‘In what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?’
Liz Magill, president of University of Pennsylvania, testifies before the House Education and Workforce Committee (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
The Battle Against Anti-Semitism on College Campuses
The presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT appeared before Congress on Tuesday to discuss the rising anti-Semitism on their campuses. It did not go well for them.
Faced with hostile questions from the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and the Workforce, whose members include Harvard alumna Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), the presidents struggled to explain why their institutions—which have repeatedly denounced, disinvited, and punished professors for airing conservative views—suddenly discovered the value of free speech when students and faculty began defending Hamas.
“In what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?” Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) asked Harvard president Claudine Gay. The school’s diversity administrators had thrown a fit when Carole Hooven, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, stated on Fox News that there are only two sexes, causing such a firestorm that she had to take a leave of absence. Gay didn’t answer the question.
The exchange captured the tenor of the contentious hearing, “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism,” which was unusually well-attended and widely viewed on social media. Along with Penn president Liz Magill and MIT president Sally Kornbluth, Gay repeatedly argued that calls for “intifada,” no matter how hateful or offensive, were protected by academic freedom. Each time they did, the committee would throw those words back in their faces, rattling off all ways in which the schools had suppressed free speech and created an ideological monoculture.
“You’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth,” Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.) told Magill. The Penn president stated throughout the hearing that Penn’s free speech policies “follow the Constitution,” even as the university attempts to punish Amy Wax, a tenured law professor, for a bevy of constitutionally protected remarks, including her criticism of diversity programs. The school has not tried to sanction Huda Fakhreddine, a professor of Arabic literature who told Jews to “go back” to “fucking Berlin,” or Ahmad Almallah, a creative writing instructor who led chants of “intifada revolution.”
“The fact is that Penn regulates speech that it doesn’t like,” Banks added.
The three schools have been at the center of a national controversy about how universities have handled anti-Semitism in the wake of Hamas’s Oct. 7 terror attacks. At Harvard, 34 student groups signed an open letter blaming Israel for Hamas’s rampage, and an Israeli business school student was assaulted when he tried to record a “die-in.” At Penn, numerous donors have cut ties with the school over its slowness to condemn anti-Semitism and its students’ open support for terrorism. And at MIT, foreign students who held an unsanctioned protest against Israel got off with a slap on the wrist. Suspending those students, MIT president Kornbluth said, might have caused “visa issues.”
The hearing, which came one day after Harvard screened footage of Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities, sent an unmistakable message to other universities: ignore the double standards at your peril. Some congressmen, including Reps. Bob Good (R., Va.) and Joe Wilson (R., S.C.), wondered aloud why Harvard, Penn, and MIT should continue receiving federal funds, while others battered the hapless presidents with yes or no questions that left them talking in circles.
In one especially uncomfortable exchange, Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.) pressed Gay on whether calls for genocide violate Harvard’s code of conduct. Gay—who helped oust Harvard Law professor Ronald Sullivan from an administrative post after he served on Harvey Weinstein’s defense team—wouldn’t answer.
Other examples of free speech hypocrisy include Penn’s decision in 2013 to cancel a talk by Narendra Modi, the prime minister of India, over his anti-Muslim remarks; Harvard’s decision in 2017 to rescind the admission of students who posted offensive memes in a group chat; and MIT’s decision in 2021 to cancel a talk by Dorian Abbot, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago who had been invited to speak about climate change, because his criticisms of affirmative action offended graduate students.
Several congressmen drew a connection between this hypocrisy and the diversity, equity, and inclusion programs ubiquitous on college campuses. Rep. Burgess Owens (R., Utah) used his time to grill Kornbluth, the MIT president, on the school’s racially segregated dormitories, including a blacks-only dorm called “Chocolate City.”
“Is it okay also for whites to set up a white-only dorm where minorities are excluded?” Owens asked.
Kornbluth didn’t say no.
“Our students affiliate voluntarily with whichever dorm they want to,” she told Owens. “It’s not exclusionary. It’s actually positive selection by students.”
How did the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and the Workforce question the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT regarding their institutions’ handling of free speech?
The rising anti-Semitism on college campuses has become a cause for concern, prompting the presidents of Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT to appear before Congress to address the issue. However, their testimony faced hostile questions from the Republican-controlled House Committee on Education and the Workforce, with members like Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), who are Harvard alumna, challenging them on their institutions’ handling of free speech.
One particularly pointed question asked by Rep. Tim Walberg (R., Mich.) to Harvard president Claudine Gay struck at the heart of the matter: “In what world is a call for violence against Jews protected speech, but a belief that sex is biological and binary isn’t?” This question alluded to the recent controversy at Harvard, where an evolutionary biologist, Carole Hooven, faced backlash and had to take a leave of absence after stating on Fox News that there are only two sexes. Rep. Walberg’s question remained unanswered.
The heated exchange between the Congress members and the presidents of these prestigious universities exemplified the contentious nature of the hearing titled “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Anti-Semitism.” The hearing drew substantial attention, garnering wide viewership on social media platforms. Each time the university presidents argued that calls for violence and hatred, such as those calling for “intifada,” were protected by academic freedom, the committee would highlight instances where these same institutions suppressed free speech and fostered an ideological monoculture.
Rep. Jim Banks (R., Ind.) accused Penn president Liz Magill of speaking “out of both sides of [her] mouth.” Magill repeatedly claimed that Penn’s free speech policies “follow the Constitution,” while the university attempts to punish tenured law professor Amy Wax for constitutionally protected remarks, including her criticism of diversity programs. Meanwhile, the university has not taken disciplinary action against professors like Huda Fakhreddine, who told Jews to “go back” to “f****** Berlin,” or Ahmad Almallah, who led chants of “intifada revolution.”
Banks underscored the hypocrisy, stating, “The fact is that Penn regulates speech that it doesn’t like.” Similarly, Harvard and MIT have faced controversies surrounding their handling of anti-Semitism. At Harvard, student groups blamed Israel for Hamas’s terrorist attacks, and an Israeli student was assaulted when attempting to record a protest. At Penn, the slow condemnation of anti-Semitism and open support for terrorism by some students has led numerous donors to cut ties with the university. MIT faced criticism for not taking stronger action against foreign students who protested against Israel without permission, with their leniency justified by potential visa issues.
The testimonies of these university presidents shed light on the challenges higher education institutions face when dealing with anti-Semitism on their campuses. The debate surrounding free speech rights, academic freedom, and the responsibility of universities to protect their students from discrimination and hatred remains a complex issue that requires careful consideration and attentive policies. It is essential for universities to demonstrate consistency, fairness, and a commitment to preserving an inclusive and respectful environment for all students and faculty members.
Now loading...