[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 205 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H6907-H6916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  CONDEMNING ANTISEMITISM ON UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES AND THE TESTIMONY OF 
   UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS IN THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 
                               WORKFORCE

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the 
resolution (H. Res. 927) condemning antisemitism on University campuses 
and the testimony of University Presidents in the House Committee on 
Education and the Workforce.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 927

       Whereas, on October 7, 2023, the world witnessed Hamas 
     terrorists perpetrate the deadliest attack against the Jewish 
     people since the Holocaust;

[[Page H6908]]

       Whereas, in the months since, the Anti-Defamation League 
     has recorded 2,031 antisemitic incidents, 400 of which 
     occurred on college campuses, a more than 330-percent 
     increase from the year prior;
       Whereas Jewish and Israeli students have faced physical 
     violence, hate-filled disruptions in the classroom, calls 
     from students and faculty advocating for the elimination and 
     destruction of Israel, and other forms of persistent 
     harassment;
       Whereas, according to a recent study from the Anti-
     Defamation League and Hillel International, 73 percent of 
     Jewish college students surveyed have experienced or 
     witnessed some form of antisemitism on campus since the 
     beginning of the school year, up from 32 percent the prior 
     year;
       Whereas many university administrations have failed to 
     address the rise of antisemitism;
       Whereas to hold universities accountable, the House 
     Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on 
     December 5, 2023;
       Whereas, when the Presidents of the University of 
     Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute 
     of Technology were asked if calling for the genocide of Jews 
     violates university policies on bullying and harassment, 
     Presidents Elizabeth Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally 
     Kornbluth were evasive and dismissive, failing to simply 
     condemn such action;
       Whereas President Magill stated, ``It is a context-
     dependent decision'';
       Whereas President Gay insisted that it ``depends on the 
     context'';
       Whereas President Kornbluth responded it would only 
     constitute harassment if it were ``targeted at individuals'';
       Whereas President Magill has resigned, and the other 
     Presidents should follow suit; and
       Whereas acts of hate, intimidation, discrimination, and 
     violence-based on ethnicity or religion have no place in our 
     country or in the global community: Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
       (1) strongly condemns the rise of antisemitism on 
     university campuses around the country; and
       (2) strongly condemns the testimony of University of 
     Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, Harvard University 
     President Claudine Gay, and Massachusetts Institute of 
     Technology President Sally Kornbluth and their failure to 
     clearly state that calls for the genocide of Jews constitute 
     harassment and violate their institutions' codes of conduct 
     in front of the House Committee on Education and the 
     Workforce on December 5, 2023.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.


                             General Leave

  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on H. Res. 927.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  ``It depends on the context.'' This was the testimony delivered by 
so-called prestigious university presidents when presented with the 
question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your campus 
bullying and harassment policies?
  The context. What a disgraceful, legalistic answer from academia's 
supposed top minds.
  As chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 
I will tell you what never depends on the context: defending the rights 
of Jewish students to feel safe on campus.
  Condemning calls to incite violence against the world's most 
persecuted ethnic group is always appropriate and never depends on the 
context. Holding smug university elites accountable never depends on 
the context.
  That is why I rise today in support of this resolution, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I condemn anti-Semitism in all forms. Moreover, calls 
for genocide of the Jewish people have no place in reasonable 
discourse, and I condemn that, too. I did not think such a statement 
would be necessary, but in today's context, it is necessary.
  These sentiments were shared repeatedly by Claudine Gay of Harvard, 
Sally Kornbluth of MIT, and Elizabeth Magill of the University of 
Pennsylvania during their testimony last week.
  Unfortunately, because of a 5-minute exchange toward the end of the 
hearing that was clipped and shared online without full context during 
the hours-long hearing, these university presidents' commitment to 
fighting anti-Semitism has been called into question.
  This is because, during the clip, they answered the question asked. 
They made the mistake of believing the hearing was a serious attempt to 
ascertain what could be done to promote student safety on campus in 
light of the tension between the First Amendment protections of freedom 
of speech on the one hand and the criminal code, title VI, and campus 
code of conduct on the other.
  Some speech, such as threats, can be so severe as to be criminal. 
Other speech could establish a hostile environment on campus in 
violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
  Universities can establish codes of conduct prohibiting some speech 
while respecting the First Amendment, but any speech involved in a 
First Amendment analysis is likely to be reprehensible. The fact that 
it might be protected does not make the speech any less reprehensible 
and does not suggest that you even agree with it.
  A call for genocide of Jewish people is obviously reprehensible in 
all contexts, but whether or not it is constitutionally protected 
depends on context.
  Don't take my word for it. Read the article published recently in The 
Harvard Crimson authored by Harvard law professor Charles Fried, 
formerly the Solicitor General during the Reagan administration.
  In the article, Professor Fried states: ``When asked whether they 
would discipline students (or, I suppose, faculty) if they called for 
genocide of Jews, each president responded that the answer depends on 
the context of the utterances.''
  He goes on by saying: ``I have taught at Harvard Law School since 
1961 and began practicing before the Supreme Court in 1985--for 4 years 
as Solicitor General of the United States--and I would have felt 
professionally obligated to answer as the presidents did. It does 
depend on context.
  ``In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled 
unanimously that `constitutional guarantees of free speech and free 
press do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use 
of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to 
inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite 
or produce such action.'''
  He continues: ``Speech itself is, indeed, well protected.''
  The three university presidents head private institutions that are 
not bound in every aspect by Federal constitutional restraints, but 
each institution, in various ways, has declared itself committed to 
protecting First Amendment values over the years.
  It is not surprising that their presidents would have answered that 
whether they would discipline or expel students for advocating genocide 
depends on the context. If one seeks to follow constitutional 
principles, answering this question certainly does depend on the 
context.
  That is what Professor Fried said. That is the kind of analysis 
applied to any freedom of speech question. It is even being applied to 
former President Trump today. Was his speech on January 6, 2021, a 
crime of inciting violence or was it protected speech?
  Incredibly, the university presidents were directed to give a one-
word answer, yes or no, and they responded as Professor Fried said he 
would have been professionally obligated to do: It depends on context.
  Regrettably, they took the question as an opportunity to seriously 
discuss the constitutional implications of a complex question. That was 
a big mistake. For that mistake, we are considering a resolution to 
condemn them and ask them to resign.
  I also think it is important to put this resolution in context 
because, in 2017, after white supremacists walked through the campus of 
the University of Virginia shouting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' 
Democrats on the committee requested a hearing on that incident and 
nothing happened. Meanwhile, the one who declared there were ``good 
people on both sides'' has been enthusiastically endorsed.
  We need to do everything the law allows to address anti-Semitism,

[[Page H6909]]

Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination on 
college campuses. This resolution is not a serious effort to advance 
that cause. I, therefore, oppose this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Stefanik), the Conference chairwoman.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman Foxx for chairing last 
week's important hearing.
  There is a reason that last week's hearing with the university 
presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT made history as the most watched 
congressional testimony in history with over 1 billion views. That is 
because their testimony was the most morally bankrupt testimony in the 
history of the United States Congress.
  When asked the very specific question, ``Does calling for the 
genocide of Jews violate [your] code of conduct when it comes to 
bullying and harassment?'' the world watched and the world heard their 
answers in horror as the president of Harvard, the now-former president 
of Penn, and the president of MIT equivocated, dehumanized, and failed 
to answer yes. Anyone with a sliver of decency, humanity, and morality 
knows that the answer to that question is yes.
  President Kornbluth of MIT said that such depravity would only be 
considered harassment depending on the ``context.''
  When pressed during her questioning, Penn's now-former President 
Magill's response was shocking to the extreme: ``If the speech becomes 
conduct, it can be harassment.''
  Finally, Harvard President Gay's answer was the same: ``It depends on 
the context.''
  It was pathetic, amoral, and inhumane, and by God, the world heard 
it. As I said in the hearing, it does not depend on the context.
  As attacks against Jewish students have skyrocketed on campuses 
across America, we clearly have tremendous work ahead of us, Mr. 
Speaker, to address this rot of anti-Semitism that is now rooted in our 
once-premier higher education institutions, and we will not be deterred 
by this important work.
  This is why I rise today in support of my bipartisan resolution 
condemning the rise of anti-Semitism on university campuses around the 
country and the morally bankrupt testimony of those university 
presidents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Speaker, it is only a first step, but it is an 
important step. I commend my colleagues, Congressman Moskowitz, 
Majority Leader Scalise, and Congressman Gottheimer, for joining to 
lead this historically important, bipartisan effort to stand for moral 
truth.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
  Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from 
Virginia, Ranking Member Scott, for recognizing me.
  Mr. Speaker, as someone who has dedicated most of her career to 
combating anti-Semitism and as the co-chair of the House Bipartisan 
Task Force for Combating Antisemitism, I know well that anti-Semitism 
has been on the rise in our country for years.
  It was a growing problem before the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack, 
and sadly, immediately after that savage attack, anti-Semitism has 
skyrocketed, particularly on college campuses.
  What we have seen happening on college campuses is outrageous, and 
too many college and university leaders have totally failed in their 
moral responsibility to condemn anti-Semitism. They have failed to keep 
Jewish students and faculty members safe. That is shameful.
  I was appalled by the failure of the three college presidents to 
simply say yes. A call for the genocide of Jews is wrong, period, but I 
have no interest in meaningless resolutions that do nothing to address 
the underlying issue of anti-Semitism.
  That is why my colleagues should join us in crafting serious 
bipartisan legislation that will make a real difference. We don't need 
throwaway resolutions. We need effective solutions.
  If we are serious about fighting anti-Semitism, we need legislation 
to implement and codify the United States' National Strategy to Counter 
Anti-Semitism. We need to pass the President's request for $200 million 
in emergency supplemental funding for the Nonprofit Security Grant 
Program. We need to fully fund the Office of Civil Rights at the U.S. 
Department of Education, not cut that funding. We need to strengthen 
our Federal civil rights laws to punish all universities that fail to 
protect Jewish students.

                              {time}  1530

  Until we do that, nonbinding politically motivated resolutions are 
not worth the paper they are written on. When anti-Semitism rears its 
ugly head, it harms us all and it eats at the foundations of our 
democracy.
  I have always called out anti-Semitism on the left and on the right, 
and I will continue to do so, but I don't want just words. I want this 
Congress to take action and pass implementing legislation.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairwoman 
Virginia Foxx for yielding, a former college president herself, who 
understands these issues. I am very grateful for Republican Conference 
Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, who is courageously leading this resolution 
that condemns anti-Semitism on university campuses.
  Most Americans are shocked at the insane campus anti-Semitism that 
has developed. I reviewed this in a lead Op Ed in the Washington Times 
on December 7.
  My analysis was:

       Sadly, college campuses have descended from coveted 
     citadels of intellectual freedom to illiberal sewers of 
     intolerance and bigotry. Diversity and inclusion are a George 
     Orwell 1984 implementation excluding conservative thought.
       Over the years, as infantile leftists hire only other 
     infantile leftists, the most extreme hire even more extreme, 
     as each tries to outdo the other in leftism. This leads to 
     today's suicidal derangement, even as the regime in Tehran, 
     coordinating with war criminal Putin, develops missiles for a 
     nuclear attack on the big Satan America, which would vaporize 
     college campuses.

  The solution for close-minded intolerance on campuses is obvious. To 
liberate academia from denial of free speech, there should be the 
inclusion and diversity of more conservative academics overcoming 
today's blatant discrimination. All Americans in good faith want 
college education to be uplifting for students to achieve the American 
Dream.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague, 
Congresswoman Manning. This should be bipartisan.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a member of the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, like most Americans, I happened to be in 
the room because I am on the committee and was a little bit startled 
and stunned by the lack of concern for rampant anti-Semitism in the 
most prominent universities in this country--the leaders who were 
chosen to lead those universities.
  We have to ask ourselves why is it happening on our premier campuses?
  I can go out in Wisconsin, all the hard workers in the factories, all 
the hard workers on the farms, all the people working in retail, I 
don't see any evidence of this. As a matter of fact, I don't think 
there is anywhere in the State of Wisconsin I would go and find this 
sort of thing.
  Nevertheless, we seem to be fighting it in our universities.
  The question is: Why is that so? Is there anything out there that 
would give an indication that you have a possibility of anti-Semitism?
  Part of it, I think, is coming from recent immigrants who are 
carrying grievances from long ago to the United States, but the more 
concerning one is the spoiled, upper-middle classes that make up so 
many of the college students and professors.

[[Page H6910]]

  I think what we are coming out of is what I will call the bored 
upper-middle classes looking for something to do and the unhappiness 
out of that boredom that leads them to anti-American, but also anti-
Semitic and anti-Israel. Because when they see Gaza and Israel, they 
see one successful Western country and they see an unsuccessful crooked 
country, and it leads them to be so mentally muddled up that they can't 
see what is wrong with the horrific murders that took place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Kiley), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. KILEY. Mr. Speaker, for nearly four centuries Harvard has been 
known for many great things: as America's first college, as the alma 
mater of eight Presidents, as the most fertile of ground for new ideas 
and cutting-edge research.
  Yet now, in this moment, Harvard has become known for a truly 
terrible thing--for anti-Semitism, for leading a 21st century American 
resurgence of one of the world's most ancient and retrograde 
prejudices. This is in large part because of the words and action, as 
well as the silence and inaction of President Claudine Gay.
  We have all now seen the shocking testimony from last week, but to 
borrow a phrase from Dr. Gay, we need to also look at the context, the 
context of Harvard having the very worst ranking in the entire country 
for protecting free speech; the context of President Gay initially 
refusing to condemn the Hamas terrorist attack and then refusing to 
condemn the student groups that blamed Israel; the context of Harvard's 
woefully inadequate measures to protect Jewish students both before 
October 7 but especially after, to the point that at the hearing, 
President Gay refused to even answer the question as to whether a 
Jewish student can feel safe and welcome on her campus.
  That Harvard has declined to remove President Gay, even after Penn 
forced out its president, speaks volumes about the singular failures of 
that university.
  Yet, Harvard also offers a broader window into what ails higher 
education in our country.
  This is a moment of reckoning for American higher education. Our 
universities cost too much, deliver too little value to graduates, and 
have become the most intolerable places in American life.

  Now is the time for fundamental change to reform the American 
university, and this resolution is a first step.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Bean), chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and 
Secondary Education Subcommittee.
  Mr. BEAN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen the evil and hatred of anti-Semitism find 
its voice across American college and university campuses, and we have 
seen the full force of Jewish hatred grow as student organizations 
continue to celebrate the horrific October 7 terrorist attacks.
  These institutions have become hate factories that are quick to allow 
the spread of anti-Semitism but slow to condemn it, if at all.
  Harvard President, Claudine Gay, even said, calling for the genocide 
of Jewish students ``depends on the context'' when it comes to 
violating the university's code of conduct.
  Let me be clear: Today, the faces of modern anti-Semitism in American 
education are Harvard, UPenn, MIT.
  These institutions have gone from elite to elitist.
  At Harvard, if you use the wrong pronouns, that is a violation of 
their code of conduct, but violently targeting Jewish students and 
calling for the genocide of the Jewish people, that is acceptable 
Harvard conduct.
  The history of the Holocaust reminds us what will happen when hatred 
is met by silence. We cannot stand by while students feel threatened.
  It is more than a discussion, Mr. Speaker. It is a call to action.
  That is why I am proud to support Representative Stefanik's 
resolution condemning anti-Semitism in institutions of higher learning 
and specifically condemning Presidents Magill, Gay, and Kornbluth for 
failing to denounce the calls for genocide on their campuses.
  Mr. Speaker, 17 times it was asked; 17 times they failed the 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, it bears repeating, anti-Semitism is not activism.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 927. Last week, 
Americans watched in bewilderment as the presidents of Harvard, MIT, 
and Penn were unable to say if calls for a genocide of Jews violated 
their harassment and bullying policy.
  Let's not forget campus leaders go after microaggressions, but 
suddenly when it comes to anti-Semitism, they chose to remain silent.
  At that same hearing, I asked Harvard's President how she could 
rectify cracking down on faculty for saying there are biologically two 
genders but maintain that calling for genocide is protected speech.
  The reality is that at these universities, free speech only applies 
to certain people at certain times, which is why these schools rank at 
the bottom of scorecards that judge freedom of speech.
  The inability of these presidents to condemn anti-Semitic rhetoric 
only encourages further harassment and jeopardizes the safety of Jewish 
students, and ultimately all.
  Mr. Speaker, they need to be held to account. I encourage adoption of 
the resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 8\1/
2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Virginia has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, ``Anti-Semitism on College Campuses: Incident Tracking 
from 2019 to 2023; 659 total reported anti-Semitic incidents on college 
campuses since October 7--a 700 percent increase compared to last 
year.''
  This was updated on December 13, 2023.
  ``Since the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, anti-
Semitic incidents against Jewish students on college campuses have 
reached alarmingly high rates, increasing by 700 percent over the same 
period last year.
  ``Hillel International has been working around the clock with our 
partners to report and address these incidents, and to ensure that all 
Jewish students feel safe on campus.''
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this report from Hillel 
International.

   Antisemitism on College Campuses: Incident Tracking From 2019-2023


  659: Total reported antisemitic incidents on college campuses since 
            October 7--a 700% increase compared to last year

       Since the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, 
     antisemitic incidents against Jewish students on college 
     campuses have reached alarmingly high rates, increasing by 
     700% over the same period last year.
       Hillel International has been working around the clock with 
     our partners to report and address these incidents, and to 
     ensure that all Jewish students feel safe on campus. If you 
     or a student you know experiences an antisemitic incident on 
     campus, report it (anonymously) to receive 24/7 support at 
     ReportCampusHate.org, or contact our free legal helpline, the 
     Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL) for pro bono legal 
     support.

     In the Month Following the October 7 Attack on Israel, Hillel 
   International Tracked a 700% Increase in Antisemitic Incidents on 
         College Campuses Compared to the Same Period Last Year


 306: Total reported incidents of antisemitism from October 7-November 
7, 2023 Hillel has never recorded more than 50 total incidents in this 
           same time period since we started tracking in 2019

 129: Unique campuses impacted by antisemitic incidents from October 7-
                            November 7, 2023

       We have never recorded more than 40 campuses impacted by 
     antisemitism in this same time period


[[Page H6911]]


  

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Williams), a member of the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  Mr. WILLIAMS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Stefanik, my colleague from New 
York, for introducing this much-needed legislation.
  With issues as critical as mitigating anti-Semitism and protecting 
our Jewish community, it is vital that we speak today with moral 
clarity.
  Just days ago, in a hearing in the House Education and the Workforce 
Committee, we heard shocking testimony from the presidents of what were 
once our most esteemed educational institutions.
  Each one of these institutions has more than 100 years of history 
educating our youth.
  One, Harvard University, is closing in on 400 years of history.
  These schools have an embarrassment of riches: Billions of dollars in 
annual revenue, much of it from Federal funds, billions more in 
endowments--no, tens of billions of dollars in endowments--they have 
the resources to reach any educational goal.
  When pressed on the solution to the problem of anti-Semitism, each of 
them testified that education was, in fact, the solution. Education is 
supposed to be the solution to anti-Semitism.
  Yet, with all of that history, with all of those resources, with the 
esteem of our society and the world, these universities are ground zero 
for rampant, virulent, obscene, and inhuman anti-Semitism.

                              {time}  1545

  The hearings last week exposed not only the lack of moral leadership 
at these schools; it also exposed a sickness in the culture of our 
elite universities.
  If calling for the murder and genocide of fellow students for the 
crime of being Jewish is not immediately and completely repugnant, then 
there is no moral compass at the heart of these institutions.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution which, to 
my knowledge, would mark the first time in American history that the 
House of Representatives would vote to tell private college and 
university presidents to resign. I want all of my colleagues to think 
very seriously about what this means for us today and in the future.
  We are all profoundly disturbed by the resurgence of anti-Semitism 
and racism in campus towns, including death threats, serious death 
threats against Jewish students at Cornell, and actual shootings and 
attempted murder of three Palestinian-American students in Burlington, 
Vermont.
  We all want to express our outrage in House resolutions, which we 
have done more than 20 times as a House of Representatives, and 
numerous times even since October 7. For example, on November 2, we 
passed H. Res. 798, which condemned all forms of anti-Semitism on 
college campuses, denounced any support for terrorist groups on campus, 
reaffirmed the free speech rights of Jewish students and faculty, and 
urged enforcement of Federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish 
students against anti-Semitism.
  Why do we need this resolution? The only thing new about it is it 
would have the U.S. House of Representatives call specifically for the 
resignation of two college presidents, a call that has been slipped in 
at the bottom of page 2 of the resolution.
  This extraordinary passage comes close to being what the Constitution 
calls a bill of attainder, which is the unconstitutional imposition by 
Congress on a specific citizen or citizens of a criminal punishment or 
stigma by the Congress itself. Although this resolution is not a 
criminal punishment or stigma against specific citizens, it is 
undoubtedly a civil punishment and stigma against specific American 
citizens.
  How many of you would like the president of the college where you 
went or where your children go to be walking around with a 
congressional resolution telling them to resign?
  Everyone knows that this will be an academic scarlet letter and a 
professional death sentence for anyone carrying it around. Does anyone 
think that UPenn President Liz Magill, who has already resigned in the 
face of Ms. Stefanik's ceaseless campaign to force her out, will ever 
be able to find another college presidency? Give me a break.
  Now, I hold no brief for the college presidents' overly legalistic, 
ethically tone-deaf answers awkwardly advanced in response to Ms. 
Stefanik's rapid-fire, yes-no questions. It should not be difficult for 
anybody to say in an age of rampant gun violence and lax Republican gun 
laws, which have put tens of millions of AR-15s in circulation in our 
society, anyone calling for genocide of the Jews, or anyone else, 
should be sent immediately a campus security detail to see if they pose 
the risk of harm to other people or if they need an immediate mental 
health exam. If there is not an imminent threat, surely the call for 
genocide of the Jews by definition constitutes a hostile learning 
environment and should occasion aggressive disciplinary action. Where 
is the common sense on the part of the college presidents?
  Where is the common sense in the Congress of the United States of 
America?
  Calling for the resignation of private individuals at private 
universities would be a dramatic and unprecedented departure for the 
U.S. Congress, which has never before voted to tell a college president 
to resign.
  Before we affix this lifelong stigma, reproach, and dishonor on a 
private citizen, do you think perhaps we should offer them some kind of 
due process, the kind of due process that even George Santos got and 
that Donald Trump is getting all over America right now for his 91 
Federal and State felony charges?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, should Harvard President Claudine Gay, who 
is the first Haitian American ever to serve in that position, and Sally 
Kornbluth, who is Jewish, get the chance to explain what they are 
actually doing to combat racism and anti-Semitism at their schools and 
what they have done in their lives and in their careers to oppose anti-
Semitism and racism, which are the gateways to destruction of liberal 
democracy? Do we care about that, or is this just a bunch of drive-by 
talking points?
  Is it relevant that the Harvard and MIT boards have made unanimous 
statements affirming the leadership of their two college presidents? 
Are we saying that their boards don't matter or they are indifferent to 
anti-Semitism and the leaders of the Freedom Caucus know better than 
the Jewish president of MIT what anti-Semitism is?
  Now, I know these two were the presidents testifying before Ms. 
Stefanik, but are we sure that these two are even the worst in the 
country when it comes to bias and discrimination? Is this a one-shot 
deal, or, as Ms. Stefanik promises, is this just the beginning? Are we 
going to go through all of the college and university presidents in 
America? What about the CEOs of the businesses? Maybe they are not 
performing to her satisfaction either.
  Indeed, maybe there are college presidents who have looked the other 
way in not hypothetical cases of anti-Semitism and racism but real 
cases of anti-Semitism and racism. What about them? Are we going to let 
them go, or are we going to go after them? Maybe we should determine 
who the worst are before we start using the resources of the House of 
Representatives to call for people to resign.

  Are there college presidents, by the way, who looked the other way 
when there was sexual abuse of college male wrestling team members, 
rape of students, or female gymnasts or female soccer players? Are we 
interested in that now that we are superintending higher education in 
America, now that we are the appellate review board for the colleges?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H6912]]

  

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Maryland.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, are we prepared to become the national 
academic appeals panel for college presidents, coaches, and professors, 
or is that perhaps best left to the universities themselves?
  Maybe it is that we just don't have a positive legislative agenda of 
our own to lower drug prices in America, to get aid to our democratic 
allies in Ukraine against the fascist imperialist thug Vladimir Putin. 
Maybe we don't have anything real to do, so we decide instead to go 
around and start lecturing the college presidents and the college 
boards all over America.
  In the absence of a real program for America, the majority is filling 
our hours with censures, expulsions, motions to vacate the speakership, 
overthrow their own leaders, and, of course, impeachment of President 
Biden for what? For doing nothing wrong. That is all that they give us. 
This cannibalistic instinct they have unleashed now turns on private 
citizens, academic leaders who will wear the scarlet letter ``A'' so 
they can have some more press conferences.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time 
is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from North Carolina has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a 
December 8 statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and 
Expression, a group invited by the majority in 2018 to testify at a 
hearing examining the First Amendment rights on campus and a group that 
authors the free speech ranking the majority cited several times at the 
committee hearing, titled, ``University Presidents Were Right to 
Condemn Hate Speech and Defend Free Speech.''

                       [From FIRE, Dec. 8, 2023]

   Special Post: Stephen Rohde, `University Presidents Were Right to 
Condemn Hate Speech and Defend Free Speech'--First Amendment News 403.1

                       (by Ronald K. L. Collins)

       When it comes to speech on college campuses, the problem is 
     one with a vintage flavor. Simply recall (if you can) what 
     Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his 1957 opinion in Sweezy 
     v. New Hampshire (a case successfully argued by professor 
     Thomas Emerson): ``The essentiality of freedom in the 
     community of American universities is almost self-evident.''
       Note that it was a plurality opinion--and note also his use 
     of the word ``almost.'' In other words, doubts lingered.
       Four decades later, in a book way ahead of its time, the 
     late Robert M. O'Neil awakened our world to free speech 
     issues that would define the world in decades to come. The 
     book was ``Free Speech in the College Community.'' In it, Bob 
     (a free speech champion and friend) wrote:
       When the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of 
     Teaching surveyed university presidents for a study in the 
     late 1980s entitled campus tensions, more than half the 
     respondents noted that racial intimidation or harassment was 
     a serious problem on their campuses. The National Institute 
     Against Prejudice and Violence, which has the most detailed 
     database, cited at least 250 campuses at which acts of racial 
     hatred occurred in the period 1986-89. The institute has 
     elsewhere reported that one in five minority students 
     encounters some form of physical or psychological racial 
     harassment at least once a year.
       And so the same problem resurfaces, but now in a new 
     context, growing out of the Israel-Hamas War and the free 
     expression issues raised by it: those of antisemitism and 
     hate speech. In a recent Politico Magazine interview, 
     professor Eugene Volokh said:
       I'm worried that there is pro-Palestinian speech being 
     suppressed. I'm worried that there's some pro-Israeli speech 
     being suppressed . . . I also think that there are some 
     things that are being too much tolerated.
       Mindful of all of the above and much more, what follows is 
     an op-ed by Stephen Rohde, author of ``American Words of 
     Freedom: The Words That Define Our Nation'' and ``Freedom of 
     Assembly,'' regarding the recent hearings on campus 
     antisemitism and the reactions to statements by the 
     university presidents on the matter.
       At a contentious congressional hearing on December 5, the 
     presidents of three major universities unequivocally 
     condemned antisemitism and hate speech while standing firm in 
     defense of free speech. In a furious backlash, elected 
     officials, alumni, students and donors have unleashed 
     scathing criticism, going so far as to open a congressional 
     investigation and demand that all three resign.
       The three presidents, Elizabeth Magill of the University of 
     Pennsylvania, Claudine Gay of Harvard, and Sally Kornbluth of 
     Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified before the 
     House Committee on Education and the Workforce at a hearing 
     entitled ``Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting 
     Antisemitism.''
       The episode reveals not only how little our elected 
     officials and the American people understand about the 
     concept of protected free speech at our colleges and 
     universities; it shows how, in a free society, confidence in 
     the value of protecting all ideas and viewpoints--even those 
     we despise--is eroding.


                Nadine Strossen's `non-emergency speech'

       Public colleges and universities are bound by the First 
     Amendment. Private colleges and universities, in their 
     written policies and handbooks (and in some states by 
     legislation), generally guarantee students and faculty 
     members the right to academic freedom and freedom of speech 
     comparable to the First Amendment.
       In her new book ``Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to 
     Know,'' Nadine Strossen, who served for 17 years as national 
     president of the ACLU, provides a useful summary of current 
     First Amendment law:
       The First Amendment permits government to outlaw the speech 
     that is the most dangerous, consistent with the ``emergency'' 
     principle: speech that, considered in its overall context, 
     directly, imminently causes or threatens specific serious 
     harm . . . [on the other hand, the] First Amendment outlaws 
     the censorship that is the most dangerous: restrictions based 
     solely on disfavor of the speaker's ideas, or on generalized, 
     speculative fear that the speech might indirectly contribute 
     to some future harm.
       Strossen calls the latter ``non-emergency speech.''
       While non-emergency speech may potentially cause harm, 
     Strossen explains that ``it is dangerous to grant government 
     the added latitude to punish speech with a less direct, 
     imminent connection to potential harm'' because 
     ``predictably, government (which is accountable to 
     majoritarian and other powerful interest groups) 
     disproportionately exercises any such discretion to suppress 
     minority voices and views.''
       Strossen's warning applies equally to public universities 
     (which are an arm of the government) as well as to private 
     universities, which rely on the support of the federal and 
     state governments as well as donors and alumni, and who may 
     be inclined to suppress unpopular views in order to protect 
     their funding.
       Consequently, whether students should be expelled or 
     disciplined for expressing their views goes far beyond simply 
     looking at the words they speak. It requires a serious 
     examination of the context and circumstances surrounding the 
     speech. The chants of protesters at a large rally screaming 
     ``Kill all the Jews,'' while unspeakably vile and 
     contemptible, would not ``directly and imminently'' cause or 
     threaten specific serious harm when considered in their 
     overall context.
       Yet the same words spoken by someone holding a gun on the 
     steps of a Jewish student center do pose a ``direct and 
     imminent threat'' and should be stopped and punished by 
     campus authorities and/or the government. What students say 
     in the classroom should be treated differently than what they 
     say at a campus rally or debate. Angry threats made to 
     individual students should be treated differently than the 
     same words written on a flyer or in an op-ed in the campus 
     newspaper.


                 The plight of Penn's President Magill

       Members of Congress and other critics of the college 
     presidents apparently couldn't be bothered with the nuances 
     of these complex issues. In the midst of complaints that the 
     presidents failed to adequately condemn antisemitism, scant 
     attention has been paid to their opening remarks.
       For example, Penn President Magill couldn't have been more 
     forceful in her condemnation of antisemitism. Given the 
     misleading and unfair criticism to which she was subjected 
     and the immediate calls for her resignation, her balanced and 
     comprehensive opening statement deserves to be considered in 
     detail.
       After summarizing her impressive credentials prior to 
     becoming Penn's president (executive vice president and 
     provost of the University of Virginia, dean of Stanford Law 
     School, professor of law at the University of Virginia, law 
     clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg), 
     she immediately and forcefully stated that she and Penn:
       . . . are horrified by and condemn Hamas's abhorrent 
     terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th. There is no 
     justification--none--for those heinous attacks. The loss of 
     life and suffering that are occurring in Israel and Gaza 
     during the ensuing war are heartbreaking. The pain extends to 
     our campus. I know it from my daily conversations with our 
     students, faculty, and staff, as well as parents and alumni.
       Magill said she valued the opportunity to reaffirm her and 
     Penn's ``unyielding opposition to antisemitism, and to 
     outline the urgent, university-wide actions we are taking to 
     combat this centuries-old and resurgent threat.'' She also 
     said her ``first priority is to members of the Penn community 
     and, above all, to their safety and support.'' She continued:

[[Page H6913]]

       I must also ensure that our academic mission thrives; that 
     academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas endure; and 
     that we swiftly address any violation of the Law or our 
     University's policies. These are the priorities Penn is 
     seeking to achieve in the actions I will discuss today.
       She noted that prior to October 7, ``antisernitism''--a 
     pernicious, viral evil--was already rising in our society, 
     and global events have dramatically accelerated the surge. No 
     place is immune, and campuses, including ours, have recently 
     experienced an unacceptable number of antisemitic incidents. 
     We are combating this evil head-on with immediate action.'' 
     She described how she ``condemned antisemitism publicly, 
     regularly, and in the strongest terms possible,'' and wanted 
     to:
       reiterate my and Penn's commitment to combating it. For 
     decades our Division of Public Safety has learned from and 
     worked with the Anti-Defamation League office in 
     Philadelphia, and we are working closely with them, as well 
     as local, state, and federal law enforcement to promptly 
     report and investigate antisemitic acts against any member of 
     the Penn community. Where we have been able to identify 
     individuals who committed these acts in violation of existing 
     University policy or law, we have initiated disciplinary 
     proceedings and referred these matters to law enforcement 
     where appropriate.
       President Magill went into detail about how Penn has 
     ``acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near 
     campus.'' Then she pointed out that like many communities 
     around the world:
       Penn has also experienced protests, rallies, and vigils 
     related to the terrorist attack and the subsequent war. 
     Protest--and all it entails--has long been a feature of 
     university life. Penn's approach to protest is guided by the 
     U.S. Constitution, outlined in decades-old open expression 
     policies, and supported and upheld by trained Open Expression 
     Observers. We recognize the right of peaceful protest and 
     assembly, and we give broad protection to free expression--
     even expression that is offensive. At the same time, we have 
     zero tolerance for violence or speech intended to incite it. 
     Our public safety officers are present at every protest, 
     rally, or vigil, trained in de-escalation techniques, and, if 
     necessary, they are ready to act.
       Magill also talked about ``the challenges of fostering 
     robust debate during difficult times,'' how ``in addition to 
     respecting the right of protest, Penn is offering many ways 
     for students to come together in classrooms and in small 
     groups to discuss these issues,'' how ``educating citizens 
     requires engagement with real-world challenges and hard 
     topics--topics that often inspire passionate responses,'' and 
     how ``university leadership must provide guardrails that 
     encourage free and open expression while also ensuring a 
     secure environment.''
       She outlined Penn's new ``Action Plan to Combat 
     Antisemitism'' and she announced that she had created a new 
     student advisory group on the Jewish student experience.
       Magill also noted the:
       ``rising harassment, intimidation, doxing, and threats 
     toward students, faculty, and staff based on their identity 
     or perceived identity as Muslim, Palestinian, or Arab. Some 
     have lost family members in this war, and many are worried 
     about the safety of their loved ones in the region. Many are 
     also afraid for their own safety, and the horrifying shooting 
     of three Palestinian students in Vermont has only deepened 
     their fears.''
       She said she was ``appalled by and have publicly condemned 
     these acts of harassment, threats, and intimidation. We are 
     investigating all allegations, even when threats have come 
     from outside our campus. We are providing resources and 
     advice to assist individuals with online doxing, harassment, 
     and threats.''
       And she has created a Presidential Commission on Countering 
     Hate and Building Community ``to empower our campus leaders 
     to address antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all forms, 
     and to lay the groundwork for a stronger, more connected 
     community.''
       Magill ended her opening statements by reiterating that:
       ``[h]igher education institutions create knowledge, share 
     it for good, and educate the next generation--missions that 
     have never been more essential,'' and noting that on Penn's 
     campus today many people are ``engaged in serious and 
     respectful conversation--despite disagreement--about 
     difficult topics, including those related to the Israel-Hamas 
     war.''


 Representative Elise Stefanik: `does calling for the genocide of Jews 
          Violate Penn's Rules or Code of Conduct? Yes or No?'

       Most of the attacks on Magill focused on her exchange with 
     Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York. 
     Stefanik noted that ``there had been marches where students 
     had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means 
     `uprising' and that many Jews hear as a call for violence 
     against them.''
       Stefanik asked Magill, ``Does calling for the genocide of 
     Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?''
       Magill replied, `'If the speech turns into conduct, it can 
     be harassment.''
       Stefanik pressed the issue: ``I am asking, specifically: 
     Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute 
     bullying or harassment?''
       Magill, who joined Penn last year with a pledge to promote 
     campus free speech, replied, ``If it is directed and severe, 
     pervasive, it is harassment.''
       Stefanik responded: ``So the answer is yes.''
       Trying to give complete rather than glib answers, Magill 
     said, ``It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.'' 
     Stefanik then exclaimed, ``That's your testimony today? 
     Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the 
     context?''
       After some more back and forth, Magill said, ``It can be 
     harassment,'' to which Stefanik responded, ``The answer is 
     yes.''
       Given the totality of Magill's testimony, it is astonishing 
     and disappointing that Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said 
     he found her statements ``unacceptable.'' According to The 
     New York Times, he said:
       ``It should not be hard to condemn genocide, genocide 
     against Jews, genocide against anyone else,'' and ``I've said 
     many times, leaders have a responsibility to speak and act 
     with moral clarity, and Liz Magill failed to meet that simple 
     test. . . . There should be no nuance to that--she needed to 
     give a one-word answer.
       Shapiro, who is a nonvoting member of Penn's board, urged 
     the trustees to meet soon. CNN has reported that the board 
     held an emergency meeting on Wednesday, December 6. No 
     outcome has been announced.
       ``It's unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for 
     genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we 
     represent as a country,'' said White House spokesman Andrew 
     Bates, according to The New York Times.
       The Times also reported that Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of 
     Pennsylvania, did not mince words. ``President Magill's 
     comments yesterday were offensive, but equally offensive was 
     what she didn't say,'' he said in a statement. ``The right to 
     free speech is fundamental, but calling for the genocide of 
     Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.''
       Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, described 
     the testimony as ``a significant fail . . . There is no `both 
     sides-ism' and it isn't `free speech,' it's simply hate 
     speech,'' he said in a statement. ``It was embarrassing for a 
     venerable Pennsylvania university, and it should be reflexive 
     for leaders to condemn antisemitism and stand up for the 
     Jewish community or any community facing this kind of 
     invective.''


         Did Magill's critics actually listen to her testimony?

       Did these officials actually listen to Magill's testimony 
     or did they just rely on truncated news reports and angry 
     social media posts? In fact, Magill repeatedly and 
     unequivocally condemned antisemitism and the Hamas attacks, 
     and she said that calling for the genocide of Jews could 
     constitute harassment under Penn's policies.
       The Times also reported that Marc Rowan, the chief of 
     Apollo Group and the board chair at the Wharton School--
     Penn's business school--wrote to the university's board of 
     trustees asking them to rescind their support for Magill. 
     ``How much damage to our reputation are we willing to 
     accept?'' he wrote. ``The call for fundamental change at 
     UPenn continues.''
       Within 24 hours, a petition demanding Magill's resignation 
     had attracted more than 3,000 signatures. Did Rowan and the 
     3,000 who signed the petition actually listen to all of her 
     testimony before taking the extraordinary step of calling for 
     her resignation?
       Now Congress is threatening all three universities with a 
     full-fledged investigation reminiscent of the HUAC and 
     McCarthy hearings of the 1940s and 1950s that looked into 
     communists and their ``sympathizers,'' questioning college 
     professors under oath about their teaching, writing, and 
     politics. Many were fired or forced to sign loyalty oaths.
       On Thursday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House 
     Committee on Education & the Workforce, told Fox News:
       ``[T]he Committee is opening a formal investigation into 
     the learning environments at Harvard, UPenn, and MIT and 
     their policies and disciplinary procedures. This 
     investigation will include substantial document requests, and 
     the Committee will not hesitate to utilize compulsory 
     measures including subpoenas if a full response is not 
     immediately forthcoming.''
       Stefanik is quoted as saying that after ``this week's 
     pathetic and morally bankrupt testimony by university 
     presidents when answering my questions, the Education and 
     Workforce Committee is launching an official Congressional 
     investigation with the full force of subpoena power into 
     Penn, MIT, and Harvard and others.''
       Ominously, she did not specify what other colleges and 
     universities would be targeted. ``We will use our full 
     Congressional authority to hold these schools accountable for 
     their failure on the global stage,'' she added.
       Facing this barrage of threats and criticism, with her job 
     on the line, Magill relented and apologized for her 
     testimony:
       ``In that moment, I was focused on our university's 
     longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, 
     which say that speech alone is not punishable . . . I was not 
     focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that 
     a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of 
     the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's 
     evil--plain and simple. In my view, it would be harassment or 
     intimidation.''


                  Enter Harvard President Claudine Gay

       Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, has also come under fire 
     from donors, students

[[Page H6914]]

     and alumni over her statements about whether calls for 
     genocide of Jews would be a breach of Harvard's code of 
     conduct. Gay testified that this type of speech was 
     ``personally abhorrent to me'' and ``at odds with the values 
     of Harvard.'' But she added that Harvard gives ``a wide berth 
     to free expression, even of views that are objectionable,'' 
     and takes action ``when speech crosses into conduct that 
     violates our policies'' governing bullying, harassment or 
     intimidation.
       The Times reports that Jacob Miller, the student president 
     of Harvard Hillel, said that ``the testimony yesterday was a 
     slap in the face, because there was a very easy clear right 
     answer and she opted not to say that.'' Bill Ackman, the 
     billionaire hedge fund manager and Harvard alumnus, called on 
     all three presidents to resign, citing the exchanges over 
     genocide. ``It depends on the context' and whether the speech 
     turns into conduct,' that is, actually killing Jews,'' he 
     wrote on X. ``This could be the most extraordinary testimony 
     ever elicited in the Congress. They must all resign in 
     disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar 
     answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.''
       The day after the hearing, Harvard released this statement 
     from Gay:
       ``There are some who have confused a right to free 
     expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for 
     violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for 
     violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any 
     religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at 
     Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be 
     held to account.''
       Her statement did not say what would constitute a threat, 
     or whether chants of ``There is only one solution: intifada, 
     revolution'' would meet the definition, as Stefanik argued 
     during the hearing.


                                On Fire

       The Times quoted a spokesman for the Foundation for 
     Individual Riqhts and Expression, a free speech advocacy 
     group, who explained that whether speech rises to the level 
     of harassment ``is a complicated and fact-intensive issue'' 
     that stems from a pattern of targeted behavior. ``For 
     example, it's hard to see how the single utterance 
     Representative Stefanik asked about during the hearing--no 
     matter how offensive--would qualify given this requirement,'' 
     the spokesman said.
       FIRE is correct. Take, for example, Harvard's ``University-
     Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities.'' It begins by 
     declaring that the ``central functions of an academic 
     community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship'' 
     and that by ``accepting membership in the University, an 
     individual joins a community ideally characterized by free 
     expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for 
     the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change. 
     The rights and responsibilities exercised within the 
     community must be compatible with these qualities.''


                           The Harvard Policy

       The Harvard policy explains that the ``rights of members of 
     the University are not fundamentally different from those of 
     other members of society,'' suggesting that First Amendment 
     norms apply, while adding that the University ``has a special 
     autonomy and reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part 
     in its existence.'' All members of the University ``have the 
     right to press for action on matters of concern by any 
     appropriate means'' and the University ``must affirm, assure 
     and protect the rights of its members to organize and join 
     political associations, convene and conduct public meetings, 
     publicly demonstrate and picket in orderly fashion, advocate 
     and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice.''
       Furthermore, the University:
       places special emphasis, as well, upon certain values which 
     are essential to its nature as an academic community. Among 
     these are freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom 
     from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement. 
     Interference with any of these freedoms must be regarded as a 
     serious violation of the personal rights upon which the 
     community is based.
       Finally, the policy makes clear ``that intense personal 
     harassment of such a character as to amount to grave 
     disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an 
     unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the 
     University is based.''
       It is immediately apparent--and should have been apparent 
     to the White House, members of Congress, Governor Shapiro, 
     and the rest of the critics--that Magill and Gay were 
     accurately reflecting the complex analysis required to 
     determine when free speech crosses the line into prohibited 
     harassment, threats, or violence.
       Magill was indeed correct that ``if the speech turns into 
     conduct, it can be harassment,'' that ``if it is directed and 
     severe, pervasive, it is harassment,'' and therefore, calling 
     for the genocide of Jews ``can be harassment.''
       She had the audacity to explain that it would depend on all 
     the facts and circumstances.
       Gay was indeed correct that calls for the genocide of Jews 
     are ``personally abhorrent'' and ``at odds with the values of 
     Harvard.'' And she was also correct that Harvard gives ``a 
     wide berth to free expression, even of views that are 
     objectionable,'' and takes action ``when speech crosses into 
     conduct that violates our policies'' governing bullying, 
     harassment or intimidation.
       Apparently, her sin was trying to explain freedom of speech 
     to Congress and the American people.
       The Supreme Court and federal law make clear that for 
     speech in the educational setting to constitute 
     ``harassment'' sufficient to result in expulsion or other 
     discipline, it must be ``so severe, pervasive, and 
     objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's 
     access . . . to an educational opportunity or benefit.''
       Had Stefanik and her colleagues taken the time to 
     familiarize themselves with the current law on free speech 
     and framed their questions in terms of the legal definition 
     of ``harassment,'' they would have found common agreement 
     with all three presidents. Had all the critics done their 
     homework instead of spreading misunderstanding about free 
     speech on campus, they would have embraced and applauded how 
     these university presidents skillfully condemned what they 
     called the ``pernicious, viral evil'' of antisemitism and the 
     ``abhorrent'' calls for genocide of Jews, while upholding 
     ``academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas'' which 
     ensure ``a wide berth to free expression, even of views that 
     are objectionable.''


        Enter the American Association of University Professors

       The American Association of University Professors' policy, 
     On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes, adopted 
     almost thirty years ago, reminds us that ``[f]reedom of 
     thought and expression is essential to any institution of 
     higher learning'' in order to inspire ``vigorous debate on 
     those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the 
     strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed 
     that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such 
     is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas.''
       On a campus ``that is free and open, no idea can be banned 
     or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so 
     hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed. Hostility 
     or intolerance to persons who differ from the majority 
     (especially if seemingly condoned by the institution) may 
     undermine the confidence of new members of the community.'' 
     The AAUP notes:
       In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language, 
     some campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression 
     of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning 
     speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses. Several 
     reasons are offered in support of banning such expression. 
     Individuals and groups that have been victims of such 
     expression feel an understandable outrage. They claim that 
     the academic progress of minority and majority alike may 
     suffer if fears, tensions, and conflicts spawned by slurs and 
     insults create an environment inimical to learning.
       And while these ``arguments, grounded in the need to foster 
     an atmosphere respectful of and welcoming to`all persons, 
     strike a deeply responsive chord in the academy,'' the AAUP 
     acknowledges ``both the weight of these concerns and the 
     thoughtfulness of those persuaded of the need for regulation, 
     rules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot 
     be justified.''
       The AAUP continues, `An institution of higher learning 
     fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to 
     proscribe ideas--and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets, 
     or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however 
     repugnant. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university 
     sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic 
     mission.''
       The AAUP cites what the Supreme Court stated when it 
     rejected criminal sanctions for offensive words:
       [W]ords are often chosen as much for their emotive as their 
     cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the 
     Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of 
     individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive 
     function which, practically speaking, may often be the more 
     important element of the overall message sought to be 
     communicated.
       The AAUP further warns that a college or university:
       sets a perilous course if it seeks to differentiate between 
     high-value and low-value speech, or to choose which groups 
     are to be protected by curbing the speech of others. A speech 
     code unavoidably implies an institutional competence to 
     distinguish permissible expression of hateful thought from 
     what is proscribed as thoughtless hate.
       Moreover, the AAUP says, ``banning speech often avoids 
     consideration of means more compatible with the mission of an 
     academic institution by which to deal with incivility, 
     intolerance, offensive speech, and harassing behavior,'' such 
     as adopting and invoking ``a range of measures that penalize 
     conduct and behavior, rather than speech--such as rules 
     against defacing property, physical intimidation or 
     harassment, or disruption of campus activities,'' the 
     development of ``courses and other curricular and co-
     curricular experiences designed to increase student 
     understanding and to deter offensive or intolerant speech or 
     conduct,'' and condemning ``manifestations of intolerance and 
     discrimination, whether physical or verbal.''
       The AAUP concluded by noting that:
       [to] some persons who support speech codes, measures like 
     these--relying as they do on suasion rather than sanctions--
     may seem inadequate. But freedom of expression requires 
     toleration of ``ideas we hate,'' as Justice Holmes put it. 
     The underlying principle does not change because the demand 
     is to silence a hateful speaker, or because it comes from 
     within the academy. Free speech

[[Page H6915]]

     is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be 
     weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very 
     precondition of the academic enterprise itself.


                      The Free Speech Golden Rule

       Aryeh Neier, former executive director of Human Rights 
     Watch, was born in Nazi Germany and became a refugee at two 
     years old when his family fled in 1939. He was national 
     director of the ACLU at the time of the Skokie controversy 
     when the ACLU defended the right of American Nazis to conduct 
     a march in that predominantly Jewish community.
       In his book ``Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the 
     Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,'' he explained why a 
     Jew would defend the Nazis:
       Because we Jews are uniquely vulnerable, I believe we can 
     win only brief respite from persecution in a society in which 
     encounters are settled by power. As a Jew, therefore, 
     concerned with my own survival and the survival of the Jews--
     the two being inextricably linked--I want restraints placed 
     on power. The restraints that matter most to me are those 
     that ensure that I cannot be squashed by power, unnoticed by 
     the rest of the world. If I am in danger, I want to cry out 
     to my fellow Jews and to all those I may be able to enlist as 
     my allies. I want to appeal to the world's sense of justice. 
     I want restraints that prohibit those in power from 
     interfering with my right to speak, my right to publish, or 
     my right to gather with others who also feel threatened. 
     Those in power must not be allowed to prevent us from 
     assembling and joining our voices together so we can speak 
     louder and make sure that we are heard. To defend myself, I 
     must restrain power with freedom, even if the temporary 
     beneficiaries are the enemies of freedom.
       It is high time elected officials and other critics of free 
     speech begin to embrace and defend the Free Speech Golden 
     Rule: Protect the free speech of others as you would have 
     them protect your free speech.
       We are going down a very dangerous path if we set a 
     precedent and empower government officials or college 
     administrators to silence, expel, discipline, or criminally 
     punish students for uttering hateful speech that most of us 
     find vile and shameful but that falls short of legally 
     proscribable incitement, true threats, or harassment. Armed 
     with such awesome powers of censorship, there is no telling 
     when different government officials or different college 
     administrators with different political agendas will find 
     what the rest of us say to be vile and shameful and silence 
     and punish us.
       To defend ourselves, we must restrain power with freedom, 
     even if the temporary beneficiaries are the enemies of 
     freedom.

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, the statement says that Gay was 
indeed correct on calls for genocide of Jews were personally abhorrent 
and at odds with the values at Harvard. She was also correct that 
Harvard gives wide berth to free expression, even to views that are 
objectionable and takes action when free speech crosses into conduct 
that violates our policies. Apparently, her sin was trying to explain 
freedom of speech to Congress and the American people.
  The Supreme Court and Federal law makes clear that speech in 
educational settings constitutes harassment sufficient to result in 
expulsion or other discipline must be so severe, pervasive, and 
objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to 
the educational opportunity.
  Had Stefanik and her colleagues taken time to familiarize themselves 
with the current law on free speech and frame their questions in terms 
of the legal definition of harassment, they would have found common 
agreement with all three presidents.
  Mr. Speaker, I condemn anti-Semitism. I condemn calls for genocide of 
Jewish people. I guess in this context, that has to be repeated over 
and over again. I am also concerned about the polarization of college 
campuses and the disturbing rise of discrimination and incidents on 
college campuses.
  As I have noted, I am skeptical of the majority's newfound concerns 
about anti-Semitism on college campuses because, as I said in 2017, 
after white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia 
grounds shouting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' I do not recall the 
same level of outrage. In fact, I note the endorsement of the one who 
declared that there were good people on both sides. I wrote a letter to 
the majority requesting a congressional hearing at that time, and our 
calls went unanswered.
  Mr. Speaker, I concede that the university presidents' testimony last 
week, when taken out of context, fell under the First Amendment trap 
that when you suggest that speech is protected, therefore, you must 
agree with it. No, you can believe that speech is protected but also 
believe that it is reprehensible. Calling for genocide of Jews is 
reprehensible in all contexts, but it could also be protected.
  Mr. Speaker, they answered the question the way Professor Fried said 
that he would have been professionally obligated to respond, but 
answering the question as posed should not warrant calls for his 
resignation.
  We need to do everything we can do under the law to address anti-
Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and other forms of 
discrimination. This resolution fails to do anything to establish 
standards that can address reprehensible divisions in our society and 
on college campuses.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled, ``President 
Gay Was Right: Context Matters.''

                President Gay Was Right: Context Matters

                           (By Charles Fried)

       Since their appearances before the House Committee on 
     Education and the Workforce, the presidents of Harvard, the 
     University of Pennsylvania, and MIT have been subject to a 
     barrage of hostile criticism in the media, including from 
     constitutional scholars known for their advocacy for free 
     speech.
       When asked whether they would discipline students (or, I 
     suppose, faculty) if they called for the genocide of Jews, 
     each president responded that the answer depends on the 
     context of the utterances.
       I have taught at Harvard Law School since 1961 and began 
     practicing before the Supreme Court in 1985--for four years 
     as Solicitor General of the United States--and I would have 
     felt professionally obligated to answer as the presidents 
     did. It does depend on the context.
       In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court 
     ruled unanimously that ``constitutional guarantees of free 
     speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or 
     prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation 
     except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or 
     producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or 
     produce such action.''
       Now, many--perhaps most--constitutional democracies do not 
     go this far, and courts in some nations, including Canada, 
     France, Germany, and South Africa, have allowed criminal 
     prosecution for what may compendiously be called hate speech. 
     But our Supreme Court has never deviated from its principle 
     of incitement.
       Even in the case that strayed the furthest from this 
     standard--the 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law 
     Project, which upheld the statute that makes it a federal 
     crime to knowingly provide ``material support or resources to 
     a foreign terrorist organization''--Chief Justice John 
     Roberts '76 was careful to carve out free speech from the 
     ruling.
       In that decision, he wrote that, under the statute, 
     Americans ``may say anything they wish on any topic'' so long 
     as they do not speak or write ``to, under the direction of, 
     or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows 
     to be terrorist organizations.'' The three dissenters would 
     have gone further in protecting the organizations' speech.
       To be clear, governments may withhold benefits from 
     American members of foreign terrorist organizations under 
     certain circumstances, and certainly governments may declare 
     official positions condemning such organizations and their 
     principles. But none of this includes criminal sanctions.
       Speech itself is, indeed, well-protected.
       The three university presidents head private institutions 
     that are not bound in every respect by federal constitutional 
     constraints. But each institution in various ways has 
     declared itself committed to protecting First Amendment 
     values over the years. So it is not surprising that their 
     presidents would have answered that whether they would 
     discipline or expel students for advocating genocide depends 
     on the context.
       If one seeks to follow constitutional principles, answering 
     this question certainly does depend on the context.
       In 1991, prompted by an incident in which Harvard students 
     hung Confederate flags outside their dorm windows, University 
     President Derek C. Bok penned an essay defending the rights 
     of the students to display offensive messages.
       He directly linked Harvard's free speech guidelines to 
     First Amendment principles, writing that he had ``difficulty 
     understanding why a university such as Harvard should have 
     less free speech than the surrounding society--or than a 
     public university.''
       I must admit that I have never seen such flags in recent 
     times. Yet, even today, under the circumstances Bok faced, if 
     I were a university president pressed to answer yes or no 
     whether the student speech in question would subject the 
     students to discipline, I would have to reply that, yes, it 
     depends on the context.
       The lead questioner, Representative Elise M. Stefanik '06, 
     sought to lay a rhetorical trap for the three university 
     presidents. But I doubt Stefanik is as principled as she 
     purports to be.
       Were the facts of the event before President Bok 30 years 
     ago to recur and the administration to fail to discipline the 
     display of Confederate flags, would Representative Stefanik 
     have had the same reaction? I doubt it.


[[Page H6916]]


  

  Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution. I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle think that Republicans need a lecture on free speech or 
freedom of religion. We do not need such a lecture on that. We 
understand those concepts. Those are our first freedoms, and we are 
very keenly aware of those.
  Mr. Speaker, there are massive problems in postsecondary education in 
our country, and our committee is doing its best to address some of 
those problems and to do something about them.
  What we knew before the hearing, and what we know even more strongly 
after the hearing that we held last week, is that Jewish students are 
facing a massive rise in violence on our college and university 
campuses.
  According to the Anti-Defamation League and Hillel International, 73 
percent of Jewish students surveyed said they experienced anti-Semitism 
on campus this year. That number is up from 32 percent in 2021. Yet, 
college administrators, like the ones who testified before the 
committee last week, are not acting to protect students.
  Now is not the time for campus leaders to sit on their hands. The 
only way to salvage American academia and restore a safe learning 
environment for its students is by rooting out anti-Semitism and 
standing up against hate.
  I thank God that the Committee on Education and the Workforce is up 
to the task.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, and still I rise to oppose 
antisemitism as well as all forms of hate on college campuses and 
wherever else it may exist.
  Today I address the Congress to associate myself with the comments 
made during debate on H. Res. 927 by the Honorable Jamie Raskin and the 
Honorable Kathy Manning. Both of these esteemed leaders highlight the 
nuance necessary when discussing issues of campus speech and 
antisemitism. Representative Raskin's and Representative Manning's 
remarks are insightful, and I, generally speaking, endorse their 
sentiments as sufficient explanations for my vote against the 
resolution.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of any 
and all serious and meaningful efforts to combat antisemitism. 
Unfortunately, it's clear that the resolution on the floor today was 
drafted with the sole intention of scoring political points, not 
protecting Jewish students from antisemitism.
  Last month, the House passed a resolution condemning antisemitism on 
college campuses and calling for campus administrators to ensure Jewish 
students and faculty are protected. Since then, I have urged the 
Majority to move past mere lip service and instead make meaningful 
contributions to the fight against antisemitism on college campuses.
  If the Republican Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish 
students and faculty, they would have spent the last month implementing 
the Biden Administration's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism 
and providing robust funding for the federal office working to protect 
Jewish students--the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights. 
Instead, they put a spending bill on the floor that cuts the Department 
of Education's Office of Civil Rights' budget by 25 percent.
  If the Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and 
faculty, they would pass a bill increasing funding for the Nonprofit 
Security Grant Program, which provides critical funding to safeguard 
our nation's synagogues and Jewish centers.
  If the Majority truly cared about protecting Jewish students and 
faculty, they would stop echoing racist `great replacement theories' 
and ignoring antisemitism emanating from the right--including 
antisemitic comments coming directly from the leader of their party. 
It's telling that the sponsor of this resolution has chosen to remain 
silent about former President Trump--whom she has endorsed--dining with 
a man who is calling for the genocide of ``perfidious Jews'' and other 
non-Christians.
  Finally, if the Republican majority truly cared about protecting 
Jewish students and faculty, they would work with Democrats on this 
issue in a good-faith, bipartisan fashion instead of blatantly 
plagiarizing the work of a Jewish Democrat.
  Mr. Speaker, the rise of antisemitism in the United States and across 
the world--particularly on college campuses--is a real and growing 
problem. I hope that someday, the Majority will use its power to 
actually do something about it instead of playing partisan political 
games. I continue to stand ready to work with the Majority if they are 
ever ready to address this issue in a serious, bipartisan fashion. 
However, I can not support this attempt to score political points 
masquerading as a resolution to protect Jewish students and faculty.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the resolution.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) that the House suspend the 
rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 927.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds 
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
  Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

                          ____________________