[Senate Hearing 119-88]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 119-88
ANTISEMITIC DISRUPTIONS ON CAMPUS:
ENSURING SAFE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS FOR ALL STUDENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION,
LABOR, AND PENSIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
EXAMINING ENSURING SAFE LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS FOR ALL
STUDENTS, FOCUSING ON PROTESTS ON CAMPUS
__________
MARCH 27, 2025
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
60-598 PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS
BILL CASSIDY, M.D., Louisiana, Chairman
RAND PAUL, M.D., Kentucky BERNIE SANDERS (I), Vermont,
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine Ranking Member
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska PATTY MURRAY, Washington
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
ROGER MARSHALL, M.D., Kansas CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TOMMY TUBERVILLE, Alabama JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado
JIM BANKS, Indiana ED MARKEY, Massachusetts
JON HUSTED, Ohio ANDY KIM, New Jersey
ASHLEY MOODY, Florida LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
ANGELA ALSOBROOKS, Maryland
Amanda Lincoln, Majority Staff Director
Danielle Janowski, Majority Deputy Staff Director
Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director
Zain Rizvi, Minority Deputy Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 2025
Page
Committee Members
Cassidy, Hon. Bill, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions, Opening statement......................... 1
Sanders, Hon. Bernie, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from the State
of Vermont, Opening statement.................................. 2
Witnesses
Gammill, Carly, Director of Legal Policy, StandWithUs Center for
Combatting Antisemitism, Los Angeles, CA....................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Summary statement............................................ 11
Shemtov, Levi, Executive Vice President, American Friends of
Lubavitch (Chabad), Washington, DC............................. 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Asher Small, Dr., Charles, Executive Director, Institute for the
Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, New York, NY.......... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Summary statement............................................ 27
Saperstein, David, Director Emeritus, Religious Action Center of
Reform Judaism, Washington, DC................................. 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Summary statement............................................ 39
Stern, Kenneth S., Director, Bard Center for the Study of Hate,
Brooklyn, NY................................................... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Summary statement............................................ 86
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements, articles, publications, letters, etc.
Banks, Hon. Jim:
Letter to the Hon. Pam Bondi................................. 113
The New York Times article................................... 115
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America............ 120
Statement from the Zionist Organization of America........... 123
American Jewish Medical Association Report................... 140
Sanders, Hon. Bernie:
Minority Staff Report........................................ 146
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America............ 153
Jewish Electorate Institue................................... 156
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Response by Rabbi Shemtov to questions of:
Senator Hassan............................................... 158
Response by Ms. Carly Gammil to questions of:
Senator Scott................................................ 158
ANTISEMITIC DISRUPTIONS ON CAMPUS:
ENSURING SAFE LEARNING
ENVIRONMENTS FOR ALL STUDENTS
----------
Thursday, March 27, 2025
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 430, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Cassidy,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Cassidy, Collins, Marshall, Hawley,
Banks, Husted, Moody, Sanders, Murray, Baldwin, Hassan,
Hickenlooper, Markey, and Kim.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CASSIDY
The Chairman. The Senate Committee on Health, Education,
Labor, and Pensions will please come to order. Thank you to all
of our witnesses for being here to discuss a really important
topic.
On October the 7th, 2023, the world watched in horror as
Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered 1,200 innocent
men, women, and children. Hundreds of victims including babies
as young as 9 months old were taken hostage and subjected to
abuse and torture.
It should have been a time for unity, standing with the
Jewish people against hate. Instead, for over a year, violence
and Antisemitic demonstrations rocked our Country. At colleges
and universities, Jewish students were harassed and attacked
for who they are. According to the Anti-Defamation League,
there were 1,200 reported Antisemitic incidences on college
campuses between 2023 and 2024, a 500 percent increase from the
previous year.
Instead of standing up for Jewish students, too many
university officials failed to respond or refused to even
condemn these horrific occurrences. Under Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act, the Department of Education must hold universities
accountable for failing to address discrimination against
students on campuses.
After October the 7th, the Biden administration refused to
penalize universities violating Title VI. I led a roundtable to
examine Antisemitism on college campuses attended by both
Republicans and Democrats. It is disappointing that previous
HELP Democrat leadership refused to consider any legislation or
hold even one hearing on this bipartisan issue.
With President Trump in office and Republican Majority in
Congress, the time of failed leadership is over. Universities
have been put on notice, failing to protect the students' civil
rights will no longer be tolerated. If universities refuse to
follow the law to address discrimination on campuses and to
support Jewish students, then they should not expect the
support of the Federal taxpayer.
Just last week after pressure from the Trump
administration, Columbia University agreed to change its
policies and cracked down on demonstrators targeting Jewish
students. The Trump administration has launched investigations
into 60 universities concerning allegations of Antisemitic
discrimination and harassment on campuses.
These efforts would not have been possible without the
strong leadership of President Trump and Secretary McMahon.
Today, as Chair of the HELP Committee, I launched an
investigation into the American Muslims for Palestine,
demanding answers about their activities on college campuses.
This group's leaders have ties to Hamas and helped create
the group, Students for Justice in Palestine. I also requested
information from the Justice Department and several
universities on these groups. We must continue to build upon
these efforts, as we saw in Columbia last month pro-Hamas
activists continue to wreak havoc on campuses. Jewish students
still feel unsafe to go to school.
I lead the Protecting Students on Campus Act, bipartisan
legislation ensuring students know how to file civil rights
complaints if they experience discrimination on college
campuses. I look forward to considering this and other
legislation in Committee and on the Senate floor. Jewish
students and their families are depending upon us to defend
their civil rights.
President Trump and Congressional Republicans are committed
to this. Thank you again to all our witnesses. I look forward
to discussing how we can better discuss protecting Jewish
students and ensuring a safe learning environment for all. With
that, I recognize Senator Sanders for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SANDERS
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for holding this important hearing. And I hope I
speak for every Member of this Committee in saying that hate
and discrimination of any kind is beyond acceptable and has no
place in our society. In the United States of America in the
year 2025, it should not be a controversial statement to say
that Antisemitism is horrific and must be--must not be
tolerated in any place in our Country.
Let us never forget that Antisemitism has plagued Jewish
people for many, many, many centuries, culminating in the
slaughter of some 6 million Jews during the Holocaust. When I
was Chairman a number of years ago, my wife and I visited
Auschwitz. I don't know if you have ever done that, but I would
recommend that anybody here goes to Europe drop by, and it is
certainly a--something that you will never forget.
A number of years ago, I was--happened to be in Pittsburgh
and I spoke with the rabbi of the Tree of Life synagogue in
Pittsburgh. As you, recall it was the worst Slaughter of Jews
in American history. Seven Jews were killed by somebody at a
synagogue. So let me be very clear, Antisemitism on college
campuses or any--by any place else must be condemned in the
strongest possible terms.
But today, we should also be clear that we--and again, I
hope I speak for every Member of this Committee, condemn all
forms of bigotry. Vile hatred is not something that should
exist in the United States, whether it is racism against the
African American community, whether it is sexism, whether it is
homophobia, whether it is xenophobia, or whether it is
islamophobia.
Today in America, we have Asian Americans who are walking
the streets and getting harassed. We have Muslims who are
walking the streets and getting harassed. We have continued to
see people who are African American and Latino face prejudice
of all kinds. And in fact, we have seen a rise in hate crimes
against the transgender community as well.
I want to remind people, because this is kind of a little
bit personal, in my city of Burlington, Vermont. Just a couple
of years ago, three miles from where I live, 10 minutes away,
three young Palestinian students--wonderful kids because I
ended up talking to them. They were shot in cold blood--shot
because they were Palestinians.
Mr. Chairman, I applaud you for holding this hearing, but I
hope when we look about prejudice and bigotry in America, we
may want to expand it. Antisemitism, unacceptable, so is
islamophobia and other forms of bigotry. Now, the other thing,
and you touched on it a moment ago, Mr. Chairman, there is a
great dispute and debate in this country about what is going on
in Gaza right now. No great secret about that.
As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, in October of a year and a
half ago, Hamas, a terrorist organization, launched a horrific
attack against Israel. Killed 1,200 innocent men, women, and
children. Took several hundred people hostage. I don't think
there's anybody on this Committee who does not believe that
Israel had the right to defend itself and go after the Hamas
terrorist organization.
But Mr. Chairman, there are very serious disagreements
about what the Netanyahu government has done in Gaza. And some
of us think that Netanyahu has not just gone after Hamas. They
have gone after the Palestinian people. And in a nation or
group of 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza, over 50,000 of them
have been killed, over half of whom--two-thirds of them are
women and children.
Over 100,000 people have been wounded because of the
incessant bombing on civilian areas. The entire infrastructure
of Gaza, their entire healthcare system, their educational
system, their water system has been completely destroyed. And
according to international law, and in my view, what Netanyahu
has done is criminal.
We can agree that Antisemitism is unacceptable in all
forms, but some of us happen to believe that the response of
the Netanyahu government to the Hamas attack is also
unacceptable. And if anyone wants to suggest that I or anybody
else who speaks out on that issue, whether you are on a college
campus or in the U.S. Senate, is Antisemitic because we think
that what Netanyahu is doing is outrageous, we can have that
debate.
If I attack the Italian government for doing what they may
or may not be doing, I am not anti-Italian--or the Irish
government. To attack the Netanyahu government for their
outrageous activities in Gaza does not make one an Antisemite.
So with that, Mr. President--Mr. Chairman, I would yield the
floor.
The Chairman. Thank you for that. And of course, our
jurisdiction is on college campuses, and so that is where we
will focus. Each speaker, thank you again for being here, will
be introduced in the order in which--you first, ma'am, and then
the witness who is the next after you testify, Okay.
I would like to introduce our first witness, Ms. Carly
Gammille--Gammille? Gammill. Ms. Gammill is the Director of the
StandWithUs Center for Combatting Antisemitism, part of an
international nonprofit organization that educates about Israel
and fights Antisemitism around the world.
An experienced attorney and civil rights advocate, Ms.
Gammill has focused her career on addressing Antisemitism
through legal, educational, and policy driven approaches. Her
work includes supporting students, faculties, and communities
facing discrimination. We are grateful for your expertise
today. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF CARLY GAMMILL, DIRECTOR OF LEGAL POLICY,
STANDWITHUS CENTER FOR COMBATTING ANTISEMITISM, LOS ANGELES, CA
Ms. Gammill. [Technical problems]----
The Chairman. Microphone, please.
Ms. Gammill. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders,
Members of the Committee, good morning, and thank you for the
invitation to participate in today's hearing.
My name is Carla Gammill. I am the Director of Legal Policy
for StandWithUs, which as you have heard is an international
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that educates about Israel
and combats Antisemitism through our work on campuses, in K
through 12 schools, on social media, in the legal field, and in
communities around the world.
I am a civil rights and Constitutional litigator
specializing in freedom of speech and religious liberties. I am
also a former high school educator. We are here today because
Jewish students continue to find virtually every aspect of U.S.
campus life increasingly hostile not merely to their views but
to the very core of who they are as Jews.
This includes rallies that not only distort and demonize
Jewish identity, but also often include harassment,
intimidation, violence, and threats of violence, which are no
part of freedom of speech. Intentional exclusion of Zionist
students from campus programs and activities--also no part of
freedom of speech. And biased, inaccurate classroom content
that indoctrinate students through misinformation and creates a
hostile learning environment.
Exacerbating the problem is the failure of many
Administrations to acknowledge the Antisemitic nature of the
activity and to enforce relevant campus policies. Impacted
Jewish students are thus denied equal protection of their
rights, making many of them legitimately afraid to be on their
campuses.
The perpetrators are then emboldened to continue and even
escalate their behavior. Some of these administrative failures
are intentional refusals to protect Jewish students and should
be addressed accordingly.
But there is also a critical lack of understanding at play
because of a well-organized, well-funded campaign that has co-
opted and imposed its own erroneous definition of a term that
is integral to the religious and ethnic identity of most Jews
around the world, including here in the U.S., with the clear
intention of demonizing the term and those who identify with
it.
That term is Zionism, derived from the term Zion, an actual
physical location in Israel with deep historical significance
to the Jewish people. Simply put, Zionism is the term that
describes the desire of the Jewish people for safety and
sovereignty in their ancestral homeland of Israel.
This nefarious campaign, however, seeks to redefine Zionism
as nothing more than a term of political support for the
Israeli government, which the narrative falsely accuses of a
host of evils. The dangerous anti-Zionist narrative of this
campaign has been allowed to take firm root in academia,
manipulating droves of students, faculty, and administrators
into believing the lie that Jews who identify as Zionists,
which is to say most of them, are merely expressing a position
of political support for the alleged wrongdoings of Israel.
A proper understanding of this term Zionism, however,
reveals this campaign for what it is, an attempt to erase over
3,000 years of Jewish history and a direct attack against a
core component of mainstream Jewish identity. In short, a
textbook definition of Antisemitism, just adapted and
repackaged for a contemporary audience.
The problem of Antisemitism on U.S. campuses has reached a
level that necessitates Congressional action, and I would like
to suggest three such actions. First, Congress should pass two
important pieces of pending legislation.
One, the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would codify the
requirement that in investigating the allegations of
Antisemitism under Title VI, the Department of Education must
consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's
working definition of Antisemitism, which contrary to some
assertions is fully consistent with freedom of speech
principles.
Two, the Protecting Students On Campus Act. Second, as
Title IX already does, Title VI should require institutions
receiving Federal funds to employ a coordinator who is
qualified to address the types of discrimination covered by
Title VI. The first opportunity and responsibility to rectify
hostile environments that implicate Title VI falls to the
educational institutions themselves.
They should be required to employ professional staff
qualified for the task. Finally, the receipt of Federal funding
should be conditioned in a manner consistent with Federal
Constitutional principles upon institutions' clear
communication of the times, places, and manners in which
expressive activity is and is not permitted on their campuses
and upon their proper enforcement of such policies when
violations occur.
Administrations must not be permitted to hide behind the
facade of fidelity or freedom of speech as a justification for
their failures to comply with their obligations under Title VI
as though the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Educational institutions are not public streets or sidewalks
and students need not be permitted to engage in expressive
activity wherever, whenever, and however they wish.
For example, including by wearing masks to conceal their
identities, especially when such allowances ultimately
contribute to the creation of hostile educational environments.
In closing, we must put an end to the political weaponization
of Jewish identity and unify around the reality that
Antisemitism is causing real harm to real human beings, without
confusing matters by insisting on addressing this acute issue
only in tandem with other forms of bias and bigotry, or only
when it comes from the opposite side of the political aisle.
Attacks against Jewish identity are not a matter of left or
right, but of wrong and right. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify. I look forward to answering questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Gammill follows:]
prepared statement of carly f. gammill
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and Members of the
Committee.
Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to participate in
today's hearing. My name is Carly Gammill, and I am the Director of
Legal Policy for StandWithUs, a nonprofit, non-partisan organization
with the mission of educating about Israel and combating antisemitism.
I am a constitutional and civil rights litigator, specializing in the
areas of freedom of speech and religious liberties. Before that I was a
high school educator.
I was fortunate that my professional development took place in
learning environments that prized the educational values of dialog,
civil debate, and a ``robust exchange of ideas,'' \1\ rather than
activist-oriented indoctrination. Settings that sought to foster
understanding of differences rather than fomenting division and
discord. Unfortunately, especially for Jewish students on many of our
college and university campuses today, such environments are difficult
to come by.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Keyishian v. Bd. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589, 603 (1967) (quoting
United States v. Assoc. Press, 52 F. Supp. 362, 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1943)).
For over a decade now, and especially since October 7, 2023, Jewish
students have found their campuses increasingly hostile--not merely to
their views but to the very core of who they are as Jews. \2\ This
hostility is expressed in virtually every aspect of campus life,
including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Anti-Defamation League, Audit of Antisemitic Incidents 2023,
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/audit-antisemitic-incidents-2023
(finding that antisemitic ``incidents on college and university
campuses spiked by a staggering 321 percent'' in 2023, mostly after
October 7).
(1) protest and demonstration activity by fellow students (and
outside agitators) who distort and demonize certain aspects of
Jewish identity. Such activity often includes not only hateful
rhetoric (including genocidal chants) but also blatant
disruption of the academic environment, like taking over and
shutting down spaces wholly incompatible with such activity,
including classrooms, libraries, and administrative offices,
blocking Jewish students' access to campus spaces, and overtly
violent conduct like property destruction and physical assault
(e.g., at the end of 2023, two masked students attending a pro-
Hamas demonstration at UC Berkeley assaulted a Jewish student
expressing his Jewish religious and ancestral identity by
wearing a kippah on his head and an Israeli flag across his
shoulders); \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.standwithus.com/post/standwithus-files-Federal-
civil-rights-complaint-against-uc-berkeley-for-failing-to-protect-
jewish-s.
(2) intentional exclusion of Zionist students from campus
programs and activities (e.g., the leader of an LGBTQ group at
Columbia sent a message explicitly stating that no ``Zionists''
would be welcome at an upcoming film event); \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://nypost.com/2023/10/25/metro/columbia-university-
lesbian-group-disinvites-zionists-from-movie-night/.
(3) biased and factually inaccurate classroom content delivered
by agenda-driven instructors seeking to indoctrinate students
through misinformation and creating a hostile learning
environment for Jewish and Israeli students (e.g., a faculty
member at George Washington University asked students to
introduce themselves the first day of class and, when one
student's introduction included their Israeli national origin,
the professor responded that it was ``not [the student's]
fault'' they had been born in Israel and later subjected
students to a rabidly anti-Israel lecture; \5\ another
lecturer, immediately after October 7th , asked Jewish students
to identify themselves, instructed those who raised their hands
to move to a small area in the back of the classroom, and told
the class, ``That's what Israel does to Palestinians.''). \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.standwithus.com/post/standwithus-files-title-vi-
complaint-against-gwu-for-discriminatory-retaliatory-antisemitic-
conduct.
\6\ https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/13/us/stanford-instructor-jewish-
holocaust-comments-reaj/index.html.
Exacerbating the problem is the failure of many administrations to
acknowledge the antisemitic nature of the activity on their campuses
and to equally apply and enforce relevant policies to those engaged in
activity that violates those policies. Each campus has a process for
reporting and responding to incidents of bias and discrimination,
including antisemitism. But if administrators fail to identify a given
situation as implicating those policies, impacted students are denied
equal protection of their rights, and those engaged in the
discriminatory conduct are emboldened to continue--and even escalate--
their behavior. As a result, the hostile campus climate worsens, doing
both an injustice to Jewish students, who are increasingly not merely
uncomfortable but legitimately afraid to be on campus, and a disservice
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to the entire campus community.
Some administrations' refusals to protect Jewish students from
unlawful conduct are intentional and should be addressed accordingly,
including, as appropriate, through the withdrawal of Federal taxpayer
dollars. But administrators who intentionally ignore, distort, or
downplay these issues are not the only culprits. Information that
StandWithUs has obtained during educational programs indicates that
often at play is a lack of understanding regarding Jewish ancestral
identity by the very administrative staff tasked with addressing
antisemitism complaints. \7\ A critical reason for this
misunderstanding lies in the success of a well-organized, well-funded
campaign to politicize Jewish identity, in particular Jewish ancestral
identity. The operative narrative underlying this campaign has co-opted
and imposed its own (erroneous) definition of a term that is integral
to the religious and ethnic identity of most Jews around the world,
including here in the U.S., \8\ with the clear intention of demonizing
the term and those who identify with it. That term is ``Zionism.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, many campuses task their professional Title IX
offices, established to address issues of gender-based discrimination,
with handling complaints under Title VI. Such staff are often,
unsurprisingly, among those who lack education and understanding about
Jewish ancestral identity.
\8\ https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-808658.
Importantly, the term ``Zion'' refers to an actual physical
location in Jerusalem (Mount Zion), significant to Jewish historical
events in that land (where the Jewish people in fact became the Jewish
people over 3,000 years ago), such that the term ``Zionism'' has an
ancient and broad meaning, encompassing the centuries-old desire of the
Jewish people to safety and sovereignty in their ancestral homeland of
Israel, a desire that is borne out in a variety of ways in Jewish
customs and traditions that have nothing at all to do with politics but
everything to do with Jewish ancestral identity. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., ``Evidence of Zionism in Daily Life,'' StandWithUs
Saidoff Legal, available at https://www.flipsnack.com/59DEA577C6F/
evidence-of-zionism-cover/full-
view.html?p=1&td=Ym9va3NoZWxmOmNmMDEwMDV1bmY%3D.
The anti-Zionist narrative seeks to erase this history by focusing
on the establishment of the modern State of Israel, following World War
II and United Nations Resolution 181, which proposed the establishment
of both a Jewish state and an Arab state in the geographical area then
known as the Palestine Mandate and overseen by Great Britain--a
proposal accepted by the Jewish Agency but rejected by the Arab states,
as have been all other proposals for a two-state solution since that
time. The narrative falsely asserts that the establishment of this
modern state was an act of land theft and attempts to re-define
``Zionism'' as simply a term of political support for the Israeli
government, which the narrative falsely accuses of a host of evils,
treating the world's only Jewish state in precisely the same way that
more classic forms of antisemitism treat the individual Jew. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For a more thorough explanation of how antisemitism has
``mutated'' over time and today focuses largely on the State of Israel
as a Jewish ``collective,'' see, The Mutating Virus: Understanding
Antisemitism, THE OFFICE OF RABBI SACKS (Sept. 27, 2016), https://
rabbisacks.org/videos/mutating-virus-understanding-antisemitism/ and
The Mutation of Antisemitism, THE OFFICE OF RABBI SACKS, https://
rabbisacks.org/videos/the-mutation-of-antisemitism/.
Because many people outside the Jewish community are unfamiliar
with Jewish and Israeli history, including the term ``Zion'' and,
hence, the history of the term ``Zionism,'' this dangerous narrative
has been allowed to take firm root in academia. And in the wake of the
horrific Hamas terrorist attack against Israel and its people on
October 7, those peddling this anti-Zionist narrative have successfully
persuaded droves of students, faculty, and administrators to believe
the lie that Jews whose identity includes Zionism, which is to say most
Jews, are proud supporters of the actions of which the narrative
falsely accuses Israel. This form of manipulative propaganda attempts
to erase the reality that a Jewish individual's identification as a
Zionist is actually a reflection of the deep ancestral connection of
the Jewish people to the land of Israel, an expression of the
peoplehood component that serves as a foundational element of Jewish
identity. Hence, the many forms of harassment and discrimination toward
Jewish members of the campus community that we continue to see are
justified by perpetrators, and often misidentified by those in
positions of authority, under the guise of mere expressions of
political disagreement. A proper understanding of the term ``Zionism,''
however, reveals this campaign for what it is: an insidious attempt to
erase 3,000+ years of Jewish history and a vicious attack against a
core component of mainstream Jewish identity. In short, a textbook
example of antisemitism, just adapted and repackaged for a contemporary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
audience.
Much of the anti-Jewish hatred reported in the media focuses on
undergraduate institutions, but it is important to note that the
antisemitism that has infected these campuses is an equally serious
concern within our Nation's graduate schools, including, in particular,
medical schools. \11\ At Georgetown University Medical School, for
example, students posted antisemitic content online, using tropes about
Jewish control and targeting Jewish peers. Similar trends were observed
at George Washington University. \12\ Recent reports also highlight an
alarming trend of antisemitism during medical school commencement
ceremoneys. \13\ At Stanford Medical School, for example, a student
wore a three-part stole and carried a large keffiyeh to the stage and
unfurled it, revealing an antisemitic sign on its reverse side. Hostile
demonstrations are also plaguing these schools. A New York Times
article from June 2024 described the blatant anti-Zionist/anti-Jewish
fervor at University Hospital in San Francisco, for example, where
medical students and doctors at the prestigious medical school and
teaching hospital could be heard shouting: ``intifada, intifada, long
live [the] intifada!'' \14\ The U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) is investigating four prominent medical schools--
Harvard, Columbia, Brown, and Johns Hopkins--over allegations of recent
antisemitic incidents. These include displays of offensive symbols,
verbal protests, and expressions of support for terrorist organizations
like Hamas. \15\ The situation has escalated to the point that Jewish
students are being advised to hide their identity during applications
to our Nation's medical schools. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ A study in The Journal of Religion and Health found that most
(75.4 percent) Jewish-identifying medical students and professionals
reported exposure to antisemitism. Schwartz, D.M., Leiba, R., Feldman,
C.L. et al., Social Media, Survey, and Medical Literature Data Reveal
Escalating Antisemitism Within the United States Healthcare Community,
J Relig Health 64, 206-223 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-024-
02191-5. See also, Michelson, K., Fishman, A., Feinberg, E., Ross, S.,
et al., Antisemitism in American Healthcare: A Survey Study of Reported
Experiences, J Gen Intern Med (2024), available at https://
link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11606-024-09159-x?sharing-
token=1PTK9pTkK-HZLCb6TmYEave4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5nncMVfuml7xWZanLlTB-
i3iaO4PZpexeDOQYSievt9h3ehbLx6X-
NGWbSk5RwmL3Wp7C4gHhwMzcQgwerbKKZVhR2CMmTiWiR-4X3ZbqYVX-2cYuMWOdxD4-
1yMKuNU-w%3D.
\12\ https://www.timesofisrael.com/med-students-antisemitic-
comments-after-oct-7-roil-two-prominent-dc-universities/.
\13\ A study of top U.S. medical schools found antisemitic symbols
and messages displayed by students at over half these institutions
during recent commencements, https://nypost.com/2025/01/27/us-news/us-
medical-schools-plagued-by-antisemitism-pro-terror-antics-at-
graduations-study/.
\14\ https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/us/israel-hamas-war-sf-
doctors.html.
\15\ https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2025/02/03/hhs-civil-rights-
office-acts-swiftly-combat-anti-semitism.html.
\16\ Melissa Langsam Braunstein, The Antisemitism Rooted in the US
Healthcare System, https://www.jowma.org/in-the-news/the-antisemitism-
rooted-in-the-us-healthcare-system (Dec. 19, 2024).
There is an important tool, though, that can assist in greater
understanding of how antisemitism manifests today, including anti-
Zionist forms of antisemitism, which in turn helps ensure consistent
identification and reporting of anti-Jewish bias and bigotry, as well
as proper enforcement of policies aimed at responding to antisemitism:
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of
Antisemitism (``IHRA Definition'') and its contemporary examples of
antisemitism. The international consensus definition of antisemitism,
the IHRA Definition has been widely adopted around the world and is
utilized by institutions and agencies spanning the spectrum of society,
including the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
\17\ It enjoys broad support within the Jewish community as a tool that
speaks to their real-world experiences of antisemitism, including both
traditional and more contemporary forms of anti-Jewish bigotry and
hatred. Contrary to the assertions of some, utilizing the IHRA
Definition as an educational tool for understanding and identification
is fully consistent with freedom of speech principles and is an
effective means of ensuring that allegations of antisemitism receive
proper review, investigation, and resolution. \18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/
ocr/docs/qa-titleix-anti-semitism-20210119.pdf-utm-content=&utm-
medium=email&utm-name=&utm-source=govdelivery&utm-term=.
\18\ For additional information about the IHRA Definition,
including responses to common misconceptions and misinformation about
the IHRA Definition, see A Guide to Understanding & Adopting IHRA
Working Definition of Antisemitism, StandWithUs, available at https://
www.flipsnack.com/59DEA577C6F/guide-to-understand-ihra/full-
view.html'p=1&td=Ym9va3NoZWxmOnpocGVtZmp6aG0%3D.
There can be no legitimate dispute that campus antisemitism is a
serious problem with lasting and dangerous effects, which requires a
response that is likewise serious, lasting, and effective. While many
aspects of education fall within the purview of the individual states,
the Federal Government has the authority to attach conditions to
educational institutions' receipt of Federal taxpayer dollars, as it
has done in many ways, including through Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (``Title VI'') and the Higher Education Act of 1965. Title
VI prohibits recipients of Federal funding from discriminating on the
bases of race, color, or national origin (including shared ancestry).
When a campus administration is on notice of events or circumstances
with the potential to create a hostile environment that would deprive
students of equal access to, or use and enjoyment of, campus
activities, based on a protected characteristic under Title VI, the
administration is legally obligated to investigate and to take the
steps reasonably necessary to put an end to the hostility and remedy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
its effects. Full stop.
Importantly, the requirements of Title VI do not conflict with
freedom of speech rights under the First Amendment. Even if public
institutions are not legally permitted to silence or punish certain
speech that creates or contributes to a hostile environment, that does
not relieve them of their obligations under Title VI. \19\ This is
where it becomes appropriate, and at times entirely necessary, to
implement--and properly enforce--reasonable, content-neutral time,
place, and manner policies regarding expressive activity on campus to
ensure equal protection of the rights of all students without
disruption to the educational environment. In short, the campuses of
educational institutions are not public streets or sidewalks, and
students need not be permitted to engage in expressive activity on
campus wherever they wish, whenever they wish, and in whatever manner
they wish. Dr. Mark Goldfeder recently testified in greater length
about the constitutional requirements--and the discretion of
educational institutions--in this regard at a hearing before the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Limited Government. \20\ I commend his discussion
of these issues to this Committee and to others seeking a clear
understanding of the interplay between freedom of speech principles and
the campus context. At a minimum, however, campuses should have in
place clear policies identifying where, when, and how students may (and
may not) engage in expressive activity and outlining the consequences
for violating such policies. They must then be held accountable for
equal application and enforcement of those policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ U.S. Dep't of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Dear
Colleague Letter, May 7, 2024, p. 3, available at https://www.ed.gov/
sites/ed/files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-202405-shared-
ancestry.pdf?source=email (last visited Mar. 24, 2025) (``The fact that
harassment may involve conduct that includes speech in a public setting
or speech that is also motivated by political or religious beliefs,
however, does not relieve a school of its obligation to respond under
Title VI as described below, if the harassment creates a hostile
environment in school for a student or students.'').
\20\ https://www.Congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117305/witnesses/
HHRG-118-JU10-Wstate-GoldfederM-20240515-U7.pdf, pp. 6-8 (explaining
that the Tinker standard--allowing schools to restrict speech that will
``materially and substantially interfere'' with the ``requirements of
appropriate discipline in the operation of the school'' or that
``invad[es] the rights of others''--is the correct standard for
application in the campus context and citing additional sources in
support).
We are here today because the failure--or refusal--of too many
administrators to accurately identify the hostile antisemitic
environments on their campuses and take the necessary steps to remedy
that hostility has resulted in the deprivation of the civil rights of
Jewish students nationwide. Worse still, Federal courts asked to
preside over Title VI complaints by these students have applied the
legal standard for these claims in an inconsistent manner, \21\ and
when students seek assistance through the submission of Federal
administrative Title VI complaints, they are often subjected to a
lengthy waiting period, many times so long that the directly impacted
students graduate before the resolution of their complaints. \22\ The
problems related to antisemitism on U.S. campuses have risen to a level
such that Congress must now take decisive action to effect meaningful
improvement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Cf., e.g., Kestenbaum v. Pres. & Fellows of Harvard College,
Civ. No. 1:24-cv-10092 (D. Mass Aug. 6, 2024) with StandWithUs Ctr. for
Legal Justice v. Mass. Inst. of Tech., Civ. No. 1:24-cv-10577 (D. Mass.
Jul. 30, 2024).
\22\ 34 C.F.R. Sec. 106.8. See also, https://www.ed.gov/about/
news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-civil-rights-
launches-initiative-address-backlog-of-biden-administration-era-
complaints-alleging-antisemitism.
I would like to take this opportunity to suggest three such
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
actions:
First, and easiest, Congress should pass two important pieces of
pending legislation: (1) the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which would
codify the requirement that the Department of Education consider the
IHRA Definition in reviewing and investigating potential violations of
Title VI based on an individual's actual or perceived shared Jewish
ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics; and (2) the Protecting
Students on Campus Act, which, among other things, would require
institutions of higher education participating in Federal student aid
programs to share certain information about Title VI in prominent
campus locations, including on their websites, and to share data about
their receipt and handling of Title VI complaints with the Department
of Education on an annual basis. The bill would also require the
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to provide
Congress with regular updates about its handling of Title VI
complaints, including the length of time complaints remain open after
OCR's receipt.
Second, Title IX, prohibiting gender-based discrimination, requires
educational institutions to designate a Title IX coordinator, who is
tasked with overseeing the institution's efforts to carry out its
responsibilities under that law. \23\ Title VI should include a similar
requirement, such that each institution of higher education receiving
Federal funds, including medical schools, must employ a Title VI
coordinator who is qualified and experienced in investigating and
educating about the types of discrimination covered by Title VI,
including specifically the shared ancestry component of national
origin. Such individuals should be required to undergo relevant
training regarding Title VI and its proper application (including
specifically about the relationship between Zionism and Jewish
identity) at least semi-annually and should likewise be required to
provide such training to (1) relevant campus stakeholders on at least a
semi-annual basis and (2) students within the context of the
institution's regular anti-bias educational programming. To ensure that
these offices do not themselves become politicized in the execution of
their responsibilities, the Department of Education's Title VI
regulations should be updated to provide appropriate guidance regarding
the operations of such offices and the qualifications of those staffing
them. The first opportunity--and responsibility--to rectify hostile
environments that implicate Title VI falls to the funding recipient
(here, the educational institution). To best ensure this can happen,
and decrease the burden on the Federal Government, institutions should
be required to employ professional staff qualified for the task.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civil-rights-laws/
frequently-asked-questions-sex-discrimination#:-
:text=Is%20there%20someone%20at%20my,Security%20Data%20Analysis%20Cuttin
g%20Tool (confirming that ``[a]ll school districts, colleges, and
universities receiving Federal financial assistance must designate at
least one employee to coordinate their efforts to comply with and carry
out their responsibilities under Title IX'').
Finally, for institutions seeking to voluntarily resolve
administrative Title VI complaints involving disruptive expressive
activity on campus, or for institutions as to which the Federal
Government identifies Title VI compliance concerns related to
disruptive expressive activity on campus, such institutions' continued
receipt of Federal funding should be conditioned, in a manner
consistent with Federal constitutional principles, upon the
institutions' clear communication to their campus communities of the
times, places, and manners in which expressive activity is / is not
permitted on their campuses, including clear identification of the
consequences for violations of such policies. Congress should also
consider heightened consequences under Title VI for institutions found,
in the course of a Federal Title VI investigation, to have failed
properly to enforce such policies to known violations, resulting in the
creation or exacerbation of a pervasively hostile educational
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
environment based on race, color, or national origin.
The integral components of individuals' identities, including their
religious, ancestral, and ethnic identities, should never be
weaponized, for political purposes or otherwise. Yet, that is precisely
what has happened to the Jewish community, and it is time for people of
good faith to stop fighting each other, unify around the reality that
antisemitism is causing real harm to real human beings, and begin
fighting together against all forms of anti-Jewish hate and hostility.
As we have seen throughout history, antisemitism does not harm only
the Jewish community; like a cancer, it infects the whole of society.
\24\ This is not an isolated issue impacting only one group, and it is
not an issue that we as a nation can afford to ignore in any of its
insidious forms. Antisemitism presents a significant and troubling
problem on our campuses that must be identified for what it is--without
confusing matters by insisting on addressing it only in tandem with
other forms of bias and bigotry. We must finally be willing to
acknowledge that the discrimination and harassment targeting students
on campus because of an aspect of their Jewishness comes from
individuals on both sides of the political aisle. This is not a matter
of left or right but one of wrong and right. I implore every Member of
this Committee to be willing to take the necessary actions to stand
against all forms of attack against the Jewish community, regardless of
their source, no less than you would for any other targeted minority
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ See, e.g., DENNIS PRAGER & JOSEPH TELUSHKIN, WHY THE JEWS?
THE REASON FOR ANTISEMITISM, THE MOST ACCURATE PREDICTOR OF HUMAN EVIL,
(2003); see also Goldfeder Testimony, supra n.7 at pp. 1-2, f 7
(collecting sources).
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to
the efforts of this Committee and the full Congress to address this
serious problem in a substantive and meaningful way. I and my
organization, StandWithUs, welcome the opportunity to work alongside
you all in those efforts, and I welcome any questions regarding my
testimony.
______
[summary statement of carly f. gammill]
The rising threat of antisemitism on U.S. college and medical
school campuses, especially following the October 7, 2023, Hamas
terrorist attack, has escalated such that Congress must take decisive
and meaningful action to ensure equal protection of the rights of all
students and preserve the primary purpose of our Nation's institutions
of higher education. Jewish students are facing increased hostility not
just toward their views, but toward their identities.
In addition to intentional refusals by some administrators to
protect the rights of Jewish students, there is another contributor to
the surge in hatred toward Jews on campus: an intentional and dangerous
campaign to erroneously re-define the term Zionism in a way that
ignores its true, historical meaning and significance as an aspect of
Jewish ancestral identity and that attempts, instead, to equate Zionism
with political support for the State of Israel, which this anti-Zionist
narrative fashions as a purveyor of a host of evils.
Those responsible for this dangerous campaign to distort Jewish
ancestral identity have, especially since October 7, successfully
convinced campus stakeholders that Jewish students who identify as
Zionist are merely expressing a political position--one for which they
deserve to be ostracized, marginalized, and excluded from campus
programs and activities. As a result, Jewish students are subject to
hostile campus climates, including harassment during protests,
exclusion from events, biased classroom content, and even physical
violence. Administrators--whether through intentional refusal to
protect Jewish students or sincere misunderstanding about the
connection between Zionism and Jewish identity (as opposed to
politics)--are failing to identify and address the blatant antisemitism
ravaging their campuses, including through proper application of
relevant campus policies.
Administrative confusion--real or feigned--about the interplay
between Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and freedom of speech
principles exacerbates the problem, but there is no tension between
these legal provisions. Administrators at institutions receiving
Federal funding may (and those on public campuses must) simultaneously
comply with the requirements of both the First Amendment and Title VI.
Congress can take decisive action to improve the situation on our
Nation's campuses by (1) passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act and the
Protecting Students on Campus Act; (2) requiring at all federally
funded educational institutions a properly qualified and educated Title
VI coordinator; and (3) subject to Federal constitutional principles,
strengthening Title VI through measures that hold administrations
accountable for proper application and enforcement of campus policies
regarding the time, place, and manner of expressive activities.
Antisemitism should not be treated as a political weapon but as the
moral issue it is--one that harms not only the Jewish community but all
of society. As such, it demands bipartisan action. Protecting Jewish
students is an essential part of ensuring safe and equal learning
environments for all.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. I'll introduce now our second
witness, Rabbi Levi Shemtov. Rabbi Shemtov is the Executive
Vice President of the American Friends of Lubavitch Chabad.
Senator Sanders. Lubavitch.
The Chairman. One more time.
Senator Sanders. Lubavitch.
The Chairman. Lubavitch--I'm sorry. Which serves as a
representative office of the worldwide Lubavitch movement in
Washington, DC. and plays a vital role in Jewish community
engagement and public affairs.
In addition to his organizational leadership, Rabbi Shemtov
is widely regarded as a prominent voice for Jewish advocacy and
has worked extensively with Government officials, faith
leaders, and community organizations to combat Antisemitism and
promote religious understanding. We are thankful to have you
today, rabbi. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF RABBI LEVI SHEMTOV, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT,
AMERICAN FRIENDS OF LUBAVITCH (CHABAD), WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Shemtov. Good morning, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member
Sanders, and honorable Members of this Committee. I am Rabbi
Levi Shemtov, and I serve as the Executive Vice President of
American Friends of Lubavitch Chabad, directing the efforts of
the Chabad Lubavitch movement in our Nation's capital structure
and international community.
Chahab Lubavitch is currently the world's most dynamic and
fastest growing Jewish educational and social services network
with over 4,000 centers in all 50 states and more than 110
countries. Our work spans all aspects of life for people of all
ages, from preschool to seniors, touching millions of people
from diverse backgrounds, including business and communal
leaders, academics, military personnel, young professionals,
incarcerated individuals and their families, and those in need.
A significant part of our efforts is dedicated to Jewish
students on campus with active centers serving over 525
universities nationwide, including more immediately under my
own purview over 10,000 Jewish students in Washington, DC. at
institutions including the George Washington, Georgetown,
American, and Gallaudet universities, as well as Johns Hopkins
and various graduate programs across Washington, DC.
For three decades now, I have worked closely with students
witnessing firsthand the challenges they face particularly with
the rise of Antisemitism on college campuses. My colleagues and
I are guided every day by the teachings of the Lubavitcher
Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Schneerson of sacred memory.
The Rebbe widely recognized as the most influential rabbi
in modern times, champion the values of education, moral
responsibility, and a deep appreciation for America as a land
of unprecedented religious freedom. In recognition of his
exemplar, benevolence, ethics, leadership, and scholarship, and
selfless commitment to education, Congress unanimously awarded
the Rebbe the Congressional gold medal in 1994, and every U.S.
President since 1978 has declared his birthday each year as
Education and Sharing Day, USA.
His guiding principle was that every individual regardless
of status has the ability and responsibility to make the world
a better place through acts of kindness and moral leadership.
The concept is one of the most famous in the Jewish faith,
letaken olam bemalchut Shadai, to perfect the world under the
sovereignty of the almighty God. Many refer to it merely as
Tikkun Olam, but this is the original mandate.
This brings me to the pressing issue of today's hearing.
Antisemitism is not just an age-old prejudice. It is a
contemporary crisis manifesting on campuses across the Nation.
It is not enough for individuals or institutions to merely
claim they are not Antisemitic. As my father once taught me, it
is not enough for people, especially public figures, to be
neutral or not be Antisemitic.
One must be anti-Antisemitic. We must demand the same of
our universities and Government institutions. This hearing in
my opinion is an attempt to be just that, anti-Antisemitic. We
recently celebrated Purim. We are soon going to celebrate
Passover. Two great indicators of our history of overcoming
oppression and discrimination. Jewish students are increasingly
targeted, harassed, and ostracized simply for being Jewish or
expressing support for Israel.
This crisis escalated dramatically after October 7th when
Hamas carried out its brutal terrorist attack on Israel. Many
Jewish students who once felt safe and included on campus
suddenly found themselves abandoned by peers and institutions
they once supported. Students have been physically threatened,
spat upon, had their mezuzah stripped from their doors--even
faced academic retaliation for their Jewish identity.
Jewish students who wear kippahs or other identifying
symbols reported being verbally assaulted and in some cases
physically attacked. Last year at the George Washington
University, for example, an encampment--the protesters
disrupted campus life under the guise of political activism.
These gatherings went far beyond peaceful protests, which
we must all respect. They became breeding grounds for
Antisemitic rhetoric, intimidation, and outright violence. I
personally visited the encampment multiple times and saw
firsthand the fear it instilled in Jewish students. Even some
professors joined in the hostility, and university
administrators failed to take sufficient decisive action to
ensure Jewish students' safety.
This was not an isolated incident but found to be part of a
coordinated effort across campuses nationwide. Freedom of
speech is a core American value, but it does not include the
right to intimidate, harass, or introduce violence.
Universities have the authority and obligation to enforce
policies that protect all students, however, time and again,
Jewish students are subtly told and made to feel that their
actual safety is secondary to the political climate of the
moment or other considerations. And the torture of having to
wait for the ``process'' to play out is painful to watch.
When there is right and wrong, not doing enough, quickly
enough, sides with those who are wrong. We have seen that too
often in history. The Federal Government must take urgent steps
to address this crisis. The anticipated passage of the
Antisemitism Awareness Act is a crucial measure that will help
define and combat Antisemitism in its--in educational
institutions.
The adoption of the IHRA definition of Antisemitism is
another necessary step as it provides a clear framework for
recognizing and addressing Antisemitic incidents. Without these
defining developments, universities and administrators will
continue to exploit loopholes to avoid taking real action.
Moreover, Federal authorities must demand a safe learning
environment for all students, including Jewish students.
Universities that tolerate Antisemitic harassment should face
real consequences. The previous Administration took some steps
in recognizing Antisemitism as a national concern, hosting
high-level meetings and engaging Jewish leaders and discussions
across the spectrum.
However, these efforts must not be diluted by lumping
Antisemitism together with other forms of discrimination at
this point. While all forms of hatred should be addressed,
Antisemitism has unique characteristics that require a
dedicated response.
As Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel once said, Jews are always
the first but never the last. The normalization of Antisemitism
on campus is a warning sign for Society at large. I have one
more paragraph. Can I finish?
The Chairman. One more paragraph.
Mr. Shemtov. Jewish students need more than protection from
hate. They need to be empowered with a robust Jewish identity.
As the Rebbe taught, the best way to combat darkness is with
light. It is not enough to fight Antisemitism. We must also
promote a strong and proud Jewish presence on campus.
In other words, the best antidote to Antisemitism is
perhaps robust Semitism. Institutions should be more protective
and supportive of Jewish student life and ensure the Jewish
students clearly feel welcomed and valued as members of their
academic communities.
I apologize for going over my time but thank you very much
for the opportunity to testify and be here today. And thank
you, Ranking Member, Senator Sanders for making sure the name
Lubavitch is pronounced correctly.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am prepared to
answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shemtov follows:]
prepared statement of rabbi levi shemtov
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and honorable Members of
this Committee:
My name is Rabbi Levi Shemtov, and I am the Executive Vice
President of American Friends of Lubavitch (Chabad), which directs and
organizes the operations in our Nation's capital and the international
community on behalf of the international Chabad-Lubavitch movement,
currently the largest, most vibrant and fastest growing network of
Jewish educational and social service institutions in the world. We are
present and active through over 4,000 centers in all 50 states and over
110 countries.
Our work literally spans the gamut of life, with religious,
humanitarian and communal programs catering to innumerable individuals
and families, from preschool to senior citizens, and helps lift the
lives and well-being, materially and spiritually, of millions of people
from all walks of life--on all strata of social and economic existence,
from business and academic leaders, to the poor and homeless, from
those at the top of society, to Jewish people serving in all ranks of
the military, to those incarcerated or otherwise disadvantaged
searching for a better existence and more meaning in their lives.
Included in these are active centers serving hundreds of thousands
of Jewish students on 526 campuses in the U.S. Under my more immediate
purview are centers some 10,000 Jewish students in Washington, DC,
specifically at the The George Washington, Georgetown, American and
Gallaudet Universities, as well the Johns Hopkins and dozens of other
Graduate Programs with a presence here.
Personally, in addition to my work in the governmental and
international arenas as well as the local community, I have interacted
closely with students directly for about thirty years now and have thus
seen and shared their experiences first-hand. So I hope you will
appreciate that my words today will not be merely theoretical or
philosophical. They are practical, gleaned from what I have seen and
heard directly from students and colleagues who serve on campuses
across the country.
My colleagues and I dedicate ourselves tirelessly every day to our
mission inspired and in many cases, personally directed by our mentor,
the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of sacred memory.
Widely regarded as the most influential rabbi in modern times, he
infused us all with a deep appreciation for America and the unique
opportunity it affords us to proudly practice our faith and inspire
others to do the same. Actually, this very body, the U.S. Congress,
unanimously awarded the Rebbe the congressional Gold Medal in 1994. His
teachings and exemplary dedication has reached and improved the lives
of millions of men women and children of all ages and affiliations and
persuasions, as his sage advice and insight were sought by presidents,
prime ministers, Governors, mayor, business leaders, teachers,
journalists and even perhaps most importantly, the young and common
folk.
One very important focus of the Rebbe, perhaps, the sharpest focus,
was on education. He taught that education is more than the provision
of knowledge, it is the building of character and meaning within a
child and then an adult, to help ensure that their life is not merely
lived, but lived meaningfully, so that the world will become a better
place because one has lived within it for whatever time G-d has allowed
them to.
This concept is one of the most famous in the Jewish faith
``letaken olam bemalchut Shadai'' to perfect the world under the
sovereignty of G-d. Many merely refer to it as Tikkun Olam, but this is
the original mandate.
One can do this in many ways. Reaching someone in need, discipline
in expression so as to help and not hurt, offering support to those who
need it (everyone, no matter how great, needs support on some level)
and generally working to ensure that the world becomes more livable and
the great garden of life G-d desired when he created it and all of us
within it.
To honor the Rebbe's work and teachings, the President of the
United States has, since 1978, declared his birthday every year as
Education and Sharing Day, USA, in an effort to focus society's actions
in this regard. A remarkable concept which has defied any partisan
factor, this has been replicated by Governors across all 50 states, and
even a large number of mayors and civic leader on the local level.
The point of all this is to drive home the notion the Rebbe taught
that every individual, no matter how humble or great, has the power to
change the world, for better or for worse, by what they say and do, and
thus the responsibility to do so positively.
Which leads me to the central point of today's hearing.
I was once discussing with my father a particular public figure who
was being labeled an antisemite. We all know great things about this
individual and I was troubled by that label for them. My father, who
many of you may know through his own work here on the Hill for decades,
said something very important to me. ``Yes, we are sure they are not
antisemitic. But someone like them can and should be more anti-
antisemitic and is not, and that is troubling.''
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of this distinguished
Committee, in my opinion, the mere holding of this hearing is a strong
and important statement of anti-antisemitism. You are focusing on this
scourge where it lurks the worst and strikes people at a very
vulnerable time when, for the first time, they are defining their very
personalities and identities on their own.
These students come to explore the marketplace of thought and ideas
and determine their own path in the world they will inhabit and 1 day
lead. They will form opinions about faith family, country--central
components of every life. And they will determine who they want to be
and how to live that out for themselves, their friends and the families
they will build.
It is crucial that at this particular junction their essential
identities not be attacked and undermined.
We, the Jewish people, find ourselves shortly after the festival of
Purim and soon approaching Passover. Anyone wanting to understand the
Jewish odyssey and formation of our identity ought to understand these
festivals and their meaning.
Purim marks the miraculous deliverance from near annihilation by an
evil antisemite named Haman in ancient Persia in the fourth century
BCE. His main complaint was there is a Nation, the Jews, who are
different and have customs unlike those of others in the Persian empire
and thus must be annihilated, G-d forbid. Among the figures in the
biblical Book of Esther, which recounts the story, are she and a rabbi
who led the Jewish people at the time named Mordechai, who would not
bend a knee nor bow to this vicious antisemite, Haman, even though he
was familiar in the royal court as well.
We don't know as much about other Jewish people who lived in that
era, other than that they felt threatened and succumbed to the
influences of the times. Mordechai stood up to the powerful Haman and
ensured Jewish survival.
One might say he countered that terrible antisemitism with what I
like to call informed and Robust Semitism. It will be very difficult
for Jewish students on campus to properly counter the latest explosion
in antisemitic activity on campuses without a strengthened sense of
identity. Sadly, over the past decades, that sense of identity has
weakened. And so, when threatened academically, socially, and even as
we have seen lately, physically, a Jewish student can be woefully
unprepared for the onslaught. Until now, we hope they had a good
network of Jewish community back home, but that is too often wishful
thinking, I have learned from more students than I wish.
We will soon celebrate Passover. Almost immediately after the
Exodus from Egypt, the nascent Jewish people, then still called
Israelites, were attacked, first by the ancient Egyptian army and then
later by the first recorded antisemite, Amalek. The Torah commands us,
and we are required to read this every year, to ``remember to eradicate
the memory of Amalek.'' Who is Amalek today? Physically, that is a good
question. Philosophically, however, it is the pernicious perpetrators
of antisemitism.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe taught that Amalek has a similar context to
the word ``safek'', Hebrew for doubt. When the actual Amalek confronted
the Jewish people in ancient times, he attacked the stragglers, the
weakest among them. He was not brave and could not beat the Jewish
people all, so like any bully, went after the most vulnerable. Today,
those seeking to sow doubt among Jewish people about the righteousness
of our cause, about our historic rights to the land of Israel, and to
the right we enjoy to live fully, proudly and openly as Jews, are the
heirs to Amalek.
Their terrible spirit, the intent to make us doubt ourselves
(safek) and thus more susceptible to attack, lives on the campuses and
streets of America and increasingly elsewhere. They evilly attacked
Israel like savages on October 7th, and they and their supporters have
continued this attack even more since. While there are military and law
enforcement ways to eradicate the problem, and they will do their
responsibility, every decent human being has a responsibility to
eradicate the philosophy the present day Amalekites espouse, since it
will destroy civilization as we know it if we do not counter it
effectively.
The government of the United States does not have an obligation to
support any particular religion, but it does most certainly have a
solemn obligation to protect in every possible way the ability of its
citizens to practice and live their own faith. Indeed, there have been
many such efforts, whose details might be appropriate in a different
hearing.
As it pertains to the campuses, specifically, more must be done to
underscore the commitment by our government to do so, not just in
theory but in practice and most importantly, enforcement. The passing
of the Antisemitism Awareness Act which is now expected, will do a lot
to help the public understand again that we will continue to live by
the words of our first President, the heroic founder of the United
States, George Washington, who promised, in the first known
Presidential correspondence to the Jewish community, that the United
States will offer ``bigotry no sanction'' . There is no doubt a large
majority of the Congress, and of the United States, who support this
endeavor.
I also know there has been some noise about the IHRA definition,
and efforts to dilute that. But without it, people will find too many
loopholes and continue to undermine, threaten, cancel and gaslight
Jewish students and members of our community generally. You might never
find language acceptable to all, but the IHRA definition does enjoy the
broadest acceptance by Jewish organizations and should be respected as
policy of the United States. If our own Ambassador to monitor and
combat antisemitism is asking other nations and global institutions to
adopt it, we should do the same.
(I will point out that while our own organization generally avoids
political statements and has not declared an official position on the
above, this is what I sense from my own viewpoint.)
As I mentioned, the mere holding of this hearing is in itself a
statement of leadership in this regard. And I hope the diligent
deliberations herein will result in a strengthened approach to ensuring
safety of all students on campuses.
I would like to focus on Jewish students for a moment. Last year,
and the year before that, a special high-level meeting was held at the
White House to address the issue of antisemitism, generally as well as
on campus. I believe all Jewish leaders present were heartened by the
senior level of representation by the Administration and heartfelt
expressions by the principals, some of whom are themselves Jewish.
But somehow, the effort to singularly target and combat
antisemitism was weakened, in my opinion, and maybe even undermined, by
the introduction of fighting other forms of discrimination at the same
time within that effort. I will repeat what I said there, in addition
to my obvious gratitude for being present at such a significant effort:
Anyone who flies knows that we are warned at the beginning of the
flight that in the event of a sudden change in cabin pressure, one
should apply the oxygen mask that drops down to your seat. We are
clearly warned to use our own mask first despite our instinct to help
others, especially children. For if we stop breathing, we cannot help
anyone. And our continued ability to breathe properly will help us to
help others.
We, the Jewish community must be very careful to do as above. We
must worry and address completely the scourge of antisemitism and its
dangers first, and obviously once that would be under control, we must
help to combat other form of discrimination, so every human being,
created in the image of the Almighty G-d, can live in dignity and
safety.
But if we allow the dilution of our large and pressing matter into
a larger pool of perpetrated hatred, as important as that might be, we
will not be as effective, if we will be effective at all. I have heard
first-hand too many stories of students who thought they could depend
on their friends in other minority groups whom they supported to stand
by them after October 7th. Sadly, they were disappointed to find the
support was just not here, Further, in too many instances, they were
slowly squeezed out of affinity groups to which they dedicated so much
time and effort and sad to find themselves, despite their best efforts
integrate, that they were just an annoyance to be discarded, moral and
just considerations thrown to the wind.
I believe the Jewish community must stand first and foremost for
ourselves, and when we regain our strength, then and only then will we
be able to build and rebuild alliances as we are needed.
Perhaps I might add my appreciation that while this hearing is to
help ensure safety for all students, you did assert the main focus on
antisemitism. Because, as Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel famously said, we
Jews are always the first, but we are never the last. We are a test
case, and if they succeed with us, G-d forbid, they are coming for
everyone else next. As a matter of fact, he also lamented that after
reflection on why the Nazis hated him so much , and what he might have
done to earn his terrible fate to see the worst of humanity, he
concluded, ``there is no valid reason, for they hated me before I was
even born.''
Antisemitism is the world's oldest form of hate, and it has never
been totally extinguished. Perhaps it never can be. When it rears its
ugly head, we must stand steadfast in countering it, and we must also
at the same time work diligently to reinforce a positive Jewish
identity, or Robust Semitism, within our own Jewish community.
But this time is different.
My own realization that something ominous was upon us happened
about 12 or 13 years ago. A friend of ours, not Jewish, shared their
sadness at having just been to a prestigious dinner party where someone
made an antisemitic joke. ``No one gagged'', they said, ``and some even
laughed.'' When I asked why they were telling me this, they answered.
``I just thought it was important for someone like you to be aware that
something like this has happened at this time. Things seem to be
changing.''
When I spoke about it in synagogue that week, people were not sure
it was that serious. Those who remember it all know now how serious it
was.
Hate has a way of starting small and metastasizing quickly.
Doubling every day, a penny turns to more than a million dollars within
a month. I believe we have seen a doubling in antisemitism every five
years or so and then more recently in shorter timeframes. When a one
turns to two, or two tuns to four, you hardly notice. We are now seeing
how we are going from eight to sixteen, or even worse, 16 to thirty-
two. It's gotten very serious.
But there is one big difference. This time, the powers that be, in
the greatest and most powerful nation on Earth, are not supportive of
this antisemitic hate. Indeed, the government of the United States is
increasingly exerting efforts and resources to counter and destroy this
hate. We see this in a bipartisan manner, as political leaders who
disagree on major policy issues are almost one and in sync on this one.
I know that there are those who might suggest that first amendment
rights are threatened by some of the efforts underway to combat
antisemitism. I would say that freedom of expression is about words and
ideas, and is not a license to disrupt the lives of people you disagree
with and threaten them academically and worse, with their very physical
safety.
Last year, on the campus of The George Washington University, this
actually happened, and I saw it with my own eyes. I was at the
``encampment'' there several times to see what was going on, and to
help bolster the spirit of the Jewish students who were harmed by it
and shocked by the seeming lack of sufficient action by the
University's leadership, and the municipal government leaders who
should have backed them up, to effectively disperse this disgraceful
assembly of hate which physically desecrated the campus, including the
violent removal of the American flag which flies as a reminder of the
welcome freedom of expression for all. They disrupted the peaceful flow
of academic activity, and impaired students who had worked so hard to
excel in their exams, which some could not reach because of this
violence.
Dozens of university and DC police officers roamed the campus
almost as spectators, seemingly unable to restore order among the
chaos. The University is not public property. It is governed by its own
policies. Students were so dismayed by how literal gangsters were able
to operate there with seeming impunity even repeatedly threatening the
University's President with physical harm. There were some actions
taken by the University's administrators, but hardly enough and too
much of it quietly downgraded or reversed. They can and must do better
to address breaches of their policies.
Lest you think that these were all well informed individuals, I
personally spoke to some students who were convinced that ``from the
river to the sea'' that thinly veiled antisemitic slogan calling for
the elimination of Israel, G-d forbid, referred to the Potomac River
and the Chesapeake! I wouldn't believe it either, but I heard it with
my own ears. When I suggested they were mistaken and asked why they'd
be participating in an encampment whose purpose they weren't fully
aware of, one said, and I quote, ``I actually don't know. I signed up
for Code Pink a while ago, and I just got a text today saying ``Come
over to GW now. We need you here and they're serving great schwarma' so
here I am.''
They weren't just from GW. Many were bussed in from elsewhere. This
was a coordinated campaign of hate, not a spontaneous event of freedom
of expression. They harassed Jewish students, yelling epithets and even
spitting at them. Many Jewish students had second thoughts about the
mezuzah on their door, especially after one student had theirs ripped
from her doorpost. Others rethought even telling friends or roommates
that they are Jewish! And yet others were unsure about attending Jewish
events, with one student telling me they feared their unfriendly
professor might see them there and downgrade their paper as a result!
These are but a few little snippets from the sad and sorry story of
the campus ``encampments''. There are so many more perpetrated by
students and even (and to) professors on a number of campuses across
the country. I also listened in on some of the indoctrinating speeches
there. While I will respect their right to preach their faith, in too
many instances I discerned that within this group were many people who
hate not only Israel and the Jewish people. They hate America. We need
to wake up and see that they are not just exercising First Amendment
rights. They are abusing them. And to help preserve the sanctity of
that particular right, we must address and hopefully eliminate its
abuse. There are plenty of Muslims we can work with on this, who pine
for a more decent life of peace for all and resent what is being done
in their name. When we will be able to, we must also help strengthen
them to be fearless in the expression of that. They, too, are victims
of this most recent spike in hate directed at Jews.
Again, the First Amendment, the bedrock of our society, is sacred,
but must not be misused to weaken our required response to this issue.
Today's hearing is a very important step in that direction of
addressing it forcefully and I hope it will succeed. I am honored to
have been invited to participate and look forward to answering any
questions you might have.
Thank you very much.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Our third witness, Dr. Charles
Asher Small. Dr. Small is the Founding Director of the
Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy, an
interdisciplinary research center committed to understanding
and combating contemporary Antisemitism through scholarly
research and policy analysis.
He is an internationally recognized expert on Antisemitism
and extremism, with a background in sociology and public
policy. Dr. Small has testified before various governmental
bodies and has authored extensive research on the impact of
Antisemitism on democratic societies. Thank you for joining us,
sir.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES ASHER SMALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE
FOR THE STUDY OF GLOBAL ANTISEMITISM AND POLICY, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Small. Thank you. It is an honor and a privilege to be
here. And thank you very much for convening this critical
hearing on the alarming rise of Antisemitism on colleges--
college campuses.
Thank you, Chairman Cassidy and Ranking Member Sanders for
convening this important meeting. I serve as the Executive
Director of the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism
and Policy. It was established in 2004 with Nobel Prize
Laureate, Professor Elie Wiesel.
Professor Wiesel always used to that Antisemitism is not a
parochial problem for the Jewish people or for the State of
Israel, but that Antisemitism is a vile form of hatred that
begins with the Jewish people but never ends with the Jewish
people.
Once this form of hatred is unleashed, it knows no
boundaries and it attacks other vulnerable parts of our
society, our cultural institutions, and our core democratic
values. ISGAP is a research center that operates globally. We
operate in the United States, in the United Kingdom where we
have a research center in Cambridge University. We do programs
at Oxford University.
We are also at--in Tel Aviv University at the INSS in
Israel, in Italy, and in Canada. Our mission is to map and
decode contemporary Antisemitism and the anti-democratic forces
at the highest levels of scholarship, developing scientific,
evidence-based strategies to assist policymakers in combating
this ancient scourge. Our research demonstrates that
Antisemitism has infiltrated mainstream discourse across
educational, political, and social spheres.
Our most prestigious universities and campuses, we have
witnessed hundreds of Antisemitic resolutions and protest which
turned--some of them turned violent. Others leading to the
harassment and exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and
staff.
While Antisemitism is known as the world's oldest hatred,
the Hamas attack of October the 7th triggered an explosion of
organized Antisemitic attacks against Jewish people and Jewish
institutions initially, initially on college campuses before it
spread nationwide.
Antisemitic incidents have surged 360 percent since October
the 7th according to the ADL survey, and 83 percent--83 percent
of Jewish college students across this country have reported
witnessing or experiencing Antisemitism on their campus. I have
personally seen that many Jewish students and faculty no longer
feel physically safe on their college campus, which should be a
bastion of tolerance and intellectual freedom and exploration.
ISGAP's primary premier research project now is called
Follow the Money, which examines the relationship between
foreign funding to United States universities and the rise of
Antisemitism on campus but also in the classroom. Our research
has documented disturbing patterns of foreign influence and
financial contributions that coincide with increased
Antisemitic activity, compromise academic freedom, and distort
campus discourse on issues related to Israel, Jews, and the
Middle East.
In 2019, I presented our initial findings of this Follow
the Money research project to Federal officials revealing that
$3 billion of undisclosed money coming from Middle East anti-
democratic, anti-American, Antisemitic forces, primarily from
the Qatari regime to American universities, has led to a
Federal--led to a Federal investigation that identified more
than $6.5 billion in unreported foreign funding to our
universities.
Our ongoing research establishes that the Qatari regime
donations have substantially impacted Antisemitic discourse at
American universities, while also promoting anti-democratic
values. It should be noted that the Qatari regime maintains
documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood is a reactionary, I would even say
perversion, of Islam that combines a perversion of Islam with
European Antisemitism and even the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion that--the Protocols of the Elders of Zion that led to the
Holocaust.
That they have this--it is called the bai'at, spiritual
oath to the Muslim Brotherhood that has given--that also
support and gives rise to Hamas, the Palestinian chapter of the
Muslim Brotherhood, and other violent Antisemitic and anti-
democratic extremist affiliations.
Since October the 7th, ISGAP has published 12 comprehensive
reports revealing tens of billions of dollars in undocumented
foreign funding coming to American universities, again,
primarily from the Qatari regime, unreported to the Department
of Education as required by law. Our analysis shows that
between 2015 and 2020, that there has been a 300 percent
increase in Antisemitic incidents as well.
We have uncovered systematic efforts to circumvent the
transparency required by Section 1.17 of the Higher Education
Act. Universities under report foreign gifts, use third-party
foundations to shield donor identities, and fail to disclose
conditions and restrictions attached to the donations. Can I
finish in 30 seconds or--?
The Chairman. Thirty seconds.
Mr. Small. Okay. Very quickly, we found--we did a report on
Texas A&M. We found $1.3 billion in undocumented money between
the Qatari regime and Texas A&M. We found 502 research
projects. Texas A&M gave all of their intellectual property
rights to the Qatari regime.
58 projects we flagged that have military dual-use
purposed. 13 have nuclear research dual-use purposes. Qatar has
very good relations with the Iranian revolutionary regime,
Hamas, and the Taliban. At Cornell University, we found $2
billion in unreported, undocumented funding going from Qatar to
Cornell.
K through 12, we just published a report, hundreds of
millions of dollars going to create curriculum across the
United States of America for children that remove Jews and
Christians from curriculum about the Middle East. We've done
reports on SJP. I'll end it there and I'll get to
recommendations in the Q&A but thank you for listening.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Small follows:]
prepared statement of dr. charles asher small
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, and distinguished Members
of the Committee:
Thank you for convening this critical hearing on the alarming rise
of antisemitism on college campuses.
I serve as the Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of
Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), and as the Director of the
ISGAP-Woolf Institute Fellowship Training Program in Critical
Contemporary Antisemitism Studies, Discrimination, and Human Rights at
the Woolf Institute at St. Edmonds College at the University of
Cambridge. Additionally, I am the Director of the Fellowship Training
Program in Critical Contemporary Antisemitism Studies at the Institute
for National Security Studies (INSS), Tel Aviv University.
In 2004, together with Nobel Peace Prize laureate Elie Wiesel, I
established ISGAP as North America's first international
interdisciplinary research center dedicated to studying contemporary
antisemitism. Since then, ISGAP has been at the forefront of
researching, teaching, and publishing scholarly work on this critical
issue. Today, we operate as the only global research institute
specifically focused on identifying and countering antisemitic
narratives in academia, with operations across the United States,
United Kingdom, Israel, Italy, and Canada. We are based at top
universities and consult and advise governments and security agencies
of allied countries.
The Mainstreaming of Antisemitism on College Campuses
ISGAP's extensive research demonstrates that antisemitism has
transcended fringe extremist groups and infiltrated mainstream
discourse across political, educational, ideological, and social
spheres. Jewish individuals and institutions now face unprecedented
levels of harassment, intimidation, and violence fueled by converging
radical ideologies.
On our most prestigious college campuses, in the United States and
in other democratic nations, we have witnessed hundreds of protests,
demonstrations, and antisemitic resolutions. Some have turned violent,
while others have resulted in the social ostracism, harassment,
intimidation, and exclusion of Jewish students, faculty, and staff.
It is essential to understand, as Elie Weisel always taught us,
that antisemitism is not a parochial problem for the Jewish community,
or for Israel. Antisemitism always begins with the Jews but never ends
with the Jewish people. Once unleashed, this deadly form of hate knows
no boundaries. It attacks our democratic principles and institutions,
and basic human decency.
The weaponization of intellectual frameworks against Jewish people
has a dangerous historical reference that we can see today. Academia in
pre-Nazi Germany helped legitimize antisemitism by developing
``scientific'' racial theories that classified Jews as inferior,
creating intellectual foundations that the Nazi regime later exploited
to justify persecution. Today, some critics of Israel have shifted from
legitimate criticism of government policies to more extreme rhetoric
that denies Israel's right to exist and justifies violence against
Israelis (including civilians), which crosses the line from political
critique to harmful discourse. The disturbing parallels between
historical academic antisemitism and certain modern campus movements
cannot be ignored, as both employ intellectual frameworks to dehumanize
and threaten Jews and justify their exclusion or harm.
The Aftermath of October 7th
Antisemitism is the world's oldest hatred, and the tragic
implications of this discrimination are still very much with us today.
Hamas--the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood--carried out a
horrific attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, that triggered--and
even seemed to justify--immediate, coordinated, and well-funded attacks
globally against Jews, Jewish institutions, and organizations
supporting Israel. This weaponized hatred initially emerged at
universities and on college campuses before rapidly spreading to our
streets and communities. And most troubling, the protests willfully
ignored key facts on the ground--including that it was Hamas who
initiated the attack against Israel; that Hamas staged a monstrous and
brutal attack targeting Israelis, especially innocent civilians,
including torture, mutilation and sexual violence against women; and
that the ultimate goal of the attack was to completely destroy the
Jewish state of Israel and to murder Jews around the world.
Further, those who took to the streets in so-called ``anti-Israel''
protests following the attack on October 7th effectively aligned
themselves with Hamas and Hezbollah, both of which are longstanding
designated foreign terrorist organizations in the United States and by
countries around the world. The protesters' rhetoric and symbolism
revealed hostility not just toward Israel but also toward Jewish
communities writ large, as well as a fundamental rejection of
democratic principles and American values that protect pluralism and
religious freedom. Their demonstrations, draped in the language of
resistance but fueled by antisemitism, represented an assault on the
very constitutional foundations that guarantee equal protection and
dignity for all citizens, regardless of faith or ethnicity.
Jewish Americans and their friends and allies now face threats to
their physical security and dignity at levels not seen in generations,
and the statistics are deeply concerning. Antisemitic incidents have
surged 360 percent since October 7th, according to the Anti-Defamation
League (ADL); and a survey conducted by Hillel, ADL, and College Pulse
found that 83 percent of Jewish college students have witnessed or
experienced antisemitism on campus. Many Jewish students report feeling
unsafe on campuses that should be bastions of tolerance and
intellectual freedom. And we have seen that what often begins as
``criticism of Israel'' frequently crosses into antisemitism by denying
Jewish self-determination, applying double standards, or employing
antisemitic tropes.
ISGAP's Mission and the ``Follow the Money'' Project
ISGAP's core mission involves mapping and decoding contemporary
antisemitism, its root causes and the antidemocratic forces operating
at the highest levels of scholarship and developing evidence-based
strategies to assist policymakers in combating this pernicious hatred.
Our extensive research has documented a troubling increase in
antisemitic activity throughout academia and analyzed the role of
different agents in nurturing this hostile atmosphere.
Our groundbreaking ``Follow the Money'' project specifically
examines the relationship between foreign funding to American
universities and the alarming rise of antisemitism on college campuses.
This research initiative has meticulously documented disturbing
patterns of foreign influence through financial contributions that
consistently coincide with increased antisemitic activity; compromised
academic freedom; and distorted campus discourse on issues related to
Israel, Jews, and the Middle East.
Key Findings from the ``Follow the Money'' Project
In July 2019, I presented initial findings from our research (begun
in 2012) to the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the
Department of Homeland Security, and numerous other Federal officials.
The project revealed, for the first time, $3 billion in undisclosed
Middle Eastern funding--primarily from Qatar--to U.S. universities,
triggering a Federal investigation. The Trump administration then
undertook its own investigation, led by the Department of Education,
and found $6.5 billion in undocumented foreign funding at our colleges
and universities. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/policy/highered/leg/
institutional-compliance-section-117.pdf for the full report.
ISGAP's ongoing research has established that foreign donations
from Qatar, in particular, have had a substantial impact on fomenting
antisemitic discourse and campus politics at U.S. universities, while
also promoting anti-democratic values within these institutions of
higher education. Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7,
2023, these influences have raised serious security concerns with
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
potential domestic and global implications.
It should be noted that Qatar maintains documented political and
ideological ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the transnational
antisemitic and antidemocratic movement that calls for the destruction
of Israel and the killing of Jews and gave rise to Hamas and other
violent extremist affiliates.
Since October 7, 2023, ISGAP has published 12 comprehensive reports
\2\ revealing tens of billions of dollars in foreign funding to U.S.
universities--again, primarily from Qatar--unreported to the Department
of Education. \3\ Our statistical analysis demonstrates a direct
correlation: from 2015-2020, institutions that accepted funding from
authoritarian regimes--including from the Middle East--experienced, on
average, 300 percent more antisemitic incidents than institutions that
did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For a full list of reports, see Follow the Money: Qatar and
the Muslim Brotherhood Funding of Higher Education in the United
States-ISGAP.
\3\ Our most recent report--the 12th installment in the ``Follow
the Money'' series--examines the Choices Program, a national education
initiative for K-12 social studies curriculum housed at Brown
University. The program, which combines licensed curriculum units, free
online content, and professional education workshops, is used by 8,000
schools nationwide, reaching over one million students. Our
investigation uncovered extensive foreign influence and anti-Israel
bias within the Choices curriculum, including undisclosed foreign
funding and systematic distortion of historical facts aimed at
delegitimizing Israel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systematic Evasion of Transparency Requirements
Our investigation also has uncovered systematic efforts to
circumvent existing transparency requirements under Section 117 of the
Higher Education Act. We found that universities have chronically
underreported or entirely omitted foreign gifts and contracts from
mandatory Federal disclosures. Our research also has revealed the
strategic use of third-party foundations, institutes, and businesses to
shield the identities of foreign donors, and that universities
systematically fail to disclose conditions attached to foreign
donations that may compromise academic independence and integrity.
Significant Qatari funding has been provided to numerous
institutions, including Texas A&M, Georgetown, Cornell, Carnegie
Mellon, Northwestern, Virginia Commonwealth, University College London
and HEC Paris--all of which maintain campuses in Doha subsidized by the
Qatar Foundation, which is fully funded by the Government of Qatar. \4\
In addition, Qatar has provided billions of dollars in direct funding
to other myriad universities in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Education City in Qatar.'' https://www.qf.org.qa/education/
education-city.
Despite its close ties to the United States and other Western
countries, Qatar has built an extensive network of Islamist partners.
It endorsed, hosts, supports, and represents the Muslim Brotherhood and
its global agenda; maintains ties with Iran and the Taliban; and
supports and hosts Hamas and its exiled leadership. \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ David B. Roberts, ``Reflecting on Qatar's `Islamist' Soft
Power,'' Policy Brief (2019): https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/
uploads/2019/04/FP--20190408--qatar--roberts.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Studies from Our Research
We published two detailed reports on Texas A&M University, which
operates a satellite campus in Doha, Qatar. These reports reveal that
the agreement between Qatar and Texas A&M involves more than $1 billion
in Qatari funding and more than 500 research projects, some with
potential dual-use applications at the military and nuclear levels. Our
research also revealed that their contractual agreement granted the
Qatar Foundation ownership of all intellectual property for research
projects conducted at the Doha campus, which is particularly concerning
given the potential military applications of some of these projects.
\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Texas-AM-
Qatar.pdf and https://isgap.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/TAMUQ-
Report-Volume-Two-1.pdf for the full reports.
After our first report on Texas A&M was published in November 2023,
the university announced that it would wind down its Doha campus by
2028. Nevertheless, we believe there should be an investigation into
the sensitive research activities undertaken at the campus and that the
terms of the agreement between the university and the Qatari regime
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
should be fully disclosed.
Our comprehensive analysis of Cornell University revealed that
Qatar provided nearly $10 billion to the university between 2001 and
2023, making it the largest direct foreign donor--approximately 30
times larger than Cornell's next largest donor. This massive financial
involvement, directly and indirectly, in funds and in kind raises
serious questions about potential influence over academic priorities
and campus discourse.
Our investigation into Columbia University uncovered that it has
failed to report any of the Qatar funding it has received--estimated to
be at least $7.17 million--to the U.S. Department of Education, despite
being legally required to do so. This non-compliance exemplifies the
systemic transparency problems that plague foreign funding
relationships across American higher education.
In addition, we have published two reports on Students for Justice
in Palestine (SJP), a student-led organization that serves as the
ground troops spreading Hamas's deadly ideology and disrupting
classrooms and campuses nationwide. SJP denies the right of Jewish
self-determination (in other words, the right of Israel to exist in any
form), diminishes and, at times, denies the Holocaust, and supports a
global intifada (violent resistance) against Jews and Israel. \7\ Since
October 7, more SJP rallies and rhetoric actually call for and justify
the violence, mutilation, and rape of so-called ``colonialist
settlers'' of Palestinian land, and blame the violence on their
presence, which necessitates ``resistance'' by any means necessary.
Some SJP chapters have declared their support for terrorist groups such
as Hamas and openly call for the dismantling of Israel as the homeland
of the Jewish people. In fact, the SJP Toolkit, released after October
7, 2023, openly declared themselves to be part of the ``movement''
(which refers to Hamas' October 7 attacks), and not just supporters.
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Students for Justice in Palestine,'' ADL, October 19, 2023,
https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/students-justice-palestine-
sjp.
\8\ ``Day of Resistance Toolkit,'' https://isgap.org/wp-content/
uploads/2023/10/DAY-OF-RESISTANCETOOLKIT.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Tipping Point and Opportunity for Change
We stand at a critical juncture. Students, faculty, and staff face
intimidation at universities worldwide, particularly in the United
States. The demonization of Israel in academia has spilled from
classrooms into campus encampments, and from there onto subways,
streets, airports, and even to the homes of Jewish leaders and
journalists.
The tipping point is the normalization of antisemitism within
intellectual circles and campus culture, where young Americans are
shaped into citizens and future leaders. When hatred toward Jewish
people becomes acceptable in these formative environments, we risk
poisoning generations of minds at their most impressionable stage,
threatening not just Jewish communities but the very foundations of a
tolerant, democratic society.
Within this crisis lies a tremendous opportunity for change. With
that in mind, I respectfully offer the following recommendations:
congressional Oversight: Convene additional hearings
in relevant committees to understand Qatar's aggressive
investment strategies and assess its influence on Western
democratic values and security.
University Investigation: Examine institutions
receiving Qatari funding to assess impacts on education,
curriculum, scholarship, and campus discourse, particularly
regarding antisemitism.
Financial Accountability: Investigate systematic
underreporting of foreign donations to U.S. universities and
pursue appropriate action against non-compliance, including
examining correlations between funding and increasing
antisemitism. ISGAP strongly supports the DETERRENT Act as a
balanced approach to strengthening transparency while
preserving legitimate international collaboration at our
colleges and universities.
Enhanced Transparency: Enact stronger laws requiring
comprehensive public disclosure of any foreign contracts,
grants, and donations received by U.S. universities, including
collaborative projects, travel sponsorships, endowed faculty
positions, and any attached conditions.
Definitional Clarity: Adopt the IHRA Working
Definition of Antisemitism as an educational tool across
government agencies, educational institutions, and civil
society.
Educational Initiatives: Develop comprehensive
programs about critical study of contemporary antisemitism, the
Holocaust, and Jewish contributions to American society for
public schools.
Civil Rights Enforcement: Ensure full funding and
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect
Jewish students from discrimination. In addition, colleges and
universities must be more proactive in providing for the safety
and security of Jewish students on their campuses, as well as
for other students who are being affected by the toxic
atmosphere on campuses.
Conclusion
Antisemitism threatens not only Jewish Americans but the
pluralistic, democratic values that define our Nation. Confronting this
ancient hatred in its contemporary forms requires a coordinated
approach across government, academia, and civil society, as the scourge
now permeates American education, from the classroom to the encampments
to our streets.
I commend this Committee for its attention to this crucial issue
and stand ready to provide any additional information or assistance as
you continue your important work.
I welcome any questions you may have about our research findings or
recommendations.
Thank you.
APPENDIX: FULL LISTING OF ISGAP ``FOLLOW THE MONEY'' REPORTS
``The Qatari Regime, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood'' lays out
the history and the ideological tenets of the Muslim Brotherhood as
well as its relationship and connections to Hamas and Qatar.
``Networks of Hate'' exposes the deceptive tactics and means with
which Qatar, which is linked to the Muslim Brotherhood, funnel funds
into academia and civil society, how universities are bypassing U.S.
government reporting requirements, and how companies such as Al Jazeera
are averting FARA requirements.
``The Corruption of the American Mind'' assesses the impact of
foreign funding on antisemitism and anti-democratic politics on campus.
``The Ongoing Failure to Report'' raises concerns about
transparency and accountability within higher education (in this case
Yale), particularly regarding financial dealings with foreign entities.
``Hijacking Higher Education, Qatar, The Muslim Brotherhood, and
Texas A&M, Volume I and Volume II'' reveal why unrestricted access of
Qatar and its state-owned entities to Texas A&M University's sensitive
research might pose a potential national security risk.
``Cornell University's Ten Billion Dollar Sale'' exposes the scale
of Qatari funding to Cornell, with over $1.95 billion donated directly
to the university from 2001 to 2023, making it the largest direct
foreign donor to the university--some 30 times higher than the next
largest donor.
``National Students for Justice in Palestine: Antisemitism, Anti-
Americanism, Violent Extremism and the Threat to American
Universities'' delves into the roots of antisemitism within SJP, its
connections to violence and terrorism, and its alarming rise in
influence since the Hamas attack in Israel on October 7. The report
also reveals ``over $3 million a year'' of funding for the NSJP linked
to organizations accused of funding Hamas. See ISGAP report on SJP from
2019 here.
``Columbia University From the Classroom to Campus Politics: The
Normalization of Antisemitism, Anti-Democratic Politics,
Marginalization, and Intimidation'' notes that despite being legally
required to do so, Columbia University has not reported any of the
Qatari funding (estimated to be at least $7.17 million) it has received
to the U.S. Department of Education's reporting system and makes no
mention of any connections between Columbia University and Qatar or
Qatari entities in its financial statements.
``The Ongoing Failure to Report: Yale University, Qatar and
Undisclosed Foreign Funding - Volume Two'' reveals substantial
unreported collaboration between Yale and Qatar both at the
institutional level and among university staff; for example, the report
shows that since 2012, Yale has only declared one grant from Qatar in
the amount of $284,668 but is estimated to have received approximately
$15,925,711 from Qatar during that time.
``South Africa, Hamas, Iran, and Qatar: The Hijacking of the ANC
and the International Court of Justice'' sheds light on how the
alliance of terror and radical Islam are using South Africa and the
people's valiant historical legacy of struggle, as a critical node in
global terrorist financing networks. Crucially, the report connects
South Africa's political and financial alignment with Iran and Qatar--
both leading supporters of global terrorism--with its campaign to bring
a legal case against Israel at the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
``Foreign Influence and Anti-Israel Bias in K-12 Classrooms''
examines the Choices Program, a national education initiative for K-12
social studies curriculum housed at Brown University that combines
licensed curriculum units, free online content, and professional
education workshops. Choices is used by 8,000 schools nationwide,
reaching over one million students. Our investigation reveals extensive
foreign influence and anti-Israel bias in the curriculum, and that it
operates with undisclosed foreign funding and has been found to
systematically distort historical facts to delegitimize Israel.
______
[summary statement of dr. charles asher small]
As Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of Global
Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP), I will present evidence on the root
causes of the alarming rise of antisemitism on college campuses.
Founded in 2004 with Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel, ISGAP is the only
global research institute specifically focused on identifying and
countering antisemitic narratives in academia.
Our research reveals that antisemitism has moved from fringe groups
into mainstream academic discourse. Since the October 7th Hamas attack,
antisemitic incidents have surged 360 percent according to the ADL,
with 83 percent of Jewish college students reporting experiencing or
witnessing antisemitism on campus.
ISGAP's ``Follow the Money'' project has uncovered a disturbing
correlation between foreign funding--primarily from Qatar--and campus
antisemitism. In 2019, we revealed $3 billion in undisclosed Middle
Eastern funding to U.S. universities, triggering a Federal
investigation. Our statistical analysis shows institutions accepting
funding from authoritarian regimes--including in the Middle East--
experienced 300 percent more antisemitic incidents than those that did
not (2015-2020).
Since October 7, 2023, ISGAP has published 12 comprehensive reports
revealing tens of billions of dollars in foreign funding to U.S.
universities--again, primarily from Qatar--unreported to the Department
of Education. ISGAP's research has established that this funding has
had a substantial impact on fomenting antisemitic discourse and campus
politics at U.S. universities, while also promoting antidemocratic
values.
Our investigations have found that universities have chronically
underreported or entirely omitted foreign gifts and contracts from
mandatory Federal disclosures required under Section 117 of the Higher
Education Act, including: more than $1 billion from Qatar to Texas A&M;
nearly $2 billion from Qatar to Cornell University between 2001-2023;
and an estimated $7.17 million in Qatari funding to Columbia
University.
It should be noted that Qatar maintains documented political and
ideological ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, the transnational
antisemitic and antidemocratic movement that gave rise to Hamas and
other violent extremist affiliates, raising questions about the impact
of this funding on campus discourse and academic independence.
Our key recommendations include:
1. Increased congressional oversight of foreign influence in
higher education;
2. Investigation of institutions of higher education that are
receiving Qatari funding;
3. Enhanced transparency laws for foreign funding disclosure;
4. Adoption of the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism;
5. Development of educational programs about antisemitism; and
6. Full funding and enforcement of Title VI protections for
Jewish students, as well as ensuring the safety and security of
Jewish students on campus.
______
The Chairman. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our next witness
is Rabbi David Saperstein, the Director Emeritus of the
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism. Rabbi Saperstein has
served as Director and Counsel for the Religious Action Center
of Reform for 40 years. Rabbi, thank you very much for being
with us and you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF RABBI DAVID SAPERSTEIN, DIRECTOR EMERITUS,
RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER OF REFORM JUDAISM, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Saperstein. Chair Cassidy----
Senator Sanders. Turn the mic on please.
Mr. Saperstein. Chair Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders,
distinguished Members of this important Committee, as a rabbi,
a First Amendment lawyer, a civil rights advocator, a diplomat
having served as the United States Ambassador for International
Religious Freedom, I have engaged in a career of fighting for
religious freedom and equal rights for all fighting against
discrimination of any group because of their identity.
The foundational lesson I take from this half century of
work is that we cannot counter and delegitimize hatred against
any one group unless we counter hate against all, which I think
is embodied in Elie Wiesel's quote that you gave. So, to
countering Antisemitism.
At this period of unprecedented levels of Antisemitism in
our society, on the campuses--I won't go into. You've described
it very, very well here. And there are distinctive aspects to
fighting Antisemitism and we should accept nothing less than
every Jewish student being safe.
It doesn't mean you are going to be free of hearing speech
that you are deeply troubled by and find offensive, but I want
to say it again, we should accept nothing less than every
Jewish student being safe on their campuses. And we cannot
ensure that Jewish students are safe on campus until all
students are safe unless the mechanisms against discrimination
are robust enough to support all protected groups.
Unless we effectively address the broadest spread of hate
speech, hate crimes, dehumanization, demonization,
discrimination, ostracization against all those who are so
victimized. Hate speech and hate crimes are intended to tear at
the threads that hold our society together. Haters seek to
undermine the comity and unity of Americans. Our responses must
not add to those divisions.
Any attempts to secure the rights and safety for Jews that
undercuts the rule of law, that weakens our public schools or
higher education, that further divides our Nation in college
campuses undermines the very principles and institutions,
undermines the democracy that have made it possible for Jews to
flourish with more rights, more freedoms, more opportunities,
more achievements in this country than Jews have ever known in
diaspora life.
But sadly, alarmingly a number of recent actions against
judges, law firms, defunding universities, ignoring of judicial
rulings, stripping due process in acting against protesters,
the dismantling of the Department of Education's Office of
Civil Rights, and the subsequent loss of its knowledgeable
professionals seems to be doing exactly that. The
Administration should build on not abandon successful
approaches that have shaped and embraced by prior
Administrations of both parties.
Improving consistent comprehensive reporting of
Antisemitism. Strengthening security resources for vulnerable
nonprofits and for religious life on our campuses. Expanding
support for strong Holocaust history of Antisemitism, anti-bias
education on campuses--in our society.
Pressing social media platforms to curb Antisemitism and
Holocaust denial and other expressions of group hate. And
continuing vigorous efforts in identifying Antisemitism,
enforcing existing education, anti-discrimination, and hate
crimes laws. As to the last of these recommendations, I would
leave it to my colleague to talk about how IHRA should and
should not be used to affect that.
There is unity across political and ideological lines on
what constitutes most Antisemitic speech and action. There are
however different views about when expressing substantive
criticism of Israel's policies and actions steps over the line
into Antisemitism, or just maybe right or wrong on its merits.
Whichever side of that line the speech may fall on, our law
is clear against intimidation or harassment or threats
regardless of the content of the speech targeting. For example,
it is protected speech, even if deeply objectionable speech, to
assert that Israel is an apartheid state or guilty of genocide.
But whenever a Jewish student is taunted, blamed, or
accused of supporting apartheid or genocide because they are
Jewish, this constitutes discrimination because of their
religion, national origin, shared ancestry. The same principle
would apply to a student who looked to be Muslim or Arab being
taunted for being a terrorist or Jihad supporter.
As well as the Jewish student wearing a yarmulke facing
taunts saying no Zionists are welcomed here. How many babies
have you killed today? One key aspect of fighting Antisemitism
that is in the Committee's purview is we know the higher the
levels of education, the less likely to hold racist or
Antisemitic attitudes.
It is not an inoculation. We are looking at politicized
forms of Antisemitism on our campuses here. But for 340 million
Americans, it is true, according to all these studies, the
higher level of education, the less racist and Antisemitic.
Finally this, above all to succeed, political leaders of both
parties, civic religious leaders, their communities must come
together if we are to make hate have no place in America.
As Rabbi Stacy Friedman observed in conclusion, it is our
compassion, our common humanity, that defines us. It is a
very--the way people have united as allies and partners and
standing up against such hatred that defines us. It is the
support so many have shown one another after each attack that
ultimately defines us. It is the love and tears we have shed
for one another at our vigils, that is what defines us, and I
hope to defines Congress's work as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saperstein follows:]
prepared statement of david saperstein
Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, Distinguished Members of
this important Committee.
I am a rabbi who for decades represented the largest denomination
in American Jewish life in its public policy and social justice work. I
am a lawyer who taught both Jewish Law and Church State constitutional
law at Georgetown Law School for over 35 years. I had the immense honor
to work closely with a number of you and many of your colleagues across
party lines as the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious Freedom.
I have chaired two Federal commissions dealing with religious freedom
and human trafficking, and have served on the boards of major civil
rights organizations including decades on the national boards of the
NAACP and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. One constant
theme throughout all of those decades, in all of these honored roles,
was fighting for equal rights for all, and fighting against
discrimination of any group because of their immutable characteristics
or a core identity. The foundational lesson I take from this half
century of work is that hatred against any group cannot be stopped,
cannot be thwarted, cannot be delegitimized, and cannot be changed into
comity and understanding, unless we succeed in protection for all, and
in countering hate against all.
It is clear to me that this is true of the effort to counter
antisemitism. We cannot ensure that Jewish students are safe on campus
until all students are safe. We cannot effectively bar discrimination
against Jews, unless the mechanisms against discrimination are robust
enough to bar discrimination against all protected groups. We cannot
counter hate crimes against Jews unless we effectively address the
spread of hate speech, hate crimes, dehumanization, demonization and
discrimination against all those who are so victimized. Often called
the world's oldest hate, we Jews have been victims of antisemitism in
so many forms, the quintessential victims throughout human history of
religious persecution. We have faced repeated efforts to destroy us, to
ethnically cleanse us not only from our historic homeland, but from
many nations and communities in which we sought refuge. We have
experienced centuries of pogroms, banishment, persecution, and second-
class citizenry--simply because of the way we worshiped God, because of
our vision of ethical monotheism, and because of our ties to a 3000-
year-old historic homeland. And since the age of reason, we so often
have been the canary in the coal mine of group hatred in the nations in
which we have dwelled.
Today in America we see antisemitism reach its highest levels since
the ADL and FBI began tracking statistics. Eighty three percent of
Jewish students, according to the ADL, say they have witnessed
antisemitism this past year. We are hearing hate speech against Jews
and witnessing antisemitic actions against Jews in America and across
the globe that we never dreamed of, and hoped after the Holocaust, we
would hear or see again in our lifetimes.
Yet again, it is not just Jews who are affected. We have seen in
our own Country not just an explosive growth in antisemitism, but a
terrible multiplying of hate groups and the spread of hate speech and
hate acts. We see hate acts against Asians, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians,
LGBTQ+, women, African Americans, and immigrants in escalating numbers.
And in America, as well as throughout the world, we have witnessed the
degradation of civil discourse, first in the dark corners of the
internet and then more publicly, exacerbated by the anonymity of social
media and the stamp of approval of such rhetoric by too many leaders in
our Nation, in nations across the globe.
This hate speech has inspired hate crimes. And the damage such
speech and crimes inflict on their victims--and on America--can be
great and requires both a national and a communal response. Hate crimes
are more than mere acts of violence. They are more than murders,
beatings, arsons, and desecrations. Hate crimes are nothing less than
attacks on the values that are the pillars of our republic and the
guarantors of our freedom. They are a betrayal of the promise of
America. They erode our national well-being. Those who commit these
crimes do so fully intending to tear at the too-often frayed threads of
diversity that bind us together and make us strong. They seek to divide
and conquer us. They seek to tear us apart from within, pitting
American against American, fomenting violence and civil discord.
Yet that, distinguished Members of this Committee, seems to be
exactly what we are witnessing, on the one hand, in the explosive
spread of antisemitism on campuses and, on the other, in the response
to protests against Israel's policies without thoughtful regard to
setting clear lines as to when exercise of free speech and the right to
protest criticism steps over the line into antisemitism. And this has
inflamed rather than constructively helped address the antisemitism
that Jews face today.
In the end, whether nationally or globally, we must confront,
delegitimize and combat antisemitism--embracing the paradox that
antisemitism has distinctive characteristics and is capable of taking
on a life of its own regardless of what happens in the rest of society.
Yet simultaneously recognizing that unless we ensure freedom, equality
and security for all peoples and all religions, and bring an end to
hate speech and hate crimes against any vulnerable group--America's
Jews will never be safe.
I submit to you the following:
This nation has given Jews more rights, more freedom, more
opportunities than we have known in 2500 years of diaspora life. Three
things relevant to our conversations today were indispensable in
achieving that for American Jews:
First, the rule of law at the heart of our democracy and our
constitutional system of government.
Second, the framers' commitment to the separation of church and
state and to religious freedom that, combined, created for the first
time in human history, a nation in which one's rights as a citizen
would not depend on one's religious identity, beliefs or peaceful
practices. It took the Supreme Court's robust interpretation of the
religion clauses in the mid-20th century and the core civil rights
protections forged by the Court and the Congress to fulfill that
promise, but in the 20th century it changed everything for Jews.
The third was the public schools of America and the system of
Higher Education, which has been one of the glories of America. When
higher educational institutions finally dropped their Jewish quotas
limiting Jewish students and faculty, it opened unprecedented
floodgates of opportunity and achievement for American Jewry.
Painfully now, under the guise of fighting antisemitism, we are
witnessing attacks on all of these foundational aspects that have
contributed to making America so special. Several factors exacerbate
this divisiveness.
First, so much of the current Administration's focus is only on
antisemitism from the left such as antisemitism related to pro-
Palestinian protests particularly since the horrific attacks of Oct 7th
and Israel's response. Yet most of the deadliest attacks against Jews
in America's history from the lynching of Leo Franks to the
Charlottesville ``Jews will not replace us'' rally to the Tree of Life
tragic murders came from neo-Nazi or white supremacist groups. Some of
the worst antisemitic rhetoric in American history came from center
right figures like Father Coughlin, America Firster Charles Lindberg,
and Henry Ford.
Part of this seems reflected in the Heritage Foundation's Project
Esther: A National Strategy to Combat Antisemitism, which seems to
have, like the rest of Project 2025, a significant impact on the
shaping of the Administration's actions. It focuses almost entirely on
what it refers to as ``an active cabal of Jew-haters, Israel-haters and
America-haters in Washington all apparently aligned with the far
left.''
I acknowledge that, of course, there is antisemitism on campuses
that comes from the left, but can we all agree that we need to address
antisemitism from both the right and the left? And we won't effectively
address antisemitism on campuses unless we address antisemitism more
broadly throughout America, from the left and from the right.
Second, there are numerous constructive steps that can be taken by
the Department of Education that have been successful in the past. They
should be built on, not abandoned. The Department of Education's Office
for Civil Rights has previously reached agreements with universities to
tackle antisemitic harassment and other expressions of antisemitism.
These agreements involve commitments to update discrimination policies,
provide better training, conduct assessments, and establish reporting
mechanisms, outlining demonstrable limits on protests and consistently
enforce those limits. They illustrate how civil rights frameworks can
be applied without undermining free speech by enforcing reasonable
restrictions (including time, place, manner restrictions) on
expression, regardless of content. In contrast, we now see a financial
sledgehammer approach that threatens to undermine higher education
institutions that have not adequately addressed antisemitism.
Third, the decision to gut the Department of Education and its OCR
office is truly counterproductive for effectively countering
antisemitism on campuses. To dismantle the system which has allowed for
Jewish students to report instances of antisemitism highlights the
Administration's misguided approach to addressing what we have
witnessed on college campuses. There must be significantly greater
resources provided to government agencies to allow them to investigate
all forms of discrimination and hate crimes including antisemitism. It
is far better that these cases be addressed by people with educational
knowledge and experience, and not simply by law enforcement. The
decision to fire hundreds of experienced employees from the Department
of Education's Office of Civil Rights who know how universities
function, what their needs are, and how to effect change--to fire the
very employees who are tasked with investigating and enforcing civil
rights law on campus--has decimated one of the few channels available
for students to take action and report their experiences, especially in
the context of unreceptive university leadership.
Truly addressing antisemitism, as the original version of the
Countering Antisemitism Act sought to do (in contrast to the mostly
symbolic Antisemitism Awareness Act), required significantly expanding
funding to strengthen more responsive reporting mechanisms and to bring
on significantly more investigatory staff to engage more expeditiously
in investigations of every complaint about antisemitism they receive,
as well as addressing similar discriminatory occurrences against other
protected groups. This would allow for the resolution of such
complaints constructively with universities--not by defunding critical
institutions or suppressing speech.
I am confident that every one of you here, across political lines,
shares my heartbreak that antisemitism has spread so rapidly over the
past few years in the U.S., Europe, and across the globe. I am
confident that every one of you here shares my heartbreak that
antisemitism has spread so rapidly over the past 6 years in the U.S.
And I am confident that there is no partisan divide when it comes to
recognizing almost all forms of antisemitism: murders of Jews at
worship, assaults, desecrations of synagogues and cemeteries, bullying,
harassment, discrimination and ostracization of Jews from any area of
public life. I am confident that you believe as well that every
vulnerable and marginalized group is entitled to the exact same
protections.
It is because of our concerns for and about Israel, which is both a
political state that should be judged and held to the same standard as
every other democracy (one of the requirements I would note of the IHRA
definition's examples), and an expression of national identity to a
group with a distinctive religious identity--that we see sharp
differences in how to balance legitimate criticism of Israel with the
protections afforded to every religious group.
The Administration's actions such as the detention and planned
deportation of Muhammed Khalil gravely damage fundamental due process
rights that help make anti-terrorism laws effective and viable, not
weaker. I may be deeply opposed to Muhammed Khalil's views and actions.
You may find them anathematic. The Administration may well be genuinely
appalled. But advocating positions, even positions you might find
reprehensible, is not a crime.
The Administration is rounding up people with no evidence of crimes
or even of violating the standard of damage to foreign policy and
national security they have cited. In doing so they attack the very
values and legal protections that have protected Jewish communities
throughout American history. Antisemitism--the hatred of Jews as Jews--
thrives in authoritarian environments where civil liberties are
curtailed, not in spaces of robust, protected democratic discourse.
Jews have been safest in pluralistic democracies and most at risk when
those democracies have been weakened or abandoned as with Nazi Germany.
We must balance protecting every Americans' right to live free from
discrimination and harassment with the bedrock principles of free
speech. Unfortunately, we continue to see an overemphasis on punitive
measures rather than on educational and community building approaches
that can prevent antisemitic incidents from occurring in the first
place.
Far too much time is spent on how to punish someone who expresses
antisemitic ideas or engages in antisemitic acts. We need more time
spent on preventing these instances from occurring in the first place,
and creating constructive responses that will bring greater
understanding and solidarity against such incidents when they take
place.
In past hearings there has been much debate about how to draw the
line between criticism of Israel and Israel's policies--even harsh
criticism, unfair criticism, and offensive criticism-and when such
criticism crosses the line into antisemitism. And I want to explore how
the debate over IHRA and other definitions intersects with this line
drawing. But before I do, we should recognize that practically
speaking, a number of universities and others have revised policy
guidance to accommodate the impact of incidents we are seeing in which
protests against Israeli government policy or actions has targeted Jews
because of their identity.
A broad swath of the Jewish community and other important leaders
are rallying behind some clear recommendations of what can be done on
college campuses to effectively address antisemitism that will minimize
division and offer common ground between those holding different
positions on American politics in general and on Israel and Israel's
policies.
Let me start with recommendations:
Several years ago, a broad range of major Jewish organizations--
American Jewish Congress, Anti-Defamation League, Hebrew Immigrant Aid
Society, National Council of Jewish Women, Rabbinical Assembly, and
World Jewish Congress together representing the vast majority of
affiliated American Jews--all supported the IHRA definition as an
effective educational, training and monitoring tool--as I should say I
did when I served as the U.S. Ambassador for International Religious
Freedom and urged it as the standard for nations across the globe, who
had little experience in confronting growing antisemitism to follow.
These organizations came up with six core recommendations of how
Congress, the Administration, and other entities could effectively
respond to the crisis of antisemitism. The sixth recommendation was to
affirm IHRA as it was intended--not as a legal standard but a valuable
tool in the education and training of government officials, law
enforcement, and institutional civic leaders on how to identify
antisemitism. All opposed it as a formal legal standard. Indeed, the
organizations, when adopting the definition made it absolutely clear
this should not be codified as a legal standard. The battles over its
adoption have proven to be a major distraction from all the other steps
that must be taken if we are to be effective--exactly the concern that
led all these organizations to send this letter to Congress and the
Administration.
The statement lays out additional urgent priorities including:
Improved reporting (in which the IHRA definition
plays a particularly important role), making it more
comprehensive and consistent at the local, state and Federal
levels;
Stronger government/private sector partnerships aimed
at enhancing Jewish communal security--for our vulnerable
religious, civic, and communal institutions;
Expanded support for strong Holocaust education and
anti-bias education (this has to start in pre-university
education, but it includes such efforts on the university
campuses);
Urging social media platforms to curb antisemitism,
Holocaust denial, and harassment (which today has much weaker
constraints than when we wrote that letter); and
Continued, vigorous efforts in identifying
antisemitism (again, in which the IHRA definition can play a
constructive role) and enforcing existing education, anti-
discrimination, and hate crimes laws.
The full letter with numerous recommendations on behalf of these
major diverse Jewish organizations is attached in the appendix.
Almost all of our recommendations were fully realized in the last
Administration's National Strategy on Countering Antisemitism.
Bipartisan embrace is merited for this national strategy with its very
specific steps to be taken (and with later detailed reports from every
single agency of the executive branch of what actually was
implemented). Never before in 2500 years of Jewish Diaspora life had
there been a whole of government, a whole of society response to
protect the Jews of that nation. Never. That it too became a partisan
weapon is truly a shanda as the Yiddish phrase goes--a shameful
scandal.
I would add to these a number of other recommendations especially
aimed at university settings. One goal I have, as I hear from rabbis,
parents and students, on some campuses, of how fearful Jewish students
are of being harassed and discriminated against, is to ensure that
Jewish students feel safe on campus. But feeling safe from threats,
harassment, or discrimination does not inoculate students from hearing
speech (whether in protests or elsewhere) that they may find deeply
offensive. Toward those ends:
Universities must promote clear standards as to what
is protected speech and what steps over the line of what the
university's rules permit. These standards should both bar
verbal harassment, specific threats, intimidation, and
incitement for violent action, even while affirming academic
freedom and freedom of speech for individuals and groups and
eschewing punishment as a response to the expression of
political content--even deeply offensive political speech--that
is devoid of the factors I listed.
For how protests are allowed and what limits are
imposed when the protests interfere with others' access to
their educational classes or activities or involve the kind of
speech barred above.
Standards must be publicly transparent and
consistently enforced.
Safe spaces for difficult conversations must be
created in both academic settings and programmatic settings on
campus.
As Prof. David Myers of UCLA recently explained,
universities should support academically rigorous courses
teaching about the Middle East. This may include courses that
focus on different aspects in ways that evoke criticism and
concern. But if it meets academic standards, it should be
allowed. Obviously presenting courses in which different
perspectives are shared not only provides a richer educational
experience, but allows the university to model a sense of
commitment to academic freedom, free speech, and respectful
debates over differences, expressing a spirit of unity and
cooperation.
Universities should support courses on campus that
examine the history of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism not
in total isolation, but rather as contiguous and overlapping
phenomena.
An advancement of educational initiatives that
promote understanding of antisemitism's historical
manifestations and contemporary forms across the political
spectrum.
There should be content moderation on online
platforms both as to what is posted, and under what
circumstances there would be consequences for posting content
that violates university policy.
A general point on responding to violations of university speech
and protest codes: University responses do not necessarily need to be
legal punishments such as expulsion or arrest. Indeed, calling the
police should be a last resort, not a first resort of universities,
particularly where overt violence is not involved. When someone steps
over the line of antisemitic speech out of ignorance, education may be
the proper response. When it is a first offense as opposed to
consistent speech or activity, counseling or mediation may be a
constructive approach that brings campuses together rather than divides
them. When that fails, then disciplinary steps or legal consequences
should follow.
However, even when hateful, divisive speech is protected,
universities should make a decision when to speak out critically of
such occurrences and when it should act in solidarity with those
vulnerable and marginalized individuals and groups which were targeted.
Understanding the Purpose of Definitions
We know antisemitism today can arise from numerous sources:
Primarily, three at this moment in history: the radical populist right
in varied countries across the globe. These groups, including the white
Christian nationalist right, are the source of much of the violent hate
in America including antisemitic violence. Second, are Islamist groups,
often related to Israel, sometimes not. And finally, left-oriented
criticism usually connected with Israel, felt in some progressive
political and advocacy circles, on some college campuses, and in a
number of European countries--all greatly intensified after Oct 7th.
All remain serious threats.
Those from the left and from Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian sources
are in good measure focused on the relation of Jews with Israel, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the intense reactions, as I noted
earlier, to the brutal massacre of Oct 7th, the resulting hostage
crisis, and the devastation that has been inflicted against the people
of Gaza by a combination of Israel's military onslaught and Hamas' use
of its civilian population as human shields for its military
infrastructure.
There is an intense discussion today among those engaged in
fighting antisemitism as to what is the proper definition of
antisemitism. Right now, three variants are receiving a lot of
attention, analysis, and debate, albeit there are other such efforts
proposed by academics, organizations, and experts of all kinds. Listen
to the three major ones, and please listen for what they all have in
common in the protection of Jews, as Jews. They are virtually
interchangeable.
There is the well accepted definition of the International
Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition:
Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be
expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical
manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or
non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish
community institutions and religious facilities.'' [Just to
explain, the reference to non-Jewish individuals refers to
those who were targeted with antisemitism by perpetrators who
erroneously thought the non-Jews were Jews.
This definition, which calls itself a ``non-legally binding
definition'' is, of course, widely accepted cumulatively by hundreds of
nations, localities, corporations, and some universities, although the
rate of universities adopting IHRA has fallen significantly with only a
handful in the last 2 years.
Second, is the Nexus definition, a project first of a USC
taskforce, which has now moved to Bard College. I should acknowledge it
is an enterprise with which I am associated. Its authors and
promulgators have emphasized that it is not intended to be an
alternative to IHRA, but a complement or supplement. The definitions
are not all that different, but they would argue that their examples
are more up to date and useful in clarifying where to draw lines
between criticism of Israel that is not antisemitic and that which is.
The NEXUS materials are included in the appendix.
The definition reads:
Antisemitism consists of anti-Jewish beliefs, attitudes,
actions or systemic conditions. It includes negative beliefs
and feelings about Jews, hostile behavior directed against Jews
(because they are Jews), and conditions that discriminate
against Jews and significantly impede their ability to
participate as equals in political, religious, cultural,
economic, or social life.
Third, is the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism definition,
which is even shorter:
Antisemitism is discrimination, prejudice, hostility or
violence against Jews as Jews (or Jewish institutions as
Jewish).
Add to that the concise descriptions of antisemitism that parallel
these definitions such as the SPLC's description of antisemitism,
T'ruah's in its ``Guide to Combating Antisemitism'' (T'ruah is a
national rabbinic social justice group), and even the U.S. National
Strategy itself, which does not offer examples, but which reads:
Antisemitism is a stereotypical and negative perception of
Jews, which may be expressed as hatred of Jews. It is
prejudice, bias, hostility, discrimination, or violence against
Jews for being Jews or Jewish institutions or property for
being Jewish or perceived as Jewish. Antisemitism can manifest
as a form of racial, religious, national origin, and/or ethnic
discrimination, bias, or hatred; or, a combination thereof.
However, antisemitism is not simply a form of prejudice or
hate. It is also a pernicious conspiracy theory that often
features myths about Jewish power and control.
It is not the definitions that are the major differences; they are
virtually interchangeable. It is in the line drawn as manifested in
their examples of how the definitions themselves ought to be applied to
real-life situations.
Why is a debate over definitions important: on the one hand, an
answer is ``how do you fight antisemitism, how do you take legal action
against antisemitism, if we can't identify what it is?'' Wouldn't it be
extremely helpful in our battle against antisemitism, if everyone had a
common understanding of what antisemitism is?
That was one of the goals when I was at the State Department and we
decided--and I strongly supported--to endorse IHRA as the international
standard we would push globally. To countries with little or no
understanding of antisemitism, and others with inconsistent standards,
it was indeed helpful to have them adopt a definition to recognize
antisemitism when it arose in their nations. I would point out that
none of the countries adopted it as a legal standard, but rather used
it as intended--as an educational, training, and monitoring tool.
It is hard to think of any country in which IHRA was used as the
standard underlying legal action, and when the UK tried to force
universities to accept and use it, it evoked a divisive firestorm. We
must remember that at the time it was drafted, IHRA was the only
definition, forged for the European context, particularly in the
context of the Second Intifada and the intense controversies
surrounding antisemitism, Jews, and Israel that erupted at the 2001
World Conference Against Racism held in Durban. IHRA guidance was
helpful in thinking through these new expressions of antisemitism.
On the other hand, critics argue, it was crafted 20 years ago and
the world has changed, leaving its examples outdated, and vague enough
with IHRA's caveat that their application had to be applied in context,
without much guidance on what that meant. Further, critics argue, they
are outdated or seen differently today as to whether they actually are
``good examples'' or ``flawed examples'' of antisemitism. (This is
precisely why neither IHRA nor any other definitions ought to be
codified as law, rather than as an educational, training, and
monitoring tool they were all intended to be.)
Among the most criticized of the IHRA examples are:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-
determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State
of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Applying double standards by requiring of it a
behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic
nation.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to
that of the Nazis.
I'll touch on the other two later, but just for a moment, let's
focus on the double standard example.
The problem is the ambiguity of the phrase ``double standard''. If
what that is saying is that if you would treat Israel by different
standards than you would another country if you were addressing the
same problems in that other country, then I agree that crosses the
line. But the wording ``expected or demanded'' has led to an alarming
misuse of the definition, leading to accusations that people or
organizations that criticize Israel alone or Israel more than other
nations that do much worse things, are antisemitic. But clearly, there
are many reasons an individual or group would focus or address only a
single country or a single conflict. Many Jews may be Zionists focusing
on Israel in ways we don't focus on other nations, condemning Hamas but
not Boko Haram, which kills many more people through terrorist attacks
than Hamas. So too American Palestinians have a right to focus on the
suffering of the Palestinians in Gaza even if they do not comment on
the humanitarian crisis in Sudan with far more people displaced and
facing starvation than in Gaza. Or someone may feel we give billions to
Israel that we don't give to other countries, and thus we are
implicated in Israel's actions if we feel they are immoral and feel
compelled to speak out in a way we don't regarding other nations. Or a
Christian or Muslim may feel the Holy Land is precious to billions of
people across the globe--again, justifying focusing on Israel more than
other countries.
On the other hand, the standards for Israel to be measured by
international law must be the same as those that would apply to others
when they are evaluated. So those entities like the U.N. Human Rights
Council in Geneva or Human Rights Watch, or Amnesty International, who
are charged to assess human rights abuses everywhere should treat every
country and all similar abuses equally. The fact that the U.N. Human
Rights Council often has a majority of their resolutions in a given
year condemning Israel, while there are horrible oppressions across the
globe that get scant attention in comparison is clearly an example of a
double standard that does cross the line into antisemitism. The
examples used by those propagating other definitions do a better job in
making such distinctions. But the imprecision of the double standard
provision of IHRA has been used by diverse parties to affirm almost all
of these variant positions.
The three biggest objections to the adoption of IHRA, is first, it
was never intended as a legal standard to determine antisemitism, but
rather a tool for training and education as a ``non-legally binding''
standard. But in states, localities, corporations, and universities, it
is often presented as being the standard that will have the force of
law and enforcement. Some of the groups that oppose its codification
turn a blind eye to efforts to adopt it when it is used as the legal
standard.
Since all of IHRA's examples address speech, it has been accused of
being used to stifle freedom of speech and freedom to protest, and to
interfere with academic freedom.
Universities are caught in a dilemma. On the one hand, they are
committed to ``free speech'' and ``academic freedom'' for all,
including faculty. On the other hand, they have an obligation to
``protect students'' and provide them ``a safe environment.'' What
those terms mean and how to balance them when they collide is the
vexing challenge every university faces and adopting IHRA is, on the
face of it, neither a particular help nor detriment--albeit outside
forces may launch complaints citing IHRA in ways that do significantly
threaten the free speech side of that balancing act.
Further, critics say: we don't hear debates on ``definitions'' of
racism, misogyny, anti-Asian hate, or LGBTQ+ hate. One reason
universities fear adopting IHRA is that soon other constituencies will
be pushing for definitions of the racism targeting them, bringing with
it all the intense divisive battles over those definitions, their
examples, and their implementation that have raged over IHRA. Like it
or not, the issue of definitions and IHRA is emotionally charged,
thoroughly unresolved, and divisive within a number of stakeholder
communities, and even within the Jewish community. How does it bring a
university together, how does adopting such a contentious position then
help bring the university community together to oppose antisemitism.
Finally, imagine everyone adopted it, what really would the
difference be? Consider: Very few of the most controversial
manifestations of antisemitism in America, Kanye West, Tree of Life,
desecration of synagogues, attacks on Jews on the streets for wearing
yarmulkes, or an attack on Jews at a restaurant for being supporters of
Israel--how often do we ever hear IHRA mentioned by anyone as being
needed to identify that these were antisemitic acts, or when has it
ever been needed in the prosecution, prevention, and communal responses
to such occurrences?
Hate, even hate aimed at a protected class, is, of course, not a
crime. Harassment, stalking, overt threats, vandalism, assaults, or
discrimination against a protected class including Jews under many
laws, incitement to imminent violence--may well be crimes. Of course,
neither IHRA nor any definition is relevant to establishing whether
such a crime has been committed. And there are very few, if any, cases
where prosecutors or judges in considering antisemitism in the
sentencing phase have ever felt they needed to evaluate whether the
hate met the standards of the IHRA definition to determine it was a
hate crime.
This is a diversion from the real work that needs to be done.
Antisemitism on the Left: Drawing Lines on BDS, Anti-Zionism, and
Apartheid
Let me then turn to the challenges of antisemitism from the left.
Antisemitism from the left also has a long history. Marx and other
influential early communists were intensely pejorative about Jews and/
or Judaism. And just consider the treatment of Jews in communist
countries, most particularly in the efforts of cultural genocide
against Jews in the USSR, as reflected in the response of the
international campaign for the freedom of Soviet Jewry and the use of
laws like Jackson-Vanik to address some manifestations of Soviet
repression that disproportionately affected Jews.
Today, efforts to prevent Jews, Jews who support Israel, or Jews
who identify as Zionist from participating in progressive or broader
social justice coalitions, or efforts to create litmus tests of
disavowing Israel in order to participate in a range of activities,
have been seen beyond college campuses. From the environmental group
Sunrise's DC chapter efforts to prevent Jewish supporters of Israel
from participating in a protest for DC statehood; to the attacks
against Jews during an earlier Israel-Gaza conflict by pro-Palestinian
supporters at restaurants in New York City and Los Angeles, on the
streets in several cities. So too the controversy over the alarming
British Labor Party's antisemitism, which lost significant support and
ended Jeremy Corbin's leadership role. Incidents of harassment of Jews
on campuses during so-called anti-Israel apartheid protests and at pro-
Israel programs have all intensified after Oct 7th and Israel's
military response in Gaza.
Let me address the question of when criticism of Israel steps over
the line into antisemitism, and how we respond to antisemitism when it
is merged with criticism of Israel's policies--most notably the
explosion of antisemitism following October 7th.
I do so with one important caveat: We must remember that students
can be subject to intimidation or harassment regardless of the content
of the speech targeting them.
I would suspect that there is unanimity among the Committees'
Members that Israel striking back at Hamas after the brutal attacks of
Oct 7th--the 1200 murders, the 3,000 injured, the sexual violence, the
hostage taking--Israel's right to respond militarily against Hamas is
almost the classic definition of a ``just war.'' But just war requires
not only a ``just cause'' but requires prosecuting it through ``just
means''--in most religious traditions and under international law. And
there are profound differences among you on this Committee, among
American society writ large, among American Jewry, and on every campus
in America, as to whether Israel's strategy, tactics, and actions of
fighting this war are to be viewed as meeting the criteria of just
means. And we have no consensus on when criticism of Israel's policies
crosses the line into antisemitism. All this makes this moment in
history even more painful, more challenging, more complicated, and more
alarming.
Where should lines be drawn as to when criticism of Israel is
judged on its merits as being right or wrong, fair or unfair, wise or
wrong-headed. Constructive or counter-productive--and when does it
cross over the line to become antisemitic?
Three issues are among the most widely debated on this point. Is
advocating for BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) against Israel
always antisemitic? Is using the term ``apartheid'' as related to
Israel always antisemitic? Is anti-Zionism or condemning Zionism and/or
Zionists as racist or declaring oneself to be an anti-Zionist
inherently constitute antisemitism?
There are some Jewish leaders who say anyone who says they are an
anti-Zionist is inherently an antisemite. First, people often use the
term Zionist differently. If you use it to say that Zionism is the
national identity of Jewish people in its historic homeland, and you
deny the right of the Jewish people to hold such an identity, that
crosses the line for many of us, into antisemitism. But should debates
over if and how that right can be actualized, in which many argue that
right must be balanced against Palestinian nationalism rights
inherently antisemitic? I think not. And if someone uses the term as a
substitute for Israeli policies and says, ``I am an anti-Zionist
because of Zionism's justification for the occupation and the
oppression of the Palestinian people,'' is that antisemitic?
The use of the term Zionism altogether? Underlying a lot of
sensible line drawing will be the assertion that criticism steps over
the line when it (a) Delegitimizes Jewish national identity i.e.
denying the inherent legitimacy of the Jewish people's right to its
3,000 year old national identity in their historic homeland, or (b)
uses terms like ``Zionism'' or ``Zionist'' (or ``Israeli'' for that
matter) as a substitute for ``Jews'' and then evokes the myths,
stereotypes and caricatures that have been at the heart of classic
antisemitism. So if someone says Zionists or Israelis are engaged in a
global conspiracy to control the finances of the world or that they
created the COVID virus to make money--they are using Zionist or
Israeli as a synonym for Jews, and it is a form of antisemitism.
What about apartheid? If someone says: ``Israel (or for that matter
Zionism) is like Apartheid South Africa (or like Nazi Germany), i.e.,
it is an inherently evil undertaking that has no right to exist'', in
that form, I believe such assertions cross the line into antisemitism.
But if someone warns, as former Prime Ministers of Israel have done, if
Israel maintains the occupation until the non-Jewish populations are
larger than the Jewish population and still deny them the right to
determine their destiny, then it will become an apartheid state. Is
that antisemitic? Or if someone says a specific policy of Israel in the
West Bank is an apartheid policy (two separate sets of laws on the West
Bank--one for Jews and one for non-Jews), is that antisemitic? What if
they say it is like the Nazi policies of 1933-34. Or when Amnesty
International or Human Rights Watch both concluded that Israel's
treatment of Palestinians violates the International Convention Against
Apartheid, but make clear they are NOT comparing Israel to Apartheid
South Africa. For those of us who think that assessment is wrong--or if
you think it right--is that antisemitic? My organization, the Union of
Reform Judaism, criticized both and explained why. Further, we warned
that this would embolden antisemites and be used to spread antisemitic
language and acts, but we did not conclude that the organizations or
the reports were, on the face of it, antisemitic. And what of Ben
Pogrund, a famous anti-apartheid activist in South Africa, who made
aliyah and spent decades knowledgeably rebutting accusations of
apartheid against Israel, showing the significant difference between
the two legal and social systems, and treatment of the ``other''? But
he now says that this extreme right-wing government, in its policies
and in turning a blind eye to growing settler violence, has reached a
point where the comparison of the West Bank has some validity and is
debatable--is he now an antisemite?
What of BDS? The international BDS movement has said things that
are widely perceived to be calling for ending Israel's existence. That
to me crosses a line into antisemitism. But are the rabbis deeply
opposed to the occupation who boycott wine produced in the territories
antisemitic? Is Ben and Jerry's, which withdrew its business from the
territories antisemitic? Protestant denominations that would boycott
companies that sell Israel equipment used to maintain the occupation of
the West Bank? Antisemites? Or any who say they won't buy products
produced by settlements on the West Bank? Antisemites? Or even those
who say they will boycott Israel entirely to pressure it to end the
occupation--are such policies inherently antisemitic?
There is certainly nothing inherently racist or antisemitic or evil
about boycotts, divestments, and sanctions per se. Jews and our allies
have used them widely over the years within America and across the
globe, and continue so today to pressure countries whose actions,
words, or policies may be anathema to us such as Iran and Russia. Why
do people who are pro-Palestinian not have the right to engage in
economic pressure on Israel to change its policies? I may believe their
justification is wrong-headed, I may believe this action is utterly
counterproductive for what they are trying to accomplish, but is it on
the face of it ``antisemitic''?
Sec. Pompeo, you will remember, solicited an internal memo,
threatening to declare Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and
OXFAM as supporting BDS and therefore antisemitic under the IHRA
definition (which, by the way, IHRA examples do not mention), with the
presumption of cutting them off from partnering with the State
Department. But if we want to keep the anti-antisemitism tent as large
as possible, we should be cautious about writing out of it millions
who, while not challenging Israel's right to exist, might engage in
some of those hypotheticals above toward the goal of seeking a non-
violent way to protest Israeli policies--even when they would condemn
and seek to counter vigorously the vast majority of antisemitic acts in
America.
Two final aspects of what an effective response to antisemitism in
America requires on which you can make the most significant difference.
You cannot worry about anti-Semitism in America without worrying
about educational standards in America. Studies show that racist,
antisemitic attitudes correlate with levels of education. The higher
the level of education, the lower the likelihood a person will hold
racist and anti-Semitic views. We are focused on higher education and
we know it is not an inoculation to prejudice, particularly the
politicized forms of antisemitism that debates over Israel engender.
But among the 340 million Americans it holds: the higher the levels of
education, the less likely to hold any kind of prejudicial attitudes
based on race or other immutable characteristics as well as religious
identity.
If we want in the long run to prevail in the goal of this hearing
we must preserve and strengthen the public school system of America--
with 83 percent of our students, as well as a sizable proportion of
Jewish students attending. If the public school system of America
doesn't make it, then neither will America nor the Jewish community.
Addressing the rescue of public education in America must remain a
priority of our community, particularly at a time when teachers and
principals are feeling under serious attack.
Second, what has been so extraordinary is how the religious and
civic communities of America have arisen to come together after racist,
antisemitic, Islamophobia tragedies have occurred: Muslims cleaning up
desecrated Jewish cemeteries in St. Louis and Philadelphia; the
president of a McClellan Texas synagogue and the pastor of a near-by
church handing sets of keys to the imam of a mosque that had been burnt
to the ground for as long as they needed it; cleaning up graffiti
together and repairing vandalism; the entire community around Tree of
Life and Mother Emmanuel and so many other places standing in
solidarity with those so tragically victimized. Working in broad-based
interfaith and intergroup coalitions is a hallmark of America--often
working together to delegitimize hate acts and hate speech. Indeed, it
is encouraging to note that we live at a moment when there is more
interfaith engagement, comity and cooperation in America and globally
than we have ever seen in human history. And when people come together
across political, religious, cultural lines to build together a better
America for all, they are modeling the very kind of America we hope to
create. And, we look to all our political, religious, cultural and
civic leaders to help in achieving this.
As Rabbi Stacy Friedman observed: It is our compassion and our
common humanity that define us. It is the way people have united as
allies and partners in standing up against such hatred that defines us.
It is the support so many have shown one another after each attack that
ultimately defines us. It is the love and the tears we have shed for
one another at our vigils. That is what defines us.
May that indeed be the goal, the outcome, the blessing of your
deliberations on this issue as you move forward to address antisemitism
and hate in our universities and everywhere in our Nation.
APPENDIX:
A Campus Guide To Identifying Antisemitism In A Time Of Perplexity,
The Nexus Project, September 2024
Guide to Identifying Antisemitism in Debates About Israel, The
Nexus Project, 2022
The URJ and CCAR Join Other National Jewish Organizations in
Sending Recommendations to Administration and Congress on Urgent Steps
to Take to Combat Antisemitism, Union of Reform Judaism, January 2021
______
[summary statement of rabbi david saperstein]
The effort to combat antisemitism must be fully
integrated with the effort to counter hate speech,
discriminatory treatment, and hate crimes targeting other
individuals and groups on the basis of immutable
characteristics or core identity.
Such hate speech and hate crimes are intended to tear
at the frayed threads that bind our Nation together, seeking to
undermine the comity and unity of Americans. Our responses to
such divisive efforts must not add to those divisions, but
instead seek reconciliation, comity, greater understanding, and
efforts to change hate to understanding and friendship.
Three factors--the rule of law at the heart of our
democracy and our constitutional system of government, the
separation of church and state, and our educational system of
public schools and of higher educational opportunities--have
all have been central to creating a nation offering Jews more
rights, opportunities, freedom and achievement than Jews have
ever known in Diaspora life.
Several recent actions, including dismantling the
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, acting
punitively against participants in protests involving protected
speech without due process, and imposing damaging financial
penalties on higher education, have undercut all three of the
pillars that helped make America special for its Jewish
citizens and Jewish refugees seeking safety and shelter fleeing
antisemitism in other lands. The Administration should build
on, not abandon, successful approaches, such as:
Y Improving reporting making it more comprehensive and
consistent at the local, state and Federal levels;
Y Strengthening resources for security of our
religious and communal institutions;
Y Expanding support for strong Holocaust education and
anti-bias education;
Y Urging social media platforms to curb antisemitism
and Holocaust denial; and
Y Continuing vigorous efforts in identifying
antisemitism and enforcing existing education, anti-
discrimination, and hate crimes laws.
IHRA plays an important role in education, training,
and monitoring in regard to antisemitism, but it is 20 years
old, was written for a non-U.S. setting, and several of its
examples are ambiguous and have been misconstrued by some
advocates--creating controversy and divisiveness. Other
definitions like Nexus's and the National Strategy's should be
used as constructive complements to the use of IHRA.
There is unity across political and ideological lines
on what constitute antisemitic speech and action in most
regards, but much less clarity in determining where the line
should be drawn between substantive criticism of Israel's
policies and actions, and such criticism that steps over the
line to antisemitism.
We must remember that students can be subject to
intimidation or harassment regardless of the content of the
speech targeting them.
In the case of those who claim to be anti-Zionists,
those who accuse Israel of being an apartheid state, or those
who support BDS against Israeli settlements or against Israel
to halt the occupation, the key test is when any of those are
an effort to deny the legitimacy of Jewish nationalism, to
challenge Israel's right to exist, or to deny the Jewish people
to express their national identity in their 3,200 year old
historic homeland.
______
The Chairman. Thank you. Senator Sanders, again.
Senator Sanders. Thank you. Our final witness is Mr.
Kenneth Stern, the Director of the Bard Center for the Study of
Hate. Mr. Stern was also the lead drafter of the IHRA, IHRA
definition of Antisemitism, which he has vocally opposed
codifying into law for purposes of enforcement. Mr. Stern,
thank you very much for being with us.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH S. STERN, DIRECTOR, BARD CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF HATE, BROOKLYN, NY
Mr. Stern. Thank you, Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member
Sanders and the other honorable Members of the Committee. I am
Kenneth Stern. I do direct the Bard Center for the Study of
Hate, and I also worked at the American Jewish Committee for 25
years where I directed the division on Antisemitism and was the
lead drafter of the text that is now known as the IHRA
definition of Antisemitism.
Let me emphasize five points. First, students, including
Jewish students, have a right not to be victims of true
threats, harassment, intimidation, bullying, discrimination,
let alone assault. However, they should expect to hear ideas
that cut them to their core. Attempts to affect the campus that
aren't grounded in protection of free speech and academic
freedom are not likely to work.
Anything that smacks of a hate speech code will backfire.
Recent threats against funding without a full investigation and
an opportunity to be heard are not only likely illegal but
horrible policy. Arresting students should be a last resort,
not a first impulse, especially for technical violation of
rules.
The campus environment can be improved with programs and
courses, but if we bludgeon the campus into submission, we risk
destroying an institution which has made America the envy of
the world. In 2020, I wrote a book entitled, The Conflict Over
the Conflict, The Israel-Palestine Campus Debate. I worried
then and am more worried now that the campus tensions over this
issue threaten higher education as each side tries to silence
the other.
Pro-Palestinian activists sometimes use a heckler's veto,
promote academic boycotts, and sometimes exclude Zionists from
social spaces, which is almost always McCarthian and sometimes
clearly Antisemitic. But I am more worried about the use of law
to silence pro-Palestinian speech. When the Antisemitism
Awareness Act passed the Senate in 2016, proponent cited the
suspension of a professor for an alleged anti-gay blog post,
and the stopping of the film, American Snipers, anti-Muslim.
They were saying violate free speech and academic freedom
for us too, a message I find deeply troubling. There are church
state implications here too. Some House Members said adopting
it would be a Congressional declaration that the gospels were
Antisemitic. Some have suggested that one example from the
definition be dropped. The others are no less protected speech.
In the case of SJP v. Abbott, where IHRA had been mandated in
Texas University policies, the judge found it was illegal
viewpoint discrimination and chilling. In Germany, the
definition was adopted and applied to label Jews protesting the
war in Gaza, Antisemites. One person said, ``once again,
Germany defines who is a Jew, right?''
That the German state would actually classify what is a
legitimate Jewish position as beneath contempt. Most Jews are
Zionists, as am I, but for many whom--for whom Judaism teaches
about repairing the world and treating the stranger leads them
to anti-Zionism. Congress shouldn't decide this internal
religious conflict.
A recent court decision involving Haverford College
rejected a claim that since Zionism was essential to Jewish
identity, no religious issue was presented, calling it
disingenuous. Recently, Harvard settled an Antisemitism case
agreeing to use IHRA, but OCR settled two related complaints,
one alleging Antisemitism and one anti-Palestinian anonymous
with George Washington University.
GW wasn't required to use IHRA but imagine if the GW facts
had taken place at Harvard, and the settlement required using
IHRA and the definition of anti-Palestinian racism. Would a
professor who tweeted about Israeli sovereignty over Judea and
Samaria be open to a Title VI case if they gave a Palestinian
student a bad grade? Can each side be affected by calling for
exclusive control from the river to the sea? How could you use
one without violating the other?
Then there is the arrested green card holder Mahmud Khalil,
because he distributed ``pro Hamas propaganda.'' Seriously? Are
we that weak that our national security and foreign policy is
threatened by a former student allegedly distributing a
leaflet? We are America, not Russia or Iran. There are things
we can do, one of which is to increase funding for OCR so the
backlog of cases can be resolved. On campuses there are
courses, initiatives, and even an AI program called Sway that
pair students in discussions of contentious topics like Israel
and Palestine.
No raised voices, no eye rolls, just texts back and forth,
fun and effective. Instead, we are seeing this, a desire to
silence political speech because of the discomfort of many pro-
Israel Jewish students, the gutting of the Department of
Education, or OCR when complaints about Antisemitism were
pending.
Thinking it is only pro-Israel Jewish students who are
having difficulties. It is also anti-Zionist Jewish students,
Muslim students, Arab and Palestinian students, immigrant
students, and many more. Shockingly, we are seeing ex
existential threats against universities without a modicum of
due process. We are not going to improve the campus for Jews or
anyone else this way. We cannot burn down the house in order to
save it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stern follows:]
prepared statement of kenneth s. stern
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[summary statement of kenneth s. stern]
Summary: The university is an essential American institution, built
on academic freedom, free speech, and faculty governance. The tensions
around Israel/Palestine, and the threats by partisans on each side to
silence the other, predated October 7, 2023, but roared forth on some
campuses since. In some instances pro-Israel Jewish students were
harassed, even assaulted. Anti-Zionist Jewish students, and
Palestinian, Muslim students, and other, were also targeted. There are
things that universities can and should do--educationally and
otherwise--to improve the campus climate for all. The recent threats to
funding, faculty governance, and free speech jeopardize not only higher
education, but other shared interests, like scientific research. This
is not the way to make any student, let alone pro-Israel Jewish ones,
any safer.
Students--including Jewish students--have a right not
to be victims of true threats, harassment, intimidation,
bullying or discrimination, let alone assault. They, however,
should expect to hear ideas that cut them to their core.
Attempts to affect the campus that aren't grounded in
protection of free speech and academic freedom are not likely
to work. Anything that smacks of a hate speech code will
backfire
Recent threats against funding without a full
investigation and an opportunity to be heard are not only
likely illegal, but horrible policy
Arresting students should be a last resort, not a
first impulse, especially for technical violations of rules.
The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights
should not be gutted, but rather further funded, to address
Title VI complaints; there is already an unacceptable backlog
of antisemitism complaints.
Congress should not enact laws to suppress political
speech. I don't agree with much of speech that's heard at
campus protests, but it is dangerous to use law to suppress it,
and doing so will harm Jews.
The case of SJP v Abbott found that the use of the
IHRA definition was unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
There's a fundamental Church/State issue in IHRA--a
deep divide in the Jewish community about whether being Jewish
requires being a Zionist. It is inappropriate for Congress to
decide this question, which is fundamentally what's being
asked.
It isn't only pro-Israel Jewish students who are
having difficulties on campus. It's also anti-Zionist Jewish
students, Muslim students, Arab and Palestinian students,
immigrant students, and so many more.
The campus environment can be improved with programs
and courses and even AI. If we bludgeon the campus into
submission we risk destroying an institution which has made
America the envy of the world.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Stern, you and Ms. Gammill did the best
at sticking your landing in 5 minutes. Let me just acknowledge
that. I will begin my questioning. Since October the 7th,
Columbia University has been the epicenter of campus protest
posing threats to students' safety.
The Trump administration has taken a strong stance with
regard to Columbia, withdrawing Federal funds and contracts due
to its ``continued inaction in the face of persistent
harassment of Jewish students.'' Ms. Gammill, do you think that
the Trump administration's efforts to address these frankly
rampant displays of Antisemitism have been more effective than
the Biden administration's?
Ms. Gammill. I think there is no question that these
efforts have been more effective. As was mentioned a moment
ago, certainly there was recognition by the Biden
administration of the need to address Antisemitism as a
national problem. The Trump administration's efforts, including
at Columbia, have put teeth to that discussion for the first
time that we have seen.
The Chairman. What else should the President and Congress
do?
Ms. Gammill. As I mentioned before, while yes there is
debate I would say, and I am happy to engage in further
discussion about the differences of opinion about the
International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of
Antisemitism, I think it is important for Congress now that the
Antisemitism Awareness Act has been before it for quite some
time, to finally codify that definition. Again, yes, there are
certainly restrictions on how that definition can be used, but
the definition itself is not a problem. It is no other
definition like any other definition that you would find.
It is a tool for educating, helping people to better
understand. Importantly, every time that definition is brought
up and challenged, there is a complete ignoring of the text of
that definition and the guidance that goes with it. And the
reality is that the examples of Antisemitism that people like
to fight over, and the controversy is over are introduced with
clear indication and instruction that these are examples that
could be, depending upon the overall context, examples of
Antisemitism. The decision that was just referenced in which
there were problematic, and concerns raised about--First
Amendment concerns raised about the use of that definition,
completely wrong on the facts and the law, including that fact
that context is crucial.
Again, passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act, I think is
No. 1. As well as Senator Cassidy, your bill regarding
protecting students on campus. I think it is crucial that
students know where to get advocacy and where to get help. But
in order to do that, we also have to have robust enforcement,
teeth in resolutions of Title VI complaints.
The Chairman. Rabbi Shemtov, a quick assessment. The Biden
administration versus Trump assessment. The Trump
administration's efforts to combat the Antisemitism that we
have seen.
Mr. Shemtov. I will say that the Biden administration did
make special efforts which were unprecedented in bringing
together a broad array of Jewish communal leaders and had top
representation at the meetings, including White House
principles, one of whom himself is Jewish.
I said at that meeting, and I say again here today, that
even though they had a whole of Government approach, and it was
unprecedented, they did allow to seep in, in a way which I felt
drilled a little hole in the boat, the views of people who are
downright Antisemitic and those who sought to weaken IHRA for
the sake of weakening it.
It didn't strengthen the fight against Antisemitism. But we
must say that the effort in it of itself was a good step. The
second thing is we all fly on planes, and we are told that if
oxygen pressurization changes, your mask is going to drop from
the ceiling, and you have to put your own mask on first. But
you want to save the kids who are with you. Don't do that. Put
your own mask on first because if you stop breathing, you can't
help anybody. We, the Jewish community, have to help ourselves
first, and then we have to help everyone else as we can, but we
can't be helping everybody all at the same time because the
dilution itself is dulling the point that our colleague just
spoke about.
I think that what the Trump administration has done is said
there is not only going to be a ramp up in policy, but there
will be a sharp ramp up in enforcement. University
administrators----
The Chairman. Let me stop you there because I have one
really quick for Mister--Dr. Small. Dr. Small, you have talked
about funding from the Middle East being associated with a
sharp increase in Antisemitic activity. Statistically
significant? What else can you comment? You have about 30
seconds.
Mr. Small. Okay. So it is a very important issue. In one of
our reports we show that American universities taking money
from the Qatari regime have 300 percent more instances of
Antisemitism.
The Chairman. Is that----
Mr. Small. Compared to American universities not taking
money from----
The Chairman. Is that just because of more exchange
students or is there something more than that?
Mr. Small. I think it is the use of soft power. It is
funding certain institutes and professors in the classroom. And
connected to the encampment, SJP comes out of a MP, which is
part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
I should say that the spiritual leaders of the Muslim
Brotherhood--this is not Islam. It is a perversion of the great
religion of Islam. The teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood is
that the true believer, the true Muslim is obligated to
complete the work of Hitler.
This is what is now entering into our universities
unchecked. And we are calling for investigations into the
funding of these anti-democratic, anti-American, sexist,
homophobic, and genocidal antisemites funding our universities.
The Chairman. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my questions
are going to be addressed to all five. We have five experts on
Antisemitism, and I look forward to taking advantage of their
knowledge. This is not the Foreign Relations Committee, so we
are not here to debate the wisdom or lack of wisdom of what the
Netanyahu government is doing in Gaza right now.
But the reality is that 92 percent of the housing units in
Gaza have been destroyed. Most hospitals and primary healthcare
facilities have been bombed. Civilian infrastructure has been
devastated. 50,000 people, mostly women and children, have been
killed. Over 100,000 have been wounded. If I or any other
Member of this Committee makes that point, that we think--and
again, I don't want to debate the policies right now.
But if we think that the United States should not be
supplying more bombs and artillery to the Netanya government,
do you think--I don't want the debate on Israel. Do you think
that is Antisemitic? Briefly, Ms. Gammill start it and go right
down the line. Am I being Antisemitic if I say that the United
States taxpayers should not supply more weapons to Israel?
Ms. Gammill. That statement alone is not Antisemitic. It
does not attack Jewish identity.
Senator Sanders. Rabbi?
Mr. Shemtov. I must say you are revered on one side of the
aisle and respected on the other side of the aisle for the
strength of your convictions. You do not say dispassionate
statements.
Just like I believe we have to respect the right of
everyone to their opinion, I believe the Prime Minister is a
democratically elected official and is entitled to his opinion.
Do I think it is Antisemitic to criticize him? I don't think
so. If you criticize somebody who is Jewish, that is not
Antisemitic. If you criticize the fact that they are Jewish----
Senator Sanders. Right.
Mr. Shemtov. Or use that to criticize something, that is
Antisemitic.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Small, briefly. We don't have a lot of
time.
Mr. Small. Again, I would agree with the rabbi, what you
said is not Antisemitic. But what I would say with great
respect is that we have to flip the equation. I think instead
of blaming the victim or looking to the victim of Hamas, of the
Muslim Brotherhood, we have to understand the ideology at work
that is confronting----
Senator Sanders. I don't think there is any debate up here
that Hamas is a terrorist organization. What they did on
October 2nd--7th is beyond disgusting. Rabbi Saperstein.
Mr. Saperstein. No, I don't. No, I don't think it is
Antisemitic if you say it, or people on college campuses say
it. But on college campuses, there are too many instances in
which those kinds of political statements are mixed with rank
hatred against Jews, and that steps over the line into
Antisemitism.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Stern?
Mr. Stern. Senator Sanders, that--just that statement, that
opinion alone is not Antisemitic.
Senator Sanders. I need your help on something else. I have
never met George Soros in my life, to the best of my knowledge.
I don't believe I have ever contributed--yet received a nickel
in campaign funding from Mr. Soros. But I think, Soros has been
a stereotype, a manifestation of Antisemitism all over the
world--yes?
When we talk about Antisemitism, one of the tropes that has
always been used, Protocols of Zion, is that there is this
mysterious underground group of zillionaire Jews who are--the
whole world, right? Is that the trope?
Okay. This from the Holocaust Memorial Museum is a--
something that appeared in Hungary, a Hungarian Antisemitic
publication. Jews puppeteers, right? You are familiar with that
trope? This is from a Donald Trump campaign email.
George Soros puppeteer. Biden is the puppet being
manipulated. Okay. Don't want to make a big deal about it. Ms.
Gammill, does that look to you like an Antisemitic trope?
Ms. Gammill. I think that there is no question that there
is a relationship when you look at the two images that would
cause that question to be raised. Again, I think context is
key.
Senator Sanders. Rabbi.
Mr. Shemtov. George----
Senator Sanders. Briefly. I want to hear from everybody.
Yes or no, is that Anti--do you think that has Antisemitic
overtones?
Mr. Shemtov. I think that George Soros is Jewish, although
he doesn't really identify closely with the community. One
minute.
Senator Sanders. No, you don't have 1 minute. I have got 17
seconds.
Mr. Shemtov. Okay. 17 seconds----
Senator Sanders. Is this Antisemitic?
Mr. Shemtov. Very simply, he is being criticized. He is
Jewish. I don't know that he is being criticized because he is
Jewish.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Small.
Mr. Small. I would say very briefly, we are living in a
time where the democratic center is under attack from the
extreme right, the extreme left, and radical Islam.
Senator Sanders. I will ask you a question. Does this look
like an Antisemitic trope?
Mr. Small. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Rabbi Saperstein?
Mr. Saperstein. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Mr. Stern.
Mr. Stern. Antisemitism is two things in it says essence, a
conspiracy theory that Jews try to harm humanity and giving you
an explanation for what goes wrong in the world. That picture
is Antisemitic. Orban was using it recently as well. Clearly
Antisemitic.
Senator Sanders. Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Senator Collins.
Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
first let me thank you for holding this important hearing, and
also for convening the round table last year where we were able
to hear such distressing testimony directly from Jewish
students about what they were encountering on college campuses,
particularly after the October 7th attacks in Israel.
Mr. Stern, I am going to start my questioning with you. We
agree that every student should feel safe on campus, and I am
interested to learn about your book, Conflict Over Conflict. I
agree that colleges and universities are often the best places
to have tough conversations and robust debate. But how is it
allowable for a faculty member to give extra credit to students
to participate in an anti-Israel protest? Do you think that is
right?
Mr. Stern. Senator, I think that there are questions of bad
teaching that go across the board with all this. In that
situation, it may well be. But the point is that on a campus,
the idea is that students should be not singled out, not
discriminated against, but should hear things differently.
If the professor says, I want everybody to go and report
back. I don't care what you say about it, but I want you to
because it is happening to tell me what you think. That is
something different than saying, I am going to give you extra
credit for supporting something.
Senator Collins. Do you agree that it is wrong for a
student to be given extra credit for attending an anti-Israel
debate----
Mr. Stern. It depends----
Senator Collins [continuing]. Or anti-Israel protests?
Mr. Stern. If I had a student and that debate was happening
on the campus, I might want them to come back and say, tell me
the different sides. On the other hand, if they are saying, I
want you to go because this is the correct way, that is a wrong
thing to do.
Senator Collins. This reminds me of a conversation that I
had with a college president in Maine, whom I deeply respect,
who told me that in his experience, these Antisemitic protests
are not being generated by students.
They are being inspired by faculty members, graduate
assistants, and outside groups. This isn't spontaneous. And I
remember one of those students at the round table telling us
that when she went up to a student and said, do you know what
you are saying when you say from the river to the sea,
Palestine should be free? And they had no idea what that meant.
Ms. Gammill, I want to ask you a question.
Last year I questioned the former Secretary of Education,
Cardona, at a Senate Appropriations hearing about his
enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which is
intended to protect all students from discrimination. At the
time, the Secretary had no one on the ground at colleges and
universities where investigations into Antisemitism were
occurring.
He could not give me a timeline for resolving these
investigations. He acknowledged only that they had a large
backlog. He could not answer any of my questions about the
penalties for schools that were found to be in violation, if
they were found to be in violation.
To me, that was an appalling demonstration of a very lax,
even indifferent approach to what had been more than a 300
percent increase in Antisemitic incidents across this country,
including and primarily at our college campuses.
I want to follow-up on the question asked to you about the
Chairman, are you seeing a difference now in the implementation
of Title VI?
Ms. Gammill. Thank you, Senator. We are beginning to. We
are encouraged by what we are seeing. I believe that you are
absolutely correct that there needs to be actual investigators,
as there now are, on these campuses.
I also believe though that it is crucial that the
institutions themselves be held accountable for being the first
line of addressing these problems. This is not an issue that
the Federal Government should have to come in and police. And
again, I go back to there are often not people who are well
qualified and equipped to address these things on the campuses
themselves.
It should start there, but yes, I am encouraged by what we
are seeing in terms of enforcement. I will say that I was
discouraged to see at the end of last year when institutions
came out of the woodwork begging OCR to resolve open complaints
for obvious reasons and there was capitulation to that. There
is too much capitulation going on, not enough enforcement. So I
am very encouraged to see what we are seeing now.
Senator Collins. That is why we need to make sure that
office continues to be adequately resourced. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Murray.
Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Obviously, every student should feel safe on campus. It doesn't
matter who you are or where you come from, what religion you
practice, you should feel safe. You should be able to learn and
grow without fear of facing harassment or assault or
discrimination. You may debate complex issues and hear diverse
viewpoints on campus.
That is part of life as much as it is part of a higher
education, and it is important. Everyone in this country should
be able to use their voice and exercise their First Amendment
rights peacefully, without fear of Government retaliation. And
at the same time, no one should ever fear for their safety on
campus. No one should ever be forced to tolerate bigotry.
That is a very simple principle, and I think it is one that
the vast majority of Americans agree with. In fact, here in
Congress, we agree with it so much that we have an office at
the Department of Education dedicated to upholding that
principle, the Office of Civil Rights, that the Senator from
Maine just referenced.
That is why I have fought for years to secure more
resources and funding for OCR. It does really important work to
make sure every student is safe on campus, and it makes sure
schools are living up to their obligations under our civil
rights laws. When hatred and bigotry are on the march from
recent spikes in Antisemitism and Islamophobia, or to the wave
of anti-Asian hate during COVID.
When students' safety is at stake, whether that means
addressing hate crimes in hostile environments or actually
addressing sexual assault on our campuses, OCR is really our
frontline. So if you want to fight Antisemitism, you should
support OCR. It is as straightforward as it gets. It is like
saying, if you want to fight fires, you should support the fire
department.
I hate to tell you all, but Trump is axing the fire
department. He has fired nearly half of the OCR staff and
shuttered more than half of the OCR offices. So I don't know
how anyone can actually say they are serious about stopping
Antisemitism on campus without also saying that they are
concerned by this movement to gut that agency on the front line
of stopping Antisemitism. Because you can't upend that entire
office, as Trump wants to do, without upending the work.
You can't pause the investigations, which Trump already
did, without creating a huge backlog. That means students will
not get the justice that they deserve. You can't just cut an
agency in half and pretend everything is fine. Closing those
offices means throwing 6,000 cases into limbo, leaving students
in 28 states without the critical tools to fight back. Firing
those workers means doubling the caseload for the remaining
investigators who are already stretched thin.
I think it is clear that if we are serious about fighting
Antisemitism, we need to get serious about fighting this
Administration's decimation not only of OCR, but the entire
department. So I want to ask our witnesses what those cuts mean
to students. And Rabbi Saperstein, let me start with you. Does
drastically eliminating OCR'S capacity help protect students,
including Jewish students?
Mr. Saperstein. It harms it in so many ways, Senator. You
have already talked about how overloaded they were before any
of these cuts. Each one of the investigators, had an average of
46 cases that they had to deal with.
Now it is 86 cases that they are going to have to deal
with, with the staff after the cuts were made. They shut 7 of
the 12 regional offices. They are talking about moving--this
kind of work, integrating it into the Justice Department. The
Justice Department is not an administrative enforcement agency.
It doesn't look at it in a holistic kind of manner. This
was really something extraordinary. And who is better?
ProPublica did a deep dive before the cuts happened in the
first few weeks, 20 new cases were open in the beginning of
this Administration. In the beginning of the Biden
administration, the same period of time, 110 cases.
In the last years of the Biden administration, 240 cases.
Now it was down to 20. They are grinding it to a halt, and it
is the students of America of all kinds who are facing
discriminations that are going to suffer.
Senator Murray. Thank you. I only have 20 seconds left. Mr.
Stern, you want to comment?
Mr. Stern. Yes. Thank you. I had the experience of working
with OCR. There were Jewish students outside of Bingham to New
York. There was a kick a Jew day. The school district did
nothing. I can tell you, OCR worked magic. It helped the
students. It helped the district do something that was
educationally important.
Also, there were other students that didn't want to be part
of the complaint because they were worried about the
retribution to them. This gave an opportunity to go work with
them behind the scenes to make sure their voices were heard
too. I agree with Rabbi Saperstein.
If this becomes a Department of Justice issue, I think back
to that case, I don't know that would have been a complaint,
and I don't know that the students would have come forward.
Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Marshall.
Senator Marshall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome
everybody as well. Certainly, there is no doubt that 70 percent
of Jewish students feel harassed. They feel threatened.
Unfortunately, I found that in my home state, at the
University of Kansas, I went and sat down and visited with the
Jewish students there. And when these riots and protests were
going on, to send Senator Collins's points, the leaders of the
riots were actually teachers there, and graduate students, and
outsiders showing them how to do this type of rioting.
The students were being followed into their classrooms. The
protestors, the class--maybe it was a class in Jewish history,
and the protestors were inside the buildings, outside the class
harassing these students.
Certainly this is all very, very unacceptable. And I am
glad that we are proceeding with this. I think there is a great
opportunity for some type of an Antisemitic commission going
forward.
This problem was happening 2,000 years ago. It is going to
keep happening and we need to keep this in mind as well. I want
to go to Dr. Small first. Dr. Small, what was Qatar's role in
the hostage release of Americans?
Mr. Small. It is a good question. I am not an expert at
that level, but I know that the Qataris certainly were funding
Hamas. They have very good relationships.
Senator Marshall. That is not my question. Were--I'll
answer the question for you. So, the Qataris were vastly
responsible for the freeing of American hostages and many
others. Dr. Small, what was Qatar's role in the evacuation of
Afghanistan--and especially how did it impact America?
Mr. Small. The Qatari regime has good relations with the
Taliban, with the Iranian revolutionary regime, and----
Senator Marshall. It is interesting, just the prejudice
that I hear coming out of your mouth here that--Qatar was so
important to the 120,000 people evacuated from Afghanistan. In
our moment of need, Qatar stood beside us. And of the 120,000
removed, 60,000 of them came through Qatar.
Without Qatar, we would have had thousands more deaths as
well. So I am really--I don't know why you won't answer that
question. I want to think about it just a little bit more
objectively here.
This, I am going to say this century, in the past decade or
so, Qatar has given about $5 billion to the educational
institutions of America, and a vast majority of that, probably
80 percent, is setting up universities in Qatar, whether it is
Texas A&M Engineering, Cornell Medicine.
A vast amount of that money is research oriented as well.
Qatar has been a great ally to America, so I don't know why you
are attacking them. And then why don't you compare--so China
has given over $3 billion. The Saudis $1.5 billion. UK $1
billion. Germany over $1 billion.
Why aren't we attacking them as well? And I want you to
answer this question. Two universities heavily funded by Qatar
were Carnegie Mellon and VCU. Were there any large Antisemitic
riots or protests there?
Mr. Small. This is a very important issue, and I would
say----
Senator Marshall. Were there any Antisemitic riots or
protest in VCU or Carnegie Mellon? The answer is no. So the
answer is no. So they were vastly funded, but yet there was no
riots there. So I don't understand why you are picking on the
Qataris here when other people are funding. Take Texas and
Texas A&M.
Texas A&M has a university presence in Qatar. University of
Texas doesn't. So you would make the conclusion that Texas A&M
was funded, but UT is where the riots were. UT, it had nothing
to do with Qatari funding there.
I don't know how you--causation doesn't--is what I'm saying
here that Senator Cassidy says all the time, right.
The Chairman. What is it--association is not necessarily
causation.
Senator Marshall. There you go. Association is not
causation. So I don't know why we are here fueling the fire.
Not all Muslims are Antisemitic. Not all Muslims are anti-
American. And here we have a Muslim country that has stood
beside America for the most part.
They are not perfect. They are not perfect, but they helped
us get back hostages. They saved the day in Afghanistan. In so
many ways they have stood beside us. I think you are picking on
them. I think you are coming to conclusions that are not well
founded. I think that is called discrimination. I think it is
prejudiced as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Small. May I respond please? May I----
The Chairman. 26 seconds.
Mr. Small. Pardon me--I would just say that Qatar is a
country of less than 350,000 citizens. They give more money to
American universities than any country in the world. The
greatest victims of political radical Islam are Muslims.
Senator Marshall. But you are not--you are missing the rest
of the story though. So here, this just continues the prejudice
that you have. You don't mention China. You don't mention
Saudi. You don't mention the UK.
They all have significance donations as well. Look, nobody
is perfect, and I know that you built your life on this one
thing, but no country is perfect. And I am as pro-Israel as any
member is up here.
I am--and certainly recognize the Antisemitism that has
been around for over 2,000 years. I don't know why you want to
make--to use an Antisemitic term, I don't know why you want to
make Qatar the scapegoat here.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Marshall.
Senator Baldwin. I assume--I don't have your list over here.
Are you next?
Senator Baldwin. I was not here at the gavel.
The Chairman. Then Senator Hassan.
Senator Baldwin. Hate to admit that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you all for
being here. I want to thank the Chair and the Ranking Member
for this hearing today. Before I turn to my questions, I want
to say a few words regarding the alarming and disturbing
Antisemitism that we are seeing across the country.
Vigorous debates regarding foreign policy are
Constitutionally protected, but too often since October 7th
when Hamas attacked Israel, these debates and protests have
veered into both implicit and explicit Antisemitism. Across the
country, Jewish centers on campus have been protested and
vandalized, and Jewish faculty and administrators have been
targeted.
At one school, Jewish students had to be escorted by
security to escape a mob. And too often during protests, we
have heard chance and slogans that justify and even celebrate
Hamas' violence, or heard speakers deny Hamas' atrocities,
including the atrocity of sexual violence.
There is no legal right to threaten the safety of any
student. Even if someone has a legal right to say hateful
words, it is still wrong to say them, and the rest of us have
the right and responsibility to condemn them. Denouncing
Antisemitism should not be a partisan issue.
Whether by torchlight in Charlottesville or on the quads of
our universities, Antisemitism is always, always wrong and
entirely at odds with what our Country is supposed to be--what
people like my dad who served in World War II knew America
could be. The fact that we are seeing this kind of Antisemitism
today--in today's day and age is shameful and a reminder
obviously that we need to do much, much better because
extremism, no matter what fringe it comes from, doesn't go away
on its own.
Frankly, on this issue and others in our politics today, I
do fear that the further we are removed from World War II, the
more likely we are to forget the lessons that many paid a
terrible price for all of us to learn. I was going to ask the
same question that Senator Murray did about the Office of Civil
Rights at the Department of Education, an incredibly important
office.
I was grateful, rabbi, for your description of how it has
been undermined and what the impact of that will be. And Mr.
Stern, yours as well. It is an incredibly important tool. It is
extremely disappointing--more than disappointing. It is wrong
that this Administration has worked to undermine it so quickly
and so strongly. And it is at odds with the Administration's
rhetoric about wanting to do something about Antisemitism on
our campuses.
But I do have a couple of other questions, and Rabbi
Saperstein, I want to start with you. In your testimony, you
highlight the importance of strengthening resources for
security of our religious and communal institutions. We have
made progress in recent years by creating the nonprofit
security grant program at the Department of Homeland Security,
which helps to address the security needs at houses of worship,
but there is still more work to do.
Senator Johnson and I have a bill called The Pray Safe Act,
which would establish a Federal clearinghouse through which
faith-based organizations, houses of worship, and other
nonprofits could access information on safety and security best
practices, available Federal grant programs, and training
opportunities.
The Pray Safe Act passed out of the Senate Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs Committee by unanimous
consent last Congress. I invite my colleagues to work with me
in getting it signed into law this Congress.
Rabbi, can you speak to how a centralized, easy to navigate
clearinghouse like this would help you and other faith leaders?
And also, if there are other supports you would like to see us
work to provide, please comment on those.
Mr. Saperstein. Well, thank you for your comments at the
beginning about the state of where we are with Antisemitism.
Agreed with every--where we are hearing things I never thought
we would hear. Again, after the Holocaust we are seeing things
I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
Thank you so much for that. Here, I spent much of my career
working with the National Reform Jewish Movement, the largest
movement--I think I can speak for all of the movements, that
kind of clearinghouse is valuable to us. We have nearly 900
synagogues around the country.
They desperately need guidance. They desperately need to
know what best practices are. This is the safety that they have
to worry about every single time they gather, every single time
they pray, every single time they teach, every single time they
provide social services to the community. So it would be an
invaluable contribution.
Senator Hassan. Well, I appreciate that very much. And I
have very little time left, but I do just want to comment that
one step I think we can take to counter the hate we are seeing
is investing in Holocaust education programs so that our young
people understand the evils that drive Antisemitism. So I will,
submit a question for the record to you, Rabbi Shemtov, about
the role that Holocaust education can play in fighting the
spread of Antisemitism. Thank you.
Mr. Shemtov. Should I answer?
The Chairman. For the record, I am--will go to Senator
Moody next. For the record, I am assured that OCR currently has
the resources necessary in order to investigate these claims.
Senator Hassan. Mr. Chair, with respect, I think an
analysis of their current staffing versus what they had, and
the number of backlog cases would refute that, but I appreciate
the comment and let's see what we can dig in and find out
together. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Moody.
Senator Moody. Thank you, Chairman. Appreciate it. Thank
you to everyone that took the time to be here today. Such an
important hearing.
I think it is important, after we have heard some of the
questions and responses, to point out that immediately upon
taking office, I think out of our thousands of colleges and
universities, Trump administration immediately sent out letters
to some of the more egregious violators of civil rights,
especially our Jewish students is on campuses, and said the
days of a tepid response or toothless resolution agreements are
over and we will aggressively go after those that are violating
the rights of our Jewish students.
Those letters have gone out. Universities have now been put
on notice. I don't think there is any question that there has
been a change in the tenor on how we will protect the rights of
Jewish students on our campus, and I just want to make sure
that is clear because some of the questioning has suggested
otherwise.
I think it is also important to remember that we are here
on a hearing today, and I want to make sure I am going to get
the title right, so I am going to specifically read the topic
of this hearing, Antisemitic Disruptions On Campus. And we are
talking about attacks on campaign flyers of President Trump and
defending coordinators of chaos on campus.
I mean, I think it is important when we are addressing an
issue that you--people understand who is actually targeting the
issue that we are talking about and not talking about something
else to distract from the point that our Jewish students have
had to transfer, have had to skip graduations, have missed
major opportunities in life, have been followed to class, have
been threatened, have been kept from campus buildings. I mean,
that is why we are here today.
In Florida, we are not immune. We saw a rapid escalation in
Antisemitism and criminal acts within our own state, and that
was minor compared to the rest of the Nation after October
7th--what we saw in terms of criminal acts. So I think it is
important to remember.
I mean, it is the same thing that happened when we were
talking about men participating in women's sports, and taking
those opportunities, and the danger to women. We were--who was
talking about protecting women? Who was not distracting from
that? Who stood up for that?
I think we need to remember that in this hearing today. I
don't think it is wrong to question foreign funding. I mean,
candidates for Federal office can't take foreign donations. I
don't think it is wrong to question foreign funding in
universities and colleges, and whether foreign nations are
trying to persuade, or influence, or brainwash our children.
I mean, do you think that they want us to be more pro-
American, more democracy, pro-freedom, pro-capitalism? Is that
why they are giving hundreds of millions of dollars to our
universities? I mean, I am sure there are instances of good
faith there, but we have to pay attention to that.
I filed a bill yesterday to deny new student visas to
Chinese students because China has just passed a law that now
requires every national to gather intelligence, including
Chinese students here studying--gather intelligence and report
back. How do we not pass a law that prevents student visas in
that respect? In the past few years, we have had an explosion
of Chinese students that were caught gathering evidence or
gathering information on military bases on college campuses.
How do we as lawmakers, policymakers not do that? And so, I
have watched what has happened over--in our campuses over the
last few years and sat in horror. And people--there are tools
right now in terms of revoking funding or denying funding if
campuses are allowing the violation of civil rights.
I filed a bill today that said we should go one step
further because clearly what we have on the books isn't
working. I believe that if money has been given or designated
for universities and they cannot protect their Jewish students,
and there are violations of civil rights, any money that has
been dedicated to them should be called back.
Any taxpayer money that has been dedicated to them should
be clawed back from the Federal Government. And, Ms. Gammill, I
would like to know what you think. No. 1, do you think
additional tools are necessary? And No. 2, do you think that is
a good policy?
Ms. Gammill. I certainly think that additional tools are
necessary, as I have mentioned several times. I do think that
looking at every aspect of what our taxpayer dollars are being
used for and ensuring that those dollars are being used in
compliance with the law is crucial.
There is just--there is simply no question that the teeth
that have been lacking in resolutions under Title VI need to be
returned to those resolutions. I want to say this. I have dealt
extensively with resolution agreements under Title VI. There is
a process that allows universities to seek voluntary
resolution. It is typically through that process that
resolutions come about.
That is when the university approaches OCR and says, we
would like to voluntarily resolve this. Unfortunately, what we
see there is talk about compliance concerns. We do not see
findings of violation. I think it is critical that when OCR
investigates--or whomever it is because I have every faith that
someone will be investigating and enforcing Title VI, whether
it is OCR or another department in the Government.
When they do that, I believe it is crucial that we move
beyond just talking about compliance concerns and actually
issue findings of violation. And where those findings are
found, Federal funds need to be removed.
Senator Moody. Thank you, Ms. Gammill. We have these new
timers that nobody can see where the time is, so I apologize if
we went over.
The Chairman. Believe me, I am--this is our first meeting
in this new room. And so now I concede----
Senator Moody. A lot of new technology.
The Chairman. I concede my dial to Senator Kim who is next.
Senator Kim. Thank you Chairman. Thank you to all of you.
And very powerful testimoneys here.
One place I just wanted to sort of start from is an area
hopefully of agreement here. But Mr. Stern, you said
something--in your written testimony, you said, students have
an absolute right to expect a campus environment where they
will not be victims of true threats, real harassment, or
intimidation, bullying, or discrimination, let alone assault.
And I think that is something hopefully that all of us can
agree to, including my colleagues and I.
This question is, how do we determine what then crosses
that line? And I think that is something I have tried to
grapple with, and I have engaged the people in my state. And it
is challenging, and certainly when we look back at what
happened at campuses and across this country over the last 2
years or so I personally feel like I have seen things that have
crossed that line.
We have seen things that have entered that level of
bullying, intimidation, discrimination, assault. But what we
also know is that we shouldn't then cast that across the
entirety of everything that is happening. So the question is,
how do we try to separate that? And the question is also, who
decides that? We have talked about the Office of Civil Rights.
And Mr. Stern, I guess I will just start with.
You have said that for us to be able to achieve what Ms.
Gammill just talked about--I agree with you that we want to
make sure there is teeth. We want to make sure that we can get
the findings of violation.
Mr. Stern, you have proposed increasing the budget to the
Office of Civil Rights. Can you explain that to me in terms of
what would that be able to do further in terms of being able to
try to identify what the problem was, what the violation was,
and then what the appropriate response is.
Mr. Stern. Thank you, Senator. Well, one of the issues is
that there is a huge backlog. So on a campus when complaints
are not resolved in a timely fashion, I think we probably all
agree on that, that sends a message that nobody cares.
More funding would do that. But the other thing I want to
stress is that the solution that people are pointing to about
speech, about using the IHRA definition, is going to backfire.
It is not just me saying that. It is the Cato Institute,
the Federalist. Christopher Ruffo said the second problem with
the Antisemitism Awareness Act, especially for conservatives
and civil libertarians, is that is operating using the same
coercive and corrosive principles as DEI. The legislation
codifies an ideologically charged definition of Antisemitism
into law, provides special protections based on group identity,
and expands anti-discrimination enforcement to include
Constitutionally protected speech.
What I worry about is when we tend to think about
Antisemitism, is it on this side of the line or that side of
the line, we are ignoring how Antisemitism actually works.
Senator Sanders talked about the Tree of Life massacre. The
background noise of that was anti-immigrant animus.
If you look at how Antisemitism works, Charlottesville,
Jews will not replace us, the driving force is when anybody in
our society is seen as a danger internally and it is noble to
go and attack them. It is in that environment, not whether this
is about Israel, on this side of the line or that, that
promotes people to a conveyor belt of thinking in Antisemitic
terms.
Senator Kim. Ms. Gammill, I wanted to turn to you.
Definition aside I think you made your point and that was
helpful for me to understand your perspective on that. But
certainly we need some entity to be able to decide and make
adjudications here.
Do you have an opinion in terms of whether or not the
Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Education is the
place, or if the Department of Justice is the place, which is
what is being proposed by this Administration right now?
Ms. Gammill. I'll be honest with you, Senator, I don't
particularly care which one it is. I believe that enforcement
is what is necessary here. I believe that they need to be well
educated on these issues, whomever it is going to be.
I will say what we have seen recently when it is OCR
investigators is one, a lack of proper understanding in
education and a lack of understanding of the law that requires
enforcement. So to the extent that there is some cooperation
between the Department of Education and the Department of
Justice, I think that may be absolutely the recipe that we
need.
Senator Kim. Thank you for your perspective. Let me just
say on my front what I worry about because I agree with you.
Something you said earlier, Ms. Gammill, was context is
important. And I do think that there is very strong need for
having that context within the system of education.
Understanding the dynamics there in our education are
different than other parts of our society. I agree with you
though. We want to make sure that there is teeth to it in terms
of being able to engage. And what we want to make sure is there
is a process there. And I will be honest, like when I see these
efforts that are targeting Yunseo Chung, or Khalil, or others
without a process, whether in the Department of Education or
the Department of Justice, it worries me.
The last thing I will just say here as I am wrapping up is
I know it was mentioned before about Chinese students coming to
the United States, espionage issues. I just want to say like
look, like my son, 7 years old, when he was seven was at
school. Had a kid calling--taunting him, calling him Chinese
boy, Chinese boy over and over again. And so, when there was
that anti-Asian hate rising, the first people in New Jersey
that came to our defense were some of the Jewish American
community leaders. We wrote an Op-Ed together.
I think that is important. I understand that there are
nuances and differences, and I know that there is a concern
about lumping it all together, but it is this understanding
that when we protect all students, we are stronger than where
we are seeing that kind of division that is out there,
I just wanted to respond and say, look I will stand up to
try to address these needs. Try to do it in a way with teeth.
Thank you, Chairman, for letting me go a few seconds over here.
The Chairman. Senator Husted.
Senator Husted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate
everybody being here today. While Antisemitism is millennials
old, the flashpoint was October 7th for the issues that we are
currently dealing with. I was on a college campus, at Ohio
State, in the days after that occurred.
The students were very scared there. It seemed as though it
was a coordinated effort in many cases to--in the days
following as if there was an organization ready to go as soon
after October 7th. I do believe that for all the sake of the
Palestinian people and peace throughout the Middle East, if
Hamas would just simply release the hostages and the bodies of
those who are deceased, that we could take a step forward.
I hope we all can condemn them for failing to do that.
However, a couple of quick questions when we are talking about
the--are our universities protecting students from
Antisemitism? I will ask each one of you a quick answer. Yes or
no, are all of our college campuses doing enough to protect
Jewish students from Antisemitism?
Ms. Gammill. No.
Mr. Shemtov. Definitely not.
Mr. Small. Absolutely not.
Mr. Saperstein. No.
Mr. Stern. No. But the better answers for the long term are
educational as opposed to discipline.
Senator Husted. Well, that may be the case, but it seems
like the circumstances where we see the most Antisemitism are
on some of the most elite campuses in this country. So it is
clearly education doesn't do enough.
There seems to be some coordinated agenda. Let me ask about
the students on those campuses. If a student is here on a
student visa, and it is proven that they are involved in
Antisemitic activities and that they are connected to a foreign
government or a terrorist organization, should they have that
visa, student visa, revoked?
Ms. Gammill. It is a violation of their visa terms,
absolutely.
Mr. Shemtov. A foreign government, I can't say. But
terrorist organization, definitely.
Mr. Small. Yes. If they are supporting a terrorist
organization in the United States, they must have lied on their
visa application, which is against the law.
Mr. Saperstein. I agree with that. If it is a terrorist
organization and they are supporting it, the law is quite
clear.
Mr. Stern. Senator, I think the law is clear that there is
material support, but advocacy is something different. Let me
share with you a quote from Justice Brandeis in the Whitney
case when there was a conviction of a woman for belonging to
the Communist Party because they were advocating political
violence.
He said, those who want our independence believed liberty
to be the secret of happiness and courage to be the secret of
liberty. They believe the freedom to think as you will and to
speak as you think are means indispensable to----
Senator Husted. I understand that but we are not talking
about American citizens here. We are talking about people who
have the privilege of being here.
Mr. Stern. But the question is First Amendment rights, how
much it applies, especially to a green card holder or to--
people like Nadine Strossen say it does. Some--but the question
is policy----
Senator Husted. There could be a real debate about that,
but these are not citizens of the United States. They are here
as guests.
Mr. Stern. But do you want students that come to America
because of what we offer, including freedom of speech, to
decide they don't want to come here?
Senator Husted. I would not want them to do it if they were
indeed connected to a foreign government who is trying to
influence situations here in America or a terrorist
organization. That was the question.
Mr. Stern. What if they are misinformed about what river to
the sea means, and they are on a campus? And they are 18 years
old, and they see what is happening in Gaza----
Senator Husted. I am asking you the questions, you are not
asking me the questions but----
Mr. Stern. Okay.
[Laughter.]
Senator Husted. That is how this works.
Mr. Stern. My apologies.
Senator Husted. As we look at this situation--and again, I
was on college campuses in the days after. The students were
very concerned. I will let--Rabbi Shemtov, you may want to
answer this. Ms. Gammill, you may want to answer this.
Do you believe that there are--that there were coordinated
efforts in advance of--with American citizens or people who
were here that had knowledge of the October 7th attacks and
were working to coordinate Antisemitic activity here in
America?
Mr. Shemtov. Of the October 7th massacre, I have no idea.
Of the post-October 7th Antisemitic violence thinly veiled as
anti-Zionist or anti-Israel activity, absolutely, yes. And I am
sad to say some of that support came from within the Jewish
community, including many people say, and there is
circumstantial and better evidence, including from Mr. Soro's
circle, which is why I was so reticent to answer the Ranking
Member's question before.
Ms. Gammill. I will just add that likewise, I have no
specific information about what knowledge individuals here in
the U.S. had. I can say that with absolute certainty that
immediately following October 7th, there was clear evidence of
a concerted campaign in the form of a toolkit for individuals
on campus to follow in order to be in lockstep with Hamas and
its ideas.
Senator Husted. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Baldwin.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to
thank our witnesses for being here today. Let me be clear,
there is no place for Antisemitism and other forms of
discrimination anywhere in this country, including on our
college campuses.
As we have heard this morning, the Office of Civil Rights
within the Department of Education is responsible for enforcing
laws that protect the civil liberties of more than 49 million K
through 12 students, and more than 24 million post-secondary
students, including 1.2 million students in the State of
Wisconsin.
There has been some debate at the dais, on the dais about
whether the Office of Civil Rights is adequately resourced for
the important charge that it has. The Office of Civil Rights
was established by Congress within the Department of Education
and is charged with protecting the rights of students.
We know that the office has seen a rise in cases and
allegations of Antisemitism and other religious based
discrimination on college campuses. And so, I would expect to
be talking today more about how we are ensuring that the Office
of Civil Rights is properly staffed and resourced.
The Trump administration has taken the opposite approach,
intending to gut not only the Office of Civil Rights by firing
staff, closing regional offices, and freezing OCR cases, but
also by intending to dismantle the entire Department of
Education.
During her confirmation process, I pressed Secretary of
Education Linda McMahon about whether she would commit to using
appropriated funds provided to the Department of Education's
Office of Civil Rights for necessary staffing, and she
responded that she would ensure that students would have equal
access to education through vigorous enforcement of civil
rights.
But since then, Secretary McMahon and President Trump have
shuttered seven Office of Civil Rights regional offices,
including one that serves the State of Wisconsin. You have
already been asked about the impact of this and so I am going
to move to another topic, and that is, the impact of broad
attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion on the topic that
we have before us today.
Rabbi Saperstein, I appreciate your message of unity and
observations that hate speech and hate crimes tear at the unity
of Americans. As you attest, Antisemitism thrives in
environments where civil liberties are curtailed, and that
anti-bias training is critical to combating Antisemitism and
fostering an inclusive environment for all students to learn
and thrive.
I am very interested in your assessment of the potential
impact of policy choices being made to attack diversity,
equity, and inclusion. Will these broad attacks on diversity,
equity, and inclusion sweep up important anti-bias training and
other efforts to combat Antisemitism?
Mr. Saperstein. The question as you phrased it I think
answers itself. Yes, it will greatly restrict anti-biased
training. It will greatly restrict our commitment to the
pluralistic democracy in which Jews have always thrived.
Pluralistic democracies have to be taken away. You think of
the Nazis in Germany, they have to be destroyed in order to go
about the work of a state sponsored Antisemitism. We don't want
to erode our democracy or the pluralistic nature. There was a
problem in a number of the DEI programs that they didn't
include Jews and Antisemitism, and we pushed very hard to
ensure that they would be included and that should be
recognized.
But the need to have a diverse, inclusive, pluralistic
society, including at our higher institutions of learning, I
think is more important today as we are growingly more diverse
in America than ever before.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Banks.
Senator Banks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Small, this
week the Americans for Public Trust released a report that
documented that China has donated over $175 million this year
over the last year alone to U.S. colleges.
Now, I wonder what connections you have found between the
influence campaigns of the Chinese Communist Party, that money
that is being sent to U.S. colleges, and to groups like
Students for Justice in Palestine.
Mr. Small. Thank you for your question. It is an important
issue. And in our circles we joke that the Chinese government
steals IP from the United States and the Qatari buy it, and
these are both important issues.
The Chinese Communist Party is connected, for example, to--
in our assessment to Code Pink, for example. We have people
like Mr. Roy Singham supporting kind of the extreme left in the
United States and some of these issues on campus that are
confronting in terms of Antisemitism.
Radical Islamist organizations such as the Muslim
Brotherhood, Hamas, and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad have long
cooperated and trained together with radical Marxist
organizations such as the PFLP and the Democratic Front for--
Liberation of Palestine. And this sort of exploded in our
campus on October the 7th.
U.S. groups echoing these narratives and these type of kind
of extremist groups, violent groups on campus----
Senator Banks. I got a lot to----
Mr. Small. We call them the Red----
Senator Banks. You can't establish a link between the
Chinese influence campaigns and Students for Justice in
Palestine. That is----
Mr. Small. We call it the Red Green Alliance though. So on
campus----
Senator Banks. The Red Green Alliance. I want to get to
that because the connections between China and the radical
Islamists like Hamas are no coincidence. It is called the Red
Green Alliance, as you said.
The socialist left, and radical Islamists are coordinating
to undermine the United States and Israel, and Code Pink is a
big part of it. It is too bad that our Code Pink guest had to
leave because I really wanted to get into that. Dr. Small, Code
Pink isn't just a far left anti-war protest group anymore. It
has become a direct tool of the Chinese Communist Party, and
the CCP influence in the United States funded by CCP
intermediaries.
Code Pink is defending the Communist Party's internment of
the Uyghurs. It is really crazy, but Code Pink is defending the
human rights abuse against Uyghur Muslims. Code Pink says that
Taiwan is a part of China and--they even accuse the U.S. of
being the invader during the Korean War.
Isn't that correct? They call, Code Pink calls America the
arsenal of genocide. And just yesterday, they interrupted a
Senate Intelligence Committee hearing shouting anti-Israel
slogans. Dr. Small, what links are you aware of between the CCP
and Code Pink and other pro-Hamas organizations?
Mr. Small. Our colleagues have done some research on this.
There definitely are links. There are links to Hamas. There are
links to the Iranian revolutionary regime as well. They--Code
Pink has visited Gaza and Iran on various occasions. So there
is this sort of--they embody the Red Green Alliance. They are
anti-American, anti-democratic, anti-Antisemitic.
Senator Banks. Yes. I am really sorry they left because I
wonder, do they even know that? Do they understand that? Do
they understand that they are being--do they agree with that or
are they taken advantage of by Code Pink organizers and
financers?
Mr. Small. I think they take advantage of the free speech
that we have here. And I think in a way a lot of this
conversation was framed with--as free speech. But I also think
in terms of Antisemitism and what is taking place on campus is
intimidation, violence, and criminal activity. So I wish there
would be somebody from a police force here. We have spoken to
NYPD----
Senator Banks. I want to get to that. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to enter a letter into the record that I sent to the
Attorney General Pam Bondi yesterday requesting an
investigation of Code Pink for violating the Foreign Agent's
Registration Act.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The following information can be found on page 113 in
Additional Material:]
Senator Banks. Dr. Small, do you think Code Pink's leaders
may fit the definition of foreign agents and should they be
investigated?
Mr. Small. 'I think they should definitely be investigated.
Senator Banks. Dr. Small, you have mentioned this already,
the New York Times reported in August 2023 that Code Pink's
founder is now married to Neville Roy Singham, a
multimillionaire who lives in Shanghai and funds a whole
network of pro-CCP and anti-Israel protest groups. Mr.
Chairman, I would like to also enter that record--or that
article from the New York Times into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The following information can be found on page 115 in
Additional Material:]
Senator Banks. If American backed organizations protested
like this in China, they would be locked up and shut down
immediately. That is the fact of it. Dr. Small, what should the
U.S. Government be doing to stop this flow of subversive money
into our Country?
Mr. Small. In my recommendation--in my submission we call
for various recommendations, including the Department of
Education and other Government entities should do thorough
investigations into foreign funding and its impact on our
higher education.
We believe our higher education is--young people come to
universities to learn how to be citizens and they are being
miseducated on many important issues that guarantee our
freedoms, such as freedom of speech and other democratic
freedoms that we have here.
Senator Banks. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Small. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Tragically,
Antisemitism is on the rise in the United States. It is
outrageous. It is wrong, and we cannot, and we must not
tolerate it. We saw it when white supremacists marched in
Charlottesville with swastikas yelling blood in soil.
We saw it when a man walked into the Tree of Life synagogue
and killed congregants in their house of worship. We see it
when synagogues are threatened and vandalized, and we see it
when Trump administration officials support far right Holocaust
deniers. Antisemitism is a threat to our most basic freedom in
the United States, the freedom to pursue faith without fear.
But rather than seriously address Antisemitism and protect
Jewish students' safety, this Administration is cutting funding
for the Office of Civil Rights, and Trump is cynically using
the rise in Antisemitism as a tool to restrict freedom, stroke
fear, and silence dissent, and it is as terrifying as it is
evil.
Under the guise of combating Antisemitism, this
Administration cutoff $400 million in funding for Columbia
University. Funding that amongst other things supports critical
Alzheimer's and cancer research. We can't have cutoffs in
Alzheimer's and cancer research in America.
This month, ICE officers arrested students in Columbia and
Georgetown and elsewhere lawfully here in the United States but
haven't charged them with a single crime. We are the United
States of America. It is 2025. You need evidence. You need a
crime. You have to say what it is. And on Tuesday, masked ICE
officers grabbed Rumaysa Ozturk, a Ph.D. student at Tufts
University, off the street as she was on her way to break fast
for Ramadan. She has not been charged with a single crime.
As far as I understand it, the Trump administration
arrested these students because they engaged in the freedom of
expression that is explicitly protected under the Constitution
of the United States. What these individuals said or believed
is beside the point.
What matters is that we have a President arresting people
because he disagrees with their Constitutionally protected
right to freedom of expression, and that imperils the basic
democratic principles upon which all of our freedoms relies.
When the Government of the United States is sending mass
police to grab students off the streets and from their homes,
holding Federal dollars, or threat of investigation as
blackmail to force institutions into silence and routinely
violating the Constitution, the laws passed by the United
States in order to do what he wishes while using the Jewish
people and others as a shield for hi transgressions, we have
crossed a dangerous, dangerous threshold from which we cannot
return unless we call it out for what it is, authoritarianism.
We have a very serious Antisemitism problem in the United
States of America. It is a problem that deserves a real and a
forceful response. But the answer to Antisemitism will never be
authoritarianism. We cannot guarantee freedom if we let Trump
march in and steal freedom while we remain silent.
Rabbi Saperstein, in your testimony you state,
``Antisemitism, the hatred of Jews as Jews, thrives in an
authoritarian environment where civil liberties are curtailed,
not in spaces of robust protected democratic discourse.''
Please expand on how Trump administration's authoritarian
actions are a threat to the safety of the Jewish community and
the role that Congress should play in response to it.
Mr. Saperstein. I said before that the Jewish community in
America has thrived to enjoy more rights, more freedoms, and
more opportunities than anywhere else. There are a number of
reasons for that.
One is the rule of law which is at the core of our
democratic system, our Constitutional system. The second was
the separation of Government and religion--that Government
would not interfere with the religion. We are keeping
Government out of religion.
This was the first country in the history of the world in
which we said, your rights as a citizen will not depend upon
your religious identity or your religious beliefs, or your
religious peaceful practices, which is a standard in my work as
U.S. Ambassador for Religious Freedom. I tried to hold every
other country accountable to its embodying the international
human rights covenants.
We have always thrived better in open, pluralistic
countries than we have in dogmatic and authoritarian countries.
We are always the other in those authoritarian countries.
The reason we have thrived here has been the opportunities
that higher education has given us, that the public schools
have brought us up through for some generations in this country
here, and the attacks on each one of those that we are seeing
on higher education, on cutting back, even restricting funds,
the public schools in terms of--in terms of the attacks on the
rule of law and judges, the judicial system, ignoring judicial
decisions that are being made, all of this undercuts the safety
of not just Jews but everyone who is a victim of discrimination
in this country.
Senator Markey. Antisemitism is the problem.
Authoritarianism is not the answer.
Mr. Saperstein. Indeed.
The Chairman. Senator Hawley.
Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
for calling this important hearing. Thanks to our witnesses for
being here. Mr. Stern, if I could just start with you. I see
that five or 6 days ago you gave an interview in which you said
that the removal of Mahmud Khalil, the pro-Hamas foreign
rioter, is a form of McCarthyism and makes Jewish students less
safe.
Now, this is an individual who has been accused of
endorsing and espousing terrorist activity. Who has been
accused of lying on his application to a green card in the
United States. Who is currently being sued for terrorizing and
assaulting Jewish students. Do you stand by your view that
trying to remove him as a form of McCarthyism?
Mr. Stern. Absolutely, Senator.
Senator Hawley. Why in the world would that be the case?
Mr. Stern. Let me answer. He hasn't been charged with a
crime. The clear predicate for this, the White House said he
was handing out pro-Hamas propaganda. When you start talking
about people's views and what they are talking about in the
public square as a basis for discrimination--and the effect on
Jewish students is not just the fact that Jews may be seen as
we are pushing this and that is going to happen. The way that
this is going to harm Jewish students is it harms the academy.
Senator Hawley. Wait a minute. My time is limited. I am
sorry to interrupt you, but just wait a minute. I have got to
correct numerous inaccuracies there. No. 1, as you very well
know, United States law says that a non-citizen is inadmissible
for entry into this country if they, and I quote, ``endorse or
espouse terrorist activity or persuade others to do the same.''
That same law provides you can be removed for the same
reasons. That is what Mr. Khalil has been accused of. He has
further been accused of by the U.S. Government for lying on his
visa application.
That on its own would be sufficient to remove him from this
country. He is being sued as you and I sit here in New York
Court by the victims of October 7th for terrorizing and
assaulting Jewish students, unlawfully taking over and damaging
public university property, and physically assaulting Columbia
University employees. And you are telling me that it is
McCarthyism to remove this individual?
Mr. Stern. Senator, the deportation was started before that
lawsuit, before that second question about what he was saying
on his forms.
Senator Hawley. No, this is what the Government has alleged
in open court, Mr. Stern. This is the basis for their removal
proceedings. And our law makes clear, if you endorse or espouse
terrorist activity, you can be removed from this country. He
has done so. He has been accused of doing so from the
beginning. He has been accused of lying to get into the
country. I just, I am amazed that you are saying that this is
McCarthyism.
Mr. Stern. Senator, you weren't here when I quoted part of
what Justice Brandeis was talking about back in a case when
there was somebody that was convicted for supporting the
Communist party because they were talking about violence as a
political solution. And Brandeis cautioned us that this type of
robust speech----
Senator Hawley. This isn't speech. Lying on a visa
application is not speech. Seeking to assault Columbia
University employees and Jewish students is not speech. You are
defending an individual who has espoused the destruction of
this country, the destruction of the State of Israel, the
destruction of Jews, and has taken actions in furtherance of
the same.
You have also said that investigating the 60 colleges and
universities that are currently under investigation by the
Trump administration for Antisemitism is a form of weaponizing
Antisemitism for political benefit. You are opposed to
investigating these institutions for Antisemitism?
Mr. Stern. Senator. I have been very clear that OCR has a
very important role. That there are complaints that should go
through the process. When you start using the Department of
Justice and threatening universities' funding----
Senator Hawley. You are opposed--I just want to get this on
the record. You are opposed to investigating Columbia
University and others for Antisemitism?
Mr. Stern. No, I am not----
Senator Hawley. That is what you said 6 days ago.
Mr. Stern. No, I am not opposed to doing it the right way--
--
Senator Hawley. What does that mean, doing it the right
way?
Mr. Stern. Not to claw back funds. Not to say we are
holding you ransom. We are getting your faculty----
Senator Hawley. You were asked about an investigation for
failing to protect Jewish students, and you said that is just
weaponizing Antisemitism. It makes students less safe.
Mr. Stern. It is when the Department of Justice has a list
of places they want to go to. To Senator Markey's question----
Senator Hawley. Oh, I heard Senator Markey's questions. I
heard his whole speech. I thought it was insane. I just want to
say for the record, I thought it was totally insane. And I
think your positions are similarly insane.
I think the idea that we would bend over backward to hug
and kiss and make nice to a pro-Hamas rioter because that's
what Khalil is, and that we would say, heavens we can't remove
him, and that makes Jewish students less safe on our campuses.
That is nuts--that is nuts.
Mr. Stern. Senator, Rabbi Saperstein's point, if you look
at American history, the times where Jews were most vulnerable
was during the Palmer raids in World War I when there was
political----
Senator Hawley. Jews are vulnerable now on our campuses
because of people like Khalil. And I want to say for the
record, I am glad he is gone, and I hope he never comes back.
[Applause.]
The Chairman. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you
all for your time here and all your work. I think we have
covered sufficiently to say that all of you agree that every
student should feel safe on their campus.
Certainly the troubling rise of Antisemitic incidents on
campuses over these past 2 years is troubling and should not be
accepted. Students barricading in their rooms to protect
themselves is unacceptable by any standard. But we have cut the
Office of Civil Rights dramatically, and we seem to be pitting
two of our fundamental goals against each other.
One is the--our necessity to stop Antisemitism, but also
making sure that we uphold the First Amendment rights. And I
think American universities are trying to do that. I went to a
little college in Connecticut, Wesleyan, where there has been a
lot of effort about going out and trying to have discussion
with both sides. And at the same time always keeping students
safe.
That is their constant priority. And so I thought--Rabbi
Saperstein, do you agree that university leadership should work
harder at making sure we have--not just keeping them safe but
making sure that dialog can help create that safety?
Mr. Saperstein. I do. There are a number of things that are
going on at universities that would be very helpful now.
Exactly, the university encouraging and structuring those kinds
of dialogs. Having courses that teach about Zionism and
Palestinian nationalism so that people can hear it from an
academic point of view.
Having opportunities that there can be an open space and
safe space where these dialogs can be held. And the one thing I
would say to your statement and to some of the others, it is
always, difficult to come up with a perfect answer of when
something steps over speech into harassment, or into
intimidation, which are clearly not allowed.
What is really important is for the universities to make
clear what their standards are and what kind of protests will
step over the line. They should be public about it, transparent
about it, and consistently enforce it.
Nothing is more important, in terms of actually being able
to tone down things, for everyone to know what the rules are,
what the limits are, and to see it consistently enforced no
matter who the perpetrators may be.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Any other comments on that?
Yes.
Mr. Shemtov. Yes, I think that the, I am obviously a
supporter of the First Amendment. I am a very deep beneficiary
of the First Amendment. I believe that discussion between
peoples is always important. One thing I am proud of is the
numerous relationships I have with Muslims and Arab leaders who
come to this country.
Senator Hickenlooper. You got to go a little faster. I am
going to----
Mr. Shemtov. To understand them. It will be three
sentences. On the campus of the George Washington University, I
was just told firsthand by a student that they were taught in
the first session of a class they needed to take that just to
balance things out, there will be no Israeli written materials
allowed in this course. 'I believe----
Senator Hickenlooper. I hear that argument, but that is not
answering my question.
Dr. Small.
Mr. Small. Yes. I just want to start by saying, my family
friend's daughter goes to Wesleyan, and she withdrew because
she couldn't stand the pressure of being a young Jewish woman
in the space. That is my first point----
Senator Hickenlooper. No, no, no, I got to get to another
question, so--I apologize. I wish I had 6 minutes.
Mr. Stern. Michael Roth, the president there is one of my
heroes. What he said when there was an encampment, he said, you
want to camp? Camp. You want to harass somebody, you
intimidate? That is a different story. We are going to use this
as a learning experience. One other thing----
Senator Hickenlooper. No, no--I just want to get to this
last question, sorry. Ms. Gammill, if you can just get your one
sentence.
Ms. Gammill. I think we have to stop hiding behind free
speech. What we are seeing on campuses is not a matter of
speech----
Senator Hickenlooper. I have heard that come through. And I
don't disagree that, but that balance between free speech and
what we are talking about. I want just a quick yes or no right
down the line because this is a crux--do you think it is
appropriate that the Federal Government threatens or withhold
research money that has nothing to do with any of this issue
from major universities across the country based on how they
are addressing this specific issue?
Ms. Gammill. The Federal Government has the authority to
condition how it spends its money.
Senator Hickenlooper. You think that is Okay?
Ms. Gammill. When institutions are violating the law, yes
it is Okay.
Senator Hickenlooper. Okay.
Mr. Shemtov. I believe they can reapportion the funding to
institutions that will abide by the law, and will protect
Jewish students, and other students, and not have intimidation
on their campus.
Senator Hickenlooper. Research dollars are very hard to
reapportion, but Okay, I hear you.
Mr. Shemtov. There should be a way to do that.
Mr. Small. It is against the Federal law to fund private or
public entities that discriminate against American citizens.
Mr. Saperstein. The money is there to do what you are
talking about, the rabbi here. To take it from here is
punitive. It is really just aimed at undermining universities
who do things that we can find a better way to get them to
achieve.
Mr. Stern. Senator, I see it as an existential threat to
universities. They are going to kill cancer research and
diabetes research. Some of the researchers are Jewish, and they
are doing it without due process. That is not the way to deal
with this problem. That is only going to make it worse.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you all. I appreciate it. I
yield back.
The Chairman. [Technical problems]--that shouldn't be a
cover. Chasing kids into a room and pounding on the door when
they are there is wrong, let me just say that. And blocking
their way to get across the commons to go to their class is
wrong. And that shouldn't have to be established in a behavior
handbook. That should just be known when the kid shows up.
If you are guilty of perpetrating that, you should suffer
consequences. And I think that is--that is not free speech.
Now, we are closing. I ask for unanimous consent to enter three
letters into the record. The first record from the American
Jewish Medical Association describing and highlighting the
danger of Antisemitism in the medical education to the
detriment of Jewish students and patients alike.
The second letter from the Union of Orthodox Jewish
Congregations of America, providing recommendations to address
Antisemitism on college campuses and supporting the passage of
the Antisemitism Awareness Act, the Protecting Students on
Campus Act, and The Deterrent Act.
The third letter from the Zionist Organization of America,
highlighting the long history of Antisemitism on college
campuses, including the surge since the attacks on October the
7th, 2023. And I ask unanimous consent, and I so acknowledge.
[The following information can be found on page 120 in
Additional Material:]
The Chairman. The hearing record will remain open for 10
business days. Senators may submit questions for the records
within that----
Senator Sanders. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. I have a couple of unanimous consents.
The Chairman. Oh, I am sorry.
Senator Sanders. One to enter into the record. A letter
from the Jewish Electorate Institute regarding today's hearing.
And another one dealing with the impact of Trump's cutting of
the Office of Civil Rights.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The following information can be found on page 146 in
Additional Material:]
The Chairman. Thank you for being here today. The Committee
stands adjourned.
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
United States Senate,
Washington, DC,
March 26, 2025
Hon. Pamela Bondi Attorney General,
U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Bondi:
Yesterday morning, Code Pink activists disrupted the Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence's ``Worldwide Threats'' hearing, screaming
that, ``The greatest threat to global safety is Israel.'' Code Pink has
instigated numerous illegal antisemitic riots at university campuses
across the country, including the University of Wisconsin and the
University of California, Los Angeles.
I am concerned that Code Pink's actions extend far beyond anti-war
protests, and that the group is actively engaging in propaganda efforts
to support the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) foreign policy aims,
including by undermining U.S.-Israel relations and fueling antisemitism
on college campuses. I write to urge you to investigate Code Pink for
potential violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), due
to growing evidence of Code Pink's deep connections with the CCP.
FARA requires all individuals in the United States acting as agents
of foreign principals to regularly disclose their status and activities
as a foreign agent to the Department of Justice (DOJ). FARA is meant to
prevent U.S. organizations from secretly serving the interests of a
foreign power and to provide transparency to reduce hostile
governments' abilities to promote propaganda.
Code Pink has a demonstrated track record of operating in the
interests of the CCP. Code Pink routinely lobbies for conciliatory U.S.
policies on China and aggressively denies reports of CCP atrocities.
Including the CCP's genocide against the Uyghur people in Xinjiang. In
January 2025, Code Pink acknowledged that it had organized a 10-day
``community trip' '' to Xinjiang--presumably on a tightly controlled
itinerary staged by the Chinese government to help communist
authorities continue denying these crimes. Code Pink's ``report'' on a
past China trip argued that ``Taiwan is part of China,'' that U.S.
bases in Asia were like Japan's World War II mass abuse of ``comfort
women,'' and that the Americans were the ``invaders'' in the Korean
War.
Instead of condemning China's use of Uyghurs as slave labor, Code
Pink's founder, Jodie Evans, considers Communist China a ``defender of
the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or war.''
Code Pink operatives regularly disrupt congressional hearings on
subjects which the CCP wants to suppress. In 2023, Code Pink operatives
disrupted the inaugural hearing of the House Select Committee on China.
shouting ``China is not our enemy!'' The disruption quickly led to a
gloating headline in the Peoples Daily, the CCP's main newspaper.
Code Pink also receives significant funding and likely receives
direction from agents of the CCP. The New York Times reports that Code
Pink receives almost a quarter of its funding from Roy Neville Singham,
a multimillionaire based in China, who shares office space and staff
with a Chinese propaganda outlet. In one photo, Singham's office even
contained a red banner that read ``Always Follow the Party.'' Code
Pink's founder, Evans, has been married to Singham since 2017. Code
Pink's position on China has switched from skeptical to unquestioningly
supportive since Evans became more involved with Singham and his
organization. This suggests that Singham has played a substantial role
in shaping Code Pink's rhetoric and priorities.
While once an American anti-war group, Code Pink has clearly become
an agent of CCP influence in the United States. Despite activities and
funding so blatant that even the New York Times acknowledged the
organization's activities ``usually require' groups to register under
FARA, Code Pink has not registered with the DOJ. This failure to
register represents a potential violation of FARA and merits a full
investigation.
In his first term, President Trump took long overdue steps to root
out malign CCP influence in the United States and counter antisemitism.
Under the Biden administration, however, CCP infiltration of American
politics and society was allowed to deepen while antisemitism was
allowed to rage unchecked on American campuses. I know that President
Trump, and you as his Attorney General, will take the lead once again
in preventing communist China from undermining our national security,
spouting their lies unimpeded, and dividing America from Israel.
Requiring CCP mouthpieces like Code Pink to register as the foreign
agents they are would be a major first step toward this goal.
I urge you to investigate Code Pink for potential violations of
FARA. and respectfully ask that you provide answers to the following
questions by no later than April 25, 2025:
(1) Has Code Pink or any of its employees ever registered with
the DOJ as a foreign agent acting on behalf of the Chinese
Communist Party or any agency, official, or agent of the
government of the People's Republic of China (PRC)?
(2) Is it the view of the DOJ that Code Pink is legally
obligated to disclose its status as a foreign agent under FARA,
considering the organization's extensive efforts to lobby
Members of Congress and U.S. Federal agencies for conciliatory
U.S. policies toward China?
(3) What actions is the DOJ taking to counter the CCP's efforts
to expand its influence in the United States through funding
far-left entities that oppose U.S. foreign policy interests and
advocate the interests of foreign adversaries?
(4) What actions is the DOJ taking to address FARA violations
committed by U.S.-domiciled entities that lobby against the
foreign policy interests of the U.S. while simultaneously
receiving funding from foreign adversaries?
Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Banks,
U.S. Senator for Indiana.
______
the new york times
A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul
By Mara Hvistendahl, David A. Fahrenthold, Lynsey Chutel and Ishaan
Jhaveri
Mara Hvistendahl is an investigative reporter focused on China.
David A. Fahrenthold investigates nonprofits from Washington. Lynsey
Chutel reported from South Africa and Ishaan Jhaveri from New York.
Published Aug. 5, 2023
Updated Aug. 10, 2023
The Times unraveled a financial network that stretches from Chicago
to Shanghai and uses American nonprofits to push Chinese talking points
worldwide.
On the surface, No cold war is a loose collective run mostly by
American and British activists who say the West's rhetoric against
China has distracted from issues like climate change and racial
injustice.
In fact, a New York Times investigation found, it is part of a
lavishly funded influence campaign that defends China and pushes its
propaganda. At the center is a charismatic American millionaire,
Neville Roy Singham, who is known as a socialist benefactor of far-left
causes. What is less known, and is hidden amid a tangle of nonprofit
groups and shell companies, is that Mr. Singham works closely with the
Chinese government media machine and is financing its propaganda
worldwide.
From a think tank in Massachusetts to an event space in Manhattan,
from a political party in South Africa to news organizations in India
and Brazil, The Times tracked hundreds of millions of dollars to groups
linked to Mr. Singham that mix progressive advocacy with Chinese
government talking points.
Some, like No cold war, popped up in recent years. Others, like the
American antiwar group Code Pink, have morphed over time. Code Pink
once criticized China's rights record but now defends its internment of
the predominantly Muslim Uyghurs, which human rights experts have
labeled a crime against humanity.
These groups are funded through American nonprofits flush with at
least $275 million in donations.
But Mr. Singham, 69, himself sits in Shanghai, where one outlet in
his network is co-producing a YouTube show financed in part by the
city's propaganda department. Two others are working with a Chinese
university to ``spread China's voice to the world.'' And last month,
Mr. Singham joined a Communist Party workshop about promoting the party
internationally.
Mr. Singham says he does not work at the direction of the Chinese
government. But the line between him and the propaganda apparatus is so
blurry that he shares office space--and his groups share staff
members--with a company whose goal is to educate foreigners about ``the
miracles that China has created on the world stage.''
Years of research have shown how disinformation, both homegrown and
foreign-backed, influences mainstream conservative discourse. Mr.
Singham's network shows what that process looks like on the left.
He and his allies are on the front line of what Communist Party
officials call a ``smokeless war.'' Under the rule of Xi Jinping, China
has expanded state media operations, teamed up with overseas outlets
and cultivated foreign influencers. The goal is to disguise propaganda
as independent content.
Mr. Singham's groups have produced YouTube videos that, together,
racked up millions of views. They also seek to influence real-world
politics by meeting with congressional aides, training politicians in
Africa, running candidates in South African elections and organizing
protests like the one in London that erupted into violence.
The result is a seemingly organic bloom of far-left groups that
echo Chinese government talking points, echo one another, and are
echoed in turn by the Chinese state media. Because the network is built
on the back of American nonprofit groups, tax experts said, Mr. Singham
may have been eligible for tax deductions for his donations.
The Times untangled the web of charities and shell companies using
nonprofit and corporate filings, internal documents and interviews with
over two dozen former employees of groups linked to Mr. Singham. Some
groups, including No cold War, do not seem to exist as legal entities
but are tied to the network through domain registration records and
shared organizers.
None of Mr. Singham's nonprofits have registered under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act, as is required of groups that seek to
influence public opinion on behalf of foreign powers. That usually
applies to groups taking money or orders from foreign governments.
Legal experts said Mr. Singham's network was an unusual case.
Most of the groups in Mr. Singham's network declined to answer
questions from The Times.
Three said they had never received money or instructions from a
foreign government or political party.
Speculation about Mr. Singham first emerged on Twitter among self-
described anti-fascists. Reports followed in the publication New Lines
and the South African investigative outlet amaBhungane. The authorities
in India raided a news organization tied to Mr. Singham during a
crackdown on the press, accusing it of having ties to the Chinese
government but offering no proof.
The Times investigation is the first to unravel the funding and
document Mr. Singham's ties to Chinese propaganda interests.
Mr. Singham did not offer substantive answers to questions about
those ties. He said he abided by the tax laws in countries where he was
active.
``I categorically deny and repudiate any suggestion that I am a
member of, work for, take orders from, or follow instructions of any
political party or government or their representatives,'' he wrote in
an email. ``I am solely guided by my beliefs, which are my long-held
personal views.'' Indeed, his associates say Mr. Singham has long
admired Maoism, the Communist ideology that gave rise to modern China.
He praised Venezuela under the leftist president Hugo Chavez as a
``phenomenally democratic place.'' And a decade before moving to China,
he said the world could learn from its governing approach.
The son of a leftist academic, Archibald Singham, Mr. Singham is a
longtime activist who founded the Chicago-based software consultancy
Thoughtworks.
There, Mr. Singham came across as a charming showman who prided
himself on creating an egalitarian corporate culture. He was unabashed
about his politics. A former company technical director, Majdi Haroun,
recalled Mr. Singham lecturing him on the Marxist revolutionary Che
Guevara. Mr. Haroun said employees sometimes jokingly called each other
``comrade.'' In 2017, Mr. Singham married Jodie Evans, a former
Democratic political adviser and the co-founder of Code Pink. The
wedding, in Jamaica, was a ``Who's Who'' of progressivism. Photos from
the event show Amy Goodman, host of ``Democracy Now!''; Ben Cohen, co-
founder of Ben & Jerry's ice cream; and V, the playwright formerly
known as Eve Ensler, who wrote ``The Vagina Monologues.''
It was also a working event. The invitation described a panel
discussion called ``The Future of the Left.''
A screen grab of the wedding website--Mr. Singham goes by Roy--with
a scheduled panel discussion called ``The Future of the Left.'' Credit
. . . oneloveunionjodieandroy.com
Mr. Singham had a plan for that future. He had quietly funded left-
wing causes while at Thoughtworks. But his activism was about to
intensify. Six months after his wedding, he sold Thoughtworks to a
private equity firm. A copy of the sale agreement put the price at $785
million.
``I decided that at my age and extreme privilege, the best thing I
could do was to give away most of my money in my lifetime,'' he said in
his statement.
The Network Takes Shape
While other moguls slapped their names on foundations, Mr. Singham
sent his money through a system that concealed his giving.
At its center were four new nonprofits with dust-dry names like
``United Community Fund'' and ``Justice and Education Fund.'' They have
almost no real-world footprints, listing their addresses only as UPS
store mailboxes in Illinois, Wisconsin and New York.
Because American nonprofit groups do not need to disclose
individual donors, these four nonprofits worked like a financial
geyser, throwing out a shower of money from an invisible source.
In their public filings, none list Mr. Singham as a board member or
donor. ``I do not control them,'' he said in his statement, ``although
I have been known to share my opinions.''
In reality, Mr. Singham has close ties to all four.
The largest is run by Ms. Evans. The group's founding bylaws say
that Mr. Singham can fire her and the rest of the board. They also
require that the group dissolve after Mr. Singham's death.
The other three groups were founded by former Thoughtworks
employees, according to interviews with other former Thoughtworks staff
members and resumes posted online.
In his statement, Mr. Singham acknowledged giving his money to
unnamed intermediaries that fit the description of these four UPS store
nonprofits. And several groups that received donations from them have
identified Mr. Singham as the source.
One of them is the Massachusetts-based think tank Tricontinental.
Its executive director, Vijay Prashad, recounted Mr. Singham's
financing in 2021. ``A Marxist with a massive software company!'' he
wrote on Twitter.
Tricontinental produces videos and articles on socialist issues.
Mr. Prashad did not answer questions about Mr. Singham, but said the
organization followed the law. ``We do not and have never received
funds or instructions from any government or political party,'' he said
in a statement.
From the UPS store nonprofits, millions of dollars flowed around
the world. The Times tracked money to a South African political party,
YouTube channels in the United States and nonprofits in Ghana and
Zambia. In Brazil, records show, money flowed to a group that produces
a publication, Brasil de Fato, that intersperses articles about land
rights with praise for Xi Jinping. In New Delhi, corporate filings
show, Mr. Singham's network financed a news site, NewsClick, that
sprinkled its coverage with Chinese government talking points.
``China's history continues to inspire the working classes,'' one video
said. These groups operate in coordination. They have cross-posted
articles and shared one another's content on social media hundreds of
times. Many share staff members and office space. They organize events
together and interview one another's representatives without disclosing
their ties.
`Hijacked' in South Africa
Several times a year, activists and politicians from across Africa
fly to South Africa for boot camps at the Nkrumah School, set in a
popular safari area.
They come to learn to organize workers and left-wing movements.
Once on campus, though, some attendees are surprised to find Chinese
topics seeping into the curriculum.
At a recent session, reading packets said that the United States
was waging a ``hybrid war'' against China by distorting information
about Hong Kong, Taiwan and the Xinjiang region where Uyghurs were held
in camps.
The packets praised Chinese loans, calling them ``an opportunity
for African states to construct genuine, and sovereign, development
projects.'' No mention was made of China's role in a recent debt crisis
in Zambia.
``They're being rounded up to be fed Chinese propaganda,'' said
Cebelihle Mbuyisa, a former employee who helped prepare materials for
the workshop. ``Whole social movements on the African continent are
being hijacked by what looks like a foreign policy instrument of the
Chinese Communist Party.''
Those who objected were shouted down or not invited back, four past
attendees said. U.S. tax records show that one of the UPS store
nonprofits, the People's Support Foundation, donated at least $450,000
for training at the school. On Instagram, Ms. Evans described a photo
of the grounds as ``Roy's new place.''
The $450,000 was just part of Mr. Singham's efforts in South
Africa. In all, the foundation has sent $5.6 million to groups that run
the school; a news organization; and the Socialist Revolutionary
Workers Party, a fringe party launched ahead of the 2019 election.
Former party members said they were perplexed that, despite severe
local unemployment and poverty, the party seemed interested in China.
Mr. Singham, for example, urged them to attend an online lecture by a
Chinese academic, Li Bo of Fudan University, an email shows.
After a party member called China's presence in Africa ``a second
colonization,'' leaders responded defensively in a WhatsApp group.
``When it came to us questioning certain behaviors from the Chinese
state, that was a no-no,'' said Lindiwe Mkhumbane, a former member. In
a statement, the party said its members have attended workshops on
progressive issues but that it had never forced anyone to attend.
Mr. Singham also funded an online news startup, New Frame,
according to a recording obtained by The Times. One employee, Aragorn
Eloff, said Mr. Singham interviewed him for a job. The outlet hired
talented reporters and paid them well. Readership was small, but the
stated goal was ``quality, not clicks.''
Its former top editor has denied that New Frame had a pro-China
slant. But a former reporter, Anna Majavu, said that an editor removed
criticism of Chinese labor practices from a story on mining. ``The
resistance from the editor was purely political,'' she said.
In June 2022, an editor, Darryl Accone, wrote a resignation letter
criticizing New Frame's soft coverage of China and Russia. The
``unavoidable conclusion,'' he wrote, ``is that this is an ideological
directive emanating from above and outside New Frame.''
`Always Follow the Party'
Mr. Singham's office, adorned in red and yellow, sits on the 18th
floor of Shanghai's swanky Times Square.
A visit shows that he is not alone.
He shares the office with a Chinese media company called Maku
Group, which says its goal is to ``tell China's story well,'' a term
commonly used for foreign propaganda. In a Chinese-language job
advertisement, Maku says it produces text, audio and videos for
``global networks of popular media and progressive think tanks.''
It can be hard to tell where Maku begins and Mr. Singham's groups
end.
Nonprofit filings show that nearly $1.8 million flowed from one of
the UPS store nonprofits to Maku Group. And in 2021, according to a
Chinese-language news release, Maku and Tricontinental agreed to work
with a Shanghai university to ``tell China's story'' in Chinese and
English.
Maku's website shows young people gathering in Mr. Singham's
office, facing a red banner that reads, in Chinese, ``Always Follow the
Party.'' Resting on a shelf is a plate depicting Xi Jinping. Maku Group
did not respond to a request to comment. After The Times began asking
questions, its website went down for maintenance.
In 2020, Mr. Singham emailed his friends to introduce a newsletter,
now called Dongsheng News, that covers China in English, French,
Spanish and Portuguese. Drawing stories from the state media, it blends
lighthearted news with bureaucratic official prose.
Dongsheng's editors, in China, come from Tricontinental, but its
address leads to the People's Forum, a Manhattan event space also
funded by Mr. Singham. Dongsheng ``provides unique progressive coverage
of China that has been sadly missing,'' Mr. Singham told friends.
His ties to the propaganda machine date back at least to 2019,
when, corporate documents show, he started a consulting business with
Chinese partners. Those partners are active in the propaganda
apparatus, co-owning with the municipal government of Tongren a media
company that promotes anti-poverty policies.
The small, southwest city of Tongren might seem a niche topic. But
organizations in Mr. Singham's network have published at least a dozen
items about peasants there.
Code Pink
Ms. Evans, 68, was once a Democratic insider who managed the 1992
Presidential campaign of the California Governor Jerry Brown.
After the 2001 terrorist attacks, she reinvented herself as an
activist. She became known for pink peace-sign earrings and sit-ins
that ended with her arrest.
She helped form Code Pink to protest the looming war in Iraq. The
group became notorious for disrupting Capitol Hill hearings.
Ms. Evans has organized around progressive causes like climate
change, gender and racism. Until a few years ago, she readily
criticized China's authoritarian government.
``We demand China stop brutal repression of their women's human
rights defenders,'' she wrote on Twitter in 2015. She later posted on
Instagram a photo with the Chinese dissident Ai Weiwei.
Since 2017, about a quarter of Code Pink's donations--more than
$1.4 million--have come from two groups linked to Mr. Singham,
nonprofit records show. The first was one of the UPS store nonprofits.
The second was a charity that Goldman Sachs offers as a conduit for
clients' giving, and that Mr. Singham has used in the past.
Ms. Evans now stridently supports China. She casts it as a defender
of the oppressed and a model for economic growth without slavery or
war. ``If the U.S. crushes China,'' she said in 2021, it ``would cutoff
hope for the human race and life on Earth.''
She describes the Uyghurs as terrorists and defends their mass
detention. ``We have to do something,'' she said in 2021. In a recent
YouTube video chat, she was asked if she had anything negative to say
about China.
``I can't, for the life of me, think of anything,'' Ms. Evans
responded. She ultimately had one complaint: She had trouble using
China's phone-based payment apps.
Ms. Evans declined to answer questions about funding from her
husband but said Code Pink had never taken money from any government.
``I deny your suggestion that I follow the direction of any political
party, my husband or any other government or their representatives,''
she said in a written statement. ``I have always followed my values.''
Few on the American political left would discuss the couple
publicly, fearing lawsuits or harassment. Others said that criticism
would undermine progressive causes. But Howie Hawkins, the 2020 Green
Party Presidential nominee, said he had soured on Code Pink and others
in the Singham network that presented themselves as pro-labor but
supported governments that suppressed workers. ``To defend that, or
excuse that, really pushes them outside what the left ought to be,'' he
said.
Code Pink is not alone among left-wing groups in raising concerns
about anti-Asian discrimination and tensions between Beijing and
Washington.
But Code Pink goes further, defending the Chinese government's
policies. In a 2021 video, a staff member compared Hong Kong's pro-
democracy demonstrators to the rioters who stormed the Capitol on
January 6 that year.
In June, Code Pink activists visited staff members on the House
Select Committee on China unannounced. In the office of Representative
Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, activists denied evidence of
forced labor in Xinjiang and said the Congressman should visit and see
how happy people were there, according to an aide.
``They are capitalizing on very legitimate concerns in order to
push this pro-authoritarian narrative,'' said Brian Hioe, an editor
with New Bloom, a progressive Taiwanese news site. ``And their ideas
end up circulating in a way that affects mainstream discourse.''
Chinese state media accounts have retweeted people and organizations in
Mr. Singham's network at least 122 times since February 2020, a Times
analysis found, mostly accounts connected with No cold war and Code
Pink.
This May, Mr. Singham attended the opening of a media institute in
Shanghai. Organizers distributed tote bags reading ``Communications as
solidarity.''
Just last month, Mr. Singham attended a Chinese Communist Party
propaganda forum. In a photo, taken during a breakout session on how to
promote the party abroad, Mr. Singham is seen jotting in a notebook
adorned with a red hammer and sickle.
Joy Dong, Michael Forsythe, Flavia Milhorance, Liu Yi and Suhasini
Raj contributed reporting. Susan C. Beachy and Michelle Lum contributed
research.
Audio produced by Jack D'Isidoro.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Responses by Rabbi Shemtov to Questions of Senator Hassan
senator hassan
Question 1.Hate directed toward Jewish Americans is un-American,
unacceptable, and must end.
One step we must take to counter such hate is by investing in
Holocaust education programs so that our young people understand the
evils that drive antisemitism.
In December, Congress passed the Never Again Education
Reauthorization Act with overwhelming bipartisan support. This law
provides critical funding for holocaust education at schools.
Rabbi Shemtov, what role does Holocaust education have in fighting
the spread of antisemitism and developing a more informed citizenry?
Answer 1. No written response was submitted.
______
Responses by Carly Gammill to Questions of Senator Scott
senator scott
In 2017, Mr. Paul Clement wrote a letter to Members of Congress
regarding the constitutionality of the Antisemitism Awareness Act. Mr.
Clement served as the 43rd Solicitor General of the United States under
President George W. Bush. Omitting footnotes and citations, Mr. Clement
wrote the following about the Antisemitism Awareness Act:
Dear Senator/Representative:
I write on behalf of the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC,
and the Jewish Federations of North America. These four organizations
have differing perspectives on many issues, but they speak with one
voice in their support of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. That bill
would supplement existing law prohibiting anti-Semitic harassment on
college campuses by providing a much-needed and workable definition of
anti-Semitism, one that is already employed by the Federal Government
in other contexts. This proposal passed the Senate unanimously last
year, but it stalled in the House of Representatives based in part on
suggestions that the Act would violate the First Amendment.
While efforts by public universities to directly regulate student
speech do raise serious First Amendment issues, the Act is
fundamentally different and concerns about its constitutionality are
misplaced for multiple reasons. First, the Act includes a savings
clause that ensures the Act will be implemented consistently with the
First Amendment. Second, the Act adds a definition to an existing law
that addresses conduct, not speech. Title VI already has been
interpreted to charge universities with prohibiting harassment on a
number of forbidden bases, including anti-Semitism. That charge is
compatible with the commands of the Supreme Court's First Amendment
jurisprudence because it does not license universities to prohibit any
speech, but only to reach certain conduct that rises to a level of
harassment when it is undertaken on a forbidden basis such as racism or
anti-Semitism. Supreme Court precedent allows the government to police
such conduct and to consider speech as evidence of a forbidden intent,
and it distinguishes the evidentiary use of speech from direct
prohibitions on the speech itself. The Act builds on those existing
laws and distinctions. Third, the Act simply adds a definition of anti-
Semitism to existing law. Existing law prohibits harassment motivated
by anti-Semitism without providing Education Department officials or
university officials with a workable definition of anti-Semitism. It is
hard to see how providing those officials with such a definition will
create a First Amendment problem. To the contrary, defining this
critical term by statute advances First Amendment values by providing
clarity and ensuring that the definition of this term does not vary
from official to official or from administration to administration.
The ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, and the Jewish
Federation of North America all support the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
as sound policy. Indeed, if policy objections to the Act are raised,
these organizations stand ready to join issue. But the debate over the
Act should take place as a policy matter, not based on misplaced
constitutional concerns. The Act conforms with Supreme Court precedent
and adds a savings clause for good measure. Indeed, all the Act adds to
existing law is a definition which provides clarity and serves, rather
than defeats, First Amendment values.
Background
Anti-Semitism on college campuses is a serious and growing problem.
According to a recent report, there were 941 anti-Semitic incidents in
the United States in 2015, including 56 assaults. The FBI has found
that over half of the religiously motivated hate-crimes in 2015 were
motivated by anti-Jewish bias. And the number of anti-Semitic incidents
on college campuses doubled in 2015--accounting for 10 percent of all
domestic anti-Semitic incidents. These 90 incidents, across 60 college
campuses, include: spray-painting and drawing swastikas on residency
halls and predominantly Jewish fraternities; taping the word ``JEW''
and a swastika next to a student's Israeli flag in his room; and
writing that ``Zionists should be sent to the gas chamber'' in a campus
bathroom.
Existing Federal law already charges universities with protecting
students from such harassment on campus. Under Title VI, ``[n]o person
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.'' As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, that law obligates universities receiving Federal funds to
prevent peer-to-peer harassment when the harassment ``is so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the
victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit.'' A
university may not tolerate such extreme forms of harassment, and a
failure to take action to redress known incidents of such conduct can
lead to Federal remedial action.
That protection extends to Jewish students under existing law. As
the Departments of Education and Justice have both concluded, schools
must protect Jewish students (as well as Muslims, Sikhs, and any other
religious groups perceived to share ethnic characteristics) from
``discrimination on the basis of actual or perceived shared ancestry or
ethnic characteristics.'' Given those findings, universities are
obligated under current law to protect their Jewish students from
severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment that is
motivated by anti-Semitism.
As with any kind of discrimination, it can sometimes be hard to
tell whether a specific incident was actually motivated by anti-
Semitism. And officials charged with implementing Title VI face a
unique challenge when it comes to addressing anti-Semitic conduct,
namely that anti-Semitism can be disguised as criticism of Israel or
Zionism. Despite that difficulty, to date, the Education Department has
not set forth any definition of anti-Semitism to guide universities or
officials charged with implementing Title VI. The impact of this
omission on enforcement has been dramatic. Even though the Education
Department interprets Title VI to reach anti-Semitism and even though
the Department has promised, since 2004, to combat anti-Semitism on
campuses, the Department's Office of Civil Rights has not brought a
single action relating to anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses.
(At the same time, OCR has pursued a range of actions relating to
harassment of non-Jewish students on college campuses based on racial
or ethnic bias.) Without a clear definition of anti-Semitism, the
Department evidently does not have the confidence and clarity to act.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is designed to fill that
definitional gap. For the first time, the Act offers a clear definition
of anti-Semitism for the Department to ``take into consideration'' when
deciding if an incident ``was motivated by anti-Semitic intent.''
Specifically, the Act, which draws its definition from the State
Department's established approach, clarifies that anti-Semitism ``is a
certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward
Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are
directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'' And in
an effort to provide further clarity--including on whether and when
extreme anti-Zionist acts indicate anti-Semitic intent--the Act offers
a series of concrete examples of anti-Semitism. The Act directs the
Department to consider both the definition and examples when deciding
whether Jewish students are being denied the discrimination-free
education that everyone deserves and is guaranteed under law.
The Act Is Consistent With The First Amendment
The Senate unanimously passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act on
December 1, 2016, but the bill stalled in the House of Representatives
based at least in part on suggestions that the Act is unconstitutional.
Opponents of the bill have suggested that the Act is unconstitutional
because it improperly regulates campus speech against Israel and
because its definition of anti-Semitism is too vague. These
constitutional objections to the Act are misplaced for three principal
reasons.
First, any suggestion that the Act is unconstitutional immediately
runs into the clear text of the Act's savings clause. That clause in
the bill passed by the Senate last year provides that: ``Nothing in
this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to
diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First
Amendment.'' At one level, the savings clause states a truism, as no
statute can diminish a constitutional right, and a statute that in fact
infringes upon a right protected under the First Amendment would be
unconstitutional to that extent. But at a more fundamental level, the
savings clause underscores that the Act can be implemented consistent
with the First Amendment and, more important, directs that the Act be
implemented in that manner. As the balance of this letter indicates,
the implementation of Title VI undeniably implicates First Amendment
issues, since speech may be relevant in judging whether harassment is
motivated by the specific forms of animus addressed by Title VI. But
Title VI can be implemented consistent with First Amendment values and
precedent as long as Education Department officials honor the speech/
conduct and prohibition/evidence distinctions (discussed below) that
underlie the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. The savings
clause underscores Congress' intent that Education Department officials
do just that--i.e., that they implement both Title VI and the Act in a
manner that is fully consistent with the First Amendment.
Second, opponents are wrong to suggest that the Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act regulates anti-Israel speech and therefore violates the
First Amendment. Congress cannot pass a law preventing individuals from
speaking out against Israel any more than Congress can prohibit
criticism of the United States (or any other country). The Act,
however, does nothing of the sort. Not only does the Act feature a
savings clause, but the definition that the Act adopts expressly
underscores that any ``criticism of Israel similar to that leveled
against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.'' Put
simply, the bill does not punish political speech against Israel; it
says that such political criticism is fair game.
More fundamentally, the Act does not regulate campus speech against
Israel because it does not regulate speech at all. The Act does not
prohibit individuals from claiming that ``Jewish citizens [are] more
loyal to Israel,'' that Jewish people ``invent[ed] or exaggerate[ed]
the Holocaust,'' or anything else on the State Department's list. That
kind of speech, no matter how offensive and despicable, receives full
protection under the First Amendment--and the Act does not purport to
punish it. In fact, the Act does not impose any new obligations, but
simply provides a clarifying definition to help Education Department
officials identify what is already prohibited under existing law. All
of the relevant obligations already exist and are imposed by Title VI,
not by the Act itself. Current law already requires universities to
prevent severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive peer-to-peer
harassment motivated by several forms of prohibited animus, including
anti-Semitism. The Act does not alter what qualifies as sufficient
harassment under that statute or the relevant precedents that
distinguish between prohibited harassment and protected speech. All the
Act does is help Education Department and university officials figure
out which severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassing
conduct actually reflects anti-Semitic intent. In that way, this bill
offers a rule of evidence, not a restriction on speech. The fact that
certain speech is protected does not mean that officials have to close
their eyes to that speech entirely when determining the impetus behind
a particularly severe act of harassment.
In fact, this distinction is critical to ensuring that all the
prohibitions in Title VI (and other statutes) conform with the First
Amendment. To take one example, the Supreme Court has held that
hateful, racist speech gets full First Amendment protection. For that
reason, Congress cannot pass a law simply barring all individuals from
employing that kind of language, no matter how odious, on college
campuses. That is why direct efforts by public universities to regulate
student speech through speech codes raise serious First Amendment
difficulties. But at the same time, the Education Department is
permitted to consider such hateful speech when deciding if severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment aimed at African
American students is motivated by racism. The same is true under
current law when it comes to severe, pervasive, and objectively
offensive harassment motivated by anti-Semitism. Current Title VI law
already reaches such improperly motivated conduct, and current Supreme
Court doctrine makes clear that as long as the government addresses
improperly motivated conduct and not speech itself, the First Amendment
is not violated. As the Court explained in an opinion authored by
Justice Scalia, some speech ``can be swept up incidentally within the
reach of a statute directed at conduct rather than speech.'' And as
former Chief Justice Rehnquist explained for a unanimous Court: ``The
First Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech
to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.''
All the Act adds to this existing framework is a definition for anti-
Semitism, which is currently undefined in Title VI and its implementing
regulations. Thus, the suggestions that the Act violates the First
Amendment is really an attack on the constitutionality of Title VI as a
whole.
The principle that protected speech can permissibly serve as
evidence of improper motive is hardly unique to Title VI. Just as Title
VI protects individuals from discrimination by federally funded
organizations, Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination. In this
context, the Supreme Court has made clear that speech, though protected
under the First Amendment, can serve as evidence that workplace
harassment was motivated by discriminatory intent. The distinction
between a direct prohibition on speech and the use of protected speech
as evidence is critical. Congress plainly could not enact a law putting
individuals in jail for using sexist language without violating the
First Amendment. But that same constitutionally protected speech can be
offered as evidence of illegal sex-based discrimination in hiring,
promotions, and the like. As Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, while
certain sexist speech may not be directly banned based on its content,
that same speech ``may produce a violation of Title VII's general
prohibition against sexual discrimination in employment practices.''
And so the Supreme Court has repeatedly--in opinions written by
justices across the ideological spectrum--allowed for claims that
relied, at least in part, on coworker and manager statements as
evidence. The distinction is straightforward and critical: The speech
is protected, but it can reveal that workplace harassment or other
mistreatment was, in fact, motivated by sexism. The Act is fully
consistent with that constitutionally vital distinction: it in no way
directly prohibits any speech, but it helps the Education Department
understand which incidents were motivated by anti-Semitic intent.
Third, by providing a definition for a critical term, the Act
provides clarity and avoids the prospect of the definition of this
critical term changing from official to official and from
administration to administration. Far from creating any vagueness
problem, adding a stable statutory definition advances and protects
First Amendment interests. The Constitution, of course, prohibits
Congress from enacting statutes so unclear that someone would struggle
to distinguish between what the law makes lawful and unlawful. But even
leaving aside that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act does not regulate
the primary conduct of ordinary citizens (and instead imposes
obligations on recipients of Federal funds who maintain the power to
decline funding or at least to seek clarity from regulatory officials),
the Act can hardly be the source of any vagueness problem because it
actually makes the law in this area more clear, not less.
As explained above, Title VI already requires universities that
receive Federal funds to prevent anti-Semitic harassment against their
students. Presently, there is no guidance given to the Department,
universities, or individuals regarding what constitutes anti-Semitic
intent, and no guidance regarding when, if ever, anti-Zionist acts can
reveal such intent. It is up to individual Education Department
officials to decide on an ad hoc basis. Such ``ad hocery,'' to borrow a
phrase, 19 is generally an anathema to First Amendment values. The Act
answers those open questions by providing a non-exhaustive, clarifying
definition and examples, and in doing so helps the Department and
universities understand what is (and is not) anti-Semitism. Nothing in
current doctrine supports the counterintuitive notion that a law that
clarifies what evidence indicates anti-Semitic motive could fail for
vagueness, when the current interpretation of Title VI, which reaches
anti-Semitism without defining the term, does not. As Justice Thomas
wrote for the Court in another context earlier this month, ``if a
system of unfettered discretion is not unconstitutionally vague, then
it is difficult to see how the [proposed] system of guided discretion
could be.''
That is especially true where, as here, the alternative would be to
leave the issue up to the unfettered discretion of Education Department
officials. Letting the agency charged with enforcing Title VI decide
all questions about whether conduct does or does not reflect anti-
Semitism--rather than having Congress lay out a definition--is hardly
the better approach under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has
been profoundly skeptical of the idea that First Amendment problems can
be avoided by counting on the agency or a prosecutor to adopt a narrow
reading of the law. Instead, from the standpoint of First Amendment
values, it is far better for Congress to clarify the law for everyone,
including for the agency charged with implementation. That is
particularly true when it comes to Title VI and peer-to-peer harassment
on college campuses. Title VI directs Federal funding recipients not
only to refrain from direct discrimination, but to avoid tolerating
peer-to-peer harassment that is so pervasive as to deny students access
to programs. But it is only appropriate to hold fund recipients
responsible for peer-to-peer harassment when the fund recipients
themselves fail to take adequate steps to prevent and redress such
conduct. To implement the prohibition against anti-Semitism in that
context makes it critical that university officials, as well as
Education Department officials, have a common conception of what
constitutes anti-Semitism. The Act does just that, while the status quo
provides a vacuum that coincides with and may well explain the complete
absence of any enforcement actions against anti-Semitism on college
campuses.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act enjoyed not just bipartisan, but
unanimous, support in the Senate last year. When the bill arrived in
the House of Representatives, what emerged were not policy objections,
but suggestions that the Act was incompatible with the First Amendment.
Those concerns are misplaced. Not only does the Act include a savings
clause, but it reflects the same distinctions that underlie Title VI
and Title VII and make the statutes fully compatible with First
Amendment doctrine. Congress cannot prohibit anti-Semitic or racist
speech on campus or the workplace, but Congress can prohibit harassment
motivated by race or anti-Semitism and government officials can look at
protected speech in judging whether such an impermissible motive is
present. Indeed, that is precisely what the Education Department is
doing with respect to Title VI and anti-Semitism right now, but it is
undertaking that task without the benefit of any definition. The Act
fills that gap, and in doing so serves First Amendment values rather
than creates vagueness problems. None of this is to deny that there are
serious First Amendment issues raised by efforts to directly regulate
campus speech. But that is not what the Act does, and passage of the
Act should not be delayed based on misplaced constitutional concerns.
Very truly yours,
Paul D. Clement.
Later that year, Mr. Clement prepared a statement before the U.S.
House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary where he also
discussed the constitutionality of the Antisemitism Awareness Act.
Omitting footnotes and citations, Mr. Clement's statement reads:
Chairman Goodlatte, Congressman Conyers, and other distinguished
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you today about the serious problem addressed in today's hearing and
the constitutionality of proposed legislation designed to redress that
problem.
As a Partner at Kirkland & Ellis, it is my privilege to represent
the ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, and the Jewish Federations
of North America in conjunction with the proposed Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act. These four organizations have differing perspectives on
many issues, but they speak with one voice in their support of the
Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. That bill would supplement existing law
prohibiting anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses by providing a
much-needed and workable definition of anti-Semitism, one that has
already been used by the Federal Government in other contexts. This
proposal passed the Senate unanimously last year, but it stalled in the
House of Representatives based in part on suggestions that the Act
would violate the First Amendment.
While efforts by public universities to directly regulate student
speech do raise serious First Amendment issues, the Act is
fundamentally different and concerns about its constitutionality are
misplaced for multiple reasons. First, the Act includes a savings
clause that ensures the Act will be implemented consistently with the
First Amendment. Second, the Act adds a definition to an existing law
that addresses conduct, not speech. Title VI already has been
interpreted to charge universities with prohibiting harassment on a
number of forbidden bases, including anti-Semitism. That charge is
compatible with the commands of the Supreme Court's First Amendment
jurisprudence because it does not license universities to prohibit any
speech, but only to reach certain conduct that rises to a level of
harassment when it is undertaken on a forbidden basis such as racism or
anti-Semitism. Supreme Court precedent allows the government to police
such conduct and to consider speech as evidence of a forbidden intent,
and it distinguishes the evidentiary use of speech from direct
prohibitions on the speech itself. The Act builds on those existing
laws and distinctions.
Third, the Act simply adds a definition of anti-Semitism to
existing law. Existing law prohibits harassment motivated by anti-
Semitism without providing Education Department officials or university
officials with a workable definition of anti-Semitism. It is hard to
see how providing those officials with such a definition will create a
First Amendment problem. To the contrary, defining this critical term
by statute advances First Amendment values by providing clarity and
ensuring that the definition of this term does not vary from official
to official or from administration to administration.
The ADL, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, and the Jewish
Federation of North America all support the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act
as sound policy. Indeed, if policy objections to the Act are raised,
these organizations stand ready to join issue. But the debate over the
Act should take place as a policy matter, not based on misplaced
constitutional concerns. The Act conforms with Supreme Court precedent
and adds a savings clause for good measure. Indeed, all the Act adds to
existing law is a definition which provides clarity and serves, rather
than defeats, First Amendment values.
Background
Anti-Semitism on college campuses is a serious and growing problem.
According to a recent report, there were 1,299 anti-Semitic incidents
in the United States from January to September of this year. That
number has been rising in each of the past few years. Indeed, the FBI
found that over half of the religiously motivated hate-crimes in 2015
(the most recent hate-crimes statistics available) were motivated by
anti-Jewish bias. And the number of anti-Semitic incidents on college
campuses rose sharply this year--``a total of 118 anti-Semitic
incidents were reported in the first three quarters of 2017, compared
to 74 in the same period of 2016--an increase of 59 percent.'' Anti-
Semitic incidents on college campuses have included: spray-painting and
drawing swastikas on residency halls and predominantly Jewish
fraternities; taping the word ``JEW'' and a swastika next to a
student's Israeli flag in his room; and writing that ``Zionists should
be sent to the gas chamber'' in a campus bathroom.
Existing Federal law already charges universities with protecting
students from such harassment on campus. Under Title VI, ``[n]o person
in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national
origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of,
or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving Federal financial assistance.'' As the U.S. Supreme Court has
explained, that law obligates universities receiving Federal funds to
prevent peer-to-peer harassment when the harassment ``is so severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the
victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit.'' A
university may not tolerate such extreme forms of harassment, and a
failure to take action to redress known incidents of such conduct can
lead to Federal remedial action. That protection extends to Jewish
students under existing law. As the Departments of Education and
Justice have both concluded, schools must protect Jewish students (as
well as Muslims, Sikhs, and any other religious groups perceived to
share ethnic characteristics) from ``discrimination on the basis of
actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.'' Given
those findings, universities are obligated under current law to protect
their Jewish students from severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive
harassment that is motivated by anti-Semitism.
As with any kind of discrimination, it can sometimes be hard to
tell whether a specific incident was actually motivated by anti-
Semitism. And officials charged with implementing Title VI face a
unique challenge when it comes to addressing anti-Semitic conduct,
namely that anti-Semitism can be disguised as criticism of Israel or
Zionism. Despite that difficulty, to date, the Education Department has
not set forth any definition of anti-Semitism to guide universities or
officials charged with implementing Title VI. The impact of this
omission on enforcement has been dramatic. Even though the Education
Department interprets Title VI to reach anti-Semitism and even though
the Department has promised, since 2004, to combat anti-Semitism on
campuses, the Department's Office of Civil Rights has not brought a
single action relating to anti-Semitic harassment on college campuses.
(At the same time, OCR has pursued a range of actions relating to
harassment of non-Jewish students on college campuses based on racial
or ethnic bias.) Without a clear definition of anti-Semitism, the
Department evidently does not have the confidence and clarity to act.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act is designed to fill that
definitional gap. For the first time, the Act offers a clear definition
of anti-Semitism for the Department to ``take into consideration'' when
deciding if an incident ``was motivated by anti-Semitic intent.''
Specifically, the Act, which draws its definition from the State
Department's established approach, clarifies that anti-Semitism ``is a
certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward
Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are
directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property,
toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.'' And in
an effort to provide further clarity--including on whether and when
extreme anti-Zionist acts indicate anti-Semitic intent--the Act offers
a series of concrete examples of anti-Semitism. The Act directs the
Department to consider both the definition and examples when deciding
whether Jewish students are being denied the discrimination-free
education that everyone deserves and is guaranteed under law.
The Act Is Consistent With The First Amendment
The Senate unanimously passed the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act on
December 1, 2016, but the bill stalled in the House of Representatives
based at least in part on suggestions that the Act is unconstitutional.
Opponents of the bill have suggested that the Act is unconstitutional
because it improperly regulates campus speech against Israel and
because its definition of anti-Semitism is too vague. These
constitutional objections to the Act are misplaced for three principal
reasons.
First, any suggestion that the Act is unconstitutional immediately
runs into the clear text of the Act's savings clause. That clause in
the bill passed by the Senate last year provides that: ``Nothing in
this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be construed to
diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the First
Amendment.'' At one level, the savings clause states a truism, as no
statute can diminish a constitutional right, and a statute that in fact
infringes upon a right protected under the First Amendment would be
unconstitutional to that extent. But at a more fundamental level, the
savings clause underscores that the Act can be implemented consistent
with the First Amendment and, more important, directs that the Act be
implemented in that manner. As the balance of this letter indicates,
the implementation of Title VI undeniably implicates First Amendment
issues, since speech may be relevant in judging whether harassment is
motivated by the specific forms of animus addressed by Title VI. But
Title VI can be implemented consistent with First Amendment values and
precedent as long as Education Department officials honor the speech/
conduct and prohibition/evidence distinctions (discussed below) that
underlie the Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. The savings
clause underscores Congress' intent that Education Department officials
do just that--implement both Title VI and the Act in a manner that is
fully consistent with the First Amendment.
Second, opponents are wrong to suggest that the Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act regulates anti-Israel speech and therefore violates the
First Amendment. Congress cannot pass a law preventing individuals from
speaking out against Israel any more than Congress can prohibit
criticism of the United States (or any other country). The Act,
however, does nothing of the sort. Not only does the Act feature a
savings clause, but the definition that the Act adopts expressly
underscores that any ``criticism of Israel similar to that leveled
against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic.'' Put
simply, the bill does not punish political speech against Israel; it
says that such political criticism is fair game.
More fundamentally, the Act does not regulate campus speech against
Israel because it does not regulate speech at all. The Act does not
prohibit individuals from claiming that ``Jewish citizens [are] more
loyal to Israel,'' that Jewish people ``invent[ed] or exaggerate[ed]
the Holocaust,'' or anything else on the State Department's list. That
kind of speech, no matter how offensive and despicable, receives full
protection under the First Amendment--and the Act does not purport to
punish it. In fact, the Act does not impose any new obligations, but
simply provides a clarifying definition to help Education Department
officials identify what is already prohibited under existing law. All
of the relevant obligations already exist and are imposed by Title VI,
not by the Act itself. Current law already requires universities to
prevent severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive peer-to-peer
harassment motivated by several forms of prohibited animus, including
anti-Semitism. The Act does not alter what qualifies as sufficient
harassment under that statute or the relevant precedents that
distinguish between prohibited harassment and protected speech. All the
Act does is help Education Department and university officials figure
out which severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive harassing
conduct actually reflects anti-Semitic intent. In that way, this bill
offers a rule of evidence, not a restriction on speech. The fact that
certain speech is protected does not mean that officials have to close
their eyes to that speech entirely when determining the impetus behind
a particularly severe act of harassment.
In fact, this distinction is critical to ensuring that all the
prohibitions in Title VI (and other statutes) conform with the First
Amendment. To take one example, the Supreme Court has held that
hateful, racist speech gets full First Amendment protection. For that
reason, Congress cannot pass a law simply barring all individuals from
employing that kind of language, no matter how odious, on college
campuses. That is why direct efforts by public universities to regulate
student speech through speech codes raise serious First Amendment
difficulties. But at the same time, the Education Department is
permitted to consider such hateful speech when deciding if severe,
pervasive, and objectively offensive harassment aimed at African
American students is motivated by racism. The same is true under
current law when it comes to severe, pervasive, and objectively
offensive harassment motivated by anti-Semitism. Current Title VI law
already reaches such improperly motivated conduct, and current Supreme
Court doctrine makes clear that as long as the government addresses
improperly motivated conduct and not speech itself, the First Amendment
is not violated. As the Court explained in an opinion authored by
Justice Scalia, some speech ``can be swept up incidentally within the
reach of a statute directed at conduct rather than speech.'' And as
former Chief Justice Rehnquist explained for a unanimous Court: ``The
First Amendment . . . does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech
to establish the elements of a crime or to prove motive or intent.''
All the Act adds to this existing framework is a definition for anti-
Semitism, which is currently undefined in Title VI and its implementing
regulations. Thus, the suggestions that the Act violates the First
Amendment is really an attack on the constitutionality of Title VI as a
whole.
The principle that protected speech can permissibly serve as
evidence of improper motive is hardly unique to Title VI. Just as Title
VI protects individuals from discrimination by federally funded
organizations, Title VII prohibits workplace discrimination. In this
context, the Supreme Court has made clear that speech, though protected
under the First Amendment, can serve as evidence that workplace
harassment was motivated by discriminatory intent. The distinction
between a direct prohibition on speech and the use of protected speech
as evidence is critical. Congress plainly could not enact a law putting
individuals in jail for using sexist language without violating the
First Amendment. But that same constitutionally protected speech can be
offered as evidence of illegal sex-based discrimination in hiring,
promotions, and the like. As Justice Scalia wrote for the Court, while
certain sexist speech may not be directly banned based on its content,
that same speech ``may produce a violation of Title VII's general
prohibition against sexual discrimination in employment practices.''
And so the Supreme Court has repeatedly--in opinions written by
justices across the ideological spectrum--allowed for claims that
relied, at least in part, on coworker and manager statements as
evidence. The distinction is straightforward and critical: The speech
is protected, but it can reveal that workplace harassment or other
mistreatment was, in fact, motivated by sexism. The Act is fully
consistent with that constitutionally vital distinction: it in no way
directly prohibits any speech, but it helps the Education Department
understand which incidents were motivated by anti-Semitic intent.
Third, by providing a definition for a critical term, the Act
provides clarity and avoids the prospect of the definition of this
critical term changing from official to official and from
administration to administration. Far from creating any vagueness
problem, adding a stable statutory definition advances and protects
First Amendment interests. The Constitution, of course, prohibits
Congress from enacting statutes so unclear that someone would struggle
to distinguish between what the law makes lawful and unlawful. But even
leaving aside that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act does not regulate
the primary conduct of ordinary citizens (and instead imposes
obligations on recipients of Federal funds who maintain the power to
decline funding or at least to seek clarity from regulatory officials),
the Act can hardly be the source of any vagueness problem because it
actually makes the law in this area more clear, not less.
As explained above, Title VI already requires universities that
receive Federal funds to prevent anti-Semitic harassment against their
students. Presently, there is no guidance given to the Department,
universities, or individuals regarding what constitutes anti-Semitic
intent, and no guidance regarding when, if ever, anti-Zionist acts can
reveal such intent. It is up to individual Education Department
officials to decide on an ad hoc basis. Such ``ad hocery,'' to borrow a
phrase, is generally an anathema to First Amendment values. The Act
answers those open questions by providing a non-exhaustive, clarifying
definition and examples, and in doing so helps the Department and
universities understand what is (and is not) anti-Semitism. Nothing in
current doctrine supports the counterintuitive notion that a law that
clarifies what evidence indicates anti-Semitic motive could fail for
vagueness, when the current interpretation of Title VI, which reaches
anti-Semitism without defining the term, does not. As Justice Thomas
wrote for the Court in another context earlier this year, ``[i]f a
system of unfettered discretion is not unconstitutionally vague, then
it is difficult to see how the [proposed] system of guided discretion
could be.''
That is especially true where, as here, the alternative would be to
leave the issue up to the unfettered discretion of Education Department
officials. Letting the agency charged with enforcing Title VI decide
all questions about whether conduct does or does not reflect anti-
Semitism--rather than having Congress lay out a definition--is hardly
the better approach under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has
been profoundly skeptical of the idea that First Amendment problems can
be avoided by counting on the agency or a prosecutor to adopt a narrow
reading of the law, explaining that ``the First Amendment protects
against the Government; it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse
oblige.'' Instead, from the standpoint of First Amendment values, it is
far better for Congress to clarify the law for everyone, including for
the agency charged with implementation. That is particularly true when
it comes to Title VI and peer-to-peer harassment on college campuses.
Title VI directs Federal funding recipients not only to refrain from
direct discrimination, but to avoid tolerating peer-to-peer harassment
that is so pervasive as to deny students access to programs. But it is
only appropriate to hold fund recipients responsible for peer-to-peer
harassment when the fund recipients themselves fail to take adequate
steps to prevent and redress such conduct. To implement the prohibition
against anti-Semitism in that context makes it critical that university
officials, as well as Education Department officials, have a common
conception of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The Act does just that,
while the status quo provides a vacuum that coincides with and may well
explain the complete absence of any enforcement actions against anti-
Semitism on college campuses.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act enjoyed not just bipartisan, but
unanimous, support in the Senate last year. When the bill arrived in
the House of Representatives, what emerged were not policy objections,
but suggestions that the Act was incompatible with the First Amendment.
Those concerns are misplaced. Not only does the Act include a savings
clause, but it reflects the same distinctions that underlie Title VI
and Title VII and make the statutes fully compatible with First
Amendment doctrine. Congress cannot prohibit anti-Semitic or racist
speech on campus or the workplace, but Congress can prohibit harassment
motivated by race or anti-Semitism and government officials can look at
protected speech in judging whether such an impermissible motive is
present. Indeed, that is precisely what the Education Department is
doing with respect to Title VI and anti-Semitism right now, but it is
undertaking that task without the benefit of any definition. The Act
fills that gap, and in doing so serves First Amendment values rather
than creates vagueness problems. None of this is to deny that there are
serious First Amendment issues raised by efforts to directly regulate
campus speech. But that is not what the Act does, and passage of the
Act should not be delayed based on misplaced constitutional concerns.
In 2018, Ms. Kathryn Ruemmler similarly wrote a letter to Members
of Congress regarding the constitutionality of the Antisemitism
Awareness Act. Ms. Ruemmler served as White House Counsel to President
Barack Obama. Omitting footnotes, Ms. Ruemmler wrote the following
about the Antisemitism Awareness Act:
Dear Senator/Representative:
I write on behalf of my client, the Elie Wiesel Foundation for
Humanity, in support of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018 (the
Act). We understand that concerns have been raised regarding the Act's
constitutionality, particularly its constitutionality under the First
Amendment. We have had the opportunity to review Paul Clement's well-
reasoned letter dated March 20, 2017 on behalf of ADL, the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, and the Jewish Federations of North America
and we are in agreement with the support for the Act offered therein.
Nevertheless, we wanted to offer a different point of emphasis in favor
of the Act, which we believe is both constitutional and would help to
combat Anti-Semitism.
As you know, the First Amendment's protection of the right to free
speech extends to the most offensive speech. Simply put, the government
may not prohibit even hateful speech.
At the same time, it is equally well established that the First
Amendment's protections do not extend to conduct, including for example
conduct in the form of workplace sexual harassment, ethnic
discrimination, or hate crimes. And the Supreme Court has repeatedly
made clear that speech can be used as evidence of prohibited conduct.
That is, speech can be used to show the intent or motive or state of
mind of the speaker, toward establishing that the speaker committed a
legally wrongful act, even though the speaker's speech, itself, could
not be regulated. For example, repeated comments about a woman's
appearance may provide evidence of workplace sexual harassment, and
likewise the use of a racial slur may tend to prove an element of a
hate crime.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination-
i.e., conduct-based on a person's race, color, or national origin by
any institution receiving Federal financial assistance, including
universities and colleges receiving Federal funds. The Department of
Education and the Department of Justice have both determined that Title
VI's prohibition extends to Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and any other
religion groups that share or are perceived to share ethnic
characteristics. According to longstanding policy by administrations of
both political parties, this means universities and colleges must take
steps to prevent anti-Semitism that rises to the level of a hostile
education environment.
The Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2018 would provide potential
assistance to the Department of Education in its implementation of
Title VI. Specifically, the Act provides instructive examples of what
constitutes anti-Semitism, and directs the Department of Education to
``take into consideration'' those definitions of anti-Semitism ``as
part of the Department's assessment'' of whether actions may constitute
a hostile educational environment (Section 4) (emphases added). The Act
does not direct, or indeed allow, the Department of Education to
regulate speech as such in any respect. To remove any doubt of such a
misinterpretation, the Act specifically provides that nothing in it:
``shall be construed--(1) to expand the authority of the
Secretary of Education; (2) to alter the standards pursuant to
which the Department of Education makes a determination that
harassing conduct amounts to actionable discrimination; or (3)
to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any
other provision of law. . . .''
Section 6(a). In other words, the Act does not increase the
Department of Education's authority under Title VI (or in any other
respect), nor does it dilute any rights provided by any other law,
including of course the First Amendment. On the point, the Act contains
another provision explicitly stating that nothing in the Act ``shall be
construed to diminish or infringe upon any right protected under the
First Amendment.'' (Section 6(b)). Of course, that the Act says it does
not violate the First Amendment does not make it so. But this
provision, like the provision quoted just above, does make very clear
how the Act must be interpreted.
The simple reason the Act does not violate the First Amendment is
because it in no way regulates, much less prohibits, any speech.
Instead, it directs the Department of Education to take notice of
examples of forms of anti-Semitism that the U.S. State Department
developed in 2010. Those examples include, among others, calling for
the harming of Jews, making dehumanizing statements, accusing Jews as a
people of inventing the Holocaust, and using symbols and images
associated with classic anti-Semitism to characterize Israel or
Israelis.' While such expressions themselves are protected by the First
Amendment, they can be considered as evidence to understand the motive
underlying conduct that is in no way protected by the First Amendment
(or any other legal right).
That is the central point here. The Act explicitly directs the
Department of Education to consider these definitions only in the
course of determining whether a ``practice was motivated by anti-
Semitic intent'' (Section 4), recognizing, again explicitly, that Title
VI forbids only ``harassing conduct [that] amounts to actionable
discrimination'' (Section 6(a)(2)) (emphases added). The Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act thus does not purport to regulate speech, and cannot
reasonably be interpreted to do so. Instead, it merely directs the
Department of Education to consider previously established
illustrations of anti-Semitism in making its own determination whether
conduct rises to the level of harassment prohibited by Title VI, and to
do so in away that does not ``diminish or infringe upon'' free-speech
rights. For these reasons, the Act does not violate the First
Amendment.
Best regards,
Kathryn Ruemmler,
of LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.
Last year, Pastor John Hagee of Christians United for Israel and
Ralph Reed of the Faith and Freedom Coalition wrote a letter regarding
the Antisemitism Awareness Act where they specifically addressed the
claims that the bill was ``anti-Christian.'' They wrote:
We, and our members, welcomed President Trump's 2019 Executive
Order Combating Antisemitism, and we are grateful the Biden
administration sustained that order. Finally, after 8 years of debate,
the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023, which largely codifies
President Trump's 2019 Executive Order, was passed by the House on May
1, 2024.
To the Biblically literate, claims that the Antisemitism Awareness
Act is anti-Christian are as insulting as they are injurious. Speaking
about the Jewish people, Jesus said, ``Whatever you did for one of the
least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.'' (Matthew
25:40) And just as Biblical literacy is a necessary precondition to
defending Christianity, so too is literacy of this law.
The House's debate over this bill exemplifies the need for this
legislation. As is clear, the world's oldest hatred is alive and well
on both fringes of the partisan divide. Likewise, as American colleges
are taken over by hordes of pro-Hamas demonstrators claiming their
genocidal ambitions are merely anti-Israel, this legislation is
timelier than ever.
What the opposition to this legislation is choosing to ignore is
that this law is about preventing unlawful action--not speech. For the
law to apply, a student would have to have an unlawful act committed
against them first, and only thereafter would the definition of
antisemitism be considered in order to determine whether or not the
underlying unlawful act was motivated by antisemitism. This definition
and its examples are only used for guidance, because as we have
recently seen across American college campuses, you cannot defeat what
you are unwilling to define.
This law no more stifles free speech than the presence of a
thermometer would change the temperature. This law is sound. The
Biblical and moral mandate is clear. We thank Speaker Johnson for
moving this measure forward and urge the Senate to advance this
legislation without delay.
Sincerely,
Pastor John Hagee,
National Chairman,
Christians United for Israel.
Ralph E. Reed,
Chairman,
Faith and Freedom Coalition.
Mr. Clement and Ms. Ruemmler both agree that the Antisemitism
Awareness Act is constitutional. Pastor Hagee and Mr. Reed similarly
recognize that the bill ``is about preventing unlawful action--not
speech,'' and they refute the ``anti-Christian'' arguments, calling
those claims ``as insulting as they are injurious.''
Question 1. Ms. Gammill, can you explain why the Antisemitism
Awareness Act is constitutional? Can you explain how the Antisemitism
Awareness Act would help address antisemitism on college campuses?
Answer 1. Chairman Cassidy, Ranking Member Sanders, Senator Scott,
and Members of the H.E.L.P. Committee,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the question regarding
the constitutionality of the Antisemitism Awareness Act and how this
legislation can help address the continued problem of pervasive
antisemitism on college campuses.
I have had the opportunity to review the positions in support of
the constitutionality of the Antisemitism Awareness Act by Mr. Paul
Clement and Ms. Kathryn Ruemmler, as provided in Senator Scott's
question, and I concur with their analyses and conclusions. I would
therefore like to take this opportunity not to reiterate what they have
said but to elaborate slightly and focus more on the real target of
those who take issue with the Act's constitutionality, namely, its
incorporation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
Working Definition of Antisemitism (``IHRA Definition'').
As both Mr. Clement and Ms. Ruemmler correctly highlight, by its
express terms the Antisemitism Awareness Act shall not be construed in
any way to (1) extend any new or additional authority to the Secretary
of Education; (2) alter the standards by which the Department of
Education determines whether harassing conduct constitutes actionable
discrimination; or (3) diminish or infringe upon the rights protected
under any other law in effect, including specifically the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As such, the Act has one and only one effect: it directs the
Department of Education, in undertaking its existing responsibilities
of determining whether there has been a violation of Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act ``based on an individual's actual or perceived shared
Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnic characteristics,'' to ``take into
consideration'' a specific definition of antisemitism. That definition,
as identified within the Act, is the IHRA Definition, adopted by the
IHRA on May 26, 2016, including the ``[c]ontemporary examples of
antisemitism identified in the IHRA Definition.'' (Importantly, this is
the international consensus definition of antisemitism and has not only
wide bipartisan support but also the support of the majority of the
mainstream Jewish community, as Mr. Clement's letter and testimony
attest.)
In other words, the Antisemitism Awareness Act simply says to
Department of Education officials, ``When faced with allegations of
discrimination based on shared Jewish ancestry or Jewish ethnicity
(i.e., antisemitism) under Title VI, in determining whether such
allegations present actionable discrimination (i.e., unlawful
antisemitism), among the things you are to consider is the IHRA
Definition of Antisemitism.'' Thus, with the Antisemitism Awareness Act
in effect, as Department officials are undertaking their existing Title
VI duties, they will continue to review allegations about antisemitism
(as well as other forms of discrimination based on race, color, or
national origin) utilizing pre-existing legal standards as to what
constitutes actionable discrimination under Title VI (which has never
included pure, protected speech standing alone but has always been
limited to conduct, including harassing conduct). \1\ In making this
determination, they will simply be required under Federal statute (as
they currently are pursuant to Executive Order 13899) to be guided in
part by the world's most widely accepted and utilized definition of the
term ``antisemitism.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See, e.g., https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/files/about/offices/
list/ocr/letters/colleague-202311-discrimination-harassment-shared-
ancestry.pdf, U.S. Dep't of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Dear
Colleague Letter, Nov. 7, 2023 (last visited Apr. 23, 2025) (``OCR
interprets Title VI to mean that the following type of harassment
creates a hostile environment: unwelcome conduct based on shared
ancestry or ethnic characteristics that, based on the totality of
circumstances, is subjectively and objectively offensive and is so
severe or pervasive that it limits or denies a person's ability to
participate in or benefit from the recipient's education program or
activity.'') (emphasis added); see also https://www.ed.gov/sites/ed/
files/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-202405-shared-
ancestry.pdf, U.S. Dep't of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Dear
Colleague Letter, Mar. 7, 2024 (last visited Apr. 23, 2025) (``The fact
that harassment may involve conduct that includes speech in a public
setting or speech that is also motivated by political or religious
beliefs, however, does not relieve a school of its obligation to
respond under Title VI as described below, if the harassment creates a
hostile environment in school for a student or students. Schools have a
number of tools for responding to a hostile environment--including
tools that do not restrict any rights protected by the First Amendment.
To meet its obligation, a university can, among other steps,
communicate its opposition to stereotypical, derogatory opinions;
provide counseling and support for students affected by harassment; or
take steps to establish a welcoming and respectful school campus, which
could include making clear that the school values, and is determined to
fully include in the campus community, students of all races, colors,
and national origins. OCR does not interpret Title VI to require any
recipient to abridge any rights protected under the First Amendment.
For instance, if students at a public university engage in offensive
speech about members of a particular ethnic group and that speech
contributes to a hostile environment within an education program about
which the university knows or should know, the university has a legal
obligation to address that hostile environment for students in school.
The university may, however, be constrained or limited in how it
responds if speech is involved.'') (emphases added).
The only way this simple requirement--of taking into consideration
a specific definition of antisemitism--could conceivably be
unconstitutional, then, would be if the definition itself ran afoul of
First Amendment principles, which the IHRA Definition does not. By its
express terms, the IHRA Definition, like any other definition, provides
nothing more than information that helps one to better understand what
may, or may not (``taking into account the overall context''),
constitute antisemitism. It tells no one what they can or cannot say
(or do), should or should not say (or do), must or must not say (or
do). The IHRA Definition carries no legal authority or binding effect.
Indeed, it neither includes nor suggests any rule, enforcement
mechanism, or threat of punishment or sanction of any kind. Absent such
features, it is incapable of running afoul of freedom of speech
principles, as it does not punish, restrict, chill, \2\ or otherwise
infringe upon any person's right to engage in, speech (or expressive
conduct) of any kind. As Mr. Clement has rightly observed, providing a
consistent, standard definition to guide the Department of Education in
its understanding of the manifestations of cotemporary antisemitism
provides greater clarity, not less, which serves not to undermine First
Amendment principles but rather to bolster them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Laws and regulations that produce an impermissible ``chilling
effect'' under the First Amendment are those that would deter
individuals from exercising a protected right due to some threat of
legal punishment or sanction. See, e.g., Wieman v. Updegraff, 344 U.S.
183 (1952); Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360 (1964); Dombrowski v.
Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965); Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997).
Because the IHRA Definition is not a law or regulation, and, as
previously stated, includes no rule or enforcement mechanism of any
kind (or even the suggestion of any rule or enforcement mechanism), it
is simply incapable of chilling speech. And because the only effect of
the Antisemitism Awareness Act is to require consideration of the
information in the IHRA Definition by the Department of Education, in
undertaking its existing duties under Title VI (pursuant to existing
legal standards that appropriately distinguish between the treatment of
protected speech and unprotected conduct), the Act itself likewise
satisfies First Amendment standards regarding the ``chilling'' of
speech.
The Department of Education, including its Office for Civil Rights
(OCR), performs an essential role in ensuring that students are able to
participate equally in campus programs and activities, free from
discrimination based on their real or perceived shared ancestry or
ethnic characteristics. Through its administration of Title VI, OCR
helps to safeguard taxpayer dollars so that they are not used to
support institutions that permit such discrimination. Too often,
however, contemporary forms of antisemitism are misunderstood \3\ and
therefore go unchecked. This has been a particularly significant
problem on our Nation's campuses in recent years, intensifying
exponentially following the Hamas attack against Israel on October 7,
2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ I refer to my written testimony for this hearing for a more
thorough discussion of the intentional campaign to politicize (and then
demonize, distort, and deny) the identity-level connection between the
Jewish people and the Jewish ancestral homeland of Israel (i.e.,
Zionism).
The Department of Education's consideration of the IHRA Definition,
including its examples of what contemporary antisemitism can look like,
as required by the Antisemitism Awareness Act, helps those tasked with
investigating allegations of antisemitism under Title VI to better
understand the nuances of the various forms of attack against Jewish
identity, including the forms most prevalent on campuses, which focus
heavily on demonizing, undermining, and even erasing shared Jewish
ancestry in the Jewish ancestral homeland of Israel. In order to
properly identify and address anti-Jewish bigotry in all its forms--
which results in safer campuses where all students, including Jewish
students, can live and learn free from discriminatory hostility and
harassment--this type of understanding is imperative. It is a
commonsense proposition that one cannot identify (and thus properly
address) bigotry unless he can first define (and thus better
understand) it. The Antisemitism Awareness Act, through its requirement
of consideration of the international consensus definition of
``antisemitism,'' enables the Department of Education to do just that.
______
[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]