Condemning antisemitism on University campuses and the testimony of University Presidents in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I condemn anti-Semitism in all forms. Moreover, calls for genocide of the Jewish people have no place in reasonable discourse, and I condemn that, too. I did not think such a statement would be necessary, but in today's context, it is necessary.

These sentiments were shared repeatedly by Claudine Gay of Harvard, Sally Kornbluth of MIT, and Elizabeth Magill of the University of Pennsylvania during their testimony last week.

Unfortunately, because of a 5-minute exchange toward the end of the hearing that was clipped and shared online without full context during the hours-long hearing, these university presidents' commitment to fighting anti-Semitism has been called into question.

This is because, during the clip, they answered the question asked. They made the mistake of believing the hearing was a serious attempt to ascertain what could be done to promote student safety on campus in light of the tension between the First Amendment protections of freedom of speech on the one hand and the criminal code, title VI, and campus code of conduct on the other.

Some speech, such as threats, can be so severe as to be criminal. Other speech could establish a hostile environment on campus in violation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Universities can establish codes of conduct prohibiting some speech while respecting the First Amendment, but any speech involved in a First Amendment analysis is likely to be reprehensible. The fact that it might be protected does not make the speech any less reprehensible and does not suggest that you even agree with it.

A call for genocide of Jewish people is obviously reprehensible in all contexts, but whether or not it is constitutionally protected depends on context.

Don't take my word for it. Read the article published recently in The Harvard Crimson authored by Harvard law professor Charles Fried, formerly the Solicitor General during the Reagan administration.

In the article, Professor Fried states: ``When asked whether they would discipline students (or, I suppose, faculty) if they called for genocide of Jews, each president responded that the answer depends on the context of the utterances.''

He goes on by saying: ``I have taught at Harvard Law School since 1961 and began practicing before the Supreme Court in 1985--for 4 years as Solicitor General of the United States--and I would have felt professionally obligated to answer as the presidents did. It does depend on context.

``In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that `constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'''

He continues: ``Speech itself is, indeed, well protected.''

The three university presidents head private institutions that are not bound in every aspect by Federal constitutional restraints, but each institution, in various ways, has declared itself committed to protecting First Amendment values over the years.

It is not surprising that their presidents would have answered that whether they would discipline or expel students for advocating genocide depends on the context. If one seeks to follow constitutional principles, answering this question certainly does depend on the context.

That is what Professor Fried said. That is the kind of analysis applied to any freedom of speech question. It is even being applied to former President Trump today. Was his speech on January 6, 2021, a crime of inciting violence or was it protected speech?

Incredibly, the university presidents were directed to give a one- word answer, yes or no, and they responded as Professor Fried said he would have been professionally obligated to do: It depends on context.

Regrettably, they took the question as an opportunity to seriously discuss the constitutional implications of a complex question. That was a big mistake. For that mistake, we are considering a resolution to condemn them and ask them to resign.

I also think it is important to put this resolution in context because, in 2017, after white supremacists walked through the campus of the University of Virginia shouting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' Democrats on the committee requested a hearing on that incident and nothing happened. Meanwhile, the one who declared there were ``good people on both sides'' has been enthusiastically endorsed.

We need to do everything the law allows to address anti-Semitism,

Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination on college campuses. This resolution is not a serious effort to advance that cause. I, therefore, oppose this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a December 8 statement from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group invited by the majority in 2018 to testify at a hearing examining the First Amendment rights on campus and a group that authors the free speech ranking the majority cited several times at the committee hearing, titled, ``University Presidents Were Right to Condemn Hate Speech and Defend Free Speech.''

[From FIRE, Dec. 8, 2023]

Special Post: Stephen Rohde, `University Presidents Were Right to Condemn Hate Speech and Defend Free Speech'--First Amendment News 403.1

(by Ronald K. L. Collins)

When it comes to speech on college campuses, the problem is

one with a vintage flavor. Simply recall (if you can) what

Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote in his 1957 opinion in Sweezy

v. New Hampshire (a case successfully argued by professor

Thomas Emerson): ``The essentiality of freedom in the

community of American universities is almost self-evident.''

Note that it was a plurality opinion--and note also his use

of the word ``almost.'' In other words, doubts lingered.

Four decades later, in a book way ahead of its time, the

late Robert M. O'Neil awakened our world to free speech

issues that would define the world in decades to come. The

book was ``Free Speech in the College Community.'' In it, Bob

(a free speech champion and friend) wrote:

When the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching surveyed university presidents for a study in the

late 1980s entitled campus tensions, more than half the

respondents noted that racial intimidation or harassment was

a serious problem on their campuses. The National Institute

Against Prejudice and Violence, which has the most detailed

database, cited at least 250 campuses at which acts of racial

hatred occurred in the period 1986-89. The institute has

elsewhere reported that one in five minority students

encounters some form of physical or psychological racial

harassment at least once a year.

And so the same problem resurfaces, but now in a new

context, growing out of the Israel-Hamas War and the free

expression issues raised by it: those of antisemitism and

hate speech. In a recent Politico Magazine interview,

professor Eugene Volokh said:

I'm worried that there is pro-Palestinian speech being

suppressed. I'm worried that there's some pro-Israeli speech

being suppressed . . . I also think that there are some

things that are being too much tolerated.

Mindful of all of the above and much more, what follows is

an op-ed by Stephen Rohde, author of ``American Words of

Freedom: The Words That Define Our Nation'' and ``Freedom of

Assembly,'' regarding the recent hearings on campus

antisemitism and the reactions to statements by the

university presidents on the matter.

At a contentious congressional hearing on December 5, the

presidents of three major universities unequivocally

condemned antisemitism and hate speech while standing firm in

defense of free speech. In a furious backlash, elected

officials, alumni, students and donors have unleashed

scathing criticism, going so far as to open a congressional

investigation and demand that all three resign.

The three presidents, Elizabeth Magill of the University of

Pennsylvania, Claudine Gay of Harvard, and Sally Kornbluth of

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, testified before the

House Committee on Education and the Workforce at a hearing

entitled ``Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting

Antisemitism.''

The episode reveals not only how little our elected

officials and the American people understand about the

concept of protected free speech at our colleges and

universities; it shows how, in a free society, confidence in

the value of protecting all ideas and viewpoints--even those

we despise--is eroding.

Nadine Strossen's `non-emergency speech'

Public colleges and universities are bound by the First

Amendment. Private colleges and universities, in their

written policies and handbooks (and in some states by

legislation), generally guarantee students and faculty

members the right to academic freedom and freedom of speech

comparable to the First Amendment.

In her new book ``Free Speech: What Everyone Needs to

Know,'' Nadine Strossen, who served for 17 years as national

president of the ACLU, provides a useful summary of current

First Amendment law:

The First Amendment permits government to outlaw the speech

that is the most dangerous, consistent with the ``emergency''

principle: speech that, considered in its overall context,

directly, imminently causes or threatens specific serious

harm . . . [on the other hand, the] First Amendment outlaws

the censorship that is the most dangerous: restrictions based

solely on disfavor of the speaker's ideas, or on generalized,

speculative fear that the speech might indirectly contribute

to some future harm.

Strossen calls the latter ``non-emergency speech.''

While non-emergency speech may potentially cause harm,

Strossen explains that ``it is dangerous to grant government

the added latitude to punish speech with a less direct,

imminent connection to potential harm'' because

``predictably, government (which is accountable to

majoritarian and other powerful interest groups)

disproportionately exercises any such discretion to suppress

minority voices and views.''

Strossen's warning applies equally to public universities

(which are an arm of the government) as well as to private

universities, which rely on the support of the federal and

state governments as well as donors and alumni, and who may

be inclined to suppress unpopular views in order to protect

their funding.

Consequently, whether students should be expelled or

disciplined for expressing their views goes far beyond simply

looking at the words they speak. It requires a serious

examination of the context and circumstances surrounding the

speech. The chants of protesters at a large rally screaming

``Kill all the Jews,'' while unspeakably vile and

contemptible, would not ``directly and imminently'' cause or

threaten specific serious harm when considered in their

overall context.

Yet the same words spoken by someone holding a gun on the

steps of a Jewish student center do pose a ``direct and

imminent threat'' and should be stopped and punished by

campus authorities and/or the government. What students say

in the classroom should be treated differently than what they

say at a campus rally or debate. Angry threats made to

individual students should be treated differently than the

same words written on a flyer or in an op-ed in the campus

newspaper.

The plight of Penn's President Magill

Members of Congress and other critics of the college

presidents apparently couldn't be bothered with the nuances

of these complex issues. In the midst of complaints that the

presidents failed to adequately condemn antisemitism, scant

attention has been paid to their opening remarks.

For example, Penn President Magill couldn't have been more

forceful in her condemnation of antisemitism. Given the

misleading and unfair criticism to which she was subjected

and the immediate calls for her resignation, her balanced and

comprehensive opening statement deserves to be considered in

detail.

After summarizing her impressive credentials prior to

becoming Penn's president (executive vice president and

provost of the University of Virginia, dean of Stanford Law

School, professor of law at the University of Virginia, law

clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg),

she immediately and forcefully stated that she and Penn:

. . . are horrified by and condemn Hamas's abhorrent

terrorist 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. The pain extends to

our campus. I know it from my daily conversations with our

students, faculty, and staff, as well as parents and alumni.

Magill said she valued the opportunity to reaffirm her and

Penn's ``unyielding opposition to antisemitism, and to

outline the urgent, university-wide actions we are taking to

combat this centuries-old and resurgent threat.'' She also

said her ``first priority is to members of the Penn community

and, above all, to their safety and support.'' She continued:

I must also ensure that our academic mission thrives; that

academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas endure; and

that we swiftly address any violation of the Law or our

University's policies. These are the priorities Penn is

seeking to achieve in the actions I will discuss today.

She noted that prior to October 7, ``antisernitism''--a

pernicious, viral evil--was already rising in our society,

and global events have dramatically accelerated the surge. No

place is immune, and campuses, including ours, have recently

experienced an unacceptable number of antisemitic incidents.

We are combating this evil head-on with immediate action.''

She described how she ``condemned antisemitism publicly,

regularly, and in the strongest terms possible,'' and wanted

to:

reiterate my and Penn's commitment to combating it. For

decades our Division of Public Safety has learned from and

worked with the Anti-Defamation League office in

Philadelphia, and we are working closely with them, as well

as local, state, and federal law enforcement to promptly

report and investigate antisemitic acts against any member of

the Penn community. Where we have been able to identify

individuals who committed these acts in violation of existing

University policy or law, we have initiated disciplinary

proceedings and referred these matters to law enforcement

where appropriate.

President Magill went into detail about how Penn has

``acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near

campus.'' Then she pointed out that like many communities

around the world:

Penn has also experienced protests, rallies, and vigils

related to the terrorist attack and the subsequent war.

Protest--and all it entails--has long been a feature of

university life. Penn's approach to protest is guided by the

U.S. Constitution, outlined in decades-old open expression

policies, and supported and upheld by trained Open Expression

Observers. We recognize the right of peaceful protest and

assembly, and we give broad protection to free expression--

even expression that is offensive. At the same time, we have

zero tolerance for violence or speech intended to incite it.

Our public safety officers are present at every protest,

rally, or vigil, trained in de-escalation techniques, and, if

necessary, they are ready to act.

Magill also talked about ``the challenges of fostering

robust debate during difficult times,'' how ``in addition to

respecting the right of protest, Penn is offering many ways

for students to come together in classrooms and in small

groups to discuss these issues,'' how ``educating citizens

requires engagement with real-world challenges and hard

topics--topics that often inspire passionate responses,'' and

how ``university leadership must provide guardrails that

encourage free and open expression while also ensuring a

secure environment.''

She outlined Penn's new ``Action Plan to Combat

Antisemitism'' and she announced that she had created a new

student advisory group on the Jewish student experience.

Magill also noted the:

``rising harassment, intimidation, doxing, and threats

toward students, faculty, and staff based on their identity

or perceived identity as Muslim, Palestinian, or Arab. Some

have lost family members in this war, and many are worried

about the safety of their loved ones in the region. Many are

also afraid for their own safety, and the horrifying shooting

of three Palestinian students in Vermont has only deepened

their fears.''

She said she was ``appalled by and have publicly condemned

these acts of harassment, threats, and intimidation. We are

investigating all allegations, even when threats have come

from outside our campus. We are providing resources and

advice to assist individuals with online doxing, harassment,

and threats.''

And she has created a Presidential Commission on Countering

Hate and Building Community ``to empower our campus leaders

to address antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all forms,

and to lay the groundwork for a stronger, more connected

community.''

Magill ended her opening statements by reiterating that:

``[h]igher education institutions create knowledge, share

it for good, and educate the next generation--missions that

have never been more essential,'' and noting that on Penn's

campus today many people are ``engaged in serious and

respectful conversation--despite disagreement--about

difficult topics, including those related to the Israel-Hamas

war.''

Representative Elise Stefanik: `does calling for the genocide of Jews

Violate Penn's Rules or Code of Conduct? Yes or No?'

Most of the attacks on Magill focused on her exchange with

Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York.

Stefanik noted that ``there had been marches where students

had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means

`uprising' and that many Jews hear as a call for violence

against them.''

Stefanik asked Magill, ``Does calling for the genocide of

Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?''

Magill replied, `'If the speech turns into conduct, it can

be harassment.''

Stefanik pressed the issue: ``I am asking, specifically:

Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute

bullying or harassment?''

Magill, who joined Penn last year with a pledge to promote

campus free speech, replied, ``If it is directed and severe,

pervasive, it is harassment.''

Stefanik responded: ``So the answer is yes.''

Trying to give complete rather than glib answers, Magill

said, ``It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.''

Stefanik then exclaimed, ``That's your testimony today?

Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the

context?''

After some more back and forth, Magill said, ``It can be

harassment,'' to which Stefanik responded, ``The answer is

yes.''

Given the totality of Magill's testimony, it is astonishing

and disappointing that Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania said

he found her statements ``unacceptable.'' According to The

New York Times, he said:

``It should not be hard to condemn genocide, genocide

against Jews, genocide against anyone else,'' and ``I've said

many times, leaders have a responsibility to speak and act

with moral clarity, and Liz Magill failed to meet that simple

test. . . . There should be no nuance to that--she needed to

give a one-word answer.

Shapiro, who is a nonvoting member of Penn's board, urged

the trustees to meet soon. CNN has reported that the board

held an emergency meeting on Wednesday, December 6. No

outcome has been announced.

``It's unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for

genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we

represent as a country,'' said White House spokesman Andrew

Bates, according to The New York Times.

The Times also reported that Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of

Pennsylvania, did not mince words. ``President Magill's

comments yesterday were offensive, but equally offensive was

what she didn't say,'' he said in a statement. ``The right to

free speech is fundamental, but calling for the genocide of

Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.''

Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, described

the testimony as ``a significant fail . . . There is no `both

sides-ism' and it isn't `free speech,' it's simply hate

speech,'' he said in a statement. ``It was embarrassing for a

venerable Pennsylvania university, and it should be reflexive

for leaders to condemn antisemitism and stand up for the

Jewish community or any community facing this kind of

invective.''

Did Magill's critics actually listen to her testimony?

Did these officials actually listen to Magill's testimony

or did they just rely on truncated news reports and angry

social media posts? In fact, Magill repeatedly and

unequivocally condemned antisemitism and the Hamas attacks,

and she said that calling for the genocide of Jews could

constitute harassment under Penn's policies.

The Times also reported that Marc Rowan, the chief of

Apollo Group and the board chair at the Wharton School--

Penn's business school--wrote to the university's board of

trustees asking them to rescind their support for Magill.

``How much damage to our reputation are we willing to

accept?'' he wrote. ``The call for fundamental change at

UPenn continues.''

Within 24 hours, a petition demanding Magill's resignation

had attracted more than 3,000 signatures. Did Rowan and the

3,000 who signed the petition actually listen to all of her

testimony before taking the extraordinary step of calling for

her resignation?

Now Congress is threatening all three universities with a

full-fledged investigation reminiscent of the HUAC and

McCarthy hearings of the 1940s and 1950s that looked into

communists and their ``sympathizers,'' questioning college

professors under oath about their teaching, writing, and

politics. Many were fired or forced to sign loyalty oaths.

On Thursday, Rep. Virginia Foxx, chair of the House

Committee on Education & the Workforce, told Fox News:

``[T]he Committee is opening a formal investigation into

the learning environments at Harvard, UPenn, and MIT and

their policies and disciplinary procedures. This

investigation will include substantial document requests, and

the Committee will not hesitate to utilize compulsory

measures including subpoenas if a full response is not

immediately forthcoming.''

Stefanik is quoted as saying that after ``this week's

pathetic and morally bankrupt testimony by university

presidents when answering my questions, the Education and

Workforce Committee is launching an official Congressional

investigation with the full force of subpoena power into

Penn, MIT, and Harvard and others.''

Ominously, she did not specify what other colleges and

universities would be targeted. ``We will use our full

Congressional authority to hold these schools accountable for

their failure on the global stage,'' she added.

Facing this barrage of threats and criticism, with her job

on the line, Magill relented and apologized for her

testimony:

``In that moment, I was focused on our university's

longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution,

which say that speech alone is not punishable . . . I was not

focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that

a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of

the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It's

evil--plain and simple. In my view, it would be harassment or

intimidation.''

Enter Harvard President Claudine Gay

Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, has also come under fire

from donors, students

and alumni over her statements about whether calls for

genocide of Jews would be a breach of Harvard's code of

conduct. Gay testified that this type of speech was

``personally abhorrent to me'' and ``at odds with the values

of Harvard.'' But she added that Harvard gives ``a wide berth

to free expression, even of views that are objectionable,''

and takes action ``when speech crosses into conduct that

violates our policies'' governing bullying, harassment or

intimidation.

The Times reports that Jacob Miller, the student president

of Harvard Hillel, said that ``the testimony yesterday was a

slap in the face, because there was a very easy clear right

answer and she opted not to say that.'' Bill Ackman, the

billionaire hedge fund manager and Harvard alumnus, called on

all three presidents to resign, citing the exchanges over

genocide. ``It depends on the context' and whether the speech

turns into conduct,' that is, actually killing Jews,'' he

wrote on X. ``This could be the most extraordinary testimony

ever elicited in the Congress. They must all resign in

disgrace. If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar

answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.''

The day after the hearing, Harvard released this statement

from Gay:

``There are some who have confused a right to free

expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for

violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: Calls for

violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any

religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at

Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be

held to account.''

Her statement did not say what would constitute a threat,

or whether chants of ``There is only one solution: intifada,

revolution'' would meet the definition, as Stefanik argued

during the hearing.

On Fire

The Times quoted a spokesman for the Foundation for

Individual Riqhts and Expression, a free speech advocacy

group, who explained that whether speech rises to the level

of harassment ``is a complicated and fact-intensive issue''

that stems from a pattern of targeted behavior. ``For

example, it's hard to see how the single utterance

Representative Stefanik asked about during the hearing--no

matter how offensive--would qualify given this requirement,''

the spokesman said.

FIRE is correct. Take, for example, Harvard's ``University-

Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities.'' It begins by

declaring that the ``central functions of an academic

community are learning, teaching, research and scholarship''

and that by ``accepting membership in the University, an

individual joins a community ideally characterized by free

expression, free inquiry, intellectual honesty, respect for

the dignity of others, and openness to constructive change.

The rights and responsibilities exercised within the

community must be compatible with these qualities.''

The Harvard Policy

The Harvard policy explains that the ``rights of members of

the University are not fundamentally different from those of

other members of society,'' suggesting that First Amendment

norms apply, while adding that the University ``has a special

autonomy and reasoned dissent plays a particularly vital part

in its existence.'' All members of the University ``have the

right to press for action on matters of concern by any

appropriate means'' and the University ``must affirm, assure

and protect the rights of its members to organize and join

political associations, convene and conduct public meetings,

publicly demonstrate and picket in orderly fashion, advocate

and publicize opinion by print, sign, and voice.''

Furthermore, the University:

places special emphasis, as well, upon certain values which

are essential to its nature as an academic community. Among

these are freedom of speech and academic freedom, freedom

from personal force and violence, and freedom of movement.

Interference with any of these freedoms must be regarded as a

serious violation of the personal rights upon which the

community is based.

Finally, the policy makes clear ``that intense personal

harassment of such a character as to amount to grave

disrespect for the dignity of others be regarded as an

unacceptable violation of the personal rights on which the

University is based.''

It is immediately apparent--and should have been apparent

to the White House, members of Congress, Governor Shapiro,

and the rest of the critics--that Magill and Gay were

accurately reflecting the complex analysis required to

determine when free speech crosses the line into prohibited

harassment, threats, or violence.

Magill was indeed correct that ``if the speech turns into

conduct, it can be harassment,'' that ``if it is directed and

severe, pervasive, it is harassment,'' and therefore, calling

for the genocide of Jews ``can be harassment.''

She had the audacity to explain that it would depend on all

the facts and circumstances.

Gay was indeed correct that calls for the genocide of Jews

are ``personally abhorrent'' and ``at odds with the values of

Harvard.'' And she was also correct that Harvard gives ``a

wide berth to free expression, even of views that are

objectionable,'' and takes action ``when speech crosses into

conduct that violates our policies'' governing bullying,

harassment or intimidation.

Apparently, her sin was trying to explain freedom of speech

to Congress and the American people.

The Supreme Court and federal law make clear that for

speech in the educational setting to constitute

``harassment'' sufficient to result in expulsion or other

discipline, it must be ``so severe, pervasive, and

objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's

access . . . to an educational opportunity or benefit.''

Had Stefanik and her colleagues taken the time to

familiarize themselves with the current law on free speech

and framed their questions in terms of the legal definition

of ``harassment,'' they would have found common agreement

with all three presidents. Had all the critics done their

homework instead of spreading misunderstanding about free

speech on campus, they would have embraced and applauded how

these university presidents skillfully condemned what they

called the ``pernicious, viral evil'' of antisemitism and the

``abhorrent'' calls for genocide of Jews, while upholding

``academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas'' which

ensure ``a wide berth to free expression, even of views that

are objectionable.''

Enter the American Association of University Professors

The American Association of University Professors' policy,

On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes, adopted

almost thirty years ago, reminds us that ``[f]reedom of

thought and expression is essential to any institution of

higher learning'' in order to inspire ``vigorous debate on

those social, economic, and political issues that arouse the

strongest passions. In the process, views will be expressed

that may seem to many wrong, distasteful, or offensive. Such

is the nature of freedom to sift and winnow ideas.''

On a campus ``that is free and open, no idea can be banned

or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so

hateful or disturbing that it may not be expressed. Hostility

or intolerance to persons who differ from the majority

(especially if seemingly condoned by the institution) may

undermine the confidence of new members of the community.''

The AAUP notes:

In response to verbal assaults and use of hateful language,

some campuses have felt it necessary to forbid the expression

of racist, sexist, homophobic, or ethnically demeaning

speech, along with conduct or behavior that harasses. Several

reasons are offered in support of banning such expression.

Individuals and groups that have been victims of such

expression feel an understandable outrage. They claim that

the academic progress of minority and majority alike may

suffer if fears, tensions, and conflicts spawned by slurs and

insults create an environment inimical to learning.

And while these ``arguments, grounded in the need to foster

an atmosphere respectful of and welcoming to`all persons,

strike a deeply responsive chord in the academy,'' the AAUP

acknowledges ``both the weight of these concerns and the

thoughtfulness of those persuaded of the need for regulation,

rules that ban or punish speech based upon its content cannot

be justified.''

The AAUP continues, `An institution of higher learning

fails to fulfill its mission if it asserts the power to

proscribe ideas--and racial or ethnic slurs, sexist epithets,

or homophobic insults almost always express ideas, however

repugnant. Indeed, by proscribing any ideas, a university

sets an example that profoundly disserves its academic

mission.''

The AAUP cites what the Supreme Court stated when it

rejected criminal sanctions for offensive words:

[W]ords are often chosen as much for their emotive as their

cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the

Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of

individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive

function which, practically speaking, may often be the more

important element of the overall message sought to be

communicated.

The AAUP further warns that a college or university:

sets a perilous course if it seeks to differentiate between

high-value and low-value speech, or to choose which groups

are to be protected by curbing the speech of others. A speech

code unavoidably implies an institutional competence to

distinguish permissible expression of hateful thought from

what is proscribed as thoughtless hate.

Moreover, the AAUP says, ``banning speech often avoids

consideration of means more compatible with the mission of an

academic institution by which to deal with incivility,

intolerance, offensive speech, and harassing behavior,'' such

as adopting and invoking ``a range of measures that penalize

conduct and behavior, rather than speech--such as rules

against defacing property, physical intimidation or

harassment, or disruption of campus activities,'' the

development of ``courses and other curricular and co-

curricular experiences designed to increase student

understanding and to deter offensive or intolerant speech or

conduct,'' and condemning ``manifestations of intolerance and

discrimination, whether physical or verbal.''

The AAUP concluded by noting that:

[to] some persons who support speech codes, measures like

these--relying as they do on suasion rather than sanctions--

may seem inadequate. But freedom of expression requires

toleration of ``ideas we hate,'' as Justice Holmes put it.

The underlying principle does not change because the demand

is to silence a hateful speaker, or because it comes from

within the academy. Free speech

is not simply an aspect of the educational enterprise to be

weighed against other desirable ends. It is the very

precondition of the academic enterprise itself.

The Free Speech Golden Rule

Aryeh Neier, former executive director of Human Rights

Watch, was born in Nazi Germany and became a refugee at two

years old when his family fled in 1939. He was national

director of the ACLU at the time of the Skokie controversy

when the ACLU defended the right of American Nazis to conduct

a march in that predominantly Jewish community.

In his book ``Defending My Enemy: American Nazis, the

Skokie Case, and the Risks of Freedom,'' he explained why a

Jew would defend the Nazis:

Because we Jews are uniquely vulnerable, I believe we can

win only brief respite from persecution in a society in which

encounters are settled by power. As a Jew, therefore,

concerned with my own survival and the survival of the Jews--

the two being inextricably linked--I want restraints placed

on power. The restraints that matter most to me are those

that ensure that I cannot be squashed by power, unnoticed by

the rest of the world. If I am in danger, I want to cry out

to my fellow Jews and to all those I may be able to enlist as

my allies. I want to appeal to the world's sense of justice.

I want restraints that prohibit those in power from

interfering with my right to speak, my right to publish, or

my right to gather with others who also feel threatened.

Those in power must not be allowed to prevent us from

assembling and joining our voices together so we can speak

louder and make sure that we are heard. To defend myself, I

must restrain power with freedom, even if the temporary

beneficiaries are the enemies of freedom.

It is high time elected officials and other critics of free

speech begin to embrace and defend the Free Speech Golden

Rule: Protect the free speech of others as you would have

them protect your free speech.

We are going down a very dangerous path if we set a

precedent and empower government officials or college

administrators to silence, expel, discipline, or criminally

punish students for uttering hateful speech that most of us

find vile and shameful but that falls short of legally

proscribable incitement, true threats, or harassment. Armed

with such awesome powers of censorship, there is no telling

when different government officials or different college

administrators with different political agendas will find

what the rest of us say to be vile and shameful and silence

and punish us.

To defend ourselves, we must restrain power with freedom,

even if the temporary beneficiaries are the enemies of

freedom.

Mr. Speaker, the statement says that Gay was indeed correct on calls for genocide of Jews were personally abhorrent and at odds with the values at Harvard. She was also correct that Harvard gives wide berth to free expression, even to views that are objectionable and takes action when free speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies. Apparently, her sin was trying to explain freedom of speech to Congress and the American people.

The Supreme Court and Federal law makes clear that speech in educational settings constitutes harassment sufficient to result in expulsion or other discipline must be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to the educational opportunity.

Had Stefanik and her colleagues taken time to familiarize themselves with the current law on free speech and frame their questions in terms of the legal definition of harassment, they would have found common agreement with all three presidents.

Mr. Speaker, I condemn anti-Semitism. I condemn calls for genocide of Jewish people. I guess in this context, that has to be repeated over and over again. I am also concerned about the polarization of college campuses and the disturbing rise of discrimination and incidents on college campuses.

As I have noted, I am skeptical of the majority's newfound concerns about anti-Semitism on college campuses because, as I said in 2017, after white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia grounds shouting, ``Jews will not replace us,'' I do not recall the same level of outrage. In fact, I note the endorsement of the one who declared that there were good people on both sides. I wrote a letter to the majority requesting a congressional hearing at that time, and our calls went unanswered.

Mr. Speaker, I concede that the university presidents' testimony last week, when taken out of context, fell under the First Amendment trap that when you suggest that speech is protected, therefore, you must agree with it. No, you can believe that speech is protected but also believe that it is reprehensible. Calling for genocide of Jews is reprehensible in all contexts, but it could also be protected.

Mr. Speaker, they answered the question the way Professor Fried said that he would have been professionally obligated to respond, but answering the question as posed should not warrant calls for his resignation.

We need to do everything we can do under the law to address anti- Semitism, Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. This resolution fails to do anything to establish standards that can address reprehensible divisions in our society and on college campuses.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article titled, ``President Gay Was Right: Context Matters.''

President Gay Was Right: Context Matters

(By Charles Fried)

Since their appearances before the House Committee on

Education and the Workforce, the presidents of Harvard, the

University of Pennsylvania, and MIT have been subject to a

barrage of hostile criticism in the media, including from

constitutional scholars known for their advocacy for free

speech.

When asked whether they would discipline students (or, I

suppose, faculty) if they called for the genocide of Jews,

each president responded that the answer depends on the

context of the utterances.

I have taught at Harvard Law School since 1961 and began

practicing before the Supreme Court in 1985--for four years

as Solicitor General of the United States--and I would have

felt professionally obligated to answer as the presidents

did. It does depend on the context.

In the 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court

ruled unanimously that ``constitutional guarantees of free

speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or

prescribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation

except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or

producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or

produce such action.''

Now, many--perhaps most--constitutional democracies do not

go this far, and courts in some nations, including Canada,

France, Germany, and South Africa, have allowed criminal

prosecution for what may compendiously be called hate speech.

But our Supreme Court has never deviated from its principle

of incitement.

Even in the case that strayed the furthest from this

standard--the 2010 decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law

Project, which upheld the statute that makes it a federal

crime to knowingly provide ``material support or resources to

a foreign terrorist organization''--Chief Justice John

Roberts '76 was careful to carve out free speech from the

ruling.

In that decision, he wrote that, under the statute,

Americans ``may say anything they wish on any topic'' so long

as they do not speak or write ``to, under the direction of,

or in coordination with foreign groups that the speaker knows

to be terrorist organizations.'' The three dissenters would

have gone further in protecting the organizations' speech.

To be clear, governments may withhold benefits from

American members of foreign terrorist organizations under

certain circumstances, and certainly governments may declare

official positions condemning such organizations and their

principles. But none of this includes criminal sanctions.

Speech itself is, indeed, well-protected.

The three university presidents head private institutions

that are not bound in every respect by federal constitutional

constraints. But each institution in various ways has

declared itself committed to protecting First Amendment

values over the years. So it is not surprising that their

presidents would have answered that whether they would

discipline or expel students for advocating genocide depends

on the context.

If one seeks to follow constitutional principles, answering

this question certainly does depend on the context.

In 1991, prompted by an incident in which Harvard students

hung Confederate flags outside their dorm windows, University

President Derek C. Bok penned an essay defending the rights

of the students to display offensive messages.

He directly linked Harvard's free speech guidelines to

First Amendment principles, writing that he had ``difficulty

understanding why a university such as Harvard should have

less free speech than the surrounding society--or than a

public university.''

I must admit that I have never seen such flags in recent

times. Yet, even today, under the circumstances Bok faced, if

I were a university president pressed to answer yes or no

whether the student speech in question would subject the

students to discipline, I would have to reply that, yes, it

depends on the context.

The lead questioner, Representative Elise M. Stefanik '06,

sought to lay a rhetorical trap for the three university

presidents. But I doubt Stefanik is as principled as she

purports to be.

Were the facts of the event before President Bok 30 years

ago to recur and the administration to fail to discipline the

display of Confederate flags, would Representative Stefanik

have had the same reaction? I doubt it.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this resolution. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 927.

Let me be clear--I condemn antisemitism on our university and college campuses in the strongest possible terms. If I thought this resolution was a good faith effort to combat antisemitism, I'd support it. Regrettably, that is not the case.

Like many of my colleagues, I was disappointed by the testimony provided by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn. Calling for genocide is dangerous and intolerable, and the presidents should have used their time in front of the Education and Workforce Committee to explicitly condemn attacks against the Jewish community and affirm their commitment to protecting Jewish and Arab students experiencing hate. Those private institutions are now deciding how to proceed with their leadership and make amends for their offensive statements.

This resolution does nothing to address the problem of antisemitism on campuses. Instead, House Republicans are once again using Jewish pain to score political points. There are many ways that Congress can address the rise in hate--for example, implementing President Biden's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Or, instead of cutting $35 million from the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights that protects Jewish students on campus, they could join Democrats in fully funding the office. This resolution fails to do either, and instead of funding these important initiatives, the House Republican majority is continuing to hide behind empty words--and actions speak louder than words. I uphold and include in the Record the comments made by my colleague, The Honorable Jamie Raskin (MD-08) made on the House Floor on December 13, 2023.

For these reasons, I must oppose the resolution.

* Remarks by Rep. Jamie Raskin per the United States House

of Representatives Congressional Record, Volume 169. Issue

205, December 13, 2023.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution

which, to my knowledge, would mark the first time in American

history that the House of Representatives would vote to tell

private college and university presidents to resign. I want

all of my colleagues to think very seriously about what this

means for us today and in the future.

We are all profoundly disturbed by the resurgence of anti-

Semitism and racism in campus towns, including death threats,

serious death threats against Jewish students at Cornell, and

actual shootings and attempted murder of three Palestinian-

American students in Burlington, Vermont.

We all want to express our outrage in House resolutions,

which we have done more than 20 times as a House of

Representatives, and numerous times even since October 7. For

example, on November 2, we passed H. Res. 798, which

condemned all forms of anti-Semitism on college campuses,

denounced any support for terrorist groups on campus,

reaffirmed the free speech rights of Jewish students and

faculty, and urged enforcement of Federal civil rights laws

to protect Jewish students against anti-Semitism.

Why do we need this resolution? The only thing new about it

is it would have the U.S. House of Representatives call

specifically for the resignation of two college presidents, a

call that has been slipped in at the bottom of page 2 of the

resolution.

This extraordinary passage comes close to being what the

Constitution calls a bill of attainder, which is the

unconstitutional imposition by Congress on a specific citizen

or citizens of a criminal punishment or stigma by the

Congress itself. Although this resolution is not a criminal

punishment or stigma against specific citizens, it is

undoubtedly a civil punishment and stigma against specific

American citizens.

How many of you would like the president of the college

where you went or where your children go to be walking around

with a congressional resolution telling them to resign?

Everyone knows that this will be an academic scarlet letter

and a professional death sentence for anyone carrying it

around. Does anyone think that UPenn President Liz Magill,

who has already resigned in the face of Ms. Stefanik's

ceaseless campaign to force her out, will ever be able to

find another college presidency? Give me a break.

Now, I hold no brief for the college presidents' overly

legalistic, ethically tone-deaf answers awkwardly advanced in

response to Ms. Stefanik's rapidfire, yes-no questions. It

should not be difficult for anybody to say in an age of

rampant gun violence and lax Republican gun laws, which have

put tens of millions of AR-15s in circulation in our society,

anyone calling for genocide of the Jews, or anyone else,

should be sent immediately a campus security detail to see if

they pose the risk of harm to other people or if they need an

immediate mental health exam. If there is not an imminent

threat, surely the call for genocide of the Jews by

definition constitutes a hostile learning environment and

should occasion aggressive disciplinary action.

Where is the common sense on the part of the college

presidents? Where is the common sense in the Congress of the

United States of America?

Calling for the resignation of private individuals at

private universities would be a dramatic and unprecedented

departure for the U.S. Congress, which has never before voted

to tell a college president to resign.

Before we affix this lifelong stigma, reproach, and

dishonor on a private citizen, do you think perhaps we should

offer them some kind of due process, the kind of due process

that even George Santos got and that Donald Trump is getting

all over America right now for his 91 Federal and State

felony charges?

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The time of the

gentleman has expired.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2

minutes to the gentleman from Maryland.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, should Harvard President Claudine

Gay, who is the first Haitian American ever to serve in that

position, and Sally Kornbluth, who is Jewish, get the chance

to explain what they are actually doing to combat racism and

anti-Semitism at their schools and what they have done in

their lives and in their careers to oppose anti-Semitism and

racism, which are the gateways to destruction of liberal

democracy? Do we care about that, or is this just a bunch of

drive-by talking points?

Is it relevant that the Harvard and MIT boards have made

unanimous statements affirming the leadership of their two

college presidents? Are we saying that their boards don't

matter or they are indifferent to anti-Semitism and the

leaders of the Freedom Caucus knowbetter than the Jewish

president of MIT what anti-Semitism is?

Now I know these two were the presidents testifying before

Ms. Stefanik, but are we sure that these two are even the

worst in the country when it comes to bias and

discrimination? Is this a one-shot deal, or, as Ms. Stefanik

promises, is this just the beginning? Are we going to go

through all of the college and university presidents in

America? What about the CEOs of the businesses? Maybe they

are not performing to her satisfaction either.

Indeed, maybe there are college presidents who have looked

the other way in not hypothetical cases of anti-Semitism and

racism but real cases of anti-Semitism and racism. What about

them? Are we going to let them go, or are we going to go

after them? Maybe we should determine who the worst are

before we start using the resources of the House of

Representatives to call for people to resign.

Are there college presidents, by the way, who looked the

other way when there was sexual abuse of college male

wrestling team members, rape of students, or female gymnasts

or female soccer players? Are we interested in that now that

we are superintending higher education in America, now that

we are the appellate review board for the colleges?

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has

expired.

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1

minute to the gentleman from Maryland.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct

their remarks to the Chair.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, are we prepared to become the

national academic appeals panel for college presidents,

coaches, and professors, or is that perhaps best left to the

universities themselves?

Maybe it is that we just don't have a positive legislative

agenda of our own to lower drug prices in America, to get aid

to our democratic allies in Ukraine against the fascist

imperialist thug Vladimir Putin. Maybe we don't have anything

real to do, so we decide instead to go around and start

lecturing

the college presidents and the college boards all over

America.

In the absence of a real program for America, the majority

is filling our hours with censures, expulsions, motions to

vacate the speakership, overthrow their own leaders, and, of

course, impeachment of President Biden for what? For doing

nothing wrong. That is all that they give us. This

cannibalistic instinct they have unleashed now turns on

private citizens, academic leaders who will wear the scarlet

letter ``A'' so they can have some more press conferences.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this resolution which, to my knowledge, would mark the first time in American history that the House of Representatives would vote to tell private college and university presidents to resign. I want all of my colleagues to think very seriously about what this means for us today and in the future.

We are all profoundly disturbed by the resurgence of anti-Semitism and racism in campus towns, including death threats, serious death threats against Jewish students at Cornell, and actual shootings and attempted murder of three Palestinian-American students in Burlington, Vermont.

We all want to express our outrage in House resolutions, which we have done more than 20 times as a House of Representatives, and numerous times even since October 7. For example, on November 2, we passed H. Res. 798, which condemned all forms of anti-Semitism on college campuses, denounced any support for terrorist groups on campus, reaffirmed the free speech rights of Jewish students and faculty, and urged enforcement of Federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish students against anti-Semitism.

Why do we need this resolution? The only thing new about it is it would have the U.S. House of Representatives call specifically for the resignation of two college presidents, a call that has been slipped in at the bottom of page 2 of the resolution.

This extraordinary passage comes close to being what the Constitution calls a bill of attainder, which is the unconstitutional imposition by Congress on a specific citizen or citizens of a criminal punishment or stigma by the Congress itself. Although this resolution is not a criminal punishment or stigma against specific citizens, it is undoubtedly a civil punishment and stigma against specific American citizens.

How many of you would like the president of the college where you went or where your children go to be walking around with a congressional resolution telling them to resign?

Everyone knows that this will be an academic scarlet letter and a professional death sentence for anyone carrying it around. Does anyone think that UPenn President Liz Magill, who has already resigned in the face of Ms. Stefanik's ceaseless campaign to force her out, will ever be able to find another college presidency? Give me a break.

Now, I hold no brief for the college presidents' overly legalistic, ethically tone-deaf answers awkwardly advanced in response to Ms. Stefanik's rapid-fire, yes-no questions. It should not be difficult for anybody to say in an age of rampant gun violence and lax Republican gun laws, which have put tens of millions of AR-15s in circulation in our society, anyone calling for genocide of the Jews, or anyone else, should be sent immediately a campus security detail to see if they pose the risk of harm to other people or if they need an immediate mental health exam. If there is not an imminent threat, surely the call for genocide of the Jews by definition constitutes a hostile learning environment and should occasion aggressive disciplinary action. Where is the common sense on the part of the college presidents?

Where is the common sense in the Congress of the United States of America?

Calling for the resignation of private individuals at private universities would be a dramatic and unprecedented departure for the U.S. Congress, which has never before voted to tell a college president to resign.

Before we affix this lifelong stigma, reproach, and dishonor on a private citizen, do you think perhaps we should offer them some kind of due process, the kind of due process that even George Santos got and that Donald Trump is getting all over America right now for his 91 Federal and State felony charges?

Mr. Speaker, should Harvard President Claudine Gay, who is the first Haitian American ever to serve in that position, and Sally Kornbluth, who is Jewish, get the chance to explain what they are actually doing to combat racism and anti-Semitism at their schools and what they have done in their lives and in their careers to oppose anti- Semitism and racism, which are the gateways to destruction of liberal democracy? Do we care about that, or is this just a bunch of drive-by talking points?

Is it relevant that the Harvard and MIT boards have made unanimous statements affirming the leadership of their two college presidents? Are we saying that their boards don't matter or they are indifferent to anti-Semitism and the leaders of the Freedom Caucus know better than the Jewish president of MIT what anti-Semitism is?

Now, I know these two were the presidents testifying before Ms. Stefanik, but are we sure that these two are even the worst in the country when it comes to bias and discrimination? Is this a one-shot deal, or, as Ms. Stefanik promises, is this just the beginning? Are we going to go through all of the college and university presidents in America? What about the CEOs of the businesses? Maybe they are not performing to her satisfaction either.

Indeed, maybe there are college presidents who have looked the other way in not hypothetical cases of anti-Semitism and racism but real cases of anti-Semitism and racism. What about them? Are we going to let them go, or are we going to go after them? Maybe we should determine who the worst are before we start using the resources of the House of Representatives to call for people to resign.

Are there college presidents, by the way, who looked the other way when there was sexual abuse of college male wrestling team members, rape of students, or female gymnasts or female soccer players? Are we interested in that now that we are superintending higher education in America, now that we are the appellate review board for the colleges?

Mr. Speaker, are we prepared to become the national academic appeals panel for college presidents, coaches, and professors, or is that perhaps best left to the universities themselves?

Maybe it is that we just don't have a positive legislative agenda of our own to lower drug prices in America, to get aid to our democratic allies in Ukraine against the fascist imperialist thug Vladimir Putin. Maybe we don't have anything real to do, so we decide instead to go around and start lecturing the college presidents and the college boards all over America.

In the absence of a real program for America, the majority is filling our hours with censures, expulsions, motions to vacate the speakership, overthrow their own leaders, and, of course, impeachment of President Biden for what? For doing nothing wrong. That is all that they give us. This cannibalistic instinct they have unleashed now turns on private citizens, academic leaders who will wear the scarlet letter ``A'' so they can have some more press conferences.

Vote ``no'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 927) condemning antisemitism on University campuses and the testimony of University Presidents in the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 927.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

``It depends on the context.'' This was the testimony delivered by so-called prestigious university presidents when presented with the question: Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your campus bullying and harassment policies?

The context. What a disgraceful, legalistic answer from academia's supposed top minds.

As chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, I will tell you what never depends on the context: defending the rights of Jewish students to feel safe on campus.

Condemning calls to incite violence against the world's most persecuted ethnic group is always appropriate and never depends on the context. Holding smug university elites accountable never depends on the context.

That is why I rise today in support of this resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), the Conference chairwoman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Kiley), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bean), chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, ``Anti-Semitism on College Campuses: Incident Tracking from 2019 to 2023; 659 total reported anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses since October 7--a 700 percent increase compared to last year.''

This was updated on December 13, 2023.

``Since the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, anti- Semitic incidents against Jewish students on college campuses have reached alarmingly high rates, increasing by 700 percent over the same period last year.

``Hillel International has been working around the clock with our partners to report and address these incidents, and to ensure that all Jewish students feel safe on campus.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this report from Hillel International.

Antisemitism on College Campuses: Incident Tracking From 2019-2023

659: Total reported antisemitic incidents on college campuses since

October 7--a 700% increase compared to last year

Since the terrorist attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7,

antisemitic incidents against Jewish students on college

campuses have reached alarmingly high rates, increasing by

700% over the same period last year.

Hillel International has been working around the clock with

our partners to report and address these incidents, and to

ensure that all Jewish students feel safe on campus. If you

or a student you know experiences an antisemitic incident on

campus, report it (anonymously) to receive 24/7 support at

ReportCampusHate.org, or contact our free legal helpline, the

Campus Antisemitism Legal Line (CALL) for pro bono legal

support.

In the Month Following the October 7 Attack on Israel, Hillel

International Tracked a 700% Increase in Antisemitic Incidents on

College Campuses Compared to the Same Period Last Year

306: Total reported incidents of antisemitism from October 7-November 7, 2023 Hillel has never recorded more than 50 total incidents in this

same time period since we started tracking in 2019

129: Unique campuses impacted by antisemitic incidents from October 7-

November 7, 2023

We have never recorded more than 40 campuses impacted by

antisemitism in this same time period

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Williams), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that our colleagues on the other side of the aisle think that Republicans need a lecture on free speech or freedom of religion. We do not need such a lecture on that. We understand those concepts. Those are our first freedoms, and we are very keenly aware of those.

Mr. Speaker, there are massive problems in postsecondary education in our country, and our committee is doing its best to address some of those problems and to do something about them.

What we knew before the hearing, and what we know even more strongly after the hearing that we held last week, is that Jewish students are facing a massive rise in violence on our college and university campuses.

According to the Anti-Defamation League and Hillel International, 73 percent of Jewish students surveyed said they experienced anti-Semitism on campus this year. That number is up from 32 percent in 2021. Yet, college administrators, like the ones who testified before the committee last week, are not acting to protect students.

Now is not the time for campus leaders to sit on their hands. The only way to salvage American academia and restore a safe learning environment for its students is by rooting out anti-Semitism and standing up against hate.

I thank God that the Committee on Education and the Workforce is up to the task.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, last week I voted No on H. Res. 927, a resolution that purports to condemn antisemitism on college campuses. Several of my Jewish colleagues voted against this resolution as well.

I strongly agree that Congress must condemn all forms of antisemitism, including on college campuses. Since Hamas's horrific October 7th attacks on Israel, the U.S. House of Representatives has voted in favor of several resolutions condemning antisemitism on college campuses and throughout the world, multiple of which I've supported and cosponsored. However, this latest resolution, H. Res. 927, is yet another disingenuous resolution that weaponizes the real scourge of antisemitism, uses Jewish people as pawns to play partisan political games, and represents another attack in the extreme right- wing's war on higher education. For this reason, I could not support the resolution.

Among other items, H. Res. 927 calls on specific college presidents to resign, referencing a made-for-TV congressional hearing orchestrated by congressional Republicans last week. I believe it is inappropriate for Congress to inject itself into leadership and personnel decisions at colleges and universities. Doing so creates a slippery slope of Congress meddling in local decisions that the federal government should not be involved in.

H. Res. 927 also appears to be another attempt to police and silence the free speech of Americans on college campuses. Again, while some demonstrators on college campuses have disturbingly engaged in antisemitic actions that should rightfully be condemned. H. Res. 927 is too broad.

H. Res. 927 also fails to condemn antisemitic acts from those on the far right, including white nationalists who have increasingly promoted antisemitic conspiracy theories and have threatened the lives and livelihoods of Jewish Americans. The lead sponsor of H. Res. 927 has also publicly engaged in antisemitic tropes in the past, including the disgusting ``great replacement theory.'' This resolution appears to be an attempt to cover up extremist right-wing Republicans' flirtation with antisemitic ideology, as well as their support for antisemitic public figures.

Let me be clear: I unequivocally condemn all forms of antisemitism, and I am appalled by the significant rise in antisemitism we've seen on college campuses in recent weeks. Many Jewish college students and faculty do not feel safe on campus, and many Jewish Americans feel unsafe in public. This is absolutely unacceptable. The university presidents who participated in last week's congressional hearing gave insufficient and appalling answers relating to campus speech calling for the genocide of Jewish people. I'm glad that they've since apologized for their statements, and I encourage other colleges not to make the same mistake these presidents did.

However, if the House Republican majority were serious about tackling antisemitism, they would support President Biden's National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, would quit trying to defund the Office of Civil Rights for Title VI enforcement which protects Jewish students and would increase funding for the High-Risk Nonprofit Grant Program to secure Jewish institutions as a start.

That's why I've cosponsored H. Res. 927, introduced by Representatives Nadler, Raskin, and Goldman. H. Res. 927 thoughtfully and powerfully condemns the rise of antisemitism in the United States-- including on college campuses--and calls on Congress to support the above substantive actions to tackle antisemitism, which congressional Republicans have so far refused to do. I call on my congressional Republican colleagues to put politics aside and work in a bipartisan way to substantively tackle antisemitism.