[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]