US college presidents face firing line over antisemitism

A congressional hearing on college antisemitism last week highlighted disturbing reports of pro-terrorist professors, antisemitic attacks, and pro-intifada encampments on campuses across the United States.

The hearing addressed anti-Jewish environments well beyond the high-profile cases at elite colleges such as Harvard and Columbia. Previous hearings, focussed on Ivy League campuses, have led to the resignations of several college presidents in the past 18 months.

The hearing summoned the presidents of Haverford College, DePaul University and California Polytechnic State University, and a professor from Georgetown University Law Center.

Republican lawmakers grilled the witnesses on cases of Jewish students being abused on campus, university staff glorifying terrorism online, and repeated failures to uphold safety policies.

A number of Republicans argued that antisemitism on campus was the result of far-left, radical ideologies within the universities’ curriculum and culture. Several Democrats accused Republicans of exploiting the issue of antisemitism for political gain, while ignoring allegations of far-right antisemitism within their own party.

The responses from the witnesses ranged from deference to dodging to outright denial. Here are some of the key moments from the hearing.

The three college presidents used their statements to condemn antisemitism or recognise failures to address it on their campuses. However, David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, used his opening statements to argue that antisemitic speech is constitutionally protected.

While Cole called antisemitic speech “lamentable,” he argued it is “constitutionally protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech, and homophobic speech is”.

He went on to accuse the hearings of “having more in common with the House Un-American Activities Committee” (HUAC). Better known as the McCarthy witch hunt, HUAC was created in 1938 to investigate US citizens accused of having communist ties.

Working with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Cole stated he had “defended the speech rights of everyone from the National Rifle Association… to fundamentalist Christians to Palestinian students”. Cole also stated he had “challenged discrimination on the basis of race, sex and religion,” and that he cares deeply about the values of both free speech and equality. “Both are at stake here,” he argued.

Republican Kevin Kiley said he was outraged by Cole’s comparison of the hearing to the McCarthy era hearings.

“Nothing could be more different than what's going on. I don't know if you've talked to the students at places like Haverford or Harvard or Northwestern or UCLA, who are afraid to wear a Star of David, are afraid to wear a yarmulke, are afraid to express their identity in any way because they'll be ostracised. They'll be subject to discrimination, to potentially acts of violence… That the Democrat witness, from the ACLU, would come here and liken this to McCarthyism. We have a long way to go in the reforming higher education,” he said, walking out of the hearing.

Republican Glenn Grothman was met with blank silence when he asked the college presidents why antisemitism was so prevalent on college campuses, compared to the rest of the United States.

“Nobody has a reason why that is so?” asked Grothman. “You must think when these incidents happen on your campuses, ‘why is this happening?’ You don't think at all? Your mind is a blank?”

Grothman went on to argue that antisemitism on campuses was due to colleges becoming the “home of the hard-left”. Addressing Jeffrey Armstrong, the president of Cal Poly, he asked whether there was “an angling to the left side, big time, on your campus there in California”.

Armstrong’s reply seemed completely unrelated to the question. “The vast majority of our faculty and staff, they really focus on student success. We have a high STEM, uh, population,” he began.

“Nobody wants to take a crack,” interrupted Grothman. “Well, okay. I think the problem that we have antisemitism on the campus is because odd, offbeat, hateful ideas fester in a place of extreme leftism. And I think the universities in this country have become fanatical left-wingists, and I don’t know what we can do about it as a country.” 

DePaul University’s president Robert Manuel faced a strong attack from Republican Lisa McClain.

McClain noted that Jewish students had expressed fears for their safety on the campus after a pro-Hamas rally in October 2023. In April 2024 the university allowed a pro-Hamas encampment on campus. Seven months after that, two Jewish students were violently attacked on campus. Michael Kaminsky and Max Long are suing DePaul over the attack, which police describe as a hate crime.

She asked why DePaul did not removed the encampment for three weeks, despite issuing a policy expressing concerns about campus safety and warning people to stay away.

Manuel: Representative, we learned an awful lot from…

McClain: I’m not asking what you learned, I’m asking why you made the decision, because I’m going to refer you to your policy that you have in place. Why didn’t you follow your policy?

Manuel: Our immediate instinct was to work with our students.

McClain: How’d that go? You want to ask Michael how that went?

Manuel: It did not go very well. I apologise for that.

McClain: Your apologies are a little hollow... Was anyone held accountable, other than Michael and his friend that sustained a concussion and a broken wrist? You’ve got great policies, and you’ve got great lip service. The problem is you need action.

Haverford’s Wendy Raymond underwent a round of rapid-fire questions by Republican Michael Baumgartner. In her responses, she revealed she was unaware of how many American citizens were murdered and taken hostage on October 7, and did not know how many American citizens were currently held hostage (at the time there was one, Edan Alexander, who was released this week).

Raymond was also questioned by Republican Elise Stefanik, who made headlines in December 2023 for asking Ivy League college presidents if “calling for the genocide of Jews” violated their codes of conduct. (The presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania controversially replied it depended on the “context”.)

Stefanik cited two specific cases at Haverford, one where a student group called for the “complete dismantling of the apartheid, settler, colonial state of Israel, by all means necessary,” and another where a Haverford professor posted after October 7, “We should never have to apologise for celebrating these scenes of an imprisoned people breaking free from their chains. This was a historic moment to be recorded in their history books.”

Raymond refused to answer whether any disciplinary action had been taken. “Respectfully, Representative, I will not be talking about specific cases,” said Raymond.

“Respectfully, President of Haverford, many people have sat in this position, who are no longer in the positions as presidents of universities, for their failure to answer straightforward questions,” replied Stefanik.

In her closing statements Stefanik said, “for the American people watching, you still don’t get it. Haverford still doesn’t get it. It’s a very different testimony than the other presidents who are here today, who are coming with specifics.

“This is completely unacceptable, and it’s why this committee has stepped in, because higher education has failed to address the scourge of antisemitism putting Jewish students at risk at Haverford and other campuses across the country.”