logo
DOJ accuses George Washington University of 'acting deliberately indifferent' to antisemitism

DOJ accuses George Washington University of 'acting deliberately indifferent' to antisemitism

NBC News2 days ago
The Justice Department accused George Washington University on Tuesday of violating civil rights law by 'acting deliberately indifferent' to instances of antisemitism on campus.
In a letter to the Washington, D.C. university following an investigation, the DOJ said that Jewish and Israeli students and faculty were subjected to a hostile environment that was 'offensive, severe and pervasive.' Citing clashes between pro-Palestinian protesters last spring and Jewish students, the agency said that the school failed to take appropriate action despite multiple complaints.
The Justice Department gave the school the opportunity to enter into a 'voluntary resolution agreement,' threatening to 'proceed with enforcement' if a resolution isn't reached.
'The antisemitic, hate-based misconduct by GWU students directed at Jewish GWU students, faculty, and employees was, in a word, shocking,' said the letter, signed by Harmeet K. Dhillon, assistant attorney general of the agency's civil rights division. 'The behavior was demonstrably abhorrent, immoral, and, most importantly, illegal.'
George Washington University spokesperson Shannon McClendon said in a statement that the school is currently reviewing the letter.
'GW condemns antisemitism, which has absolutely no place on our campuses or in a civil and humane society,' McClendon said in the statement. 'Moreover, our actions clearly demonstrate our commitment to addressing antisemitic actions and promoting an inclusive campus environment by upholding a safe, respectful, and accountable environment. '
The letter references incidents that took place over a year ago, when students staged pro-Palestinian protests at universities across the country, including rallies and encampments.
Since Israel launched its offensive in Gaza following the Oct. 7 attacks more than 61,000, including thousands of children, have been killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry in the enclave.
In the letter, the DOJ said that between April 25, 2024 and into May 2024, students engaged in protests including the establishment of an encampment. The department's investigation found that during that period of time, there were 'numerous incidents' of Jewish students being harassed. One Jewish student said that they were ordered by antisemitic protestors to leave the yard where the encampment was located, the letter said.
'GWU's Assistant Dean of Students instructed the Jewish student to leave because his presence was 'antagonizing and provoking the crowd,'' the letter said.
Another student said that they had held up an Israeli flag and was confronted by protestors who linked arms to restrict the student's movements, the letter said. A nearby school police officer told the student to leave for their own safety. And in a separate incident, another Jewish student who was also holding an Israeli flag said that they were harassed by protesters who yelled expletives at them. Another officer similarly told the student to leave the area, the letter said.
McClendon said in the statement that the school took appropriate action including during the encampment.
'We do not tolerate behavior that threatens our community or undermines meaningful dialogue,' McClendon said.
The Justice Department's findings surrounding GWU follow the agency's similar announcement in late July over public university UCLA. The civil rights division also said that UCLA had failed to 'adequately' respond to complaints of harassment and abuse toward its Jewish and Israeli students on campus since the Oct. 7 attacks. Days later, UCLA announced that it had been notified that it would be losing federal research funding over alleged antisemitism. Then last week, the Trump administration proposed a $1 billion settlement with the school.
'As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country's greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians,' James B. Milliken, the president of the University of California school system, said in a statement.
Since Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian student protesters and their schools, debate has erupted over free speech rights and the role of government in academia.
Stanford University's student newspaper, the Stanford Daily, took legal action against the administration last week over two provisions in federal immigration law that it says officials have wielded against those with pro-Palestinian views, threatening deportation and the revocation of visas. They say in the lawsuit that the situation has led to censorship and violations of free speech rights.
'There's real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,' Greta Reich, the Stanford Daily's editor-in-chief, said in a statement. 'The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands
The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands

The Hill

time12 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The House is awash in subpoenas as Epstein inquiry expands

Congress has been rightly criticized for not pushing back sooner against executive branch encroachments on first branch constitutional prerogatives. Congress's relative somnolence is understandable though not wholly excusable. The silence on the Hill has been due in large part to the unilateral party control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. There is a certain grace period observed at the outset of a new administration while it gets its ducks in a row on policy and legislative priorities. Missteps and overreach inevitably occur and usually are met by majority party tolerance and inaction on the Hill. This Congress has followed the norm and oversight was overlooked except by the lone voices of protest on the minority party side of the aisle. Last month we witnessed the first cracks in the stone dam. It occurred on July 22 in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. There, in the Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement chaired by Rep. Clay Higgins (R-La.), ranking member Summer Lee (D-Pa.) offered a motion to subpoena the Justice Department for the complete files of Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died by suicide in prison in 2019. The motion surprisingly carried on an 8-to-2 vote with three Republican members joining all Democrats to adopt the motion. Two of the subcommittee's Republicans, including Chairman Higgins, voted against the motion. The subcommittee subsequently adopted by voice vote a motion offered by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) to subpoena the deposition testimony of a host of former government officials from both parties, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, six former attorneys general and two former FBI directors. One of the subpoenaed former officials, Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, was asked on ' Meet the Press ' last Sunday whether he would comply with the subpoena. He wouldn't commit, explaining that conversations were ongoing to determine exactly what information the committee wanted. Program moderator Kristen Welker pressed him, noting that he was the first attorney general in history ever to be held in contempt of Congress in 2012 for his refusal to testify on 'Operation Fast and Furious,' tracking illegal gun sales. 'Do you have any regrets about that now,' and, 'will that be informing your decision now?' Holder explained that the information sought in that instance was 'confidential' internal executive branch communications and, presumably privileged (though only the president can invoke executive privilege). The White House and Justice Department did not attempt to prosecute Holder for criminal contempt of Congress in 2012. Whether the other subpoenaed former attorneys general and FBI directors will take their lead from Holder's decision this time will be interesting to watch. What makes the Epstein files disclosure demand especially unique today is President Trump's apparent flip-flop on the issue of disclosure from his previous use of it as one of the major issues on which he campaigned. It was a symbol of bringing down the ruling elites and draining the Washington swamp. That commitment has waned. As pressure grew, the president belatedly directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to seek release of sealed grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case. That request was denied by a Florida judge. Meanwhile, the president has put out the word that it's 'time to move on.' The Supreme Court's decision in McGrain v. Daugherty in 1927 held that Congress has an inherent right to compel testimony and conduct oversight as part of its constitutional lawmaking functions. The case was an offshoot of the Teapot Dome oil leasing scandal of the early 1920s. In that instance, a Senate select committee was inquiring into why former Attorney General Harry Daughety did not investigate the matter when it first broke. It had subpoenaed Mally Daugherty, the attorney general's brother and president of a bank at the heart of the scandal. When Mally refused to comply with the subpoena he was cited for contempt of Congress and found guilty. The Supreme Court reversed a lower court and upheld Mally's conviction. That 1927 decision did not turn off the spigot and witnesses today are still challenging subpoenas and inviting contempt citations. Whether a contempt citation is prosecuted is solely at the discretion of the Justice Department. The failure by the Justice Department to prosecute Holder's contempt of Congress citation in 2012 could well be a precursor to another prolonged battle of the branches. This time Congress could potentially wind-up with a sawed-off limb. Don Wolfensberger is a 28-year congressional staff veteran culminating as chief of staff of the House Rules Committee in 1995. He is author of, 'Congress and the People: Deliberative Democracy on Trial' (2000), and, 'Changing Cultures in Congress: From Fair Play to Power Plays' (2018).

EXCLUSIVE: Trump-aligned legal group files FOIA request for DC crime data, citing alleged manipulation
EXCLUSIVE: Trump-aligned legal group files FOIA request for DC crime data, citing alleged manipulation

Fox News

time21 minutes ago

  • Fox News

EXCLUSIVE: Trump-aligned legal group files FOIA request for DC crime data, citing alleged manipulation

FIRST ON FOX — A pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller filed a FOIA request Thursday seeking all crime records and data compiled by the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, as part of an effort to scrutinize information and crime statistics that senior adminis tration officials allege have been "manipulated." The request by the America First Legal Foundation (AFL) includes demands for a wide range of documents from D.C.'s police force, including all email communications or internal guidance reflecting any changes in the department's tracking or reporting of crimes in the city, as well as any records "reflecting the falsification or non-publication" of crime data and statistics, among other things. It is part of a broader investigation AFL launched on Thursday, just four days after President Donald Trump issued his order to temporarily federalize D.C. both by deploying hundreds of D.C. National Guard troops into the city, and temporarily taking federal control of D.C.'s police force to crack down on crime. In the FOIA request, AFL also asked for records of "all communications" related to Michael Pulliam, the D.C. police officer who was placed on administrative leave in May, after he was accused of changing crime statistics to minimize crimes. Pulliam formerly served as a police commander for the Metropolitan Police Department's Third District, which includes Adams Morgan and Columbia Heights. The Pulliam investigation has become something of a political lightning rod in recent days, as Trump officials have pointed to the investigation and his leave as evidence that MPD has sought to manipulate or massage crime statistics in the nation's capital. News of the AFL probe comes as President Donald Trump and White House officials have blasted what they describe as a "ridiculous" amount of crime in D.C., and claimed repeatedly that the crime statistics in question might not be an accurate portrayal of the situation on the ground — something critics argue is simply justification for the administration to push through its executive order. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller told NewsNation in an interview earlier this week that Washington, D.C., "is more violent than Baghdad." "As each day passes, new horrific examples of violent crime are reported across the district," AFL's lead attorney, Will Scolinos, told Fox News Digital in a statement. "AFL is investigating whether, as described by recent reports, official D.C. crime statistics may have been deliberately falsified to make the city seem safer than it is." "President Trump has stepped up to make Washington D.C. safer for all residents and visitors to the nation's capital—but the Left is lockstep in defending D.C. as 'safe enough.'" Scolinos added. "Americans know better." Trump, in his August 11 executive order, declared a "crime emergency" in the nation's capital. That order invokes Section 740 of D.C.'s Home Rule Act, saying that federal control of the Metropolitan Police Department is needed to maintain law and order in D.C to protect the nation's capital — including federal buildings, property, and monuments— and to ensure "conditions necessary" for the orderly functioning of the federal government. In announcing their investigation Thursday, the AFL also cited a report published Thursday morning by the Washington Free Beacon involving a D.C. settlement agreement with a former police sergeant, Charlotte Djossou, who allegedly sued MPD leaders in 2020 for "misclassifying offenses" to deflate D.C. crime statistics. That settlement was not included in AFL's FOIA request, and Fox News Digital could not immediately confirm the details of the report, or the nature of the settlement agreement in question. Still, news of the AFL probe comes as senior Trump officials and allies of the president have seized on the Pulliam investigation as a means of calling into question the accuracy of federal crime data in D.C. The administration has sought to undermine preliminary federal statistics published in January 2025 that said violent crime in the nation's capital had dropped to its lowest point in more than 30 years. D.C. officials, for their part, have conceded that the drop in violent crime might be overstated (data on the MPD website now shows a 26% drop between 2023 and 2024). But they've pushed back on the notion that artificially deflated crime data is to blame. In an interview with NBC News earlier this week, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser said that a recent review of all MPD crime data found 552 fewer victims of violent crime in the first eight months of 2025, compared to the same period in 2024. Crime is down across all seven districts, with anomalies in just one, she told NBC. "Any comparison to a war-torn country is hyperbolic and false," she said in a televised interview Sunday. America First Legal, though not officially part of the Trump administration, was founded by longtime Trump advisor Stephen Miller after Trump's first presidential term. Miller stepped down from AFL before rejoining the White House in 2025 as Trump's deputy chief of staff.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store