Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 205 (Wednesday, December 13, 2023)

[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.

____________________