House of Representatives releases report on investigation into anti-Semitism in higher education

House Republicans criticized private elite colleges and some of the state’s leading universities for their handling of pro-Palestinian protests in a new report in which they claim anti-Semitism has gripped college campuses and the administration has prioritized “terrorist sympathizers” over the Jewish community.

In sharp 325 page report Released Thursday, Republicans on the House Education and Workforce Committee detailed the findings of their year-long investigation into anti-Semitism at 11 colleges. Most of the results confirm many of the same points they made publicly after the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

John Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said the report was a “thoroughly partisan effort” that missed a significant opportunity for productive analysis.

“We’ve had the opportunity through the hearings and now through the 300-plus pages of report to see, what are the solutions? (To) identify problems, identify best practices (and) think about ways to directly help students, especially Jewish students,” Fansmith said. But the final report is just a continuation of the same scenario, and “that’s unfortunate,” he added.

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

“This report is further evidence that the House Committee is attempting to use these painful divisions to interfere with, undermine and delegitimize American higher education in the public mind,” Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, said in a statement to Inside Higher Education. “Government intervention 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 North Carolina Republican, the committee received more than 400,000 pages of documents as part of a wide-ranging investigation into protest management, disciplinary actions and efforts to protect Jewish students, faculty and staff. Ultimately, the committee said it found that university leaders had made “shocking concessions” to the protesters; intentionally refused to support Jewish students, faculty and staff; failed to impose meaningful discipline; and openly expressed hostility toward the idea of ​​congressional oversight.

“University leaders, faculty and staff were cowards who completely capitulated to the mob and failed the students they were supposed to serve,” Fox said in a press release. “It is time for the executive branch to enforce the laws and ensure that colleges and universities clean up their act and guarantee a safe learning environment for all students.”

The report did not find that the colleges violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin and also covers discrimination based on common ancestry, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. However, identifying violations is not the prerogative of Congress. That is in charge Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. Colleges that break the law may ultimately lose federal funding, although this unlikely result.

However, the committee wrote that its findings show “an environment hostile to Jewish students that is likely a violation of Title VI” and faulted the Education Department for not doing enough to hold colleges accountable. Ultimately, however, the committee said its findings were not “conclusive judgments of wrongdoing.”

This investigation is one of several currently under implementation in the house. The report will contribute to a broader House-wide inquiry.

“The committee’s findings indicate the need for a fundamental re-evaluation of federal support for institutions of higher education that have failed in their obligations to protect Jewish students, faculty and staff and to maintain a safe and uninterrupted learning environment for all students,” the report said. said.

“McCarthyism is alive and well”

While criticism of universities’ actions against outside forces has become commonplace since campus riots began on October 7, 2023, the report sheds new light on what was happening behind the scenes.

Some of the most noteworthy findings include the reactions of college presidents after being questioned on the Hill.

Notes from a December 10 Harvard University board meeting show contempt for Congress by then-President Claudine Gay, who was summoned 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 speech by acknowledging her failure to speak out against anti-Semitism. But Gay then quickly turned his attention to Rep. Elise Stefanik, a New York Republican and Harvard graduate who sharply criticized the Harvard leader at the hearing. Gay said it was difficult to watch the university’s “moral core” be questioned, “especially by someone who is a purveyor of hate” and a “supporter of the Proud Boys.” (sic).

At Penn State, then-board chairman Scott Bock told former Penn State President Liz Magill that Republican officials calling for Magill’s resignation were “so easily bribed.”

Lawmakers also cited text message exchanges between former Columbia University President Minouche Shafik and Board of Regents co-chair Claire Shipman shortly thereafter. Shafik’s case is heard on April 17.. Shipman wrote about how New York Times event coverage “grafted” Manhattan Ivy from the same “capital”. (sic) Hill nonsense and menace” like Harvard.

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

Republicans argue the comments show administrators were more concerned with public image than combating anti-Semitism and showed unruly hostility toward congressional oversight.

But Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, calls the findings sardonic.

“The irony is that for years, Republicans in Congress have complained about federal government interference in the education system,” Ahmed Mitchell said. “Now they suddenly want federal intervention because they think the federal government can be used as a weapon to force colleges and universities to silence college students and professors who speak out for Palestinian human rights.”

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

Fansmith believes there is certainly a federal role to play in holding colleges and universities accountable, noting that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened more than 100 investigations into alleged Title VI violations. But this oversight has limits.

“These efforts have less to do with true accountability or appropriate response … and (are) more of an attempt to influence college campuses—to try to get them to move in directions that meet the political goals of one group or another,” he said.

Destroying the 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 OCR under the Trump administration, said the report uses the power of the congressional bully pulpit to reinforce what Jewish organizations have been saying for years.

“The underlying message,” he said, “is that many college leaders are willfully indifferent to the rise of anti-Semitism on their campuses.”

But more important than the committee’s language, Marcus added, are the documents themselves. Litigation will “dig into” them, he noted. About half the report consists of fragments of documents collected by the committee.

“Government investigators should also do the same,” he said. “These documents are, at a minimum, a public embarrassment for many colleges and, worse, a potential source of liability.”

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

“These universities are facing a reckoning decades in the future that will bring down their ivory towers,” she said.

Meanwhile, a Northwestern University spokesperson said the report “ignores the hard work our community has done since (last spring’s hearing).” “We continue to add resources and expand educational opportunities in keeping with our commitment to protecting our community while fostering the productive exchange of ideas,” wrote John Yates, vice president of global marketing and communications. “The University objects to the unfair characterizations of our Chancellor and distinguished faculty based on isolated and out-of-context reports (and) unequivocally supports them and their work on behalf of our students.”

Other colleges and universities mentioned in the report, including Harvard and UCLA, generally declined to comment directly on the report and instead pointed to changes that have been and will be made to combat anti-Semitism on campus.

“Under new university leadership, we have created a centralized Office of Institutional Equity to review all reports of discrimination and harassment, appointed a new rules administrator, and strengthened the capabilities of our Office of Public Safety,” a Columbia University spokesperson wrote in an email. . “We are committed to applying the rules fairly, consistently and effectively.”

Inside Higher Education also reached out to Rutgers University, MIT and Penn State – all of which participated in the hearings and were included in the report – but received no response.