House publishes report on higher research into anti-Semitism

House Republicans criticized private elite colleges and some state flagship universities for their handling of pro-Palestinian protests in a new report that says anti-Semitism has engulfed college campuses and administrators have prioritized “terrorist sympathizers” over the Jewish community.

In the destructive Report of 325 pages Released Thursday, Republicans on the House Education and Workforce Committee detailed the findings of their yearlong investigation into anti-Semitism at 11 colleges. Most of the findings reiterated many of the same points they have been making publicly since Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said the report is a “completely partisan effort” that has squandered a significant opportunity for productive analysis.

“We had the opportunity through hearings, and now through more than 300 pages of report language, to look at: What are solutions? (To) identify issues, identify best practices (and) think about ways to actually help students, especially Jewish students, directly,” Fansmith said. But the final report is just a continuation of the same script, and “it’s a shame,” he added.

Other higher education experts and lobbyists say the report shows the weaponization of anti-Semitism and overlooks the fine line between protecting free speech and civil rights. They also question the federal government’s role in overseeing colleges.

“This report is further evidence that the House Committee is seeking to leverage these painful divisions to distort, undermine and delegitimize American higher education in the minds of the public,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors , in a statement. Within Higher Ed. “Government interference in higher education is a dangerous path and this should be a moment of clarity for faculty, staff and students on our campuses.”

Led by Chairman Virginia Foxx, a Republican from North Carolina, the committee received more than 400,000 pages of documents as part of its extensive investigation into protest management, disciplinary actions and efforts to protect Jewish students, faculty and staff. Ultimately, the committee said they found university leaders made “shocking concessions” to protesters; deliberately refused to support Jewish students, faculty and staff; failed to impose meaningful discipline; and openly expressed hostility to the idea of ​​congressional oversight.

“University administrators, faculty and staff were cowards who completely capitulated to the mob and abandoned the students they were meant to serve,” Foxx said in a news release. “It is time for the executive branch to enforce the laws and ensure that colleges and universities restore order and ensure that all students have a safe learning environment.”

The report did not find that colleges had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin — and covers discrimination based on shared ancestry, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. However, finding violations is not Congress’s job. That is under jurisdiction from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Colleges that break the law could ultimately lose federal funding, but that’s true an unlikely outcome.

Still, the commission wrote that its findings indicate “an environment hostile to Jewish students, likely in violation of Title VI” and chided the Department of Education for not doing enough to hold colleges accountable. But ultimately, the commission said its findings do not amount to “definitive judgments about violations.”

This study is one of several currently underway in the House. The report will contribute to the wider inquiry across the House.

“The committee’s findings point to the need for a fundamental reassessment of federal support for postsecondary institutions that have failed to meet their obligations to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff, and to provide a safe and uninterrupted learning environment for all students,” the report said. said.

‘McCarthyism alive and well’

While criticism of universities’ external actions has been commonplace since campus unrest began on October 7, 2023, the report sheds new light on what happened behind the scenes.

Some of the most striking findings include how college presidents responded after being questioned on the Hill.

Memos from a December 10 board meeting at Harvard University show the disdain for Congress from then-President Claudine Gay, who called to testify at the December 5 hearing along with the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Records show she began her comments by acknowledging her failure to speak out clearly against anti-Semitism. But Gay then quickly shifted the focus to Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican and Harvard alum who sharply criticized the Harvard leader during the hearing. Gay said it was difficult to see the university’s “moral core” being questioned “especially by someone who is a propagator of hate” and a “supporter of proud boys.” (sic).

At Penn, then-board chairman Scott Bok told former University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill that the Republican officials who called for Magill’s resignation were “so easily bribed.”

Lawmakers also cited a text exchange between former Columbia University President Minouche Shafik and Board of Trustees co-chair Claire Shipman shortly afterward. Shafik’s hearing on April 17. Shipman wrote about how New York Times coverage of the event had ‘vaccinated’ the Manhattan Ivy from the same ‘capital’ (sic) hill nonsense and menace” like Harvard.

(Magill And Homo both resigned shortly after the first hearing. Shafik also resignedbut five months passed between the hearing and her announcement.)

Republicans argue that these comments show how administrators were more concerned about public image than confronting anti-Semitism, and how they harbored an unruly hostility to congressional oversight.

But for Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, there is a sense of sardonicism in these conclusions.

“The irony is that Republicans in Congress have complained for years about federal involvement in the education system,” said Ahmed Mitchell. “Now they suddenly want federal interference because they think the federal government can be weaponized to force colleges and universities to silence students and university professors who stand up for Palestinian human rights.”

“This is McCarthyism alive and well,” he added.

Fansmith believes there should certainly be a federal role in ensuring accountability for colleges and universities, noting that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened more than 100 investigations into alleged violations of Title VI . But that supervision has limits.

“These efforts have less to do with real responsibility or an appropriate response… and (are) more an attempt to exert influence on campuses – to try to force them into directions that meet the policy objectives of one or the other different group,” he said.

Shattering ivory towers

Republicans and Jewish advocacy groups applauded the committee’s efforts to hold colleges accountable.

Kenneth Marcus, founder of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and former head of the OCR during the Trump administration, said the report uses the power of Congress’s bully chair to amplify what Jewish organizations have been saying for years .

“The central message,” he said, “is that many university administrators have been deliberately indifferent to the rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses.”

But what’s even more important than the committee’s language, Marcus added, are the documents themselves. Litigants will dig through it, he noted. About half of the report contains excerpts from documents collected by the committee.

“Government investigators should do the same,” he said. “The documents are, at the very least, a public embarrassment for many colleges and, perhaps worse, a potential source of liability.”

Stefanik said inside a press release that the report demonstrates a “moral bankruptcy” of “once ‘elite’ higher education institutions” and that they will suffer the consequences.

“These universities face a reckoning in the coming decades that will bring their ivory towers crashing down,” she said.

Meanwhile, a Northwestern University official said the report “ignores the hard work our community has done since (the hearing last spring).” “We continue to add resources and expand educational opportunities in line with our commitment to protecting our community while facilitating the productive exchange of ideas,” wrote Jon Yates, vice president of global marketing and communications. “The university objects to the unfair characterizations of our provost and valued members of our faculty based on isolated and out-of-context communications (and) unequivocally stands behind them and their work on behalf of our students.”

Other colleges and universities mentioned in the report, including Harvard and the University of California, Los Angeles, generally declined to comment directly on the report and instead pointed to changes that have been and will be made in connection with the tackling anti-Semitism on campus.

“Under the university’s new leadership, we have established a centralized Office of Institutional Equity to address all reports of discrimination and harassment, appointed a new Rules Administrator and strengthened the capabilities of our Public Safety Office,” a Columbia spokesperson wrote university in an email. . “We strive to apply the rules fairly, consistently and efficiently.”

Within Higher Ed also contacted Rutgers University, MIT and Penn – all of which were involved in hearings and included in the report – but did not hear back.