it does
    not happen.
        Now, I also want to devote my energy and my time as a
    Member of Congress who cares, I am a Cochair of the
    Antisemitism Task Force, so I do deeply care about this issue,
    tremendously. I am going to reflect on another period of
    hearing that we had where we shared the mental health resources
    that get made available to college campuses.
        We had a couple of terms ago, when the Democrats were in
    the majority, a hearing about this, and we were going to
    allocate more mental health resources on the college campuses.
    A colleague from the other side of the aisle put in an
    amendment that said if you are gay, you cannot access these
    mental health resources.
        I do not know why that would happen. I do not know why that
    was a vote we had to take in this Committee hearing. I found
    that really biased, and lacking in inclusion. To your point,
    Mr. Cole, about taking very seriously what our colleges need to
    combat hate, to combat antisemitism, we need a civil rights
    office, and we need a functioning Department of Education.
        Thank you to everybody in the audience who is here as well,
    wearing their yellow pins. I am also the Cochair of the Hostage
    Task Force. We need to bring the hostages home, we need to see
    this war come to an end, and Hamas needs to surrender. With
    that, Mr. Chair, thank you, I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I recognize the
    gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.
        Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you to the
    witnesses for coming to the Committee today. Ms.--President
    Raymond, as you mentioned in your testimony on September 30,
    2024, the Anti-Defamation League held a presentation on
    Haverford's campus entitled, ``Antisemitism 101,''
    unfortunately many of your students decided to disrupt the
    event, for example, by chanting through a megaphone, ``From
    Gaza to Lebanon, Israel will still be gone--will soon be
    gone,'' banging pots and pans, and holding signs with
    statements, including, ``No Zionists on Campus.''
        President Raymond, yes or no, do you believe that is an
    incident of intimidating Jewish students, and an incident of
    antisemitism?
        Ms. Raymond. I do believe that is an act of intimidation,
    yes.
        Mr. Onder. You know, I understand that it is not
    necessarily antisemitic to condemn particular aspects of
    Israeli foreign policy, but in context, would you agree that
    using the term Zionist in that context, it is a synonym for
    Jew?
        Ms. Raymond. I am committed to supporting our Jewish
    community.
        Mr. Onder. Do you think those protestors knew the foreign
    policy views of every Jewish student on campus? I mean in
    context, no Zionists on campus. No Republicans on campus, no
    libertarians on campus. I do not think they are talking about
    Jews. They are talking--no Jews on campus is what those
    protestors mean.
        Ms. Raymond. The representative before me, and I said also
    myself, that Zionists, and I think you know this too, Zionists
    are Jews and not Jews, and we do not accept discrimination
    against anyone at Haverford.
        Mr. Onder. Were any students involved in that incident
    disciplined? Were any expelled, suspended, or otherwise subject
    to discipline?
        Ms. Raymond. We did put through discipline, some of the
    students that were involved in disrupting that event, and we
    learned from that event to have clearer policies, which we now
    have on what it means to disrupt through noise outside an
    event.
        Mr. Onder. Can you give us numbers of how many students
    were disciplined and in what ways?
        Ms. Raymond. I will not give numbers or specifics.
        Mr. Onder. Yes. You were similarly evasive with Chairman
    Walberg, but your colleagues, your colleagues gave us numbers.
    Why are you not? Can you cite a Federal law that does not allow
    you to do so, or are you more ethical than they are because you
    are protecting students' privacy better?
        We are not asking for names. We are not asking for social
    security numbers, or dates of birth, we are asking for numbers.
        Ms. Raymond. My top priority is the safety and well-being
    of our students.
        Mr. Onder. You are not going to give us the information?
        Ms. Raymond. We follow all of our disciplinary practices,
    which can, depending on what has happened, result in suspension
    or expulsion when appropriate.
        Mr. Onder. President Raymond, last year when Jewish
    community leaders pressed Haverford DI administrator, this is
    Nicky Young, VP for Institutional Equity and Access, and
    Professor of Gender Studies, when they asked her about the
    antisemitic climate on campus, she is quoted as saying,
    ``Blacks and gays have in the past not felt safe on campus. It
    is now the turn of Jewish students to experience that
    feeling.''
        Were you aware of her making that statement?
        Ms. Raymond. That is not a statement that she made.
        Mr. Onder. She did not?
        Ms. Raymond. No, she did not, and that does not sound like
    the Dr. Young that I know who was committed against
    antisemitism as am I.
        Mr. Onder. If someone made such a statement, should they be
    fired?
        Ms. Raymond. We follow--when that--any such statement that
    is discriminatory----
        Mr. Onder. If someone made such a statement, should they be
    suspended?
        Ms. Raymond. We would follow our practices to, and have as
    a consequence, an appropriate outcome.
        Mr. Onder. If such a statement was made, should they be
    fired, suspended or disciplined in some other way? Are such
    statements unacceptable at Haverford?
        Ms. Raymond. Statements of discrimination and harassment
    are unacceptable.
        Mr. Onder. OK. Fine. I suppose it is your First Amendment
    right to be evasive, but it is also our right to decide that
    such institutions are not deserving of taxpayer money. Thank
    you, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I recognize
    the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
        Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our nation is undoubtedly
    at an inflection point, politically, culturally, socially.
    College campuses have always been the place where those
    tensions collide more visibly, and more profoundly than almost
    anywhere else in our country.
        It is precisely because of that role that these
    institutions play in our society. Throughout history, college
    campuses have been the places where world views, politics,
    cultures, meet. Students are introduced to ideas and thoughts,
    some they accept and agree with, and others they vehemently
    disagree with, but it is where they encounter ideas that tests
    their values, where they are pushed out of the comfort zones,
    and where they begin to define not, just what they think, but
    who they are and who they want to be.
        Some of the most transformative movements for justice in
    this country were ignited by students on college campuses, from
    the citizens of the Civil Rights Movement, and the Antiwar
    Administrations to campaign against South African Apartheid,
    and the many other student-led movements for racial, gender and
    economic justice.
        Those movements did not just happen to take place on
    campuses, they happened because of what those campuses seek to
    foster, spaces for critical thinking, opportunities for
    students to learn, to meet with diverse people, to be
    empowered, and to question existing social and societal
    structures.
        Students will not get everything right, and we should all
    unequivocally say that antisemitism, anti-blackness,
    Islamophobia, homophobia, and any form of hatred, are not
    acceptable ways to engage on a college campus, and movement
    spaces and activism, or in any other existing place in our
    societies.
        Students will not get everything right, and we should also
    say unequivocally, or excuse me, but we should also recognize
    that discomfort is sometimes having your worldview question,
    and that it is sometimes conflated as being a threat to safety.
    There are differences.
        We all have a right to critique and disagree with the
    policies and actions of governments. It is in the Constitution.
    Students have a right to protest, and advocate on behalf of
    Palestinian existence, rights and self-determinations, just as
    students have the right to protest and advocate on behalf of
    Israel.
        Now, that tradition of protest, academic freedom, and the
    core principle of free speech is under attack, not genuinely in
    the name of safety or student well-being, but under the guise
    of control, used to suppress the voices of marginalized groups,
    and criminalized dissent.
        The colleges and universities before us today have a dual
    obligation to both ensure the safety of their students from
    antisemitism and all forms of hatred, while allowing critical
    discourse to continue. Suppressing student's right to protest
    is an entry point for the erosion of civil liberties, and that
    is how democracies die.
        That brings us to why we are here today. The majority in
    this Committee convened us because they, even if people who
    really are impacted by this, but they are further villainizing
    higher education while using Jewish students and antisemitism
    as a scapegoat.
        I have a question. It is imperative that we create a campus
    environment that is diverse, inclusive, safe, equitable without
    compromising free speech and academic freedom. Mr. Cole, do you
    agree that they can, that universities can and must do both?
        Mr. Cole. Absolutely. They can and must do both, and in
    some instances where there are State universities, they are
    compelled by the constitution to respect free speech and not
    treat every antisemitic comment as discrimination because most
    of them are protected speech.
        On private universities that are not bound by the
    Constitution, many and indeed most of them, have adopted free
    speech policies precisely for the reasons you suggest that it
    is critical to an education. For years, conservatives
    complained about universities not being open enough, not being
    tolerant enough, condemning speech, which was only racist or
    only sexist.
        Now, suddenly, they have switched entirely.
        Ms. Lee. All right. If I may, to add to that, every student
    deserves to be safe, and have their humanity recognized. This
    administration has done nothing to warrant that end. If they
    actually cared about campus safety and protecting students,
    then in addition to acknowledging the real rise in
    antisemitism, we would also be talking about the rise of
    Islamophobia, and the persistent anti-blackness, the
    degradation of rights of trans students.
        Since my tenure we have had zero hearings, resolutions or
    acknowledgements of any of the many intertwined ills that
    plaque our college campuses in larger society. Has anyone--just
    a yes or a no, is anyone on this Committee, from the majority
    on our committee, has anyone from the Trump administration
    asked you about racist, Islamophobic or Homophobic incidents on
    your campus, yes, or no? Probably not, just for time.
        I would say they probably have not because what has become
    clear is that the concern here is selective. Only appearing
    when it can be weaponized for political gain. Instead, what we
    are seeing is a deliberate effort to dividemarginalized people.
    My colleagues are weaponizing--attempts to weaponize learning
    is transparent and pathetic.
        It is clear that my colleagues have real issues with free
    speech and education, not antisemitism. We should not fall for
    it. It is clear that they do not care about it because they
    have dismantled and closed regional offices for the Office of
    Civil Rights, where we are tasked with investigating
    antisemitism.
        That they have not spoken out against the Nazi salutes of
    Elon Musk, or the Great Replacement Theory that led to the
    largest antisemitic massacre in my district, in the Pittsburgh
    Synagogue shooting, that they have done nothing about anti-
    blackness, I will not hold my breath for a hearing on that.
        That we have not acknowledged that our safety and our
    liberation is tied together. That is not actually student
    safety that they care about. We have to fight back against our
    attempts to erode our civil liberties. We cannot allow them to
    use efforts to divide our marginalized communities against each
    other in that fight.
        Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
        Ms. Lee. We are the closest we have ever been--ever been to
    losing our civil liberties. We have to fight against it.
        Chairman Walberg. I recognize the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
    today's hearing on stopping the spread of antisemitism on
    American campuses because we do see a very real problem that is
    occurring all across the country. Antisemitism has been around
    for a long time, but ever since October 7th it has come out
    into the light in a much more shocking and offensive fashion,
    particularly on our university campuses.
        When it presents itself, we appreciate that some of the
    university Presidents are willing to identify those situations,
    and call them out, and when discrimination like this goes
    through a process that you have on you campus, and a violation
    is determined that it has actually occurred, appropriate
    punishment is being met out.
        That is important that we recognize that as well. Then
    accountability for us as legislators, is making sure that those
    institutions that actually go through that process, recognize
    the discrimination that is occurring on their campus, hand out
    punishment. We want to make sure that that is actually the
    course of events that is playing out.
        During the course of this testimony today, two of the
    university Presidents have been very transparent with the
    aggregate information that they were willing to share about the
    punishments that were handed out on their university campus.
    One was not. One has debated that conversation a number of
    times, saying that she was unable to provide that information.
        Under pressured testimony, twice though, you have
    acknowledged that punishment has occurred, so you have violated
    your own standard, that you would not disclose or discuss any
    punishments that were occurring on your university campus. My
    question to you, to the President, Dr. Raymond, from Haverford
    College, is will you go back to your college campus, collect
    that aggregate information.
        We do not need any personal information, and share it with
    this Committee about the punishments that have been handed out
    from your university to students, or others who were involved
    in this discriminatory practice on your college campus?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative Mackenzie, I appreciate your
    requesting that. I can commit to our practices around this. We
    do not share our results of our disciplinary processes on our
    campus or publicly.
        Mr. Mackenzie. That is a problem. That is a problem. You do
    receive Federal money, do you not? In some way, either directly
    or indirectly through student loans or grants to your
    university?
        Ms. Raymond. We do, in a wonderful partnership with the
    Federal Government.
        Mr. Mackenzie. Well, that partnership may be in jeopardy
    because if you will not provide transparency and accountability
    like your other colleagues here, it calls into question your
    actions on your campus. When people are concerned about
    discrimination that is happening on your college campus, which
    the list is pretty long at this point.
        It is very concerning the amount of incidents that are
    piled up at your college campus under your tenure, and yet you
    will not share any information about the punishment that has
    been handed out when discrimination that you acknowledged, has
    happened on your campus. You will not share that anybody has
    actually been punished for that?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, the effects of what have
    happened at Haverford on our Jewish students and community are
    real, and deeply troubling to me, and I am in this work
    committed to getting it right. We have had many policy changes
    since October 7th in order to do this work better than we were
    able to do then.
        I commit to that work in an ongoing basis with deep empathy
    and care for all of our Jewish students, staff and faculty.
        Mr. Mackenzie. I appreciate that statement, but it is
    lacking in transparency and accountability about the end
    results of punishment that are handed out to students and
    faculty that are on your campus, that participate in
    discriminatory actions. That should just be a baseline for
    receiving Federal funding.
        You are willing to acknowledge that discriminatory actions
    have happened on your campus. You are willing to say that we
    are going to take some kind of action. When that does occur,
    you are going to go through a process, but then you will not
    actually show those of us that are responsible for providing
    Federal funding, that you have actually done anything at the
    end of the day.
        That is a very concerning course of action, and I think it
    is something that Congress should probably look into, saying
    that there needs to be transparency, there needs to be
    accountability, and those institutions that do not want to
    provide that, and want to be evasive in remarks before
    Congress, want to avoid transparency and accountability in the
    actual publishing of the results of in aggregate numbers.
        The fact that they have taken action against discriminatory
    behavior, I think that that probably warrants a further
    investigation. The Department of Education should be looking
    into that, and ultimately, they should be withholding funds
    from somebody who does not want to provide transparent and
    accurate information about how they are handling discrimination
    on their college campus. Thank you and I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. I thank
    the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr.
    Baumgartner.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Raymond, how
    many Americans were killed on October 7th?
        Ms. Raymond. I do not know.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Dr. Raymond, how many----
        Ms. Raymond. There were some in Israel.
        Mr. Baumgartner. How many Americans were taken hostage on
    October 7th?
        Ms. Raymond. I know that some were, I do not know the
    number.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Do you know how many Americans are
    currently held hostage by Hamas?
        Ms. Raymond. No, I do not.
        Mr. Baumgartner. You do condemn Hamas as a terrorist group?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, I do.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Well, do you think you do not know these
    numbers because these American victims are Jewish?
        Ms. Raymond. Of course, that is not the reason.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Do you think there has been sufficient
    sympathy for the Jewish Americans who have been killed and
    taken hostage by Hamas on your campus?
        Ms. Raymond. We are all bereft around what happened on
    October 7th in Israel, and for all that were impacted, whether
    it is a period--it is a horrific time in history, but yes, we
    have----
        Mr. Baumgartner. Well, see, October 7th was the greatest
    terrorist attack on American citizens since 9/11, and yet, you
    do not know how many Americans were killed, you do not know how
    many were taken hostage, and you have an antisemitism problem
    on your campus.
        It is hard to conclude, and I appreciate that you come here
    today acknowledging that you yourself have personally made
    mistakes when it comes to antisemitism, and that Haverford
    College has made mistakes, but those apologies ring a little
    hollow if we do not even know the basics of sympathy for how
    many American Jews were killed on October 7th.
        Do you--now, you did not write a letter, or make a strongly
    worded statement after October 7th, is that correct?
        Ms. Raymond. I would like to say to your last question, my
    empathy and my deep sorrow is to all of the victims of that
    day. You asked me questions about Americans.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Did you make a strongly worded statement,
    or something written after the attacks of October 7th?
        Ms. Raymond. Yes, I did.
        Mr. Baumgartner. You did. You also made--I want to question
    whether you actually understand what antisemitism is. Can you
    define antisemitism?
        Ms. Raymond. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews.
        Mr. Baumgartner. OK. Now, you did issue a statement very
    quickly after the protests and riots of January 6th, did you
    not?
        Ms. Raymond. I did.
        Mr. Baumgartner. You did. In those you described
    specifically the protestors on January 6th as being
    antisemitic. In that same statement, did you not? I can read it
    to you if you would like me to?
        Ms. Raymond. Pardon me. I am sorry. I thought I heard
    January 6th?
        Mr. Baumgartner. Yes, January 6th, so you did not issue a
    very strongly worded statement after October 7th, but you did
    after January 6th. You describe the January 6th protestors at
    the Nation's Capital as antisemitic. In that same statement you
    also said that Black Lives Matter is a peaceful organization.
    Is that true?
        Do you see Black Lives Matter as a peaceful organization?
        Ms. Raymond. I think that I am being misquoted by what you
    said.
        Mr. Baumgartner. I will read it to you. It says, ``Incited
    by the President's words and parading explicitly antisemitic
    symbols, these rioters violently attempted to add another
    obstruction to the Presidential election.'' You also said,
    ``Many have noted the conduct of Capital employees and the
    contrast, the aggressive treatment of peaceful assemblies of
    Black Lives Matter protestors.''
        Is Black Lives Matter protestors, is Black Lives Matter a
    peaceful organization?
        Ms. Raymond. It is a non-violent organization.
        Mr. Baumgartner. Was there any antisemitism exhibited by
    Black Lives Matter?
        Ms. Raymond. I am not aware of that.
        Mr. Baumgartner. You are not aware. The President of a
    university that does not know how many American Jews were
    killed on October 7th, and a President who does not know of any
    antisemitic behavior by Black Lives Matter. Are you aware that
    Black Lives Matter committed over 2 billion dollars in damage?
        This is the organization that you describe as peaceful?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, I may not know those facts
    that you have asked me about. What I do know, is that as
    President of Haverford College, I am committed to creating----
        Mr. Baumgartner. What I think is that your apology rings
    hollow. I think it is politically convenient for you now to
    come cap in hand to when folks like Republicans are serious
    about antisemitism, and you have Federal funding on the line,
    you will come here, and yet in your background you displayed
    behavior, failing to significantly condemn the attacks of
    October 7th.
        Not as a university President at a prestigious university,
    not being aware of the suffering that American Jews have
    suffered because, perhaps, because they are Jewish, and then
    describing an antisemitic group like Black Lives Matter as a
    peaceful group, when anybody who even turned on the television
    and watched the news, knew that they were committing billions
    of dollars in damage, and violence across this country, and
    they have deep antisemitic roots. I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I recognize now
    the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
        Mr. Grothman. Mr. Cole, if somebody issued statements which
    are critical of Islam as a religion, is that protected speech
    under the First Amendment?
        Mr. Cole. Sure.
        Mr. Grothman. If a Christian minister attacks the gay
    lifestyle, is that protected speech under the First Amendment?
        Mr. Cole. Yes. I am sorry?
        Mr. Grothman. I said wow. OK, thank you. Now, by the way
    you got those answers right.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you.
        Mr. Grothman. I would like to ask our professor something.
    I have had this job now a little over 10 years, and I get
    around to all sorts of groups, and talk to people. The number
    of people I talk to just beyond belief. I have yet to hear
    here, and I think I would have remembered if I heard it, any,
    what I would call, antisemitic remarks.
        Nevertheless, we seem to have a problem in all these
    universities in which antisemitism seems to be somewhat
    prevalent. Do you want to take a crack as to why antisemitism
    is I think right now tiny in the United States, but the only
    place it seems to be common is on university campuses.
        Mr. Cole. Well, I do not--I----
        Mr. Grothman. Not you. The experts, we are done with you,
    so that is it.
        Mr. Cole. Oh, I thought you said professor, I am sorry.
        Mr. Grothman. You passed your test. Any of the other three
    want to take a crack as why we seem to have antisemitism on
    American college campuses, but you know, we do not have
    antisemitism at, from what I can tell, I talk to people all the
    time, not, you now, a big problem in America as a whole? Nobody
    has a reason why that is so? You must think when these
    incidents happen on your campuses, why is this happening? You
    do not think at all? Your mind is a blank? I guess your mind is
    a blank.
        I do not really think of University Presidents, the mind is
    a blank, but apparently, they are. It is my belief that the
    reason you see more antisemitism on campuses is because there
    is a lack of thought on the campuses, and the campuses are the
    home to the hard left of this country.
        If there is an odd campus that is the home of the odd left,
    but you know, we have got some, you know, Presidents here of
    big, huge universities. I mean DePaul, Cal Poly, big
    universities. I think there is, for example, very little people
    could be described as Christian conservatives, or Republican,
    and I think that is the gist of the more liberal element right
    now in this country is including antisemitism, or a bizarre
    obsession with protecting Hamas, I guess I will put it that
    way.
        Do you feel--are you making--do you say if you had to take
    a shot, we will start out with Ms. Haverford here, or Ms.
    Raymond, Dr. Raymond. Do you have a crack of your professors,
    what percents you think would vote for say a Donald Trump, and
    what percent would vote for a Kamala Harris, or even further
    left-wing type candidate?
        Ms. Raymond. Representative, we do not ask----
        Mr. Grothman. You must have an idea. You must have an idea.
    You talk to people. You have no idea? No, no idea, we do not
    know, maybe 80 percent were for Trump. You have no idea? Not
    even in the individual departments, you have any idea?
        Ms. Raymond. I do not, and I am not interested in that kind
    of question.
        Mr. Grothman. I do not believe that, but, OK. You can say
    that. How about Mr. Manuel?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you. Like Haverford, we do not track----
        Mr. Grothman. I know you do not track, but you must have an
    opinion.
        Mr. Manuel. 1,200 faculty, on campus, and I can tell you
    that our practices are protected both conservative, and
    progressive voices in their work.
        Mr. Grothman. You have no idea, OK. Mr. Armstrong, you must
    talk to people. Everybody talks about the election last
    October. Do you feel you have kind of an angle into the left
    side big time on your campus there in California?
        Mr. Armstrong. We have the majority of--vast majority of
    our faculty and staff, they really focus on student success. We
    have a high STEM population.
        Mr. Grothman. Nobody wants to take a crack at it. Well, OK.
    I think the problem we have antisemitism on our campus is
    because odd, offbeat, hateful ideas fester in a place of
    extreme leftism, and I think universities in this country have
    become fanatical left wingers, and I do not know what we can do
    about it as a country.
        We are going to have to talk and see what we can do about
    it because we sure funnel money into the universities, and I do
    not think the----
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. His time has
    expired. Thank you. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the
    gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Cole, can you say what the effect
    on effectively addressing antisemitism is when you ignore race,
    national origin, disability, gender, and other religion forms
    of hate?
        Mr. Cole. Well, you are not addressing the problem in a
    neutral, across the board way, and that calls into question the
    genuineness of your concern for discrimination.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. You talked about the hearings like
    this being problematic because there has been no factual
    investigation, jobs have been threatened. Can you say another
    word about why we need an actual investigation, rather than
    hearings like this?
        Mr. Cole. Yes. The line between protected speech that is
    antisemitic, and discrimination that is antisemitic, is a hard
    line to draw. It is a line that our Constitution compels us to
    draw. It is not a line that I have heard a single Republican
    care about on this Committee, but it is a line that the
    Constitution requires us to draw.
        How do you draw that line? You engage in close
    consideration of all the facts and circumstances around an
    incident. You do not just take a letter from a student. You
    call in the student. You call in other people who witnessed the
    incident. You determine what actually happened based on
    competing, often competing accounts, and then you make a
    determination based upon those facts.
        That is what faculty committees do when they consider these
    kinds of complaints. That is what OCR did until it was
    decimated by this administration. That is not what I have seen
    this Committee do in eight hearings. I have not seen them do
    that in a single instance. Instead, all they have done is bring
    in Presidents, and berate them based on the Committee's version
    of the facts, which may or may not be true.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you. You have made the point that you have
    complain and blame without facts, cutbacks on the Office of
    Civil Rights. Are you familiar with the Community Relation
    Service at Department of Justice?
        Mr. Cole. Absolutely.
        Mr. Scott. How could they be helpful?
        Mr. Cole. They are helpful because they are--they were
    designed to get at to affirmatively proactively get at
    discrimination by getting people to work together by
    supporting, not by prosecuting, but by going in and
    affirmatively supporting areas and communities where there is
    division. That is what we need.
        We do not need, you know, speechifying by Republicans. We
    need actual efforts on the ground to deal with the problem.
        Mr. Scott. Of course that is under attack, and in the
    President's budget, it seems to be left out.
        Mr. Cole. Absolutely.
        Mr. Scott. I would ask the Presidents, the first question
    that was posed to you was something along the lines of in so
    far as each of your campuses are hotbeds of antisemitism. Can
    you give us some statistics. I forget what the rest of the
    question was. Each of you went right to the statistics and left
    us to assume that you agreed with the premise that your
    campuses were hotbeds of antisemitism.
        Does anybody want to make a quick comment on whether or not
    that assumption is accurate?
        Ms. Raymond. That is not a description that I would use.
        Mr. Scott. OK, thank you.
        Dr. Manuel.
        Mr. Manuel. I would not use that description either and I
    would note that our retention rates for Jewish students are up
    slightly over 5 years, as are our----
        Mr. Scott. Well, I am just talking about the question, you
    let it slide by.
        Dr. Armstrong.
        Mr. Armstrong. No. I would not agree with that statement.
        Mr. Scott. Mr. Cole, in the last minute, can you just say a
    word about the tension between free speech and when it gets
    into speech, can it get into criminal law, a violation of Title
    VI, and possible campus code violations?
        Mr. Cole. Again, the reason that Title VI has very high
    standards for when speech actually constitutes discrimination,
    is because the Constitution protects all kinds of hateful
    speech. We can condemn that speech. We should condemn that
    speech, but we cannot punish people for engaging in that
    speech.
        That is why Title VI says it is not discrimination to say
    something criticizing Israel at a protest. It is discrimination
    if you target a particular individual because of his Jewish
    identity, for individually targeted harassment, and it is a
    violation of Title VI if the university is deliberately
    indifferent to that, meaning they ignore the problem. I have
    not heard any evidence.
        Mr. Scott. What is a hostile environment?
        Mr. Cole. A hostile environment is only where the speech is
    so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies
    equal access to education, a standard that is extraordinarily
    high, has rarely been met in any case in this country. Again,
    it is because if you define discrimination through speech too
    broadly, you chill speech.
        That is precisely what this effort of this Committee has
    done, is to chill speech. Speech that criticizes Israel, is
    protected----
        Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired again,
    and we will move on. Thank you, Mr. Cole. You have made your
    point pretty clear several times.
        Mr. Cole. Thank you.
        Chairman Walberg. So, I now recognize--I do not agree with
    it, but I now recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Rulli.
        Mr. Rulli. Thank you, Chairman, and I want to thank all of
    you for coming. I know it cannot be easy to be on that side.
    This is not a persecution, this is a learning curve, and I have
    to condemn the other side of the aisle that they dilute the
    fact that this is about October 7th and antisemitism.
        I live about 38 miles away from Kent State University. We
    just had our observation of the anniversary of the shooting.
    The girl that was 18 that got killed, shopped through my
    family's stores. It is very personal to us. In my political
    world, and in my philosophy of life, we celebrate protesting.
        There is nothing wrong with protesting. It is what our
    country is based on by the founders. However, there is a
    difference between protesting and safety. There is a difference
    between protesting and highlighting antisemitism. I think that,
    you know, when we were raised and we are all probably close to
    the same age bracket.
        When we were raised, and we were in high school, and we
    were in college, we heard a phrase calling, ``Never again.''
    Now the four of you are at the heights of power, and never
    again happens to be right now. We all saw the videos on TV, on
    YouTube, they are right now, I can pull them up on my phone,
    and Harvard Square, when I went to school at Emerson, so I was
    in Boston. I know Harvard Square really well, where literally
    Jewish kids were afraid to go to school. They were pushed on
    the ground, and they were harassed.
        Now, when I was in the Ohio Senate, I dealt with President
    Carter of the Ohio State University, and we had meetings with
    him before the protest, which he allowed to happen, which were
    very safe. Nobody was threatened. The campus was cleaned up,
    and I think the Palestinian protestors did a great job of their
    protesting.
        However, a lot of these universities throughout this
    country have not performed like that. My focus goes to Dr.
    Manuel. Like I said, this is more of a learning curve. I do not
    want you to feel that we are here to persecute you, but I do
    want to do better.
        When we look at, Mr. Manuel, and we look at your
    university, and we look at the reflection on it, police reports
    have that 17-day encampment was allowed, with over 1,000
    submitted complaints, including reports of safety concerns,
    harassment concerns, threats of violence to Jewish students,
    and even several death threats.
        Individuals allegedly threatened to slit the throats of
    Jewish students supporting Israel, allowed faculty members, if
    I am saying her name right, Lila Farrow, who supported the
    release of a terrorist that killed people in Jerusalem, and to
    serve as an advisory to SJB.
        It did not clear the encampments until 5 days after
    negotiations with the leaders broke down. Having said all that,
    what would you do different and from the heart, how can we do
    better because I think hey, listen. We all have concerns for
    everyone that goes to your school, both you know, if they are
    pro-Palestinian, or if they are pro-Jewish.
        How do we do better? How do we make Jewish kids feel safe
    to go to your school in the future?
        Mr. Manuel. Thank you for that question, and I appreciate
    the time to explain. We needed to do better. In our review, we
    understood that the length of time of that encampment created
    dangers. The numbers that you referenced in the end was a
    website that I released to show the community the dangers of
    what were happening in that space.
        We worked with, after the fact, we worked with the Jewish
    United Fund, with Chicago's Metro Halal, with many of our own
    Jewish faculty staff, and students to understand how we could
    be better at creating a culture of compliance. This included
    creating a Jewish alumni group, a Jewish faculty staff
    alliance, working on time, place and manner restrictions.
        Figuring out that we need to do training using that data
    and that website to help people understand the modern
    interpretation of the antisemitism. I admit thoroughly that we
    could do better, and I know that with our changes today, the
    results of a future encampment would be different.
        I would also add, if you give me the time, to say since
    that moment, we have prevented overtakes of our campus by
    outside protestors, and we have a better sense of how to manage
    the balance between the protest and the safety and the
    welcomeness of our campus.
        Mr. Rulli. Truly, I respect and appreciate that response,
    and with that I yield my time back to the Chair.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
    panel for being here today. It is not whether we agree or
    disagree. It is the fact you are here. We appreciate that fact.
    It has been long. It has been arduous, it has been emotional.
    It has been purposeful, and I will get to that in my closing
    statement, but now I recognize the Ranking Member, my friend
    from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for his closing remarks.
        Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Comments have been made
    about whether or not this is just happening on campus. I would
    like to enter into the record a press release from the ADL
    entitled, ``U.S. Antisemitic Incidents Skyrocketed 360 percent
    in the Aftermath of the Attack on Israel.''
        According to the latest ADL data, the release makes it
    clear the majority of incidents that ADL tracked, over 75
    percent, happened in places other than college campuses. I
    would like to enter into the record, an NBC News Article,
    ``January 6th Rioter in Camp Auschwitz,'' sentenced to 75 days
    in prison.
        Chairman Walberg. Without objection, the articles will be
    accepted.
        [The Information of Mr. Scott follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I again
    thank our witnesses for being here today. Today marks the
    eighth time the Committee has held a hearing on antisemitism
    since October 7th. In all that time there has been no concrete
    action to actually protect any students from discrimination.
        Despite my multiple requests in that time, we have held no
    hearings on other forms of hate and discrimination, such as
    racism, Islamophobia, sexism, and violation of Title IX,
    homophobia, or challenges of students with disabilities, all of
    which also pose major problems for students.
        Here we are again, complaining about the problem without
    offering real solutions. All the while, the administration
    ignores due process and takes a chainsaw to the Office of Civil
    Rights, the very office responsible for investigating and
    addressing antisemitism, and putting the Community Relations
    Service at the Department of Justice, also on the chopping
    block.
        That could be very helpful under these circumstances. Our
    priorities must align with the students. The Trump
    administrations dismantling of the Office of Civil Rights, and
    relentless attacks on institutions of higher learning will not
    make students' lives better, and students will pay the price of
    these cuts as schools struggle to function without Federal
    funding.
        The last seven hearings, I will reiterate, physical
    violence, and verbal harassment directed toward students should
    not be tolerated. That said, college campuses have always been
    venues where individuals can debate difficult topics, or you
    might hear opinions which you disagree. It is vitally important
    to protect the sanctity of free speech, and ensure that
    students do not suffer from discrimination, and that is a
    difficult balance to achieve, and that is why dedicated
    investigators are key to keeping campuses both free and safe.
        As Professor Cole said in his written testimony, we must
    tolerate offensive speech, even when listeners experience it as
    deeply harmful, because giving government officials to
    determine whose views can be heard, and whose should be
    silenced, is a greater danger.
        I do not want you to be discriminated against who they are
    or how they worship, but ignoring due process and undermining
    the future of higher education will only make things worse, and
    it does not make Jewish students, or anyone else on campus
    safer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Let me State for
    the record, and I wish some of my Democrat colleagues were
    still here to hear me say this. I oppose discrimination of all
    kinds, antisemitism, racism, sexism, discrimination of all
    kinds. I believe this Committee will stand in that same light.
        We are here today talking about antisemitism that has
    wrapped up multiple college and university campuses, and it is
    not just speech. I support free speech and always will. The
    free speech sometimes leads to the results of actions, and that
    is why we are here today and the eight preceding times.
        When Jewish students cannot feel safe, or have the ability
    to experience all that they expect on their university or
    college campus because of antisemitism, anti-Zionism that
    blocks them, including faculty members, that will block them
    from having the meaningful experience that they paid for at the
    very least on their college campuses, or even worse, being beat
    upon and injured as a result of what? Being a Jew.
        That is what we are talking about. That is what these
    hearings are for. They are not for free speech. We believe in
    that. It is not too hard to tell when someone is injured, and
    has a surgery because of that, but it is actions that are
    impacting freedom of education.
        I would suggest as well that the entities that have been
    responsible for civil rights issues on campus have failed. This
    has been developing, OCR and others have not done their job. I
    hope in the process of what this administration is doing, and
    we will be asking questions. We will have an entity that will
    actually function for all students, all faculty on campuses.
    Remember, this happened before this administration took office.
        We want it to end. Any suggestion that this is McCarthy-
    like is radically false. We are going to come to a solution,
    and thankfully, I can say as a result of these we are seeing
    campuses around the United States taking action. I thank the
    two campuses here today, DePaul, and Cal Poly, for being able
    to demonstrate, at least in words, and of course we were
    looking for the policy and the outcomes.
        You were able to tell us of mistakes, and now what you are
    doing to remedy that. We wish you all well. For the good of
    this country, we need academic institutions that allow freedom
    of speech, but opportunity to experience it equally like all
    other students on campus, regardless of who you are, where you
    come from, your nationality, your gender, your faith.
        It is sad that we have seen the education of college
    students hindered far too often. In this case the hearing was
    on antisemitic disruptions. The blocking of access to the
    buildings, interruption of lectures, hateful, violent slogans
    that were put in place to incite violence, not just free
    speech.
        We have heard today of some modest changes made in recent
    months. We want them to be meaningful, but meaningful
    accountability means taking the risk of being unpopular and
    asking hard questions. Yes, it was passionate today. Sometimes
    it was emotional, I get that.
        At least on this side of the aisle we are taking it in a
    significant, meaningful and purposeful way, and I would expect
    that a majority of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    take it purposeful as well. Hard decisions have to take place.
    We are wishing you success. We will be watching, and I hope we
    will be watching other universities and colleges around this
    country also saying I do not want to be part of the problem.
        I am going to take the example of what is going on in our
    eight hearings, and we will work for change as well, so that
    all students, those who come on a visa, or those who have been
    blessed, who have been blessed beyond measure to be born here
    as part of this great American experiment.
        We will all experience academic freedom and greater
    opportunity in the future. I thank you. I thank you for being
    here today. I thank you to my colleagues on both sides of the
    aisle and being that there is no further action to be taken,
    the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the Education and Workforce
    Committee was adjourned.]

        [Additional submissions from Chairman Walberg follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        [Additional submissions from Rep. Omar follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]