[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
ANTISEMITISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
EXAMINING THE ROLE OF FACULTY,
FUNDING, AND IDEOLOGY
=======================================================================
HEARING
Before The
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND WORKFORCE
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JULY 15, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-22
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Workforce
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
63-056 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
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 YASSAMIN ANSARI, Arizona
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 July 15, 2025.................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Walberg, Hon. Tim, Chairman, Committee on Education and
Workforce.................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on
Education and Workforce.................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
WITNESSES
Groves, Dr. Robert, Interim President, Georgetown University. 11
Prepared statement of.................................... 13
Matos Rodriguez, Dr. Felix V., Chancellor, The City
University of New York..................................... 31
Prepared statement of.................................... 33
Nosanchuk, Matt, Principal/Former Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Mattnos Stategies, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department
of Education............................................... 38
Prepared statement of.................................... 40
Lyons, Dr. Richard, Chancellor, University of California,
Berkeley................................................... 62
Prepared statement of.................................... 64
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS
Chairman Walberg:
Testimony from CUNY students............................. 67
Complaint against City University of New York, (CUNY).... 81
Ranking Member Scott:
Letter dated July 11, 2025, titled ``In a Time of
Unimaginable Pain, Georgetown Made Space for Us''...... 186
Letter dated July 10, 2025, from Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend
the Arc: Jewish Action................................. 190
Article dated July 14, 2025, from the U.S. News and World
Report, titled ``I Faced Antisemitism at Harvard, Don't
Destroy the University in My Name''.................... 196
Report published April 22, 2025, titled ``Audit of
Antisemitic Incidents 2024''........................... 204
DeSaulnier, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California:
Letter dated July 13, 2025, from Jewish faculty at the
University of California............................... 150
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
Dr. Matos Rodriguez...................................... 240
Dr. Rich Lyons........................................... 250
Dr. Robert Groves........................................ 259
ANTISEMITISM IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
EXAMINING THE ROLE OF FACULTY,
FUNDING, AND IDEOLOGY
----------
Thursday, July 15, 2025
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and Workforce,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:18 a.m. in
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tim Walberg,
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Walberg, Foxx, Thompson, Grothman,
Stefanik, Allen, Owens, McClain, Miller, Kiley, Onder,
Mackenzie, Baumgartner, Harris, Messmer, Fine, Scott, Bonamici,
Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, McBath, Hayes, Omar, Stevens, Lee,
Mannion, and Ansari.
Staff present: Gideon Askowitz, Intern; Jenna Berger,
Investigative Counsel; Lexi Boccuzzi, Investigator; Antonette
Bowman, FDD Fellow; Vlad Cerga, Director of Information
Technology; 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; Eli
Mitchell, Legislative Assistant; Alexis Morgan, Intern; Ethan
Pann, Deputy Press Secretary and Digital Director; Ellison
Powell, Intern; Kane Riddell, Staff Assistant; Carl Rifino,
Intern; Sara Robertson, Press Secretary; Chance Russell,
Economist and Policy Advisor; Kent Talbert, Investigative
Counsel; Ambrose Tierney, Intern; Brad Thomas, Deputy Director
of Education and Human Services Policy; Anders Vendt,
Legislative Assistant; Ann Vogel, Director of Operations; Ali
Watson, Director of Member Services; James Whittaker, General
Counsel; Samantha Wright, Intern, Ellie Berenson, Minority
Press Assistant; Sayda Bir, Minority Intern; Ilana Brunner,
Minority General Counsel; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Policy Aide
& Internship Coordinator; Nichole Dumlao, AIPACS Intern;
Rashage Green, Minority Director of Education Policy & Counsel;
Caroline Guo, Minority Intern; Christian Haines, Minority
General Counsel; Patrick Jo, Minority Intern; Alexandra Walker,
Minority Intern; Vivian Wiggins, Minority Intern; Stephanie
Lalle, Minority Communications Director; Raiyana Malone,
Minority Press Secretary; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff
Director; and Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
Chairman Walberg. The meeting of the Education and
Workforce Committee will come to order. A quorum is present.
The Committee meets today pursuant to notice. Without
objection, the Chair may recess the Committee at any point.
Good morning to each of you, to our witnesses, good morning
as well. Last Congress the Committee on Education and Workforce
conducted vital, rigorous oversight of the antisemitic violence
that spiraled out of control on college campuses all over the
United States after October 7, 2023.
Specifically, the Committee focused on the weeks long
violent encampments that engulfed campuses across the country,
and whether universities were holding those involved
accountable. Today's hearing marks the next phase of the
Committee's work. An effort to understand why this wave of
antisemitism was able so easily to consume the Nation's
universities in the first place.
The Committee will be examining several factors that incite
antisemitism on college campuses. First, we will examine
faculty and student groups. We have long expressed concern
about the group Students for Justice in Palestine, but after
October 7th, chapters of the faculty variant of this group,
Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine proliferated at
universities across the United States.
Over 100 new chapters have been established in an effort to
bring antisemitism into the classrooms and lend institutional
legitimacy to antisemitic actions. We will examine faculty
unions, second. Faculty unions have played a critical role
fomenting antisemitism at universities under the guise of labor
rights. As we will see today, unions across the country
encourage antisemitic activism through protests, demands, and
workshops.
Third, we will look at Middle East study centers. Many such
centers have become beachheads for faculty with extremist eyes
who seek to demonize Israel and the United States. We support
the study of the Middle East and recognize that it is important
for our national security, but we do not support promoting
antisemitism and Islamism, a radical, political ideology.
Fourth, we will examine foreign funding. Foreign funding
can influence research priorities, faculty appointments, public
statements, and events on campus. This is especially the case
for U.S. universities with a separate campus abroad. We need
greater transparency into foreign funding when it comes to
higher education.
The Deterrent Act passed on a bipartisan basis through this
Committee and the House earlier this Congress, would achieve
that goal. Finally, and more broadly, we will be examining the
diversity, equity and inclusion policies universities use. The
DEI ideology embraced by so many university bureaucrats
categorizes Jews as white oppressors, and therefore, excuses or
even justifies antisemitic harassment.
The violence, fear, and alienation felt by Jewish students
is at its core a result of administrators and their staff
lacking the moral clarity to condemn and punish antisemitism
that is creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on
America's campuses. We have seen that in evidence at past
hearings, sadly, to a great degree.
Speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still
contribute to a hostile environment, and universities are
obligated to do something about it. Universities can choose to
hire antisemitic faculty, welcome students with a history of
antisemitism, accept certain foreign funding, and let the
behavior of antisemitic unions go unchecked.
We will see today they do so at their own risk. While I
appreciated our discussions with the Presidents and Chancellors
yesterday in my office, and I sincerely appreciated it,
especially in light of the change in schedule that forced your
changes in schedule as well.
It is time for clear action on your campuses that can be
quantified and can be exemplified to the watching world around.
With that, I yield to the Ranking Member, my friend from
Virginia, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our
witnesses for being with us today. Let me begin by
acknowledging the seriousness of today's hearing topic,
combatting antisemitism, like all forms of hatred and bigotry,
must be a moral and civic priority. I would be remiss if I did
not point out that this is our ninth hearing on antisemitism in
18 months.
I also note that since this Committee's first antisemitism
hearing in December 2023, we have not held a single hearing
addressing racism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, or other
challenges affecting other student groups on American college
campuses.
I have witnessed this Committee's silence on the
administration's wholesale attack on diversity, equity and
inclusion and accessibility DEI initiatives, designed to make
campuses more welcoming to all groups. If we are seriously to
address antisemitism and other forms of hate on college
campuses, the process we could best use would be the vigorous
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act enforced by the
Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education, yet
this Committee majority has said nothing about the wholesale
firings attacking the Office of Civil Rights.
While the Committee is engaged in holding its ninth hearing
on antisemitism, critical issues affecting public education in
this country, and viability of institutions, of higher
education institutions, have been ignored. For example, in the
last 6 months our administration has taken harmful steps in the
area of education. Specifically, nearly 50 percent of the
Department's workforce have been proposed to be fired, thus
threatening the key role the Department plays in keeping our
Nation's schools running, and our students access to safe,
welcoming environments.
Yesterday the Supreme Court majority greenlighted this
fatal blowback permitting the Department to proceed with this
grand firing of employees responsible for managing student
loans, collecting data and student learning trends, and
relevant to this hearing, enforcing the civil rights
protections of students.
Yesterday evening, President Trump announced on a social
media platform, that based on the Supreme Court decision the
Secretary of Education should proceed with the dismantling of
the Department of Education. We are seeing the impact on this
action, the Department is requiring many of those with student
loans to change to another loan program, but those students are
unable to do it because of inadequate staff at the Department
of Education--that is before more people are being fired.
Another area this Committee has not held a hearing on is
the impact of stripping critical Federal funding on the
integrity of higher education institutions and their
contributions to science, medicine and global competition. This
Committee has also not examined how the recent enacted
Reconciliation Law, or as democrats call it, the Big, Ugly Bill
will impact student loan borrowers.
This law will raise costs for students seeking higher
education by forcing student loan borrowers into unaffordable
repayment plans, eliminating resources to help struggling
borrowers, pushing students into predatory, private loan market
by eliminating graduate plus loans, capping parent plus loans
and limiting Pell Grant access.
Further, the law exposes students to predatory for-profit
institutions, by stopping the implementation of the 2023
Borrower Defense regulation, which provides student loan relief
for millions of borrowers defrauded by their schools. While the
2023 Close School Discharge regulations, which provides student
loan relief of students whose institutions closed before they
were able to complete their programs.
Also, on July 1st, with little warning and no
justification, this administration announced it was pausing
nearly 7 billion dollars in education programs that the
administration initially proposed to eliminate in next year's
fiscal 2026 budget. Again, we have had no hearings to examine
the effect of the threat of loss of funding on the following
programs: A Title II-A program, supporting effective
instruction, grant programs, which support professional
development and other activities to improve the effectiveness
of teachers, school leaders, including reducing class sizes;
A III-A program, English language acquisition, which
supports language instruction to help English language learners
become proficient in English, the student support academic
enrichment grants, Title IV-A program, which provides flexible
funding for school districts for a wide range of activities,
including supporting STEM education, accelerating learning
courses, college and career counseling, school based-mental
health services, and improving school technology among others.
Another Title IV program, Title IV-B, the 21st community
learning centers which support high quality before and after
school programs, focused on providing academic enrichment
opportunities for students. Title I-C program, migrant
education, which supports educational needs of migratory
students, including children of migrant and seasonal farm
workers, and the adult basic literacy education State grants,
including integrated English literacy and civics education
State grants, which support adult education, and literacy
programs to provide basic skills to help prepare adults, and
out of school youth for success in the workforce.
All of these programs are at risk of the abrupt loss in
funding. In response, a number of the State Attorneys General
have filed an emergency lawsuit just yesterday, however, cash
strapped school districts, particularly those in low-income and
rural areas cannot afford the delay in funding, and will likely
be forced to either lay-off staff, or cut back programs and
services.
We should be having hearings to support and strengthen our
learning institutions. We should be insisting the Department of
Education not advocate its responsibility and ensure that all
students are afforded safe, quality, and equitable education,
regardless of their race, gender, immigration status,
socioeconomic status, religion or disability status.
We should call on the officials from the Office of Civil
Rights at the Department of Education to testify and ensure
that they are implementing their longstanding duties to
investigate, monitor and provide resources to victims of
potential civil rights violations, and that they are enforcing
the laws that fight antisemitism.
Mr. Chairman, as we conduct our ninth hearing on this
issue, I urge you to also focus some of your attention on those
who have the responsibility to protect students from hate and
discrimination, the Office of Civil Rights, or whatever is left
of it, and the pressing issues facing colleges and students
today. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared 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 format 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 the four witnesses.
Our first witness is Dr. Robert M. Groves, the Interim
President of Georgetown University, right here in Washington,
DC. Welcome.
Our second witness is Dr. Felix V. Matos Rodriguez, the
Chancellor of the City University of New York in New York City.
Welcome. Our third witness is Matt Nosanchuk, I hope I got
close on that, Principal for Mattnos Strategies and Former
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S.
Department of Education, in Washington, DC. Welcome.
Our last witness is Dr. Richard K. Lyons, Chancellor of the
University of California at Berkeley, in Berkeley, California.
Welcome.
I thank the witnesses for being here today. Pursuant to
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), and Committee practice,
however, we will not cutoff your testimony until you reach the
5-minute mark. I would like to remind the witnesses to be aware
of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the
Committee. I will first recognize Dr. Groves for your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. ROBERT GROVES, INTERIM PRESIDENT, GEORGETOWN
UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Groves. Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, members
of the Committee, since 1789, as the first Catholic and Jesuit
U.S. University, Georgetown's religious beliefs have demanded
the absence of antisemitism and other hatreds. Indeed, the
church has directed the Jesuits to foster dialog across all
religions, therefore, any hatred or fear among our students
destroys that dialog., and antisemitism is incompatible with
living our mission.
The same applies to Islamophobia and racism. Hence, we try
to react quickly to threats on collaboration. On October 8th, a
day after the Hamas attack, Georgetown condemned it. One of the
first universities to speak out. Similarly, we tried to act
quickly to student conduct violations but have learned that we
need to adapt to changing circumstances almost continuously.
Addressing interfaith conflict has been aided by the
largest set of full-time religious leaders at any U.S. research
university at Georgetown. Since 1968, a full-time Georgetown
Rabbi, but also Jesuit and Orthodox Priest, Protestant
Ministers, an Imam, a Director of Dharmic Life and Hindu
Spiritual Advisor.
We have also built academic units, the Center for Jewish
Civilization, a Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, and
the Berkeley Center for Religious Peace and World Affairs,
among others. We also try to carry out the Jesuit mission
globally, now working in 16 different countries around the
world.
This has taught us the need to respect laws of other
countries and their cultures, despite disagreeing with some of
their government's policies. For example, in 2005, we brought
Western Jesuit education and international affairs to Qatar.
There, nearly 70 percent of our students are women, a group
with historically limited access to education.
There we have full control over the curriculum, admissions,
faculty hiring and research activities. At Georgetown, non-U.S.
financial support is accepted on to fulfill our longstanding
mission, but never to alter it. Given our Jesuit values, we
expose students to different viewpoints on the Middle East.
In addition, the speakers on Gaza, we have hosted IDF
soldiers, families of Israelis and Palestinians who have lost
their lives, families of U.S. hostages in Gaza. Georgetown is
not perfect, and as events evolve, we have had to clarify rules
of student behavior, but since October 7th, Georgetown has not
experienced an encampment, physical violence, cancellation of
commencement activities, or city police activities. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groves follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Matos
Rodriguez for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. FELIX V. MATOS RODRIGUEZ, CHANCELLOR, THE CITY
UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking
Member Scott, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify at this important hearing. I am Felix
Matos Rodriguez. It is a privilege to serve as the Chancellor
of the City University of New York, and to represent our
institution here today.
This Committee has highlighted the alarming rise in
antisemitism on university campuses. Our university has not
been immune, but let me be clear, antisemitism has no place at
CUNY. I share your commitment to identifying and addressing the
underlying factors instigating antisemitism on campuses. In
fact, I have confronted antisemitism since the moment I became
Chancellor in 2019.
CUNY's a unique institution. We are the Nation's largest,
urban public university. We are comprised of 26 campuses spread
across New York City's five boroughs. We serve nearly 200,040
degree seeking students and employ 40,000 people. Each of our
campuses has its own President and administration.
As Chancellor, I oversee the university's operations and
policies to advance our mission of providing accessible, high-
quality education. Our annual in-State tuition, which is under
$5,000.00 for community colleges, and under $7,000 for senior
colleges, remains among the most affordable in the Nation.
Due to our focus on affordability, educational quality, and
meaningful job opportunities for our students, we have been
recognized as a powerful engine of social mobility. We are
proud that we propel more students into the middle class than
all Ivy League schools combined.
The size and scope of our community also comes with
challenges, and we confront this head on, including the
unacceptable rise in antisemitism. Those challenges only grew
more pronounced after the horrific terrorist attack on Israel
on October 7th of 2023. Although our response has not always
been perfect, our commitment to this important work has never
wavered.
Our commitment to the safety of the members of our Jewish
community, and to the entire community is nonnegotiable. I have
been committed to forging deep ties with Jewish organizations
on our campuses, and I have invested nearly 2 million to
educate our community to combat hate and antisemitism.
I have created a center to centralize and improve CUNY's
antidiscrimination policies, make Title VI training mandatory,
and launch our constructive dialog initiative, which is
designed to foster mutual understanding and combat hate, and I
have made the safety of our Jewish students a top priority.
I would like to highlight one example that I think
encapsulates the challenges that we face, and how we have
learned from them. In the Spring of 2024, an encampment
disrupted City College Campus during our Spring Break. In
response, I secured emergency funding for increased security
personnel.
We ended the encampment with the help of the New York City
Police Department, but not before damage was done to campus
property. We learned from that experience, and we now have a
zero-tolerance policy against encampments. We have also hired
more than 150 full-time security employees and contracted with
an additional 250 security personnel.
This past Spring we applied our zero-tolerance policy and
worked with CUNY public safety to prevent an encampment at City
College. Our student's safety is and must remain a top
priority, and we are committed to constant vigilance against
antisemitism. Although I am proud of the progress that we have
made, I know that we must never rest until every student on our
campus is safe, feels safe, and can fully participate in
student life.
I hope to discuss in greater detail today during today's
hearing, the many efforts we have undertaken to combat
antisemitism on our campuses and address its root causes. Thank
you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Rodriguez follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I recognize Mr. Nosanchuk.
Mr. Nosanchuk. Nosanchuk.
Chairman Walberg. Nosanchuk, it is simple to say it that
way, for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF MATT NOSANCHUK, PRINCIPAL, MATTNOS STRATEGIES AND
FORMER DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Nosanchuk. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, and Ranking
Member Scott. My name is Matt Nosanchuk. I am a civil rights
lawyer with a track record of fighting antisemitism in the
Obama White House at the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Division, and as a former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
I bring three key messages today. First, antisemitism in
America and on campuses is real. Responding to it demands
actions that are tailored to universities, properly
implemented, and adequately resourced.
Second, this administration's approach is contradictory and
counterproductive. It includes the broad, anti-democratic
crackdown on foreign students, slashing funds for universities,
disregarding the Title VI process, and gutting the office
mandated to enforce the law, while claiming to champion the
fight against antisemitism.
Third, Congress must fulfill its core responsibilities,
meaningful oversight and adequate resources for effective
solutions, not political theater that inflames campus climate,
and ultimately harms the students it claims to protect. My
written testimony describes the unacceptable discrimination
Jewish students face: social ostracism, verbal harassment,
sometimes physical violence.
In the classroom, faculty have targeted Jewish students who
have responded by dropping classes, and concealing their
identity or retreating from campus life. The bottom line is
this, no student should be forced to choose between their
identity and social acceptance. This includes their connection
to a Jewish homeland, whether they express it through Zionism,
or generally identify as Jewish.
When these problems persist, it is natural to demand
forceful solutions and accountability. We have robust tools
under Title VI. The most effective investigations, OCR launched
an unprecedented number following October 7th, resulted in
detailed, monitored resolution agreements, obligating the
schools to take verifiable action. They include, for example,
climate surveys, mandatory training, and ensuring all
complaints get addressed promptly and effectively.
Here is what one campus Hillel director said about change
from his campus's agreement. ``Jewish life has improved
remarkably. Jewish students now receive responsive to bias
incidents within 24 hours. The Hillel Center reported a 40
percent increase in daily usage. Parents feel confident sending
their children there.'' In short, Jewish life on campus is
thriving.
These agreements work. That is why OCR used them in
antisemitism investigations during the first Trump
administration, proper enforcement creates meaningful, positive
change. None of that is happening now. This administration
boasted it is combating antisemitism, while systematically
dismantling the infrastructure needed to do it.
They gutted OCR, the office of the expertise and mandate to
enforce Title VI, closing most of its regional offices, and
cutting staff in half. Thorough investigations are impossible.
OCR dismissed over 3,400 complaints in just 3 months, an
unprecedented number suggesting students in harm's way are
being ignored.
The administration relies on press reports rather than
actual complaints from harmed students, sending ultimatum style
notices of violation, riddled with inaccuracies, and political
hyperbole. The current approach reminds me of the Wizard of Oz,
projecting an intimidating, demanding, illusory image of
action, but here the man behind the curtain cancels funds for
civil rights enforcement, and cancer research.
Fighting antisemitism is actually the camel's nose under
the tent for ideological assaults on universities that have
undertaken extensive efforts to address the problem. Even the
Wall Street Journal editorialized that the administration is
overstepping its authority by imposing sweeping conditions on
funds that weren't spelled out by Congress, and shooting first,
and investigating later.
An administration committed to strengthening enforcement
against antisemitism invests in responsible offices and
critical personnel. It does not shutter agencies and fire
staff. Many leading Jewish community voices, and a majority of
America Jews reject the false choice between confronting
antisemitism and upholding democracy.
Our safety as Jews has always been tied to the rule of law
and protection of rights for all. Antidemocratic actions taken
in our name do not make Jews safer, they make us targets,
harming universities makes everyone less safe, including Jews.
Congress has a choice, continue down this destructive path,
gutting enforcement capacity Congress created and funded, or
return to evidence-based solutions.
Restore regional offices and OCR funding to at least 200
million dollars. Rehire experienced staff who know how to
investigate cases. Every day we delay, Jewish students hurt
unnecessarily. Every day offers an opportunity to choose
effective action over ideological assaults. Support do not
weaken the institutions charged with protecting students. Thank
you, I look forward to taking your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nosanchuk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. I recognize now Dr. Lyons for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. RICH LYONS, CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Lyons. Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member
Scott and members of the Committee. I am Rich Lyons, and I just
finished my first year as Chancellor of U.C. Berkeley. Thank
you for inviting me to discuss Berkeley's efforts to combat
antisemitism and support our Jewish community.
Berkeley unequivocally condemns antisemitism. Our
commitment to our Jewish students, colleagues, and community is
unwavering. Since well before the horrific terrorist attacks of
October 7th, Berkeley has been partnering with our Jewish
community to combat antisemitism and foster a vibrant Jewish
life.
I am the first to say we have more work to do. Berkeley,
like our Nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in
antisemitism. As a public university, we have a solemn
obligation to protect our community from discrimination and
harassment, while also upholding the First Amendment right to
free speech.
After a year as Chancellor, I can confidently say that
Berkeley is committed to meeting this challenge. We have
adopted new initiatives to design--these are designed to curb
antisemitism by confronting the rising hate directly. I work in
close collaboration with my Chancellor's Advisory Committee on
Jewish Life with the Berkeley Center for Jewish Studies, and
our pioneering antisemitism education initiative.
These programs help us recognize and confront antisemitism,
support the Jewish community, and navigate the complexity of
lawful protests, versus harassment. We recently instituted new
antisemitism training for all incoming students, and we
continue to invest in new security and safety measures to
strengthen compliance with campus rules.
These are just some of our new initiatives. We continue to
work with our Jewish community to respond to the ignorance at
the heart of this deplorable hatred. I am proud of Berkeley's
long history and vital contributions to our Nation's success.
Our mission requires that we strive for a campus where all
people feel safe and respected.
That same mission enables our research to advance the
health and well-being and security of the American people. That
mission allows Berkeley to lift more students further up the
economic ladder than any other university. Our undergraduates
create more funded new businesses than any other university in
this country.
As a public institution, Berkeley has a solemn obligation
to protect the quintessential American value of free speech.
This obligation does not prevent us--let me repeat, does not
prevent us from confronting harassment and discrimination in
all its forms, including antisemitism.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Thank you to each of our
witnesses. Under Committee Rule 9, we will now question
witnesses under the 5-minute rule. I recognize myself for 5
minutes. Let me ask the college university leaders this first
question. I would like you to define semitism, or define
antisemitism, as understood by in your case, Dr. Groves,
Georgetown University and all its campuses.
Mr. Groves. Thank you. We define antisemitism as hatred of
the Jewish people, and all of the behaviors that might be
connected with such hatred.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Dr. Mantos Rodriguez, what is
CUNY's definition?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you. Antisemitism is hatred or
prejudice against Jews or individuals who are perceived to be
Jewish.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Dr. Lyons, similarly? Your
microphone.
Mr. Lyons. I define antisemitism as hatred or
discrimination against Jewish people.
Chairman Walberg. Okay. Thank you. Appreciated the fact
that each of you were able to quickly define it, and simply, at
least, for your institution as you understand it. Chancellor
Matos Rodriguez, does CUNY have an antisemitism problem, yes or
no?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We are not immune from antisemitism.
It is something that I have been committed to working on since
2019.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, I would like to enter
into the record the testimony of dozens of CUNY students who
have experienced severe antisemitism on campuses. Hearing no
objection, they will be entered.
[The information of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. How many Jewish students have transferred
out of CUNY since October 7 of 2023?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I do not have that, that information,
Chair.
Chairman Walberg. Good information to get. How many
antisemitism complaints has CUNY received systemwide since
October 7th, 2023?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have received in 2024, 68
complaints of antisemitism. On the current year 2025 we have
16.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. How many students has CUNY
suspended or expelled for antisemitic conduct since October 7,
2023?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have over the last 2 years
disciplined 18 students for antisemitic conduct, and we have
disciplined another 25 for inappropriate behavior in protest
demonstrations or rallies.
Chairman Walberg. Thank you. Chancellor, you have referred
to the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a vital resource.
Does that mean university officials are employing this
definition to determine what constitutes antisemitism across
the CUNY system?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you for your question, and that
is correct, and we have added in our training for all the
individuals who participate in the investigations on our
campuses, the ones we are hiring this year receive new training
on--which includes using the definition as defined by OCR, and
it is also part of refreshing courses that we have for all
personnel in addition to public safety officers.
Chairman Walberg. Does CUNY have any antisemitic faculty?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have faculty that might conduct
themselves in antisemitic behavior, and we have no tolerance
for it, and we are clear about the expectations to follow all
our rules and policies, and if any individual breaks those
rules, they will be investigated, and the appropriate
disciplinary action will be taken if warranted.
Chairman Walberg. How many Zionist professors has CUNY
hired since October 7th?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We do not track the hiring of faculty
in terms of ideology or things of that nature, so I would not
be able to tell you that information.
Chairman Walberg. You are able to tell us that you had
antisemitic professors?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Well, that is based on some of the
disciplining and behavior that we had in some of our campuses,
so.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, I would like to enter
into the record a complaint by Hunter College Jewish Studies
Chair Leah Garrett against CUNY, alleging a hostile workplace
environment. Without objection, I hear none, that will be
submitted.
[The information of Chairman Walberg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Walberg. While Dr. Garrett was suffering under
CUNY's indifference to antisemitism, in February 2025, Hunter
College posted a job announcement looking to hire a Palestinian
studies professor well versed in settler colonialism, genocide,
and Apartheid. As you know, Hunter College was forced to edit
this antisemitic job description. Did Hunter College still hire
people for this position?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. When that posting was reached my
attention, we made sure to tell Hunter College that it was
entirely inappropriate to have that posting that it needed to
be modified, and that they needed to take steps to make sure
that any postings in the future would not contain language like
that. That hiring process is ongoing.
Chairman Walberg. That is an issue of great concern to us.
We continue to hear rhetoric denouncing settler colonialism,
and Israeli genocide contribute to antisemitism in the college,
and CUNY specifically. My time is expired. Now, I recognize the
gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Ranking
Member and thank you to the witnesses. Since our last hearing
on this issue in May, the Jewish community has experienced more
devastating losses, including the fatal shooting in Washington,
DC. of two Israeli Embassy employees, and a Molotov cocktail
attack on peaceful marchers in Boulder, Colorado.
As I have said before in this Committee, there has been an
undeniable rise in antisemitism, and hate speech, across the
country, and around the globe. Jewish students and all students
deserve to feel safe and be safe on college campuses and
everywhere. No one should be afraid of harassment or
discrimination because of their faith.
I have said before, that if the majority wanted to fight
antisemitism and protect Jewish students, they should condemn
antisemitism in their own party, and at the highest level of
government. They have failed to do so. Multiple White House
officials have ties to antisemitic extremists.
This includes the current liaison to the Department of
Homeland Security, the Communications Director for the Office
of Management and Budget, and the Press Secretary of the
Department of Defense, who posted Nazi slogans on her personal
social media accounts, and promoted the antisemitic great
replacement conspiracy theory.
The leader of President Trump's so-called-Antisemitism Task
Force actually talked about revoking Jew cards and shared a
post on social media from the former leader of a White
Supremacist organization that called for the ``Nazification of
America.'' Donald Trump has continued to spout antisemitic
venom, most recently at a rally where he said, ``No going to
the banks and borrowing from, in some cases a fine banker, and
in some cases shylocks and bad people.''
He tried to walk back those statements saying
incredulously, that he had never heard the term shylock used in
an antisemitic way. Words matter, and the President of the
United States should not be using words, especially antisemitic
tropes, if he does not know what they mean.
Have any Republican colleagues here today condemned these
acts of antisemitism from the President and members of the
administration, or called for removal of these individuals from
office? No, because that would require real and meaningful
commitment to rooting out antisemitism from the top down.
Instead, my colleagues are weaponizing the real problems of
the Jewish community, a community I am an active member of, in
furtherance of their attacks on, and plans to defund colleges
and universities. As members of this Committee, we sit with the
responsibility of enacting policies that best educate our
youth, and this ongoing attack on higher education is shameful.
As Mr. Nosanchuk so compellingly testified, combating the
rise of antisemitism on college campuses requires investing in
the Office for Civil Rights, an agency dedicated to
investigating and resolving civil rights violations, including
antisemitic incidences at schools and universities. Instead of
supporting that office, Secretary McMahon has already fired
about half of OCR's staff, and closed seven of their 12, more
than half, of their regional offices.
Republicans have said nothing. In the past months, what is
left of OCR dismissed a staggering, more than 3,400 cases, but
again, Republicans say nothing. Meanwhile, the Department of
Justice recently slashed hate crime prevention grants, claiming
they do not align with the administration's priorities, while
my Republican colleagues stand against the ongoing attacks on
the Office for Civil Rights. What about the hate crime
prevention grants.
Will any Republican colleagues advocate for these funds to
be reinstated? Of course not. That would be real action. Why do
that when we can create another political sideshow instead.
Education has always played a significant role in the efforts
to end antisemitism, but that is not what this Committee has
been doing.
With drastic budget cuts, the hiring of bigoted individuals
at the highest levels, the embrace of white Christian
Nationalism, and, I might say, in stark contrast to Jewish
values, the abhorrent failure to respect basic human and
constitutional rights, this administration is creating a
culture of disrespect and danger, not just for Jewish students.
Perhaps that should be the focus of this hearing.
Additionally, instead of giving OCR the staff and resources
they need to do the fact-based Title VI investigation, the
Trump administration has actually withheld hundreds of millions
of dollars from colleges and universities, apparently to punish
for them, rather than address antisemitism. This kind of
imposition of collective punishment hurts all students,
including Jewish students, because it will lead to fewer
academic options, and higher tuition. I wonder if that is not
the point.
As I have said before, and will continue to repeat, I am a
member of the congressional Jewish Caucus. I am a mother who
raised her children in a Jewish home. I am an active member of
my synagogue. I am extremely disappointed in the majority for
exploiting my community's legitimate fears and concerns as they
advance discriminatory, regressive, unconstitutional and
harmful policy.
Jewish Americans and the American people deserve better. I
yield back.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now
recognize the Chairwoman Emeritus of this Committee,
Representative Foxx.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, and I thank
our witnesses for being here today. I will ask you when it is
appropriate, I would like a yes or no answer. Dr. Matos
Rodriguez, CUNY's faculty and staff union, the Professional
Staff Congress, or PSC, has passed multiple resolutions that
support the antisemitic BDS movement.
Do you support forcing Jewish faculty and staff to be
represented by a union that endorses BDS, yes or no?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you. I have repudiated BDS, and
I have said that there is no place for BDS at the City
University of New York.
Mrs. Foxx. You did not give me an answer, yes or no, so I
have to assume it is no. Yes, excuse me. In 2021, the EEOC
substantiated a claim by a Jewish CUNY professor that the PSC
discriminated against him and other Jewish professors because
of their religion. What disciplinary action did you take
against those responsible?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Yes. I am in that case of the EEOC. We
thought it was entirely inappropriate to discriminate against
any member of our community, and that was a matter taken by the
AUC.
Mrs. Foxx. No disciplinary action? You did not State a
disciplinary action?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Not to my knowledge.
Mrs. Foxx. Does the PSC have an antisemitism problem? Yes,
or no?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. The PSC does not speak for the City
University of New York. We have been clear on our commitment
against antisemitism, and against BDS.
Mrs. Foxx. The President of the PSC personally supports
BDS. Do you view this as problematic?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. The PSC does not speak for the City
University of New York. My understanding also of the last vote
that they took--
Mrs. Foxx. You obviously do not think it is problematic.
Thank you. Dr. Groves, after the U.S. successfully struck
Iran's nuclear infrastructure, one of the professors at
Georgetown's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding,
Jonathan A.C. Brown said, ``I hope Iran does some symbolic
strike on a base.'' Is this person really suited to be
educating the next generation of American diplomats?
Mr. Groves. Thank you for the question. Within minutes of
our learning of that tweet, we--the Dean contacted Professor
Brown. The tweet was removed. We issued a statement condemning
the tweet. Professor Brown is no longer Chair of his
Department, and we are getting--and he is on leave, and we are
beginning the process of reviewing the case.
Mrs. Foxx. He has been making similarly appalling
statements for years, but he has been kept around for years.
You are now investigating and disciplining him from what you
have said?
Mr. Groves. Yes, Congresswoman.
Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Dr. Lyons, several UC Berkeley's
faculty and staff have made antisemitic remarks and justified
Palestinian terrorism. In February 2024, history professor and
Chancellor's Chair, Ussama Makdisi tweeted, I could have been
one of those who broke through the siege on October 7th,
referencing an article that praised Hamas terrorists, and
denied reports of sexual violence against Israeli women in
2017.
Continuing lecturer Hatem Bozian, co-founder of Students
for Justice in Palestine posted antisemitic tweets, including
one depicting a stereotypical, ultraorthodox Jew with a
statement, ``Mom, look I is chosen. I can now kill, rape,
smuggle organs and steal the lands of Palestinians. Ya.'' An
October 2023 survey found 85 percent of Jewish students felt UC
Berkeley had not adequately addressed their safety concerns.
Understandable, given the conduct of some university personnel.
Dr. Lyons, do you condone the statements made by these
Berkeley employees?
Mr. Lyons. I am unable to comment on the discipline of an
individual faculty or a comment of an individual faculty. What
I can say is that you have mentioned several different phrases
and different events, so separate from the people that you are
mentioning, if I heard or saw some of those statements, I would
both view them as objectionable, if not reprehensible, and I
would also immediately report it, and I would also have empathy
for our Jewish community.
Mrs. Foxx. What are you doing to make reforms to your
hiring practices to see that you do not bring people like that
on to the campus in the future?
Chairman Walberg. Let us make the answer brief, the time is
expired.
Mr. Lyons. We use--when hiring faculty, we use academic
standards to hire faculty. We do not use ideological conditions
to hire faculty.
Mrs. Foxx. Well, obviously, your academic standards have
been failing you, and I would look for other standards if I
were you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the
witnesses for being here. Mr. Nosanchuk, in your time with the
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, you helped to
lead the most resolutions of antisemitism cases in OCR's
history. Congratulations on that.
In your experience is a committee hearing such as this an
appropriate venue to determine whether an individual school--an
individual school has violated Title VI laws?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question. Title VI
investigations are very fact intensive. When they are opened,
OCR investigators go onto a campus and speak with people, look
at documents. It is not an inquiry into whether any specific
word is antisemitic, but it is a holistic determination as to
whether there was harassment or hostile environment that
violates Title VI.
Mr. Takano. It is fairly non-political, dry, fact-intensive
inquiry?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Yes. Non-political.
Mr. Takano. Okay. The Trump administration has made a lot
of commitments to combatting antisemitism on college campuses.
Is the current Office of Civil Rights, or OCR equipped to
fulfill those promises?
Mr. Nosanchuk. From what I understand, Congressman Takano,
it is not. As I noted in my testimony the staff has been cut by
half. I understand that now the average case load for the
investigators remaining is 200 cases per person, and it is very
important to note that of the 7 of 12 regional offices that
were eliminated, those were the offices where the greatest
expertise was for investigating and bringing to resolution the
antisemitism cases that we resolved.
As I said, you know, we resolved a record number of five
times more than the first Trump administration.
Mr. Takano. In your experience pursuing antisemitism
charges or claims, determining whether or not those
antisemitisms did occur, or any form of discrimination under
Title VI, it is a time intensive and staff intensive process?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Yes, absolutely. It is not simply
determining whether there was an instance of antisemitism, but
it is determining whether the instances that occurred rise to
the level of harassment or hostile environment, such that Title
VI has been violated.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. OCR has dismissed over 3,000 civil
right cases--civil rights complaints between March and June of
this year. Mr. Nosanchuk, what is the difference between
conducting investigations based on press reporting and external
sources, as the Trump administration is doing, and doing a
process-based Title VI investigation that is based on specific
complaints filed, as was the practice of past administrations?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question. I think the best
illustration of that is actually in a U.S. News and World
Report opinion piece that a student at Harvard, Sarah
Silverman, just published yesterday. She wrote that she had her
Mezuzah stripped off of her door post. It was a one instance of
individual discrimination that was detailed in the Harvard
notice of violation, and the administration did not even talk
to her about what had happened.
Relying on press reports, relying on broad statements, or
perceptions is not how Title VI is supposed to work. Again, it
is looking at the antisemitic discrimination that has occurred,
and then determining whether it has risen to the level of
hostile environment, determining whether Jews have been
targeted unlawfully.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Have the Trump administration's
actions made campus more safe or less safe for students who are
victims of antisemitism?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Based on everything I'm hearing from Jewish
students, including the one whom I just mentioned, it is making
campuses less safe.
Mr. Takano. Mr. Nosanchuk, Republicans claim that certain
institutions of higher education, like Georgetown, are subjects
of foreign influence that radicalizes their students. As a
former Federal Government employee, you've taken a number of
ethnics trainings in your own career. Which would you say is an
example of undue foreign influence?
A, a long-standing, two-decade academic partnership with a
foreign country that serves to build diplomatic partnerships,
or B, a 400-million-dollar luxury plane gifted to the President
of the United States by a foreign government for his personal
use?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
Yes, I would say there are rules for transparency and reporting
that pertain to funding from foreign governments to
universities, and those I believe need to be followed.
Mr. Takano. Thank you. Well, the majority uses hearings
like this one to rail against foreign influence, while their
own administration routinely violates clear ethics boundaries
with foreign governments. They have turned this hearing room
into a kangaroo court where they spend our time litigating a
pre-determined outcome to do nothing, actually to help Jewish
students, just make public theater out of legitimate pain.
This scorched earth warfare against higher education will
endanger academic freedom, innovative research, and
international cooperation for generations to come, and I yield
back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. His time has
expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. Dr. Groves, well, first
of all once again, thank you for the care at Georgetown
University Hospital that I received with some treatments. Just
very impressed there. Dr. Groves, recently something did come
to my attention, and I want to see if you are aware of it. Are
you aware that in 2024, Flyers designed to mimic eviction
notices were placed on Jewish students' dormitory doors on your
campus, falsely accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic
cleansing?
Mr. Groves. I am aware of that. We--this was during move in
weekend for our new students. We acted on that immediately,
removed the eviction notices with an assembly of staff around,
identified the perpetrator of this, and discipline was done for
him.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Obviously, this violates the
Georgetown policy?
Mr. Groves. This was abhorrent, and for the students who
saw this and were hurt by this, we apologized as a university.
This is intolerable at Georgetown. We cannot have this sort of
behavior.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you for taking that action, and thank
you for taking the disciplinary action, incredibly important.
Dr. Groves, does Georgetown employ any antisemitic faculty
members or fellows?
Mr. Groves. We have faculty that have the range of opinions
on every issue facing humankind. We police carefully the
behavior of our faculty in the classroom, and their research
activities. They are free, as all residents in the United
States, to have speech in the public domain and--
Mr. Thompson. Yes. I wanted to point out one particular--
one to start with anyone, Emad Shahin, a senior fellow at
Georgetown's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, which I
find interesting, Muslim Christian Understanding, and he
applauded the terrorist attack on October 7th, stating it
would, ``Bring about this change that we long for.''
Does Shahin's description of the October 7th terrorist
attack that the ``change that we long for,'' violate your
university's harassment and discrimination policies?
Mr. Groves. That was an abhorrent tweet that was sent out.
That is not the Georgetown policy. What we do in cases like
that is to assure that the student welfare, the welfare of the
GU community is protected through events like that.
Mr. Thompson. The protection, did that include disciplinary
action, or investigation into Ahmed Shaheen for his statement?
Mr. Groves. We have--I cannot cite that particular case,
but I can assure you, Congressman, that we have dismissed
faculty for antisemitic behavior on social media in the
classroom, and also dismissed staff with the same behavior.
Mr. Thompson. Well, there is another one in a social media
post. The Associate Director of the Bridge Initiative of
Georgetown, Mobashra Tazamal, reposted a statement that said
Israel has been recreating Auschwitz in Gaza for 2 years. Do
you believe it is appropriate for a Georgetown affiliated
scholar to publicly endorse a statement comparing Israel
actions in Gaza to the--I mean the evil of Auschwitz?
Mr. Groves. No. I reject those kinds of statements. That is
not the policy of Georgetown, and I want everyone to know that
to the extent that hurt Jewish students, Jewish faculty, Jewish
staff at Georgetown, I apologize for that. That is behavior
covered under the First Amendment on social media that we do
not intervene on.
What we do intervene on quickly, is behavior that affects
our students in the classroom, and research related activities
that involve students.
Mr. Thompson. There is--so this individual did not face any
disciplinary action, or consequences?
Mr. Groves. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Thompson. Yes. In a Director position no less. Dr.
Groves, what message do you think university's inactions sends
to Jewish students on your campus?
Mr. Groves. You know, we have a variety of ways to stay in
touch with our Jewish community, our Jewish life office is a
wonderful resource. We meet with our Rabbi. We meet with Jewish
students. We meet with Jewish faculty to keep our sense of a
pulse of the culture.
Mr. Thompson. Dr. Groves, I appreciate it. Let me--my time
is almost gone. If I may, just one more question. When hiring
faculty does Georgetown currently have a vetting process that
includes screening for antisemitic content, and a candidate's
public record?
Mr. Groves. Not at this time, Congressman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. The time has
expired. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina,
Ms. Adams.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to the
witnesses for being here today. Let me start with something
that should not need to be said, but it must be said clearly.
Antisemitism is real, it is rising, and it has no place on our
campuses. We have a responsibility to make sure that every
student, Jewish, Muslim, black, brown, or otherwise, feels safe
and respected where they live and where they learn.
That means calling out hate when we see it. It also means
upholding the civil rights protections that have long protected
our students from discrimination. Now, I spent over 40 years as
a professor, and what I know is this. Classrooms are where we
ask questions, where we challenge each other, and yes,
sometimes where we disagree.
I am concerned about what I see happening here because
instead of us solving a problem, we are watching some trying to
use antisemitism as a reason to go after higher education. I
have heard that in this Committee that DEI is to blame, that
foreign scholars are a threat, that faculty ought to be
punished for their views.
I will tell you, we do not need political scorecards. We
need real solutions, and that means following the law. It means
fully funding the Office of Civil Rights, not hollowing it out.
Let us not forget, as we sit here today, holding this hearing,
the Department of Education is withholding more than 6 billion
dollars in congressionally mandated funding from our K-12
schools.
That is money for students, for teachers, after school
programs, and for communities already stretched thin. My
question Chancellor Lyons, thank you for being here, your
institution has a long history with student protests, some of
it deeply troubling, and some of it a reflection of the moment
that we're in.
I want to ask you something else. How does your institution
protect academic freedom while also keeping students safe, and
what does it say--what does it say about your values when those
freedoms are tested?
Mr. Lyons. Thank you for the question. You are describing
what is a very complex set of questions. The freedom to
discover, the freedom to learn, the freedom to teach. These are
fundamental freedoms, and so when we talk about academic
freedom, let us just be clear that those are the fundamental
freedoms that we protect.
At the same time, we have this obligation toward free
speech. Does it frustrate us as Presidents? I will speak for
myself, this is frustrating. People say, well, just drive down
the middle of the road. This is a very complex road to drive
down, and so, we are constantly making judgments around how do
we keep people safe and supported, and also, how do we make
sure that we are protecting free speech in the marketplace for
ideas.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, sir, let me move on. Chancellor
Matos, since--Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, thank you as well.
CUNY is a large and complex system, 26 campuses across five
boroughs. That is no easy task, so let me ask you first, have
some of the protests we have seen involve people from outside
the CUNY community?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Absolutely, I appreciate the nuance.
Our campuses are the city of New York, so in many, many cases
some of the events that occur are really occurring in the
streets of New York City that are contingent to our campuses,
so that presents--
Ms. Adams. Can you give me a yes or no?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Yes.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you. Second, how is CUNY working
across New York's diverse neighborhoods to confront
antisemitism in a way that includes everyone?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you. Since I mentioned I have
been committed to this since I became Chancellor in 2019, I
have learned as President of Queens College that you needed to
bring people together. We had at Queens College the largest
Muslim and Jewish populations of our campuses at CUNY, and I
learned the value of bringing people together.
I have a Jewish advisory committee on Jewish life that I
brought together in 2023, to listen to the members of the
community, to get their feedback and get answers.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Thank you so much. Let me ask you one
final--say one final thing. We have heard concerns from faculty
who were recently not reappointed, despite having full enrolled
classes scheduled for the fall. I understand that those matters
may be going through a formal process.
I know you may not be able to speak to individual cases,
but as a former professor myself, and a Department Chair,
somebody who believes deeply in transparency and fairness, I
want to ask you would you be willing to followup with my
office, and provide more information on the policies and
procedures that guide faculty appointments and reappointments
at CUNY?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I appreciate the question. We are here
to answer other questions and cooperate fully with the
Committee.
Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you, sir. I think my time is up. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize
the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik. Thank you. I want to begin by discussing the
heinous scourge of antisemitism on your watch as Chancellor at
CUNY. You are aware at Baruk, Jewish freshman were welcomed
with heinous antisemitic taunts about the hostages killed by
Hamas, ``Where's Hirsch, you ugly expletive, expletive. Go
bring them home.''
``You ain't going home tonight. Go back to Brooklyn, all
Zionists are terrorists.'' Are you aware of those antisemitic
harassment slurs?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Those are deplorable statements, and
if they were associated with the event of Baruk investigation
was done as to as--
Ms. Stefanik. Students were disciplined in both of those
cases. At Hunter, Jewish students were forced to enter the main
university building under a swastika for hours. Is that
correct?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. My understanding of that is that the
swastika was placed outside, and we have a custom of erasing
also deplorable symbols. In that particular case there was a
delay because it had to be referred to the NYPD for the anti-
hate investigation.
Ms. Stefanik. Let me remind you of this particular case,
because that is not according to your own staff. In fact, the
Hunter College Director of Jewish Studies emailed university
leadership requesting that the Swastika be taken down, and
instead, this was the response for everyone to see.
Apologies, but it is not that simple. Is that the position
of CUNY?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. It is entirely unacceptable that--
Ms. Stefanik. Then was this administrator disciplined who
emailed?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, in that particular case, we
were working with the New York Police Department.
Ms. Stefanik. No. Was this administrator disciplined for
sending this response?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We--any case that we have we will
investigate, and the appropriate action will be taken.
Ms. Stefanik. What was the appropriate action taken against
this administrator in this case?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. In this case, as I mentioned to you,
we were working with the New York City Police Department.
Ms. Stefanik. No disciplinary action has been taken by
CUNY? Is that correct?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We will investigate any action.
Ms. Stefanik. An investigation, but no actual action, like
so many of these failed university Presidents, but it is not
just this case, you talked about how you focused on this since
2019. Let me remind you, in 2021, you hired Abd Alla as CUNY's
Chief Diversity Officer, and this role includes overseeing
antisemitism complaints and initiatives.
Were you aware at that time that this senior administrator
you hired was previously employed by CAIR?
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Ms. Stefanik. The Council on American Islamic Relations.
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady will suspend--
Ms. Stefanik. My time. Can you hold the time, it was 2:25.
Chairman Walberg. We will hold the time.
Mr. Scott. Does the Committee have a policy on publicizing
people's personal emails?
Ms. Stefanik. This is a university administrator's email.
Mr. Scott. Email addresses.
Chairman Walberg. No. We do not have a policy. I am told on
that, and again, this is at the university.
Ms. Stefanik. This is a university email, a public
university in the State of New York. Following up at 2:25,
which my time is, I am referencing the CUNY Chief Diversity
Officer, who you hired in 2021. They were previously employed
by CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations. Is that
correct?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. She was hired to be the Chief
Diversity Officer at the Central Office with no responsibility
over cases that have to deal with students or faculty.
Ms. Stefanik. You were aware that she was previously
employed by CAIR?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, I was not directly responsible
for that hire.
Ms. Stefanik. Even though she was the Senior Chief
Diversity Officer?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. As I mentioned to you, I was not
directly responsible for that hire.
Ms. Stefanik. Is it okay from your perspective, obviously
it is, to have a former employee of CAIR. Let me remind you
CAIR was a co-conspirator in a terrorist financing case, and
has ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Is she
currently still employed by CUNY?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. She is.
Ms. Stefanik. There you go, so no action, just words here
today. Even further, and by the way, her salary is paid for by
the New York taxpayers, correct?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have the expectations of total
professionalism and compliance with all the rules and policies
of CUNY. Any employee that breaks our policies or our rules
will be investigated.
Ms. Stefanik. It obviously does not break CUNY's rules to
have a senior employee, who was previously employed by a
terrorist-affiliated organization. That is unacceptable to New
York taxpayers. It is unacceptable to America taxpayers, but it
is not just that. Are you familiar with CUNY Clear? This is the
clinical arm of CUNY School of Law?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. CUNY Clear, I am not familiar with
them.
Ms. Stefanik. Well, I will remind you the CUNY Clear
founder and professor is the head of Mahmoud Khalil's legal
defense fund. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. No.
Ms. Stefanik. Does it concern you that New York taxpayers
are paying the salary for the legal defense fund of Mahmoud
Khalil?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Yes.
Ms. Stefanik. I will remind you who Mahmoud Khalil is. This
is the Chief Pro Hamas agitator that led to the antisemitic
encampments at Columbia, the rioting and violent takeover of
Hamilton Hall, the harassment and physical assault of Jewish
students.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We do not condone any kind of
antisemitism.
Ms. Stefanik. You allow the head of the clinical legal
organization, and a professor to be the chief legal aid to
Mahmoud Khalil and do his legal defense fund?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Those decisions are made in the
clinics, are made on the individual campuses.
Ms. Stefanik. It goes up to you. You are the Chancellor.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Those decisions are made at the
individual campuses.
Ms. Stefanik. You take no responsibility?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I take responsibility for any behavior
over five of--
Ms. Stefanik. Is this acceptable? Is this acceptable?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Any behavior that is antisemitic is in
violation of our rules.
Ms. Stefanik. Is this acceptable that the legal defense
fund for Mahmoud Khalil is the head of CUNY Clear? That is
acceptable under your watch?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have no tolerance for antisemitism
on our campuses, and we have been very clear.
Ms. Stefanik. Will this person be fired?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Anybody that breaks our rules and our
policies, there will be an investigation, we will investigate,
and if there is any disciplinary actions to be taken, we will
take it.
Ms. Stefanik. Let me make a prediction. No disciplinary
action, this individual is not going to be fired because it is
all words, no action. You have failed the people of New York.
You have failed Jewish students in New York State, and it is a
disgrace. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. The gentlelady's
time is expired. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr.
DeSaulnier.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. Chancellor, do you want to have
a few moments of my time to respond to that outrageous attack
by my colleague?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, thank you for the opportunity.
I just want to make clear that the rules of the City University
of New York apply to all our students, faculty, and staff.
Anybody who behaves in any way that it is antisemitic, that you
know, and sponsors violence against members of the Jewish
community or any community, discriminate or harass, you know,
will be investigated and held accountable based on our rules.
That is clear, it is our commitment. I have been engaged in
fighting antisemitism as Chancellor since I became the
Chancellor in 2019.
I have been working very closely with many of our Jewish
stakeholder organizations, led a delegation of presidents and
deans to Israel back in 2019, to encourage our ties with
universities in Israel, and cultural institutions and artistic
institutions in Israel.
We have made very clear our time and place and matter
policies on our campuses, to make sure that individuals can
exercise their right.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Chancellor. I appreciate it. I
want to save a little bit of my time, but I appreciate it. Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
letter from Jewish faculty at the University of California,
supporting the actions of the administration against
antisemitism.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection, and hearing none, it
will be entered.
[The information of Mr. DeSaulnier follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you. I want to thank all the
witnesses here. Dr. Groves, I want to start with you, as a
proud alumni of a Jesuit education, where they taught us to
service to others, and lifelong learning, so thank you for your
presentation, and you have an example of that Jesuit education
with former member Moran, who is a proud graduate, like myself,
of the College of the Holy Cross sitting behind you.
Chancellor Lyons, it is always delightful to see you. I do
not have the honor of representing the campus itself, but I
like to say that I can look down on your campus from Grizzly
Peak on my side of the district.
I want to first of all mention that you are from the Hough
School of Business, one of the best business schools in the
country, hardly a hotbed of anything but excellence, so you as
the Dean of that school, it is sort of the stereotypes that we
get into. It is a very big school with a lot of great programs.
It also can be proud of the fact that out of the University
California Berkeley, there have been 59 Nobel laureates, but
between alumni and faculty, I would also add as a friend of the
current rugby coach, it is also the home of 29 rugby
championships.
Could you talk about some of the things you have already
mentioned that you have done, elaborate to any degree you would
like about your involvement, and your predecessors, in trying
to balance the First Amendment rights as a public university,
the best public university in the country, and arguably the
best in the world against hate and violence and antisemitism,
which is no small feat?
Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you. I think a place to start is
around what are so-called time, place and manner rules. We
encourage the expression of free speech on the Berkeley campus.
That is an important part of a vibrant campus. It is an
important part of a vibrant society.
At the beginning, so, I have been in my role for a year
now, and we were very, very clear at the beginning of the year,
across the whole UC system I should say, certainly at Berkeley.
Tents are not allowed. Tents are not part of an expression of
free speech. Were we tested? We were tested. We took them down
immediately.
There is a gate on the campus called Sather Gate, it is
right in the middle. It got partially blocked, and some of the
times before I became Chancellor, one of the no tolerance
rules, we communicated it clearly, is no blocking the gate, and
any part of the gate. There was a sukkah that got erected in
front of the gate. We took it down, effectively immediately.
Anyways, part of the time, place and manner rules, that is
not just something to counter antisemitism, those time, place
and manner rules need to be content neutral, and they are. We
need to communicate what the standards are, while at the same
time making sure students know that expressing your views,
consistent with the First Amendment, is something that Berkeley
does not just condone, it actually encourages it.
Mr. DeSaulnier. Consistent with a letter from the faculty
that I am submitting how have the various communities responded
to that?
Mr. Lyons. Well, thank you. You know, I am particularly
heartened by that faculty letter. They did not need to do that.
There were over 80 of them. These are our Jewish faculty who
are saying, not that Berkeley is perfect, as I said in my
opening statement, we have some getting better to do, and we
are going to do it.
The idea that we made a lot of progress over the last year
and they are with us, and with me, is heartening, and they like
what they say, we have made a lot of changes. Not just around
time, place and manner, we are connecting with the Jewish
community, and Jewish leadership in new ways.
We have changed our education and training initiatives. We
have a new course called ``Openness to Opposing Views'' that we
plan to roll out as much as possible to incoming students.
There are many fronts.
Chairman Walberg. I appreciate that. The gentleman's time
has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all of
you for being here today and testifying. Growing up my parents
basically engrained in me the biblical definition of free
speech, and that was my mother always said if you cannot say
something nice about somebody, or your country, do not say
anything at all.
AI says in the biblical context, free speech is not an
absolute, unrestricted right. Instead, it is a freedom that
comes with responsibilities and limitations. While the bible
emphasizes the importance of speaking truth and building others
up, it also highlights the need for restraint, graciousness,
and love, in communication.
Would this place be a better place if we could all behave
like that? Is that not amazing? I have got to ask some hard
questions. Dr. Groves, are you familiar with Francesca
Albanese?
Mr. Groves. Yes, I am.
Mr. Allen. In 2014, Albanese wrote America and Europe, one
of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby and the other by the
sense of guilt about the Holocaust. When did Georgetown bring
Albanese on as an affiliated scholar?
Mr. Groves. I think she came in 2015 roughly, but she only
gave a few lectures. She is not on the payroll of Georgetown,
and never was, Congressman.
Mr. Allen. Was Georgetown aware of Albanese's antisemitic
statements at that time?
Mr. Groves. Not to my knowledge. That is the first I have
heard of that statement.
Mr. Allen. In the decades since, Albanese has continued to
endorse terrorism and spread antisemitism. In that time did
Georgetown consider terminating its relationship with Albanese?
Mr. Groves. I do not know the answer to that. I am happy to
followup on whether that was a consideration, but she is not at
Georgetown. She is not on the payroll, and she is not present
on campus.
Mr. Allen. Last week the Trump administration sanctioned
Albanese over her long track record of supporting terrorism and
perpetrating antisemitism. Is Albanese still an affiliated
scholar of Georgetown?
Mr. Groves. She is still listed as an affiliate, but she is
not present on campus, nor participating in the Center.
Mr. Allen. Let me tell you the problem we have here is, you
know, like simply the way I was brought up, you have
accountability, okay? In other words, you have got to have
guardrails. If you get outside of those guardrails, you do
something about it. You do not let this stuff linger on because
it just rots.
That is the problem we all, I think, have up here is for
crying out loud, you have got to get rid of these people, they
are perpetrating this hate. A question here, last April the
violent encampment at Columbia filled headlines, City College
of New York, this encampment caused 3 million worth of damage.
For example, how many CUNY staff, students, staff and
faculty were involved in the encampment? Do we know?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We ended up disciplining seven
individuals in that encampment who ended up breaking into one
of the buildings.
Mr. Allen. Well, I mean was--were they put in prison? Have
they been indicted? Have they gone before a jury of their peers
for their crimes?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We corroborated with the District
Attorney in those cases, and there were seven individuals who
were disciplined. I cannot comment on the individuals
disciplined, but what I can tell you also we have a zero-
tolerance policy of encampment. Some of the lessons learned in
that encampment have guided our work after that, and we have
been successful in making sure that we have had no other
encampments in our campuses as a result of that experience.
Mr. Allen. Well, all I can tell you things have changed a
lot since I was in college. Where I went to college they did
not put up with this stuff. You knew it, and that is why you
stayed within those guardrails, of course that is the way it
was in high school and middle school as well.
How many students have been suspended, expelled this year,
that because of this violence and vandalism? How many students
have been expelled?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. At--because of the encampment?
Mr. Allen. Yes, right.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We had three students of the seven
that were disciplined as a result of the encampment.
Mr. Allen. How about faculty?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. There were four.
Mr. Allen. When you say disciplined, what does that mean?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I cannot comment on the individual
cases. Discipline goes from reprimand, training, suspension or
termination, and we have terminated individuals in the faculty
and staff for violating our policies on antisemitism.
Mr. Allen. Well, the great thing about this country is you
have the right to prove that you are innocent, but if you are
guilty, you know what, you get fired.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Allen. Thank you. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I now recognize the gentleman from New
York, Mr. Mannion.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the
witnesses for being here today. The rise in antisemitism across
the United States is profoundly troubling. We simply must do
more to respond to these actions and ensure our Jewish
neighbors and communities can live free from harassment,
intimidation, and violence.
We all must stand together to reject any targeted hatred,
or bigotry against any group due to their religion, ethnicity,
or other demographic. As we hold this hearing, let us be clear
about the problem that we are facing. Antisemitism is not
limited to just college campuses. It has spread rampantly in
our communities, our online platforms, and our politics, yet
the majority of this Committee are set on repeatedly singling
out higher education and attacking university presidents and
labor unions that represent their faculty, while refusing to
pursue serious, comprehensive solutions.
In fact, they have supported this administration's moves to
gut the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education,
cancel grants for hate crime prevention, and openly has
embraced individuals with known records of offensive,
conspiratorial hateful rhetoric.
I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
hold those in their own party accountable and approach this
issue in a more thoughtful manner. Chancellor, earlier--excuse
me, Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, given the importance of
combating antisemitism in our State, I would like to give you
an opportunity to elaborate on CUNY's efforts.
Your testimony describes the independent investigation that
was commissioned, and the resulting report, which included a
set of recommendations. What steps is the CUNY system currently
taking to implement those recommendations?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I appreciate the question, and those
are the recommendations from the Lippman report, which we
collaborated fully when the Judge was conducting it, and we
have embraced the recommendations that came from the Judge and
his team. One of the main ones was indicating that our
decentralized structure made the follow-through-in the cases of
discrimination, and the investigations not as responsive as
they should be, something that we knew that was a challenge,
and we have been advancing our work in that area.
I created a center. Now, all the complaints around
discrimination, and harassment are handled by one single
center, which works on the training of all the individuals
conducting the investigation, so we have more timely
investigations, we are more responsive to that work.
We also had a lot of critiques, valid critiques, to a
portal that we created to centralize some of that before, and
now we have procured a state-of-the-art system to manage all
those cases, so that we can be more responsive to the
individuals who submit the claims, so they can be informed, so
we could have better data to be more transparent, to all the
stakeholders that hold us accountable, and to manage those
cases more and more effectively.
To have best practices all across the system replicated, so
that is one of the recommendations from the Lippman report that
we have embraced. The Lippman report also asked us to invest
more in bridge building and giving tools to our five other
students and staff to navigate difficult conversations and
issues. We launched the Constructive Dialogue Initiative,
actually we have half of the campuses in training today at the
central office. I would have been participating there had I
been on the campus.
This is to give faculty, students and staff tools to be
able to have difficult conversations. We do not want people
shying away from difficult conversations. They need to do it
civilly. They need to do it respectfully, and they have to do
it following the rules, so those are some of the investments
that we have made as a result of the Judge's recommendations.
Mr. Mannion. You have communicated the progress in certain
ways. Can you elaborate on how you have articulated that
progress to students, faculty and the broader community?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have been engaged in communicating
the work that we have done. I indicated before that I have a
Jewish Advisory Life Committee that has been both a resource to
us of listening to what the community thinks, you know, we
should be doing, but also as a way for us to convey some of the
work that we have been doing in this arena.
We remain committed to this work with many of our Jewish
stakeholder partners.
[Protestor interruption.]
Chairman Walberg. Mr. Mannion, you may proceed.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you. Chancellor, go ahead.
Mr. Matos Rodrguez. Thank you. I was going to mention one
of the great joys of being the Chancellor of CUNY is that we
provide about a third of the new teachers that go to the public
schools in New York every year. We have a partnership in a
pilot with the UJA-Federation of training for all our students
who are going to go to teach, in managing difficult
conversations in anti-hate, and antisemitism, so that they
teachers that are going to New York City public schools are
better equipped to be handling some of these issues, so we are
deeply engaged in this work, and it is our commitment that we
continue to do so.
Mr. Mannion. Thank you, Chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired. I now
recognize the Vice Chairman of this Committee, the gentleman
from Utah, Mr. Owens.
Mr. Owens. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would say
that little outburst we saw a minute ago is exactly why we have
these hearings. This antisemitism, this hatred that we are
seeing across our country is coming from our universities. They
come there with their tails wagging, ready to go out and build
their dreams.
They leave hating our country, hating each other, and
antisemitism is flourishing because of it. This has been going
on way too long, and we are going to have as many hearings as
we have to, to beat this cancer out of our system. Our kids
need to be leaving here knowing how to talk to each other,
respect each other, and not having that kind of stuff we just
had a minute ago.
By the way, I do not doubt we might have some more before
it is all over with. That is how they think they can get their
message through. We are going to have as many oversight
meetings as we have to, to eradicate this evil of
discrimination that we're seeing on college campuses.
We have a dual mission here with this Committee, to be the
voice of Jewish students who pay good money, $70,000 per year
to be harassed, to be hated, and to be disrespected. The
message bursting to the college school leaders is very simply
this, either eradicate this cancer, or there will be
consequences. This is coming from top down, not bottom up.
We're going to eventually change that.
There has been a lot of debate over what constitutes
antisemitism. I just want to ask real quick before the leaders
here, the college leaders, yes or no.
In denying the Jewish people their rights to self-
determination, is that antisemitism, yes or no? I will start
off with--
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Yes.
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Mr. Owens. Is celebrating violence against Jews with
phrases like, Globalize the Intifada, antisemitism, yes, or no?
Mr. Groves. As a threat, absolutely Congressman.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Any call to violence against Jewish
members of our community is antisemitic, and against our
policies.
Mr. Lyons. If it is an incitement to violence, yes, it is.
Mr. Owens. I agree with your comments, unfortunately it has
been so normalized, nobody seems to be held accountable for it
when this stuff happens, by the way. I just want to make that
point. Dr. Groves, are you familiar with Hamad Al Khor, right?
Mr. Groves. No, I do not know that name.
Mr. Owens. Mohammad Al Khor.
Mr. Groves. No.
Mr. Owens. No. Okay. He is an activist that has been
spending a lot of time on your campus. He says Israeli's
harvest organs of the martyr, and they have an unquenchable
thirst for Palestinian blood. He has also said that the Jewish
people control the media and wishes every single Zionist to
perish. Would this be considered antisemitism?
Mr. Groves. Absolutely, Congressman.
Mr. Owens. He has also stated that Hamas had good political
reasons for taking the hostages and captives and were well
treated. Now, this is after 250 innocent men, women and
children were taken hostages, women raped, and children killed
by Hamas. Would you consider good political reasons as in
agreement with what he just said about Hamas?
Mr. Groves. No. I find that abhorrent.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Would you agree that is pure evil, what
they did, and for those who support what they did?
Mr. Groves. We abhor that attack, and made the first
statement on October--
Mr. Owens. Can you agree with me that it is pure evil?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Mr. Owens. Okay. This same person back in Georgetown,
October 23d, the same month as the massacre, Al Khor described
Hamas as a deliberation movement, and that the October 7th
attack was a resistance tactic after 1,200 people have been
massacred. Any idea how many times Georgetown students and
faculties have invited Mohammad Al Khor to speak in the last 3
years at your--at Georgetown?
Mr. Groves. I am not aware of how many times.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Four times. Four times. The last one was
February 16th of this year. Georgetown University in
partnership with Georgetown faculty and staff for Justice in
Palestine, invited him to pump his books, to launch his book
tour. You and I came to the same era, specifically the 60's,
Dr. Groves, so I would imagine, and I know how you are going to
answer this, I think.
Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths
of black Americans to speak at Georgetown?
Mr. Groves. No, but we endeavor to have speakers from many
different sides to--
Mr. Owens. Okay. KKK member, in today's environment, you
would invite, you will give him--
Mr. Groves. No. I do not think we would. We do want to have
a--
Mr. Owens. This is very specific. This is very, yes, this
is a hate. You remember what the KKK used to do to black
people, right?
Mr. Groves. Yes.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Would you give them the platform to do
that?
Mr. Groves. No, I do not believe so.
Mr. Owens. Okay. Well, to that point, if Georgetown would
prevent white KKK bigots on the campus, why would a university
allow on advice of faculty or students to invite Palestinian
antisemitic bigots? That is what this guy is. I am about to run
out of time. I just want to say this.
Chairman Walberg. You have. Your time has expired.
Mr. Owens. Yes, okay. It is time to get this together, and
I am glad, thank you Chairman, for doing what we are doing
right now. I appreciate it. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.
Ms. Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like others, I have
expressed my concern that despite nine hearings on antisemitism
since I have joined Congress, that we have yet to have a single
hearing on any of the other very pervasive forms of hatred that
is rising in our country right now.
Antiblackness of course, which remains foundational,
antimuslimism hate, which is approaching levels unseen since
911. We cannot pretend that these are not pressing when a
member of this Committee who is black and Muslim, is being
called a terrorist by another member of this Committee. Still,
I was encouraged.
Now, today's hearing was planning to focus on the
underlying causes of antisemitism and hate, something the
previous eight have quite frankly failed to do in earnest,
because we do need to address the underlying factors if college
students, and any of us ever hope to live in a peaceful and a
safe society.
Instead, it was made immediately clear, unsurprisingly that
this is yet another hearing to demonize Muslims and their
religion, to demonize Palestinians, including those in Gaza who
have undeniably faced unspeakable harms of humanitarian crisis
and human rights crises, and particularly the young students,
activists and faculty, who are determined to stand up against
human rights violations.
This is predictably another public opportunity for
Republicans to pit Jewish Americans against Muslim Americans,
Muslim against Christian, black against white, to reinforce the
actual underlying factors of hate, which are real, systemic
harms of white supremacy. It is reinforcement at its highest
levels of government.
One glaring example is the administration's selective
misinterpretation of the weaponization of the civil rights
laws. Mr. Nosanchuk, in your testimony you discussed how the
Trump administration is imposing Draconian penalties that are
completely divorced from supporting Jewish students or
addressing antisemitism.
Briefly, how is this administration's assessment of civil
rights violations undermining meaningful oversight of campus
safety efforts that would support students?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman.
As I said in my testimony, there is a proven way to address
civil rights violations, Congress, this body, charged the
Office of Civil Rights with enforcing Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act in ensuring that all students have an opportunity to
access their education free from discrimination.
When you know, we would conduct an investigation and reach
a resolution agreement, it would result in a whole series of
steps that many of which my fellow panelists here have
discussed to address the antisemitism that has occurred, and to
change the campus climate, so that antisemitism does not exist.
In addition, you know, when investigations are conducted,
you know, it is not like there is only one type of
discrimination that is occurring. Often when an investigation
is conducted, and there is evidence of say antiblack
discrimination, we might also have found evidence of
antisemitic discrimination, expanded the investigation to
encompass that. We have that flexibility.
Imposing a 900-million-dollar penalty on a university is
not going to prompt university presidents sitting here to think
about how they are going to address antisemitism. They are
going to think about how are they going to fill this huge whole
in this budget that has just been created by a penalty that has
nothing to do with the discriminatory conduct that has actually
occurred.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. I want us to be clear, like that we do
not allow ourselves to be lost in rhetoric. This
administration's attack on colleges is not just about campus
safety. I will argue it is not about it at all. It is about
suppressing education. The point of college we have talked
about is for students to expand their world views, develop
critical thinking skills, make them less susceptible to
disinformation, and navigate how to stand up for what's right,
and important to them.
It gives things that they disagree with, which might
include authoritarianism. That is why this administration is
doing everything and beyond in its power to dismantle higher
education since their descent, freezing funding, forcing
university presidents to resign, threatening to remove
accreditation, banning entire offices and departments, and
revoking students' visas, disappearing students, eroding
student loan programs, gutting civil rights resources.
Of course, as it was mentioned at the outset of this
hearing, putting an end to diversity, equity and inclusion and
accessibility, the boogeyman of MAGA Republicans who are
determined to sow hate and division, instead of equity,
inclusion. At the same time as their crusade against diversity,
the Trump administration and Republicans have said that
colleges must hire more conservative faculty to increase
viewpoint diversity on campuses, while calling for disciplinary
action against professors who believe they disagree with.
Really very quickly, Mr. Nosanchuk, do you think it is
appropriate for colleges to make hiring and disciplinary
decisions based on pressure from whatever party happens to be
in Congress in charge, just a yes or no?
Mr. Nosanchuk. No.
Ms. Lee. Thank you. These attacks on colleges are not
solving the real problem. Make mistakes. This is yet another
opportunity to exploit legitimate concerns of antisemitism on
college campuses, to further the attacks on the institutions of
learning. I think that it is incredibly clear hearing the
opening testimoneys and statements, and the testimony that we
will continue to hear throughout the day.
I hope that you will consider that. Thank you and I yield
back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize
the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. Good morning, Chancellor Lyons, thanks very much
for being here. I want to say from the outset, I know you have
only been Chancellor for a year, so I just want to ask a few
questions, not for the purpose of assigning blame, but for
getting a better understanding of the expectations that members
of the Berkeley community can have going forward.
I also want to say at the outset that while I think
Berkeley's reputation as being kind of cartoonishly leftist
institution is well earned in some ways, in other ways, it is
an enormously important institution for our country that does
tremendously beneficial research, continues to do so, and
provides tremendous opportunities to students across all of its
campuses.
I want that to be acknowledged as an important part of the
story as well. Let us just start with a simple question. Why do
you believe antisemitism is so pervasive at Berkeley?
Mr. Lyons. Antisemitism is pervasive in the world. It is
pervasive in this Nation, in society. I think our universities
are reflections of our societies, especially a large public
university.
Mr. Kiley. I think we would agree that universities have
been where the problem is probably most visible, and
institutions like Berkeley, among a handful of others have been
the worst offenders in a sense, why do you think that is?
Mr. Lyons. Well, have they been where it is most visible? I
think--I am not sure that it is where they are most present,
but I think part of what we do see in universities, is there is
a freedom to express one's views, even if there is some, you
know, some learning that needs to happen through that process.
I think that is a healthy part of what universities do, so
students do express their views.
You know, if 200 students expressed their views on our main
plaza, called Sprout Plaza, that is one-fifth of 1 percent.
Mr. Kiley. I guess why does it exist at all? I mean we are
talking about not something like littering on campus, you know,
this is the world's most retrograde prejudice, it is the
prejudice at the heart of the worst crime in human history. Why
does this exist at all on your campus? Have you thought about
that? What is the--what the explanation might be?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think we have to come back to your--
anyone's use of the word antisemitism. I mean if somebody is
expressing Pro Palestinian beliefs, that is not necessarily
antisemitism.
Mr. Kiley. You have acknowledged that there is an
antisemitism problem that predates October 7th, and that there
has been a disturbing rise, so I am asking why? Why do you
think that is?
Mr. Lyons. I did agree to that. I believe that part of it
has to do with geopolitical events, and a war in Gaza.
Mr. Kiley. Okay. I mean I am not sure that is a full
explanation, but I do want to move on to a couple other topics.
There were some incidents that were deeply disturbing on your
campus, such as a checkpoint at Sather Gate, where Jewish
students, their movement was impeded.
Would you agree, and I am not asking you to comment on
individual cases, but going forward, a student or faculty
member who physically obstructs the movement of someone on the
basis of their race, ethnicity, and nationality, religion that
is just an automatically expellable or fireable offense?
Mr. Lyons. Going forward we have a very clear no tolerance
rule for blocking Sather Gate for any reason, and I will
enforce it, and we have enforced it. I mentioned that in an
earlier comment.
Mr. Kiley. If someone does this specifically against a
Jewish student or for someone, any other form of identity, I
mean what should the expectation be for what that student's or
faculty member's punishment will be? I think there are some
things if someone is convicted of murder, you would say
automatically expellable offense, I am sure, right? What is the
punishment here?
Mr. Lyons. Well, it is an important question. As we, and
most universities implemented more sharply defined time, place
and manner rules, we also have to think about how are we going
to enforce those rules, usually with some kind of what we call
tiered response. The question is, is this a first offense? Is
it a 20th offense?
Was it, you know, how extreme was it?
Mr. Kiley. I mean I have given you a very specific example
though, I do not know if it matters to me whether that is the
first or 20th offense, if you are physically stopping someone
from getting onto their campus because of who they are, that
person should be expelled, should they not?
Mr. Lyons. Well, part of it were they physically
restricting people that were from a different identity group?
At the same time there is just a lot of context and facts
before somebody could say we need to jump to the point where
somebody is getting expelled, and we investigate those.
We are very rigorous about our investigations.
Mr. Kiley. What about the encampment? We know that your
predecessor reached a deal with the encampment organizers, and
part of which was to endow this department that is now headed
by the want to be terrorist, Magdisi, would you agree going
forward that it is not appropriate to make policy changes in
response to demands made by those who are in the process of
violating campus rules?
Mr. Lyons. I cannot second guess my predecessor. The facts
and circumstances under which she was leading us at the time
really. I was not in the role, as you have pointed out. Going
forward, I can speak to that, and that is why you invited me
here. Going forward, we you know, for example, there are
certain things that we talk to students about all the time.
They make demands, let us lead ourselves beyond the
antisemitism question. It is like do we discuss improving
campus with students?
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time has expired. I am
sorry. We have to move on.
Mr. Kiley. My time has expired. I think that the issue with
the encampment was that it clearly violated campus policies,
but that was rewarded by the then Chancellor, by ceding to
their demands, and I would hope that is not going to be the
approach taking by Berkeley going forward.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now, I recognize
the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Ansari.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the
witnesses for being here today. Antisemitism has undoubtedly
been on the rise for years. As we all know, although Jews
constitute only 2 percent of the U.S. population, antisemitic
attacks account for 15 percent of all hate crimes, and almost
70 percent of all religion-based hate crimes in the country.
In the current climate, almost 50 percent of Jewish college
students report feeling uncomfortable or unwelcome, or unsafe
on campus because they are Jewish. That is unacceptable.
Particularly on college campuses, we have heard concern about
faculty members using rhetoric that at times crosses the line
into antisemitism and creates hostile environments for Jewish
students.
While we are holding hearings to combat antisemitism on
campuses, the very office in the Department of Education that
works to protect Jewish students, the Office for Civil Rights,
has been attacked, undermined, and cut by the Trump
administration. This office works to protect individuals based
on race, color or national origin, sex, age, religion and
disability.
I would be remiss if I did not mention that in addition to
the sharp rise in antisemitism, data shows a very clear rise in
Islamophobia as well, especially in recent months, a rise in
Anti-Asian hate, persistently high rates of biased, motivated
crimes against black communities, and FBI data also shows
prejudice against sexual orientation, gender identity and
disability bias.
Just yesterday the Trump administration and the Trump
appointed Supreme Court, affirmed his plan to dismantle the
Department of Education, and fire nearly 1,400 employees, one-
third-of their workforce.
Mr. Nosanchuk, what effect will the decimation of the
Department of Education, and especially this Office of Civil
Rights, have on efforts to combat college antisemitism?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman.
It is the job of the Office for Civil Rights to enforce civil
rights laws and keep students safe. If there are not the
investigators and the resources to do the job, who is going to
be going on to these campuses in response to complaints when
instances of anti-discrimination occur to protect these
students?
I am trying to think of another instance where there is a
policy preference that says we need to prioritize this
particular policy objective, and now we are going to gut the
office charged with the responsibility to do the work.
Ms. Ansari. Since mass layoffs earlier this year, has the
pace of investigation and resolution become faster or slower?
Mr. Nosanchuk. My understanding is it has become slower,
and that you know, one approach has been taken is just to
dismiss wholesale, a whole host of complaints, some
unprecedented number within the 3-month period.
Ms. Ansari. On that note, if you could clarify, do you know
how many civil rights cases have been dismissed by the Trump
administration, and how that may compare to prior
administrations?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Well, I do know that there was this , about
3,400 there were dismissed within a 3-month period from March
through June, and that outpaced any rate of dismissal before.
You know, the way in which OCR operated when I worked there is
every complaint that was filed that stated a claim which was
within the jurisdiction of OCR was open for investigation.
It does not mean that it necessarily resulted in a
resolution agreement, but it was open for investigation because
the belief was that every student who has a complaint needs to
be heard, and their complaint examined to determine whether
there has been discrimination that rises to the level of
harassment or hostile environment under Title VI, and what the
university that is accountable for protecting that student's
civil rights is doing about it.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you so much. This year in addition, the
Trump administration shuttered seven out of 12 civil rights
enforcement offices, including the offices in New York City and
San Francisco, two of the regions that are obviously
represented on this panel today. Those offices were in the
middle of handling over 6,000 cases.
Mr. Nosanchuk, what role did these offices play in
combatting antisemitism under your tenure at the Office of
Civil Rights?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thanks for that question. They played a very
significant role. The offices that were shuttered were some of
the most effective offices within OCR. I do not think, frankly,
that is a coincidence, and it happened that a number of those
offices were the ones where a significant majority of the
unprecedented number of antisemitism related investigations
that we opened were being handled, and there was tremendous
expertise.
You know, if you added it up, I imagine it would be, you
know, decades or centuries of expertise if you added all the
years of all the investigators who worked in these offices, and
really were deeply committed, and are now shattered by the fact
that they have lost their jobs, and seeing the office that they
were dedicated to be basically eviscerated.
Ms. Ansari. Thank you. This administration has been
weaponizing the rise of antisemitism in their war against
higher education. If they were serious about protecting Jewish
students and educators, they would be providing more funding
and more staff for the Office of Civil Rights, thank you.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Her time has
expired, and I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Onder.
Mr. Onder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the
witnesses for being here today. Chancellor Lyons, the UAW
represents 48,000 academic workers in the University of
California's system. How many on the Berkeley campus are you
aware?
Mr. Lyons. I do not have that number here.
Mr. Onder. Well, the UAW has endorsed encampments that
feature imagery supporting terrorism, has led student sessions
on how we educate on campus. Union leaders have even come to
campus, participating in antisemitic chants. The microbiology
grad student filed a lawsuit, Yaniv vs. UAW, 4811, alleging
that the Union's activity contributed to a hostile work
environment in violation of Title VI, and the California Fair
Employment Act.
In your opinion does the UAW contribute to antisemitism on
the University of California, Berkeley Campus, or in the
system?
Mr. Lyons. It would be inappropriate for me to speak to a
case that is clearly in litigation, so I will not do that. I
think it is also important to understand that unions are
independent organizations, right? We do not control them. They
do not control us. It is not something that we have any direct
control of.
Mr. Onder. Okay. Now, here is an area where the union does
seek to interact with Berkeley. The UC UAW strongly supports
BDS boycott, divested sanction, and is looking to impose it on
the U of California system in January and April 2024. The UAW
passed resolutions to that effect.
If in the next round of collective bargaining the UAW
demanded a provision that implements BDS, would you counsel for
agreeing to such a provision, or oppose it?
Mr. Lyons. It is the stated policy of the University of
California that we do not boycott countries. We do not--we have
specific rules for when divestment can be considered, and we
are very systematic about how we apply those rules. I can speak
for myself personally, personally, I would oppose it.
Mr. Onder. Thank you. It has been reported that the UC UAW
prepared a list of members of the UC Board of Regents with
Jewish or Israeli ties and targeted them for investigation.
What if UAW proposed a provision under which Berkeley and other
University of California schools would disclose to the union
any grand stoner's programs, or professors with ties to Israel,
would you counsel for agreeing to such a provision?
Mr. Lyons. There were some facts on the front end of your
question that I take to be true, but I have no information on,
so I cannot comment on that whatsoever. If they were asking for
in general, we do not provide information to the public or to
outside entities like unions, and if it is publicly available,
then it is publicly available, they can find it.
In general, we would not provide that kind of information
unless there is some legal reason why we needed to.
Mr. Onder. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Groves, so, Georgetown
has a number of foreign campuses, Jakarta, Florence, London, I
was wondering--I found myself wondering, how did the Qatar
connection in Qatar campus of Georgetown University come to be?
Did Qatar approach Georgetown or vice versa, or how did
that work?
Mr. Groves. This happened way before my time, so it is only
through photo history that I know the answer.
Mr. Onder. How long has it been?
Mr. Groves. 2005.
Mr. Onder. `05, okay, 20 years.
Mr. Groves. 20 years ago. My understanding is that the
vision of the Qatar Foundation at the time was to build a group
of western universities in Doha that would offer western
education to the region, in a vision that Qatar would gradually
become a hub for higher education and research.
Mr. Onder. Western style, Jesuit style higher education?
Mr. Groves. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Onder. In the Middle East. Thank you. I am out of time,
thank you very much. I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize
the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.
Mrs. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our
Ranking Member Scott, thank you to all of you that are
witnesses today. We appreciate your time and being here. I also
want to thank the students that are watching today, and I want
to say again to each and every one of them, I am very sorry to
those who have been victims of violent hate crimes at some of
our other schools, and that have appeared previously before
this Committee.
As a mother of a child myself who was killed in a racially
motivated shooting, I know what it is like for your family to
be attacked solely because of who you are or how you were born.
I know how painful it is for those preconceived notions that
someone may have. Preconceived notions that have nothing to do
with the actions you have taken as an individual for those
notions to drive someone's entire view of you or your loved
ones as a person.
That is the type of dangerous mindset that took my son from
me. I want to remind everyone here how important it is that we
engage in good faith to get this right. Antisemitism remains a
growing threat on campus today. The actions taken by the
majority are not motivated by the rooting out of the evils of
antisemitism, and other forms of hate in American society.
These actions today, they are not going to improve the
situation. They are only fostering further distrust between
different groups on and off campus. Instead of taking real
steps to address antisemitism, the majority has cut the
funding, as was mentioned earlier by one of our witnesses, and
fired the Federal employees tasked with responding to these
incidents on school grounds.
They have paused funding meant to protect synagogues, and
other Jewish community centers from shootings through the non-
profit security and targeted violence and terrorism prevention
grant programs. They have openly defended the actions of
violent felons and rabid antisemites, criminals that were
directly involved in attacking police, and killing an officer
here at our capital on January 6th.
When white supremacists marched through the University of
Virginia chanting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' the President
said that there were very fine people on both sides. These are
not the actions of a party or a President who is engaging in
good faith. The attempt to explain away one of the oldest forms
of hate solely for political gain is truly wrong and undermines
the centuries of interfaith struggle to build bridges, and take
the difficult, but very necessary steps that will bring peace.
It cheapens the sacrifice, the contributions of countless
everyday people who have lived these realities, who put their
reputations on the line, and found it within themselves to put
those pre-conceived notions aside to really try to solve and
resolve these differences, not just talk past each other.
Fighting antisemitism should not be used as a political
tool. The work is simply too important. The stakes are just too
high. Today, Georgia is home to the largest population in the
deep south, my State. My home State 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. It takes the vigilance from
all of us to ensure that the atrocities of the past never
repeat themselves.
I ask the American people, and all those who care about
religious freedom in this country, all those who want this
country to live up to the promise that all of us were created
equal. Please compare what they hear from my Republican
colleagues during these hearings, to the actions that they take
when the cameras are not rolling, and I yield.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie.
Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the fact that we are continuing our hearings about antisemitism
in higher education because it continues to be a persistent
problem that we see far too often. My first question is for Dr.
Lyons. This is the Education and Workforce Committee.
We just heard from the last questioner on our side of the
aisle about the relationship with the union, UAW Local 4811, at
the UC system, and how they have been engaging in explicitly
political activity, demanding divestment from Israel. You said
that you do not support that, so what guardrails is the
university going to put in place to make sure that collective
bargaining is not used to push foreign policy demands?
Mr. Lyons. I am not an expert in collective bargaining, but
demands can be made on the other side of any negotiation is
free to make demands. I think the position of the University of
California has been clear and will continue to be clear.
[Protestor interruption.]
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman will suspend. All in
attendance are reminded in accordance with Rule 11, Clause 4 of
the House of Representatives, to observe standards of dignity,
propriety, courtesy and decorum, traditionally observed by the
House and this Committee. The Chair notes that there is this
disturbance that takes place, but this Committee will continue
and will complete its planned hearing.
I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania to
continue.
Mr. Mackenzie. Well, thank you Mr. Chairman, and I would
just go back to the questioning here. They can certainly make
demands, but in a negotiation if the administration states out
a very clear position, that they will not be accepting of
foreign policy considerations being forced into a union
negotiation. Obviously, that would help your leverage in this
process and make it less likely that those things would go
forward. Is that something that you are going to be willing to
do?
Mr. Lyons. I just want to double underscore that the
University of California's position is that we will not be
boycotting Israel, or any country. That is my understanding of
an already well stated and clarified position. In any event, I
can speak for myself, which is all I can speak for in response
to your question, and the answer is yes, that position is that
we should not go in that direction.
Mr. Mackenzie. Thank you. Next, I will go to Dr. Matos
Rodriguez, and this is relating to the unions that are
representing some of your faculty and staff on your campus. We
have heard, and there was a Wall Street Journal opinion article
just from last week how labor unions are feeding the
antisemitism on campus.
The unfortunate incidents where members of the faculty and
staff from Israel to gain the representation that they seek in
a union, are being forced to sign up with a union that holds
explicitly Anti Israel positions. I would like to understand
what you might be willing to do to help those faculty and staff
because of that exclusive representation provision.
How do they accurately express their views in a college
setting, and make sure that the union, who is their
representative, is not running counter to their own interests?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Thank you for your question. Our first
responsibility is to make sure that in our campuses the freedom
to express your opinion is preserved, and individuals have
different perspectives, as the ones that you comment on in your
questionnaire.
[Protestor interruption.]
Chairman Walberg. Suspend the time. I do not know if it is
appropriate, but I was expecting that one. I now recognize the
gentleman to continue his questioning.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Having said that, the other part of
that is that we expect everybody to conduct themselves, every
faculty staff member, and student at the City University of New
York with an air of professionalism, and to abide by our
policies. Our role is to make sure that we make those policies
clear, that we make everybody understand that they have to
abide by them.
If anybody breaks them, that we investigate and take the
appropriate action, so that will be our role in making sure
that the policies against any kind of discrimination against
any kind of harassment are not tolerated.
Mr. Mackenzie. That is fine, I understand that. What is the
recourse for an individual faculty member if the representative
body is a union that holds explicitly, positions that run
counter to their own interests. Can that person go around that
exclusive representation? Would you support that?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Those individuals have their resources
available to them privately. What we can do is make sure that
the voice of the City University of New York, as I mentioned to
you, no tolerance of antisemitism, our north star of safety
that everybody in the university understands that and is safe
to be able to--
Mr. Mackenzie. Would you negotiate a contract with an
individual not in the union?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. That is not something that we are
allowed to do by law.
Mr. Mackenzie. Would you support that? Again, if the only
representative body is one that is Anti-Israel, and this
faculty member is from Israel, you are putting that person in
the catch 22.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We are clear about what the positions
of the university are. I have been very clear about my
opposition to BDS, and I have traveled to Israel with our
Presidents and Deans to show that is not just a statement, that
we are building bridges, and connecting with universities, and
cultural organizations there.
Our role is to make sure that we put together what the
vision of the university is, and labor has you know, their
independence, so they do not speak for the others.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired. I now
recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine.
Mr. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be honest.
I find the testimony today both disgusting, dishonest, and to
be gaslighting, and I am going to point it out here. We have
heard that we unequivocally denounce antisemitism, unwavering
support for our Jewish students. We have a zero-tolerance
policy, and we will not put up with a call for violence, so let
us explore that.
I would like to start with Dr. Rodriguez. Emanual Nest, the
Chair of your political science department said he supports,
``Resistance by any means necessary, which includes violence.''
How can you say those statements that you support your Jewish
students?
[Protestor interruption]
Mr. Fine. Shut up and get out of here.
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman will suspend. The gentleman
will suspend.
Mr. Fine. Get out of here you loser, come on. By the way,
to be clear, I hold you all responsible for this. It is the
attitude that you have allowed on your college campuses to make
people think that this is okay. That is why this happens
because you have someone like Emanuel Nest, that says
resistance by any means necessary, and I assume this person
still works at your school, is that correct?
Chairman Walberg. Microphone please.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Any call for violence against Jewish
members of our community is entirely unacceptable.
Mr. Fine. Why does this person still work there?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Any individual or faculty that has a
complaint of breaking our rules, we will investigate them and
take the appropriate disciplinary action if warranted.
Mr. Fine. Corina Mullin, at John Jay College said after
October 7th the right of Palestinian armed resistance is just,
and just last month was filmed chanting, ``Up, up, up, with
freedom, down, down, with Zionist scum.'' This is a professor
that teaches your Jewish students. How can you say you have an
unwavering, zero tolerance policy when this person teaches at
your school?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I believe that faculty member is no
longer teaching with the university. Any call for violence, any
call for supporting Hamas or terrorism is entirely unacceptable
and we made those statements several times.
Mr. Fine. At Berkeley, you are next, you created in the
fall of 2024, you named Ussama Makdisi, the inaugural Chair of
a new endowed program in Palestinian and Arab studies. On
October 7th, Makdisi described the Hamas attack against Israel
as, ``resistance.''
Why would you give a job? See, I understand the freedom of
speech, but you get to decide who to hire. Why would you give a
position to someone who said October 7th was justified? Why?
Mr. Lyons. Ussama Makdisi, Professor Makdisi, is a fine
scholar. He was awarded that position from his colleagues based
on academic standards.
Mr. Fine. Great. On February 5, 2024, this great academic,
you are showing the problem, said, ``I could have been one of
those who broke through the siege on October 7th.'' This is
what you think is good, and then we are surprised when people
come in here and behave this way. I am going to move on to
Georgetown.
You have got a campus in Qatar. I note when my colleague,
Vice Chair Owens said what would happen with a KKK student on
campus, you said yes, but. That is the problem with all of
this. We believe that we should deal with racism, and we
should, and I did a lot in the Florida legislature to do with
that, but there should not be a but after it when it comes to
antisemites.
At your school in Qatar, you had an October 24, 2023, an
event titled, ``Decolonization is not just a theory.'' It was
an exhibition of armed resistance in Africa in solidarity with
Palestine. What does decolonization is not just a theory mean
to you, and what does it mean to Georgetown?
Mr. Groves. I do not have knowledge of that exhibition.
This was a student led event, Congressman.
Mr. Fine. All right. I have 90 seconds left, and I am going
to end with this. I have a 17-year-old who will be applying to
school next year. He is in Washington interning right now. How
in good conscience could you tell my son, who is Jewish, who is
the reason I wear this kippah, how could you tell my son in
good conscious that he would be safe at any of your schools? I
will give each of you your 20 seconds to try to answer that
question.
Mr. Groves. I would deeply hope he would feel safe, and
there is a reason for this at Georgetown. If Jewish students do
not feel safe, if they have fear, if it is not just hurtful to
them, it destroys our mission of interfaith dialog.
Mr. Fine. They do not feel safe right now. Your turn.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I have spoken to many students. We
have recruited actively in the Jewish community at CUNY. I have
actually began a program of extending a program that we have
with recruiting in the high schools to the Yeshivas, which is
college now, and again, we have listened. I have met with the
students, go to Hillel, listen to their concerns, and have told
them that we need to do better, and we have made the changes,
and we are showing the results, and listening and being
committed to safety is something that I wake up every day to
do.
Mr. Fine. Yes. I do not even need an answer from Berkeley,
given the answer to that question about that professor. I would
tell you this, the Jewish students on your campus they do not
feel safe today, and you all should be ashamed about that, and
with that I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First of all, just a quick general
statement. This is, as been talked about, the third, or fourth,
fifth, whatever Committee hearing dealing with antisemitism on
American campuses. The fact that on many campuses the Jewish
students do not feel safe because of what is going on or not
being done on the part of the administration.
I will point out we are never going to--we can sit here for
years. We are never going to have a Committee hearing on
antisemitism at the construction site. We are never going to
have one antisemitism working in retail, or working in
manufacturing in the military, or antisemitism in a retirement
home.
This is basically a university problem. I think it became a
problem because we have such a slanted overall view of the
world and university compared to the country as a whole. You
know, in an ideal world, I think you would say that the
university faculty represents a cross section of the country.
We all know that is not true.
If we talk to university professors, they will tell you I
was the only person out of 20 people here who voted for
President Trump in my department or whatever, and you know, not
every State keeps track of, you know, which party you are
registered in.
In universities that they do keep track, or people do
studies, the universities are just overwhelmingly Democrat,
which is a breeding ground for this antisemitism, because right
now the progressive wing of the Democrat party, not the entire
democratic party, but the progressive wing of the Democrat
party, which kind of drives the train over there, this Anti-
Israel feeling has become one of the things along with global
warming, or racism, or whatever that becomes the norm.
I will ask a couple of you guys, I guess I will start with
Dr. Lyons. Do you feel your university ideologically across the
board represents the country as a whole, or even California as
far in disciplines in which there is an ideological component,
law school, journalism school, political science? Does it
bother you if there is, you know, the country has a whole right
now is about 50/50.
Does it bother you that you, I assume, like most college
campuses, your student body and your faculty, especially your
faculty, do not even remotely represent America?
Mr. Lyons. Ideological or political considerations are not
conditions for employment at UC Berkeley.
Mr. Grothman. No, the question is if we were talking about
affirmative action, and you had 8,000 faculty, and 5 were
black, you would say that is a problem. Now, given that
everybody brings a certain ideology to their job, particularly
if you are teaching students, that is a problem if it does not
represent America.
I mean I have been doing this for over 20 years, politician
back home and here, again, and again and again, I hear from
college students who cannot say what is on their mind in an
essay or whatever, because they know the teacher will give them
a bad grade, or feel the teacher is going to give them a bad
grade if you did not give the progressive viewpoint of the
world.
Does this bother you, and do you think this is any of the
problem? I will ask you Dr.
Mr. Groves. Well, your statement about getting a bad grade
because of--
Mr. Grothman. Does it bother you? Does it bother you that
your faculty does not remotely represent America?
Mr. Groves. It bothers me--
Mr. Grothman. It is disproportionately not only Democrat,
but progressive Democrat, which is where this idea that Anti-
Israel is the thing to be coming from, that is where it comes
from, the progressive left, and way disproportionately your
faculty also comes from the progressive left. That is why these
people get away with this and think it is normal.
Mr. Groves. What bothers me, Congressman, is anything that
interrupts a dialog across different intellectual positions.
Mr. Grothman. It does not bother you if 95 percent of your
faculty, and disciplines, they have an ideological component,
are progressive democrats?
Mr. Groves. Not if we have a thriving dialog.
Mr. Grothman. Well, good. Okay. Mr. Rodriguez, what do you
think about that?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Well, we have 20,000 faculty members
at the City University of New York, and they are a diverse
group of--
Mr. Grothman. Do they represent--do they even remotely
represent America as a whole?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I have no way of knowing that.
Mr. Grothman. You must have an idea when you walk around
campus, and it was week going into the last election were there
robust debates in which half the people were for Trump? Of
course not. It was your very, very, skewed faculty, which is
where this whole problem comes from. Do you acknowledge that
your faculty does not ideologically represent America?
Chairman Walberg. Will the gentleman finish the question as
quickly as possible?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, we have a large number of
faculty, and they represent diverse points of view, diverse
political viewpoints, all across the City University of New
York.
Mr. Grothman. If I ask you to name--
Chairman Walberg. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you for your being friendly.
Chairman Walberg. He yields back. I now recognize the
gentlelady from Minnesota, Ms. Omar.
Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairman. It seems that the majority
on this Committee is eager to continue enabling this
administration's repressive agenda. President Trump's attack on
civil liberties and academic freedom are well documented. While
Republicans continue their charade, new information about the
Trump administration's policy of ideological deportations is
coming to light.
Last week, a senior ICE official testified in Court that
the agency is using the website, Canary Mission, to target
students for deportation. Canary Mission is an anonymous site
that blacklists and docks individuals, charging them with
antisemitism through little evidence or zero due process.
It has long been criticized for its McCarthyism tactics
that surveil students, repress speech, and instill a culture of
fear across campuses. This is a cite that reframes attending an
antiwar protest as supporting Pro-Hamas rally. It is not known
who runs this site, but the agenda is clear, pro-Palestinian
advocacy cannot be tolerated.
Now, his ideological agenda has a direct line to State
power. Let us recall the high-profile case of student Rumeysa
Ozturk, who was illegally detained by ICE and held for 6 weeks
after writing an op-ed in support of Palestine. Curiously, that
op-ed was published entirely a year before ICE chose to target
her. Right before her abduction, Canary Mission posted a
profile of her on its website, accusing her of Anti-Israel
activism for writing-the article.
The same profile that ICE has now admitted to using in
their internal memo. In a matter of weeks, she was picked up
and her student status was terminated. Canary Mission loudly
claimed credit for her detention, and it seems that credit was
earned. The shameless authoritarian display of weaponizing a
blacklist to crack down on political speech and detain
academics is a page directly out of the McCarthy playbook.
President Groves, Chancellor Rodriguez, and Chancellor
Lyons, this question is for the three of you. In the light of
these escalations with students facing detention, deportation
and retaliation for their clearly protected speech, how are
your campuses protecting students who are exercising their
First Amendment rights?
Mr. Groves. We have free speech policies that are crystal
clear. In fact, we clarified them over time to permit speech.
We do not permit any violence with regard to the promotion of
any particular viewpoint, and we try to act on violations of
those policies quickly and fairly.
Ms. Omar. Thank you.
Chancellor Rodriguez.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We make sure that all students are
informed about our policies. We want students, and other
members of our community to exercise their right to free
speech, but they have to do it abiding by our rules and
regulations. We are also investing, as I indicated earlier, in
this constructive dialog initiative, we want individuals to
have the tools to have difficult conversations, to be able to
have them, but to do it in a way that is respectful and
civilized.
The best way also to empower the students is to provide
them with information.
Ms. Omar. Chancellor Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. We are supporting with education and training
over 30 anti-bias initiatives to make sure that students can
see into these issues more deeply, new curriculum, like what I
mentioned earlier, a course like ``Openness to Opposing
Views,'' sharpening where the no tolerance lines are, which was
very, very helpful, I believe for the students to feel like
they could safely express their free speech rights and--
Ms. Omar. At what stage do the three of you again, will you
intervene when students are being doxed. We have seen vans in
front of your campuses with students being doxed.
Mr. Lyons. Well, at Berkeley, the question there is we, if
a doxing or other discrimination, or harassment event would be
reported, and we would follow it up with an investigation and
make a decision.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have a webpage that we indicate to
members of our communities a resource for the different things
that can be done if someone is the subject of doxing.
Mr. Groves. Reports of doxing are acted on quite quickly
and investigated.
Ms. Omar. I appreciate that. Thank you and I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Harris. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you
for your time and your patience on leading the panel. I
appreciate your written testimoneys, I had an opportunity to
review those as well as hear you today. Dr. Groves, in your
testimony you said, and I quote, ``As a Jesuit University, we
believe that working with someone with conflicting views to
yours does not imply that you've been captured by their
beliefs.''
I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, it seems that
some at Georgetown have been captured by the beliefs of some
ideologies that are at odds with Georgetown's Catholic and
Jesuit mission. In fact, it looks like you were celebrating
ideas that are in direct opposition to those values.
Earlier this year, you awarded a medal to Sheikha Moza,
bint Nasser, the mother of Qatar's Emir and Chair of the Qatar
Foundation. Months prior to giving this award, Sheika Moza had
posted on social media comments praising the October 7th attack
on Israel. She praised the mastermind of the October 7th
attack, Yahya Sinwar saying, ``The name Yahya means the one who
lives. They thought him dead, but he lives.'' She added
apparently referring to Israel, ``He will live on, and they
will be gone.''
I mean I have to ask, why did you give a medal to someone
who had made such antisemitic comments, and represents a
government that supports a U.S. designated terror organization
like Hamas?
Mr. Groves. Well, thank you. Thank you for the question.
The award to Sheikha Moza was given for her work decades long
work, for educating, getting access to education to the poorest
children around the world. At this point there are 22 million
children in the world that would not have had access to
education without her work.
It was for that work that we honored her.
Mr. Harris. Okay. I hear that, but you also said at the
award ceremony that the medal, ``Is reserved for individuals
whose contributions reflect the university's deepest
commitments.'' Is the destruction of Israel something
Georgetown would support?
Mr. Groves. The deepest commitments of Georgetown stem from
our Jesuit heritage of educating youth around the world, and
she amplified, she is a great example of that through her work
over the decades.
Mr. Harris. I will repeat the question. Is the destruction
of Israel something Georgetown would support?
Mr. Groves. I do not support that tweet. That tweet is not
consistent with Georgetown policy. We honored her for her
decades of work and access to education to the poorest children
of the world.
Mr. Harris. Okay. If her remarks do not reflect the
university's deepest commitments, would you consider revoking
the medal?
Mr. Groves. We will not revoke the medal because the reason
for the medal remains true. Her decades-long work in educating
the poorest children of the world, 22 million children having
education that they would not have had without her work.
Mr. Harris. Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, a Jewish student
withdrew from Brooklyn College after her professors repeatedly
described Jews as white oppressors. They told her that Jews,
therefore, had no right to speak about their history of
oppression. Are Jews white oppressors?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I do not share that belief. I find the
commentary entirely unacceptable, and I also find it deeply
disturbing that a student that was accepted to one of our
schools felt they needed to do something like a transfer
because of that.
Mr. Harris. DEI is fundamentally based on dividing people
by the color of their skin and categorizing them on that basis
as oppressor or oppressed. With that in mind, do you believe
that DEI ideology makes campuses a safer place for Jewish
people?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Diversity has been part of the City
University of New York since its founding. We represent the
diversity that we have all across our five boroughs, it's been
one of the key elements of the DNA of CUNY since the founding
of the free academy, so we are committed to that work of
diversity, and it's been part of CUNY's work since its
founding.
Mr. Harris. Are DEI programs an effective way you would say
to address antisemitism?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We in our work, when we work with
students who are coming in, and we teach them about the
diversity of our communities, we include antisemitism, and the
members of the Jewish community as part of that diversity
effort.
Mr. Harris. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.
Mr. Messmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Matos Rodriguez,
following up on Ms. Stefanik's line of questioning from
earlier, in 2021 you hired Sheila Abdallah as CUNY's chief
diversity officer, despite her previous employment at the
Council of American Islamic Relations, or CAIR.
The Director of CAIR said after the October 7th attacks
that he was happy to see people breaking the siege. Is CAIR an
antisemitic organization?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, the comment that you describe
is entirely unacceptable and inappropriate. I do not--I mean
CAIR, I do not know about their policies about being
antisemitic or not. For the City University of New York, we do
not tolerate antisemitism of any kind.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. You previously stated that
Abdallah does not handle cases directly pertaining to students
and faculty, but she is the Chief Diversity Officer. Assuming
her background, was it appropriate to hire her to oversee
CUNY's anti-discrimination efforts?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, that hire was not a direct hire
that I made. Our commitment is that all of our employees, and
the faculty and staff abide by our policies and by our Code of
Conduct, which would include no tolerance for antisemitism.
That is the conduct that we expect, and if any employee is seen
to be breaking those rules, they will be investigated, and the
appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. You have said that Abdallah's work at
CAIR is consistent with CUNY's commitments to inclusion and
respect. Do you remain confident that she could objectively
investigate antisemitism at CUNY?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. We have had no complaints with that
employee, and again, as I have said before, our commitment is
if any member of the CUNY community, faculty, staff, or student
violates our policies, our code of conduct, we will
investigate. We have done it, and we have taken action.
Mr. Messmer. Has she been removed from any antisemitism
investigations at this point?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, there was one case in which, in
the petition by an individual involved suggested, and we
accommodated that individual.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Chancellor, earlier you said that only
three of the seven students were disciplined at CUNY for their
participation in an encampment. Why were only three
disciplined, and what kind of discipline did they receive?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. Again, I cannot speak to the specific
cases of discipline. We work with the District Attorney's
Office in that case. One of the things--and they were
individuals that were engaged in breaking into the
administrative building at City College. As I indicated before
in my testimony, the experience of that encampment is one that
we have taken to heart.
We have zero-tolerance for encampments in CUNY right now,
and we have doubled down in our efforts to make sure that our
rules of time, place and manner are clear to the students, and
we have also invested heavily in additional security to be able
to prevent any such situation occurring again.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. Chancellor Lyons, Berkeley
Professor Ussama Makdisi described Hamas's October 7th attack
as resistance. He also reposted an article praising a
determination of courage of Hamas terrorists, saying they
heroically defended their homeland. Do these statements endorse
violence against Jewish people?
Mr. Lyons. I cannot speak to the specific elements of that.
Different people have different views on that. Any call to
violence or repeat of the horrific violence of October 7th in
my perspective is objectionable and unacceptable, so those that
would view those remarks that way would have to take it the
same way. They are unobjectionable, and arguably a call to
violence.
Mr. Messmer. About a year after the October 7th attack,
Berkeley rewarded him by naming him the Inaugural Chair of a
new Palestinian studies program. This was one of the demands of
the UC Berkeley's violent antisemitic encampment in April 2024.
Berkeley contributed $500,000 to this new program.
I know you were not Chancellor then when it was stood up,
but in your view, was this decision to appease antisemitic
violent study demonstrators wrong or right?
Mr. Lyons. I cannot speak to the context. I do not have the
facts or the circumstances upon the making of that investment
in that program. I will also say that a very similar investment
was made in our Jewish studies program at the same time.
Mr. Messmer. Okay. Thank you. I yield back the rest of my
time.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize
the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baumgartner.
Mr. Baumgartner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, it very much
pains me what has happened to higher education in America in
its current status. I am the son of a university professor,
actually I spent a year in between WC and Harvard, teaching at
the Catholic University of Mozambique with the living and
working with the Jesuits, so I have a strong affinity for the
Jesuits, but the radical leftward bent of America's higher
education system has accelerated in the last 5 years, has been
extremely concerning.
The diversity statements that you have many college
administrators have forced their faculty hires through to
promote even more of a radical etiology I think is very
destructive. I think what you are seeing from Congress these
days is representation that the American people have very much
lost trust, or large segments of the American people have very
much lost trust in higher education, and that trust needs to be
restored.
It is my belief that one of those ways that trust could be
restored would be to fully account for any foreign influence,
or foreign spending on your college campuses, and Dr. Groves, I
would like to start with you. Does Georgetown fully account,
and is Georgetown fully transparent with foreign money spent on
your campus?
Mr. Groves. We certainly attempt to report all of our
receipts from Non-U.S. sources. One measure of that was, with
regard to Section 117, reporting that there was an
investigation of Georgetown, along with other universities.
After months of reviewing the data, we had submitted to the
Department of Education, we received a letter commending us for
our reporting. This is in 2021-2022.
Mr. Baumgartner. Can you commit right now to the American
people that every dollar of foreign spending you will be
transparent with?
Mr. Groves. I would be happy to commit to that.
Mr. Baumgartner. Okay, thank you. Dr. Lyons, could you talk
to us about foreign spending on the University of Berkeley's
campus. Do you think the American people have the right to know
if foreign dollars are being spent on your campus?
Mr. Lyons. We, like other universities, we are very, very
careful about any foreign moneys that come into the university.
The university is funded across many, many different sources,
and we are very, very careful to vet countries of concern as
America's interests would require us to.
Mr. Baumgartner. You would commit to full transparency of
foreign spending on your campus?
Mr. Lyons. Well, as a public university I am not ready to
commit to that on the fly. There are different donors to the
university who request anonymity.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, what do you think that says to the
American people when you want to hide foreign influence on your
college campus? Do you think that restores trust?
Mr. Lyons. I can assure you and what I would be very, very
happy to be very transparent about is exactly what is our
process for vetting those things. We say no to a lot of foreign
money. I promise you that.
Mr. Baumgartner. Give me an example of foreign money you
said no to?
Mr. Lyons. I am not in a position to provide that
information, but I am very happy to be fully transparent.
Mr. Baumgartner. Well, you could understand at a time when
large segments of the American population is seeing university
campuses go ever further left wing, and more radical, and there
is a deep concern about foreign influence on college campuses,
lack of ability for Americans, high school graduates to be able
to get spots on college campuses.
You could understand why it would be concerning to have a
university President come before Congress and say we do not
want to be fully transparent about foreign influence?
Mr. Lyons. I want to be fully transparent about the process
by which we make sure that our process has integrity, and that
we are acting in America's best interest.
Mr. Baumgartner. Why--if a foreign government wants to put
money onto your campus, would you not be willing to tell
lawmakers and the American people about that?
Mr. Lyons. Well, my understanding is that they are in fact
currently a lot of disclosure requirements around that,
although it is not an area of my specific expertise. I think we
disclose an awful lot of that information to the government
currently.
Mr. Baumgartner. Okay. Well, I just ask you one more time,
do you commit today to being fully transparent, every dollar of
foreign spending that takes place on your college campus you
would let the American people know about?
Mr. Lyons. I am glad to bring that back with my team and
consider it, but I am not ready to make that commitment today.
Mr. Baumgartner. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman. Now I recognize
the gentlelady from Michigan for her 5 minutes of questioning,
Ms. McClain.
Ms. McClain. Thank you and thank you all for being here
today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I want
to start with you, Dr. Lyons, you are the Chancellor at the
University of California Berkeley, and you have been at the
university for how many years?
Mr. Lyons. I was an undergraduate there and came back on
the faculty just over 30 years ago.
Ms. McClain. Okay, so you have been around, you have seen a
lot of things. Do you believe that Jewish students feel safe on
your campus?
Mr. Lyons. I believe that most Jewish students feel safe on
our campus.
Ms. McClain. Do you think there are any that do not?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Ms. McClain. Yes. Why do you think that is?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think there are Jewish people that do
not feel safe in lots of parts of--
Ms. McClain. I am not talking about lots of parts. I am
talking about the university in which you were in charge of.
Why do you think that is?
Mr. Lyons. I think there is antisemitism in society, and
we--
Ms. McClain. I am not talking about society, and I
appreciate your diversion of the question. I am talking about
the university. Why do you think Jewish students do not feel
safe at your university, in which you are in charge of? Just
curious?
Mr. Lyons. Well, I think part of safety for most people is
some of it is physical, some of it is more emotional, am I
being harassed, but not necessarily being confronted with
potential violence. I have admitted already there is
antisemitism on campus, and I think that is--
Ms. McClain. I am asking a simple question. Why do you
think that is? We have spent almost 30 seconds you avoiding the
question.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I do believe that public universities are
reflections of society, and I believe that the antisemitism in
society is present on our campus.
Ms. McClain. Do you believe you can influence the direction
and how people feel on your university? Do you have any
influence on that? Do you believe the actions that you or your
staff or faculty members take have influence on that?
Mr. Lyons. Yes.
Ms. McClain. I would agree. Are you committing to taking
action to making sure that all Jewish students, as well as all
students feel safe on your campus?
Mr. Lyons. I am committing to striving to reach that goal,
correct.
Ms. McClain. Wonderful. Okay. Just quickly, if a black
student's home was vandalized with a noose, and racist
graffiti, and a note was left saying that you are next, would
you consider that an example of racism or discrimination?
Mr. Lyons. On its face, personally? Yes.
Ms. McClain. Wonderful. Well, in December 2023, while you
were a senior executive there, a Jewish student's home was
robbed, and a note was left saying F you. They wrote out the
real word. Free Palestine from the River to the Sea. Do you
think that is helpful for the Jewish students?
Mr. Lyons. No.
Ms. McClain. What action did Berkeley take?
Mr. Lyons. I believe that predated my time, but what I can
say--
Ms. McClain. It predated your time as Chancellor, but you
were there as a senior executive.
Mr. Lyons. Well, I do not know this for a fact sitting
here, but I am almost sure that that was reported, and that was
investigated.
Ms. McClain. What was the result?
Mr. Lyons. It is hard--
Ms. McClain. I mean it is great that we reportedly
investigate it, but you notice the one thing that is missing is
like the result, okay. We are going to, all right. In your
testimony you rightly acknowledged Hamas's invasion of Israel
as a terrorist attack. Dr. Magdi, a professor of history at
Berkeley University, on the other hand said I could have been
one of those people who broke through on the siege on October
7th. What do you think he meant by that?
Mr. Lyons. I cannot speak to--
Ms. McClain. I know, but you are a pretty intelligent man,
or at least come off as a pretty intelligent man. What do you
think he meant by that? Put yourself in a Jewish student's, you
know.
Mr. Lyons. Look, I think I want to separate the phrase from
the person. If I heard some other person--
Ms. McClain. We cannot separate the phrase from the person
because this professor who works at the university in which you
are in charge of, so as much as we want to separate it and
dance around it, let us not because the person that works at
your university said this.
I would like to know, because you are so educated, and you
are and you tout yourself at that, you have earned that. What
do you think the professor meant? Hello?
Mr. Lyons. I believe it was a celebration of the terrorist
attack on October 7th.
Ms. McClain. Right. Do you think--did you have any
conversations with this professor?
Mr. Lyons. I have had conversations with this professor,
yes.
Ms. McClain. What was his response? What were the
conversations?
Mr. Lyons. That is--he is a fine scholar and--
Ms. McClain. A fine scholar that spews hate, and the people
who pay, the students, do not feel safe. That is great, he is a
fine scholar. I am sure there are a lot of murderers in prison
that are fine people too, fine scholars, but they do some
pretty nefarious and heinous acts. Do you want to explain what
the conversation was?
Chairman Walberg. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. McClain. Saved by the bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize
the Ranking Member of the Committee, Mr. Scott from Virginia.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nosanchuk, we have
had a lot of comments entered into the record, complaints and
comments with no indication of the resolution or status of an
investigation. What is wrong with drawing conclusions, just
having one side just having heard the complaint?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question, Congressman
Scott. What is wrong with that is that the investigation has
not been completed. You know, there is such a thing as due
process, and there is such a thing as process, and both of
those need to be observed, so that everyone involved in a
particular investigation has their views and or perspectives
heard, and then the evidence can be evaluated, and a
determination can be made as to whether, you know, in the case
of a Title VI violation the criteria for harassment or hostile
environment had been met.
Mr. Scott. Title VI has a process starting with a
complaint, an investigation, an opportunity to cure, and then a
sanction if it's not successful. What is wrong with imposing a
sanction in the beginning, like withholding funds, or something
like that before the investigation has even taken place?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Thank you for the question. What was wrong
with that is first of all it pre-judges the situation, pre-
empts the long, established processes, as I said in my
testimony today, you know, previous administrations, including
the first Trump administration, have adhered to these processes
in order to hold universities responsible for Title VI
violations.
Then in addition to that, you know, taking huge amounts of
funds away, ultimately, you know, hurts the very students who
it is supposed to help, and you know, depletes the university
of resources that it could use to address issues like rising
antisemitism on campus.
Mr. Scott. This focus--we have been focusing on
antisemitism alone, none of the other forms of hate, what is
wrong with that?
Mr. Nosanchuk. Well, we are living in a time of increased
hate and prejudice and bigotry of all types. You know, many of
the investigations at OCR resolved involving antisemitic
discrimination also included instances of Anti Arab, Anti
Muslim, Anti Palestinian discrimination, race discrimination-.
You know, the fact of the matter is that if a university is
falling short in its responsibilities to protect one group,
there is certainly the possibility that their policies and
procedures and responses are inadequate to protect other
groups.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Dr. Groves, we have heard a lot about
foreign influence. Can you tell me what influence your
university has had on the culture in Qatar?
Mr. Groves. We are very proud of our mission in Qatar. It
is completely consistent with the Jesuit animation of working
at the frontiers of serving groups that are not served easily
in Washington. We are giving a curriculum that is precisely the
same as the curriculum we give in our D.C. campus, but we are
giving it to students who represent 80 different countries of
the world.
They are receiving the Jesuit education, they take two
theology courses, and two philosophy courses. On our campus
they enjoy all the give and take of academic freedom that takes
place at our D.C. campus, and 70 percent of the students are
young women, a group that is underserved in that region, so
over the 20 years--
Mr. Scott. What effect does it have on the culture?
Mr. Groves. I am convinced that gradually opening the eyes
to new ways of thinking that we represent there. You can see
the change occurring already. Our alumni are taking positions
of great importance over time in many countries of the world.
Mr. Scott. Thank you. Do any of your colleges have Title VI
monitors?
Mr. Groves. Yes, we do. Georgetown does.
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. That is done by the new center that we
instituted.
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Dr. Lyons.
Mr. Lyons. Yes, Berkeley does.
Mr. Scott. What does--well, I guess I am out of time. Thank
you.
Chairman Walberg. Why are you worried about being out of
time, nobody else is. That is why I like my Ranking Member. I
recognize now the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Walberg, and I especially
want to thank you for your continued commitment to rooting out
all antisemitism on our college campuses. In recent months, and
since the October 7th attack, antisemitism has exploded,
especially on the campuses that we are discussing today.
Many of these colleges are hiding behind the First
Amendment, claiming that antisemitic speech is protected,
however, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act specifically
prohibits harassment that creates a hostile work and learning
environment on any campus that receives Federal funding.
Sadly, dozens of antisemitic incidents have occurred in my
home State of Illinois at Northwestern University, DePaul
University, and the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign.
This Committee has taken the lead on addressing antisemitism on
college campuses, all to ensure that Jewish students and
faculty are protected.
We will continue to hold every college accountable for
antisemitic rhetoric and acts of violence on their campuses
because this hateful ideology has no place in America.
Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, a professor at the CUNY Graduate
Center, Sodia Tor, referred to the terrorist group Hamas as
resistance fighters.
Second, a professor at Brooklyn College, Emanual Ness, has
said that Zionists are Nazis. What I want to know is how can
you expect to have a safe campus for all students, faculty and
visitors, when your professors publicly condone violence
against Jews?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I have been very clear that Hamas is a
horrible terrorist organization, and we have no tolerance at
the City University of New York for anyone who would embrace
that support of Hamas.
Mrs. Miller. In light of having no tolerance, does that
mean that these professors were dismissed then?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I do not know the first case of the
professor. Let me just tell you that I clearly condemn the
statements, and it has been my testimony here and our practice
that if any member of a City University community violates our
policies and our code of conduct, we will conduct an
investigation, and if discipline is warranted, we will take it,
and we will not hesitate to do it, and we have done so.
Mrs. Miller. Is this the first you are hearing about these
two professors?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I am not familiar with the first. The
second one I am familiar with.
Mrs. Miller. Was there a hearing and then an investigation?
Mr. Matos Rodriguez. I am not familiar with the comment
that you made, which I mentioned to you I find entirely, you
know, reputable. My commitment has always been, and our policy
is that as those things come to our attention there will be
investigated, and action will be taken.
Mrs. Miller. Well, now that it is brought to your
attention, I trust that you are going to go back, and there
will be an investigation and consequences. One thing I learned
when I raised my children, you could say whatever you want, but
if there are not consequences, the behavior will not change.
Dr. Lyons, in February the Gender and Women's Study
Department at UC Berkeley hosted an event entitled, ``Feminist
and Queer Solidarities with Palestine.'' During the event,
speakers repeatedly denied that Israeli women were gang raped
by Hamas terrorists on October 7th, 2023, and argued that
Israeli was weaponizing feminism. I want to know why was this
event ever allowed on UC Berkeley's campus?
Mr. Lyons. This was an online event, and it was an event
that was pulling together faculty. It was organized by one of
our fine faculty, a full professor, and we knew that the ideas
might be controversial. We did not know exactly what people
were saying. It was a legitimate event. I did not prevent it
from happening because I felt that keeping the marketplace for
ideas open was really important in this instance.
Mrs. Miller. Well, you called the faculty a fine person, or
whatever, and this is what they said, so was there any--has
there been any other kind of investigation into this professor?
Mr. Lyons. This, what you quoted, was not something, as I
understand it, that the Berkeley faculty member said. There
were four people that were involved in this event. It was
organized by a Berkeley faculty member.
Mrs. Miller. Did that faculty member dispute this? Did they
call it out as reprehensible?
Mr. Lyons. They did not call it out as reprehensible.
Mrs. Miller. Because silence is--it means something, so
this is terrible, and I yield.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentlelady. Now, I recognize
the Ranking Member, the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott for
his closing remarks.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I give closing
remarks, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following
documents into the record. A letter from--to the Chair and
Ranking Member dated July 11th from six family members of
hostages taken on October 7th entitled, ``In a Time of
Unimaginable Pain Georgetown Made Space for Us.''
The second letter for the record to the Chair and Ranking
Member dated July 10th from Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend the Arc
Jewish Action. Third, an op-ed-that appeared in the U.S. News
and World Report yesterday by Sarah Silverman entitled, ``I
Faced Antisemitism at Harvard, Don't Destroy the University in
My Name.''
Finally, a report from the--an audit from the
Antidefamation League from 2024 that shows that antisemitic
incidences are all over the United States, not just on college
campuses.
Chairman Walberg. Without objection they will be received,
hearing none.
[The information of Mr. Scott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to take a moment to note two incidents that occurred
during this hearing that demand a response. First, a committee
member used a visual exhibit displaying an email that did not
redact the email addresses of sender and recipients of the
email. There is no reason not to redact the addresses of that
email.
The truth of the matter being asserted, and the email was
clear, without the personally identifiable information, so to
not redact it was unnecessary and can lead to harassment.
Members ought to be sensitive to that. Since October 7th, we
have seen there have been insidious incidences of doxing of
individuals on all sides of the issue, and the Committee should
not be contributing to that.
I understand, based on my Parliamentary inquiry that the
Committee does not have a policy on this, but I urge that we
work together to develop such a policy.
Chairman Walberg. Duly noted.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further, in the line of
questioning, Chancellor Rodriguez was asked questions about
choices made at CUNY Law Clinic as to who they choose to
represent. This is not the first time, basically I think it is
wrong to evaluate lawyers based on their clients, but this is
not the first time the Committee has asked questions about how
a law school clinic operates, and who they represent.
The last time we attempted to do so, the clinic called the
Committee and two of the Chairs into Court, arguing in their
lawsuit that the letter, ``Reflects a bare desire to harm
Plaintiffs for their association with left wing causes that the
Committee does not like, and for the protected speech reflected
in their progressive left agenda.''
At a hearing, Matthew Berry, the House Counsel representing
the Committee said in regard to that legal clinic inquiry, ``I
want to be absolutely clear that the formal request has been
withdrawn. It is not a cover for, there's not going to be any
informal behind the scenes request for the same documents.''
I find it troubling that what we promised not to do to one
school in Court, we have attempted to do at another school in
an open hearing. I want to reiterate something fundamental.
Institutions of higher education must be places where all
students, faculty, regardless of background can learn and teach
free from discrimination, harassment or violence.
This is not a partisan issue; it is a moral imperative.
What we have seen from the Trump administration is not a good
faith effort to uphold those values. Instead, we have seen a
radical reinterpretation of our Nation's civil rights laws, one
that weakens protections for students, while empowering
political actors to meddle in academic spaces.
If shifted, the standards schools must meet, stripped
institutions of clear guidance, and in doing so created an
atmosphere of fear, confusion and intimidation. If the
administration was truly concerned with civil rights
enforcement, they would not have gutted the Office of Civil
Rights, the very agency charged with investigating
discrimination on campuses across the country.
You cannot claim to be a champion for civil rights while
disarming the body meant to enforce them. We need to be honest
about what is happening. The Trump administration is
destabilizing our education itself, eroding trust, silencing
dissent, and undermining universities' ability to promote
diversity and critical inquiry, while at the same time
sabotaging the Office of Civil Rights.
Who suffers most from this strategy? It is the students,
Jewish and non-Jewish, marginalized and unrepresented. They are
the ones left vulnerable and voiceless. This should not be a
partisan debate. It should be about ensuring that our schools
are safe, inclusive, and intellectually vibrant. If we are
serious about fighting antisemitism and all forms of hate, then
we must be equally serious about defending institutions that
educate the next generation, and serious about increasing
funding for the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of
Education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Chairman Walberg. I thank the gentleman, and I thank the
panel for being here today. It has been a long, long hearing,
but I think it is an important hearing. I will stand by the
contention that these hearings must continue. We need to
continue to highlight bad actors in our higher education
institutions. That is the reason we have an Education and
Workforce Committee to deal with education.
The philosophy of this administration, as well as mine is
that our responsibility to the Federal level is to make sure
that the local schools, K12, are primarily manned, encouraged,
directed, guided by, cared for, by the State and locals. Our
institutions, especially those that receive Federal dollars, we
have an oversight responsibility-.
In this light with antisemitism that is going on, all under
the hands, most egregious in most recent history, took place
with OCR. Mr. Nosanchuk, I am glad that you are here. I
appreciated your responses, but I must State that some of the
most egregious events occurred, encampments, violence,
destruction of property, fear production in Jewish student's
lives took place while OCR was allegedly at full strength.
What I have seen at the universities as well encouraging
that Georgetown disciplined Professor Brown. This was long
overdue. I am disappointed in that what we have heard today,
CUNY--Mr. Chancellor, Mr. Rodriguez, you could not say CAIR is
antisemitic.
Georgetown refuses to recognize antisemitism at its Qatar
campus, at least unwilling to say that their responsibilities
to make sure that the activities that go on at the campus, that
the awards that are given to people who are antisemitic seems
to continue. I am concerned about that.
Berkeley admits abhorrence of the views of the Professor
awarded with his own program, but will not do anything about
it, and refers to him as a fine scholar. That is something I
could not refer to him when he misses the moral issue of
humanity. Georgetown could not affirmatively say it would not
allow a member of the KKK to come speak.
CUNY severely underrepresented the number of antisemitism
complaints received. Those are concerns that we still have. I
express appreciation for the statements that each of you have
made about attempting to do better, to push back on
antisemitism. I express appreciation sincerely for that. I hope
that other institutions that watch this hearing are enlightened
to the fact that that is expect of him--of them as well.
We also know that there are hundreds of higher ed
institutions all across this country who have none of this
antisemitism in virile nature evidence on their campuses. They
are still humans on the campuses, we get that, but we have to
end this. Then I would also add that our concern is that as
students leave these campuses with the experience of
antisemitism, and faculty members that are indoctrinating them
in that direction, that our K-12 students are in danger next.
That is what our states will have to face as they come to
understand that this is something that can be experienced and
accepted if we are not careful. I say we ought to have these
hearings, and we will have plenty of other hearings as well on
other issues and topics, but I would content as well that
antisemitism is also available to express anti-Americanism as
well, and we have a responsibility for that-.
I thank you again for being here today. I would say that
for those that are watching, we expect you to step up to the
plate and aggressively end any type of antisemitism. Racism, we
will add that as well, Islamophobia, or anything else to make
sure that we have diverse campuses, but they promote education
that refines, builds up and is secure for all students on
campus.
I would like to thank our witnesses again, and I would like
to ask that they be allowed to leave before the rest of the
audience because of some of the concerns, and I note that it
was not Jewish spokespersons disrupting this hearing today. I
think that can be noted all across.
We would ask that the witnesses be allowed to leave first.
Without objection, there being no further business, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Dr.
Matos Rodrigues follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Dr.
Lyons follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Questions and responses submitted for the record by Dr.
Robert Groves follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]