House Education Committee Grills Ivy League Presidents on Campus Antisemitism
The House Education Committee called upon the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on Tuesday to address the concerning rise of antisemitism on college campuses. The focus of the inquiry was particularly on pro-Palestinian students actively calling for violence against Israelis and Jews following the horrific attacks carried out by Hamas on October 7.
Harvard President Claudine faced a barrage of questions regarding whether rhetoric endorsing genocide aligns with the college’s code of conduct or rules on harassment, following events where students were heard calling for an Intifada against Israelis. However, Gay consistently avoided providing a direct answer, leading to a tense exchange with Representative Elise Stefanik.
“Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard’s code of conduct, or is it allowed at Harvard?” Representative Stefanik asked.
“It is at odds with the values of Harvard,” Gay replied.
“Can you not say here that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard?”
“We embrace a commitment to free expression, even of views that are objectionable, offensive, hateful,” claimed Gay. “It’s when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassment, intimidation.”
Despite continued probing on when speech crosses into conduct that violates the university’s policies, Gay evaded providing a clear answer.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth and UPenn President Liz Magill adopted a similar stance, suggesting that genocidal rhetoric could potentially violate their college’s code of conduct, but emphasized the need to consider broader context and circumstances.
Representative Donald W. Norcross underscored the non-partisan nature of the issue and directed a question to UPenn President Magill regarding a scheduled Palestinian rights festival last September with speakers identified by the Anti-Defamation League as antisemitic. Magill defended her college’s commitment to freedom of speech, explaining that while she may disagree with some speakers, the university does not preemptively cancel or censor them. Pressed on the potential cancellation of an event, Magill cited safety and security concerns rather than the content as the deciding factor.
The hearing highlighted an obvious hypocrisy in how colleges across the country handle different forms of speech. While conservative voices, like Charlie Kirk, often face bans and censorship on campuses nationwide, instances of blatant antisemitism and calls for violence appear to be met with silence from academic institutions.
