Yesterday saw the latest significant development following the December 5 testimony of the presidents of three elite universities on the topic of college campus antisemitism (see C-SPAN Part 1 and Part 2). In a robustly bipartisan vote (84 of 212 Democrats joining 219 out of 220 Republicans), the House of Representatives approved H. Res. 927, “Condemning antisemitism on University campuses and the testimony of University Presidents in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.”
On Sunday December 10, one of the presidents – Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania – bowed to pressure and resigned. The two others, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Sally Kornbluth of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), appear to be secure in their positions.
The three university presidents appeared before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. Their responses to a line of questioning from committee member Elise Stefanik late in the hearing received wide criticism.
Here, from the transcript that Roll Call produced, is how those exchanges went:
SALLY KORNBLUTH OF MIT
ELISE STEFANIK: Dr. Kornbluth, does — at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MITs code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: If targeted at individuals, not making public statements.
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
ELISE STEFANIK: But you’ve heard chants for intifada?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I’ve heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, those would not be according to the — MITs code of conduct or rules?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: That would be investigated as — as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
LIZ MAGILL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s a context dependent decision? That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony —
LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is — if the —
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I’m going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: It can be harassment.
CLAUDINE GAY OF HARVARD
ELISE STEFANIK: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: It can be. Depending on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: What’s the context?
CLAUDINE GAY: Targeted as an individual, targeted as — at an individual, severe, pervasive.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct —
ELISE STEFANIK: And is it anti-Semitic rhetoric —
CLAUDINE GAY: Anti-Semitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: Again, it depends on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
I had resolved to write on this topic yesterday before having learned of last evening’s condemnatory House resolution. My prompt was the thoughtful essay that Geoff Kabaservice published earlier in the day – “Liz Magill's downfall at Penn: Some thoughts on the aftermath of the campus antisemitism hearings.”
The entire essay is excellent. I would like to focus on – and disagree somewhat with – this part:
One could certainly argue that Rep. Elise Stefanik was acting in bad faith when she asked Magill and the presidents of Harvard and MIT, at the now-infamous Congressional hearing, for a yes-or-no answer on whether calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their universities’ codes of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment. Stefanik is not, let us say, widely known for her fidelity to principle or the ideals of higher education. And she probably understood that most students who chanted “intifada” or even “from the river to the sea” during the campus demonstrations don’t see themselves as modern-day Nazis demanding another Shoah — even if those slogans can be interpreted as calling for Jews to be eliminated from the land of Israel.
But the university presidents, for their part, should have better understood that many Jewish students on their campuses legitimately felt endangered, and that the humane response would have been to assure them that the authorities were listening to them, were deeply concerned about their well-being, and were determined to protect them from physical violence and intimidation. And the presidents also should have known that the public would perceive their dismissive, legalistic answers to Stefanik’s question about calls for Jewish genocide — variations on “that’s a context-dependent decision” or “depending on whether the speech turns into conduct” — as a monstrous moral abdication.
Normal people outside the higher-ed hothouse, if asked how they feel about calls for the genocide of Jews, would express horror and condemnation. The university presidents instead responded with evasion and casuistry. As many commentators have pointed out, universities for years have censored opinions and speakers with which they disagree and have backed the idea that disagreeable speech is harmful, just as they have been quick to issue institutional statements on events like George Floyd’s murder. It’s transparently hypocritical of them to claim a sudden conversion to free speech and institutional neutrality now that it’s Jews who are under attack.
This critique of the university presidents is highly consistent with others one might read. All focus on the exchange above – several minutes from the end of the five-hour hearing – as if the university presidents had not given reassurance to the Jewish students who felt endangered by some of the campus agitation. The critique punishes the university presidents for having purportedly put too much emphasis on “context.” To me, the error in the critique of the university presidents lies exactly in its evasion of context. One might never know from the critics that earlier in the hearing the university presidents had expressed exactly the points in the passage above that I highlighted (the first in bold, the second in italics).
In the excerpts below from the earlier testimony, I have rendered in bold text that speaks to responsiveness to Jewish students’ concerns about safety and in ALL-CAPS ITALICS expressions of HORROR AND CONDEMNATION WITH REGARD TO ANTISEMITISM, BRUTALITY TOWARD JEWS, AND EXPRESSIONS OF SUPPORT FOR SAME (UP TO AND INCLUDING CALLS FOR GENOCIDE).
Claudine Gay of Harvard
Thank you for calling this hearing on the critical topic of antisemitism. Our community still mourns those brutally murdered during the Hamas terrorist attack in Israel on October 7th. WORDS FAIL IN THE FACE OF SUCH DEPRAVITY, the deadliest single day for the Jewish community since the horrors of the Holocaust.
In the two months since the atrocities of October 7th, and the subsequent armed conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza, we have seen a dramatic and deeply concerning rise in antisemitism around the world, in the United States, and on our campuses, including my own. I know many in our Harvard Jewish community are hurting and experiencing grief, fear, and trauma.
I have heard from faculty, students, staff, and alumni of incidents of intimidation and harassment. I have seen reckless and thoughtless rhetoric shared, in person and online, on campus and off. I have listened to leaders in our Jewish community who are scared and disillusioned. At the same time, I know members of Harvard’s Muslim and Arab communities are also hurting.
We have reiterated that speech that incites violence threatens safety or violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment is unacceptable. We have made it clear that any behaviors that disrupt our teaching and research efforts will not be tolerated, and where these lines have been crossed, we have taken action.
We have drawn on our academic expertise to create learning opportunities for our campus community. We have begun examinations of the ways in which anti-Semitism and other forms of hate manifest at Harvard and in American society. WE HAVE ALSO REPEATEDLY MADE CLEAR THAT WE AT HARVARD REJECT ANTISEMITISM AND DENOUNCE ANY TRACE OF IT ON OUR CAMPUS OR WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.
Antisemitism is a symptom of ignorance, and the cure for ignorance is knowledge. Harvard must model what it means to preserve free expression, while combating prejudice and preserving the security of our community. We are undertaking that hard, long term work with the attention and intensity it requires.
Once again, I thank the committee for the opportunity to discuss this important work. I have faith today that through thoughtful, focused, and determined effort, we will once again meet adversity and grow. Thank you.
[...]
From the moment I learned of the attacks on October 7th, I was focused on action to ensure that our students were supported and safe. On that first day, we were focused on identifying whether we had any students or faculty who were in Israel and needed our assistance, including in getting out.
On October 8th, I joined students and other members of the Jewish community at Harvard Hillel for a solidarity dinner, to be there in support and also to learn more what their needs were. In the days after, not only did I condemn the attacks, I’ve continued to condemn the attacks, and furthermore, have continued to stay in conversation with our Jewish community on campus about their evolving needs, so that — to ensure that the university is providing them with the support that they need during this very challenging time.
[...]
I’ve had repeated communications with the campus community about the steps that we’re taking, both immediate steps and longer term action, towards combating antisemitism. To begin, we’ve focused on enhancing the physical safety of the campus and the campus community. That includes an increased police presence, both plainclothes and uniformed officers, 24, seven threat monitoring, both on campus and online, coordination, on a daily basis, with state, local and federal law enforcement.
And when necessary, we’ve taken the steps of closing the gates to Harvard Yard to limit the ability of outside actors to use our campus as a platform. We’ve also made it easier for students, or any community member, to report concerns and any kind of conduct that is — is threatening. We’ve also enhanced counseling and mental health services including trauma-informed care.
We’ve created community spaces so that students and faculty and staff can gather and to be together to process the tragedy.
Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania
Let me begin by saying that I AND THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ARE HORRIFIED BY AND CONDEMN HAMAS’S ABHORRENT AND BRUTAL TERROR 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. This pain, sorrow, and fear extends to our campus and to our city of Philadelphia. This hearing this morning takes place just two days after THE PHILADELPHIA COMMUNITY WITNESSED IN HORROR, THE HATEFUL WORDS AND ACTIONS OF PROTESTERS WHO MARCHED THROUGH THE CITY AND THEN NEAR OUR CAMPUS.
THESE PROTESTERS DIRECTLY TARGETED A CENTER CITY BUSINESS THAT IS JEWISH- AND ISRAELI-OWNED, A TROUBLING AND SHAMEFUL ACT OF ANTISEMITISM. Philadelphia Police and Penn Public Safety were present, and thankfully, no one was injured. But these events have understandably left many in our community upset and afraid.
Anti-Semitism, an old, viral and pernicious evil, has been steadily rising in our society and these world events have dramatically accelerated that surge. Few places have proven immune, including Philadelphia and campuses like ours. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. We are combating this hate on our campus with both immediate and comprehensive action.
I HAVE CONDEMNED ANTISEMITISM PUBLICLY, REGULARLY, AND IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE TERMS. And today, let me reiterate my and Penn’s unyielding commitment to combating it. We immediately investigate any hateful act, cooperating with both law enforcement and the FBI, where we have identified individuals who have committed these acts in violation of either policy or law.
We initiate disciplinary proceedings and engage law enforcement. We have acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near our campus, expanding the presence of public safety officers at our religious life centers and all across campus. On November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism.
This builds on our anti-hate efforts to date, and it is anchored firmly in the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The plan centers on three, key areas and has many elements. Those areas are safety and security, engagement, and education. As part of this plan, I have convened and charged a task force to identify concrete, actionable recommendations, directing them to provide me with their recommendations, both in real time and then a final report in a couple of months.
To ensure that our Jewish students have a direct channel to share their experiences with me, I’ve created a student advisory group on the student experience. Today’s hearing is focused on antisemitism and its direct impact on the Jewish community, but history teaches us that where antisemitism goes unchecked, other forms of hate spread, and ultimately can threaten democracy.
[...]
We will continue to deploy all the necessary resources to support any member of the community experiencing hate. As president, I am committed to a safe, secure, and supportive educational environment so that our academic mission can thrive. It is crucial that ideas are exchanged and diverse viewpoints are debated.
[...]
Penn would not be what it is without its strong Jewish community — past, present, and future. I am proud of this tradition and deeply troubled when members of our Jewish community share that their sense of belonging has been shaken. Under my leadership, we will never ever shrink from our moral responsibility to combat anti-Semitism and educate all to recognize and reject hate.
We will remain vigilant. I look forward to your questions.
[...]
We are in the midst of making certain that all anti bigotry efforts ensure education about anti Semitism. We committed to that into September, and we’re working through that. We have added education — some parts of our program do and some parts of our program need to be enhanced.
So we’re working on that right now. And I assure you that we will make certain that that is included in all of our anti bigotry efforts — anti Semitism.
Sally Kornbluth of MIT
Thank you for this opportunity to describe how MIT is fighting the scourge of antisemitism. My name is Sally Kornbluth. I have been president of MIT since January of this year. AS AN AMERICAN, AS A JEW, AND AS A HUMAN BEING, I ABHOR ANTISEMITISM and my administration is combating it actively.
SINCE OCTOBER 7TH, MY CAMPUS COMMUNICATIONS HAVE BEEN CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT THE DANGERS OF ANTISEMITISM AND ABOUT THE ATROCITY OF THE HAMAS TERROR ATTACK. Let me repeat what I said in my very first message to campus. In that video, I said quote, “THE BRUTALITY PERPETRATED ON INNOCENT CIVILIANS IN ISRAEL BY TERRORISTS FROM HAMAS IS HORRIFYING.
IN MY OPINION, SUCH A DELIBERATE ATTACK ON CIVILIANS CAN NEVER BE JUSTIFIED.” I also made clear that students were feeling unsafe because of their Jewish faith or their ties to Israel. And said, “That should trouble every one of us deeply.” I have reinforced this message including in a November 14th campus video.
As I said then, quote, “ANTISEMITISM IS REAL AND IT IS RISING IN THE WORLD. WE CANNOT LET IT POISON OUR COMMUNITY.” I have been direct and unequivocal. And such leadership statements are important, but they must be paired with action. And this is just what we are doing at MIT. Months before October 7th, MIT joined the International Hillel Campus Climate Initiative, which helps universities build awareness of and actions against antisemitism.
We have launched an MIT wide effort called Standing Together Against Hate. It will emphasize both education and community building, especially in our residence halls. In addition to fighting antisemitism, it will address Islamophobia also on the rise and also underreported. MIT will take on both, not lumped together, but with equal energy and in parallel.
Importantly, as is clearly visible on campus, we have increased the police presence. Safety has been our primary concern. Nonetheless, I know some Israeli and Jewish students feel unsafe on campus as they bear the horror of the Hamas attacks and the history of antisemitism. These students have been pained by chance in recent demonstrations.
[...]
[T]he right to free speech does not extend to harassment, discrimination or incitement to violence in our community. MIT policies are clear on this. To keep the campus functioning, we also have policies to regulate the time, manner and place of demonstrations.
Reports of student conduct that may violate our policies are handled through our Faculty Lead Committee on Discipline. Our campus actions, today, have protected student safety, minimize disruptions to campus activities and protected the right to free expression. We are intensifying our central efforts to combat antisemitism, the vital subject of this hearing.
[...]
We are also supporting faculty, staff and student initiatives to counter hate. And thanks to an inspiring group of faculty members, we are seeing more discussion among students with conflicting views.
We know there is further work to do, but we are seeing progress. And MIT’s vital mission continues. Thank you. I am happy to answer questions.
While more material like this is available, I choose not to belabor the point with more illustrative examples. It would be more constructive to get to the larger point, which one of the pieces to which Kabaservice linked – in the very passage I quoted – makes quite well.
James Kirchick is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). Yesterday the New York Times published his column titled “Campus Speech Codes Should Be Abolished.” Kabaservice quoted this essay to make the point that, whereas “universities for years have censored opinions and speakers with which they disagree and have backed the idea that disagreeable speech is harmful,” it is hypocritical of the university presidents “to claim a sudden conversion to free speech and institutional neutrality now that it’s Jews who are under attack.”
I am highly sympathetic to the critique of cancel culture and the abuses of identity politics on college campuses (and elsewhere). It is a topic on which I have commented in other venues and I see that I am remiss in not having engaged with it in Decency and Sense. I will!
However, this critique is quite different from the one that I earlier explored in this essay.
I agree one hundred percent with what Kirchick expressed in the following passage:
Critics are correct to note the hypocrisy of university leaders who have belatedly come to embrace a version of free speech absolutism that tolerates calls for Jewish genocide after years of punishing far less objectionable speech deemed offensive to other minority groups. In 2021, for instance, M.I.T. withdrew a speaking invitation from a geophysicist who had criticized affirmative action. Harvard and Penn appear at the very bottom of the annual free speech rankings of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (where I am a senior fellow).
But two wrongs don’t make a right. If the problem with campus speech codes is the selectivity with which universities penalize various forms of bigotry, the solution is not to expand the university’s power to punish expression. It’s to abolish speech codes entirely.
Universities have a vital role to play in fostering a culture of free and open debate, and the presidents were right to draw a distinction between speech and conduct. Threats directed at individual students are inconsistent with a university’s goal of fostering a productive educational environment, not to mention against the law. Students can and should face disciplinary action and even expulsion for certain behavior: acts of violence, true threats (defined by the Supreme Court as “serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals”) and discriminatory harassment (which the court delineates as behavior “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit”). Students can and should also be punished for disrupting classes, occupying buildings or employing the so-called heckler’s veto, whereby they prevent a speaker from being heard.
But students should not be punished for speech protected by the First Amendment — even something as odious as a call for genocide.
The central problem with restrictions on odious speech is that it’s often debatable, for example, what amounts to a call for genocide, and university administrators are poorly positioned to adjudicate such debates. When Ms. Stefanik asked the university presidents whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” constituted a violation of their codes of conduct, she was referring to three specific phrases that pro-Palestinian protesters chant at their rallies: “Globalize the intifada,” “There is only one solution: intifada revolution” and “From the river to the sea” (short for “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”). While I happen to believe that all three advocate violence against Jews — and that the last one, in its call for a territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea expunged of Israel, tacitly endorses genocide — there are people who sincerely believe that these are pleas for peaceful coexistence.
In addition, many people who spout these phrases are just plain ignorant. There is evidence that a shockingly large number of students now saying “from the river to the sea” seem not to know what the phrase means — or even which river and sea they are referring to. Asking schools to determine whether espousing such phrases constitutes a violation of university policy puts administrators in the untenable position of literary commissars, assessing the true intent of these and sundry other statements.
Kabaservice and I agree on what I perceive to be the important matters connected with the hearing. He and I disagree with respect to the appropriateness of the university presidents’ testimony. Seems to me that their statements and responses to questions faithfully reflected the ideals of Kirchick’s organization, FIRE. To blame them for having answered the questions that Rep. Stefanik put to them earnestly and accurately, rather than performatively repeat values they had expressed in earlier testimony so as to thwart her intention to create a viral soundbite, strikes me as rather unfair.
I am a great fan of Geoff Kabaservice and am eager to read his follow-on essay.