
Jewish faculty decry Republican panel members ahead of antisemitism hearing
A number of Republican legislators set to grill university presidents in a congressional hearing on antisemitism this week are associated with calls for Jews to convert to Christianity, have quoted Adolf Hitler, or have reportedly threatened to burn a synagogue to the ground.
A group of Haverford professors, most of them Jewish, has raised concerns about the legislators, pointing to statements they have made in the past and antisemitic incidents in their districts that the professors say they have not forcefully condemned.
On Wednesday, the US House committee on education and workforce will question the presidents of Haverford College, in Pennsylvania, DePaul University, in Chicago, and California Polytechnic State University, in San Luis Obispo, in a reprieve of contentious showdowns between legislators and university administrators that last year played a part in the resignations of several university presidents.
In a memo published on Tuesday and shared exclusively with the Guardian, a group of Jewish faculty at Haverford have questioned the credibility of several members of the committee.
The faculty have requested anonymity to avoid retaliation. In the memo, they write that the committee's chair, Republican representative Tim Walberg of Michigan, is associated with the Moody Bible Institute, which, according to the memo, 'trains students to convert Jewish people to Christianity'. Representative Mark Harris of North Carolina, it notes, once said that until Jews and Muslims accept Jesus Christ 'there'll never be peace in their soul or peace in their city'.
The faculty also condemned committee member Mary Miller of Illinois, who in a speech outside the US Capitol the day before the January 6 attack, quoted Hitler and said he was 'right on one thing' when he said that whoever 'has the youth has the future'. (Miller later apologized.) Pro-Palestinian activists at a protest at DePaul University in Chicago on Monday. Photograph: Chicago Tribune/TNS
The memo notes that several members of the committee hail from districts with a history of neo-Nazi incidents. It points to Appalachian State University in North Carolina – in a district committee member Virginia Foxx has represented for two decades – where, in recent years, antisemitic groups have distributed promotional materials, scratched swastikas and racist slurs on to the car of a Jewish student, and spray-painted swastikas and covered campus spaces with antisemitic stickers. The university, the memo notes, is not among those facing congressional investigations, which are instead focused on pro-Palestinian speech.
The memo also criticises representative Mark Messmer of Indiana for making 'no visible statements critical of Nazi and white supremacist antisemitism' in his district and state, and New York's Elise Stefanik for backing a political candidate who praised Hitler as 'the kind of leader we need today'. (The candidate, Carl Paladino, apologized but suggested that his comment was taken out of 'context'.) And it calls out Representative Randy Fine of Florida, a Republican Jewish congressman who reportedly threatened to burn his own synagogue 'to the ground' for hiring an LGBTQ+ staff member.
The Guardian has reached out to all of the committee members named in this story for comment.
It's not the first time Jewish scholars have accused those leading the fight over antisemitism on campuses of being compromised on the issue. In March, Jewish Voice for Peace's academic council published a report arguing that Project Esther – a rightwing blueprint for undermining pro-Palestine solidarity in the US – 'repeats and fortifies antisemitic tropes' by promoting the antisemitic conspiracy theory that powerful Jews are controlling social justice movements.
At Haverford, Jewish students and faculty have signed separate statements accusing the committee of 'weaponising our pain and anguish' and saying that their voices 'have absolutely not been represented in the current public discussion of antisemitism'.
'We reject the premise of the hearings as being at all concerned with antisemitism,' said Lindsay Reckson, a literature professor and one of the authors of the faculty statement. 'They are political theater aimed at intimidating college administrations into sacrificing their commitment to academic freedom, and an effort to silence and police pro-Palestinian voices on campus – including many Jewish voices.'
The memo comes as Jewish scholars and students have increasingly condemned the Trump administration's actions in the name of fighting antisemitism. Tim Walberg, the committee chair, right, and Bobby Scott, the Democratic ranking member. Photograph: Bill Clark/CQ-In a letter to Haverford's president, Wendy Raymond, ahead of her congressional testimony, the committee references 'antisemitic incidents' on campus, including the disruption of an antisemitism workshop by the Anti-Defamation League last October, and a talk, the same month, which the committee says 'whistleblowers' reported as promoting 'a culture of antisemitic discrimination'.
What the letter doesn't say is that the protest against the ADL was staged entirely by Jewish students and that the lecture was by Rebecca Alpert – a rabbi as well as a professor of religion.
'To them, Jewish students means Zionist Jewish students,' said Ellie Baron, a senior at Haverford.
Alpert, a self-described anti-Zionist, told the Guardian that she was 'astonished' the committee described her talk – about the difference between Judaism and Zionism – as antisemitic. 'In my mind, it's antisemitic to call a scholarly presentation by a rabbi antisemitism,' she said.
The conflation of criticism of Israel with antisemitism championed in congressional investigations has also muddled discussion over real antisemitism, Jewish faculty warn.
'It's not that antisemitism doesn't exist. We know it does,' said Joshua Moses, an anthropology professor at Haverford, who said he experienced it personally but stressed that the suffering in Gaza and the arrests of foreign students for their pro-Palestinian advocacy are more pressing concerns at the moment.
'If there's antisemitism, I want to hear about it, let's figure out how to address it, but let's also look at who's most at risk and who's most suffering at this point.'
He added: 'I don't feel unsafe. But if I did, this congressional committee is not the place I would go to.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump wanted to unleash the troops on George Floyd protests. Now the gloves are off
President Donald Trump saw an opportunity to deploy thousands of active-duty troops to American streets in 2020 after the police murder of George Floyd galvanized protests across the country. However, some officials in his first administration resisted the idea and checked some of Trump's more violent impulses when it came to resistance against his agenda. Trump ultimately did not invoke the Insurrection Act that year — reportedly at the guidance of officials who are no longer in his circle. Five years later, the president — surrounded by 'law and order' loyalists — federalized the National Guard for the first time in more than 50 years to deploy 4,000 service members across Los Angeles. Another 700 U.S. Marines are standing by, with dozens already guarding federal agents while they make immigration arrests. The administration appears to be aiming to avoid what Trump sees as a mistake from his first term. The White House and Homeland Security have spent weeks planning how to more broadly deploy the nation's military into American cities to support the president's anti-immigration agenda. A spark from protests in Los Angeles, largely confined to pockets of the sprawling city's downtown areas and two nearby communities, appeared to give officials the fire they were looking for to put the plan into action and boots on the ground. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told members of Congress on June 11 that Trump's order sending the Guard to California could apply to other states. He called it 'getting ahead of the problem.' 'So that if in other places, if there are other riots, in places where law enforcement officers are threatened, we would have the capability to surge National Guard there, if necessary,' Hegseth told House lawmakers. Trump now appears to be trying to avoid a repeat of the summer of protests that plagued the final months of his first term in office and derailed a campaign he ultimately lost at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and political debate focused on racial justice. 'Can't you just shoot them?' Thousands of people flooded streets across the country throughout the summer of 2020. The police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor sparked daily demonstrations against police brutality and racism, including in the streets of Washington, D.C. It led to violent clashes and vandalism in cities. Pictures of burning buildings and cops in riot gear dominated news coverage. 'Can't you just shoot them?' Trump said at the time, according to his former Defense Secretary Mark Esper. 'Just shoot them in the legs or something?' 'I had to figure out a way to walk Trump back without creating the mess I was trying to avoid,' Esper wrote in his book A Sacred Oath, describing Trump as 'red faced and complaining loudly about the protests underway' in the nation's capital. Trump demanded law enforcement officers 'crack skulls' and 'beat the f*** out' of protesters, according to the book Frankly, We Did Win This Election: The Inside Story of How Trump Lost by The Wall Street Journal 's Michael Bender. 'Don't we have an island that we own? What about Guantanamo?' Trump reportedly said, referring to the Cuban naval base that became a notorious prison during the War on Terror. Esper and General Mark Milley, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serving as the nation's top military leader, appeared to be among the only senior administration officials who could confront the president and his chief loyalists. During one Oval Office debate, Trump's adviser Stephen Miller compared scenes of burning buildings and crowds clashing with police to war zones — which infuriated Milley, according to Bender's book. 'Shut the f*** up, Stephen,' Milley reportedly fired back. But in public, Trump praised Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, whose state erupted with unrest and chaotic scenes after Floyd's murder. 'I know Governor Walz is on the phone, and we spoke, and I fully agree with the way he handled it the last couple of days,' Trump said at the time. 'I was very happy with the last couple of days, Tim,' he said. 'You called up big numbers and the big numbers knocked them out so fast it was like bowling pins.' Trump even dismissed the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act at the time and suggested he could not go over the heads up governors to deploy federal troops into the states. 'We have laws. We have to go by the laws. We can't move in the National Guard. I can call insurrection, but there's no reason to ever do that,' Trump said during an election town hall. 'We can't call in the National Guard unless we're requested by a governor,' he said. 'If a governor or a mayor is a Democrat, like in Portland, we call them constantly.' 'We're gonna have troops everywhere' Trump is no longer moored by advisers willing to argue against his instincts. During his 2024 campaign, Trump appeared to change his tune, suggesting that he would call on the National Guard 'if things were getting out of control.' 'I would have no problem using the military, per se,' he told Time in April 2024. 'We have to have safety in our country. We have to have law and order in our country. And whichever gets us there, but I think the National Guard will do the job.' Within weeks after his inauguration, administration officials began to discuss how to leverage the military to support the president's immigration enforcement plans, a hallmark of his 2024 campaign, according to CNN. First, Trump sent thousands of active-duty troops to the U.S.-Mexico border with permission to detain anyone caught illegally crossing until law enforcement officers arrived on the scene. Troops have been deployed to the southern border under previous administrations, typically in a supporting role alongside federal officers. But under Trump, federalized troops are allowed to detain and search anyone within a 170-mile stretch of federal land spanning three states. The administration also is mulling the use of military bases to detain immigrants. A February memo outlined a plan to detain roughly 1,000 immigrants at Fort bliss in Texas. That plan could serve as a model for immigration detention at several other military bases, according to DHS officials. In January, Trump outlined a plan to detain as many as 30,000 immigrants inside the notorious naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The detention center has held dozens of immigrants at various points since February. But officials have also discussed how to send troops into the nation's interior, and whether they could act as a protective body for federal agents performing raids and arrests. After anti-ICE raid demonstrations kicked off across Los Angeles, Trump mobilized the California National Guard against the wishes of Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. His order said troops would protect federal property and federal personnel. Then he announced active-duty Marines would support local law enforcement, escalating a response that critics fear is a test for Trump's radical expansion of military force against civilians. Trump did not invoke the Insurrection Act, though the president and administration officials have repeatedly labeled protesters 'insurrectionists' and 'seditionists' — sparking fears that the president is laying the groundwork for mass deployment of military assets across the country. Both actions drew legal challenges from Newsom and watchdog groups. In a televised address, Newsom said Trump's actions put his state and the nation at the brink of authoritarian control. 'California may be first, but it clearly won't end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next,' he said. Another lawsuit from watchdog group American Oversight called the deployment 'an opening salvo in a coordinated national strategy and not simply an isolated incident.' 'Deploying the military to quash protests over the administration's inhumane and legally dubious immigration policies — especially over the objection of elected state leaders — is a dangerous, though unfortunately predictable, escalation by the Trump administration,' according to American Oversight executive director Chioma Chukwu. 'If left unchecked, this abuse of power under thin legal pretense can be readily replicated across other states in the future,' he added. In his testimony before House lawmakers on June 12, Hegseth refused to answer whether the Defense Department would respect court rulings — including the Supreme Court — if they struck down Trump's order. 'We should not have local judges determining foreign policy or national security policy for the country,' he said. Asked on June 8 whether he planned to send troops to other parts of the country, Trump said 'we're gonna have troops everywhere.' 'We're not going to let this happen to our country. We're not going to let our country be torn apart like it was under Biden,' he said. Two days later, he warned that any protests during a military parade in Washington, D.C. would be met with 'very heavy force.' 'If there's any protester who wants to come out, they will be met with very big force,' he said from the Oval Office. 'I haven't even heard about a protest, but [there are] people that hate our country.' Noem, appearing next to the president that day, said Minnesota's Governor Walz 'let his city burn' in 2020. 'The president and I have talked about this in the past,' she said. 'He was not going to let that happen to another city and to another community, where a bad governor made a bad decision.'


The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Consumer sentiment rose in June for 1st time this year as inflation remains stayed tame
Consumer sentiment increased in June for the first time in six months, the latest sign that Americans' views of the economy have improved as inflation has stayed tame and the Trump administration has reached a truce in its trade fight with China. The preliminary reading of the University of Michigan's closely watched consumer sentiment index, released Friday, jumped 16% to 60.5. The large increase followed steady drops that left the preliminary number last month at the second-lowest level in the nearly 75-year history of the survey. Consumer sentiment is still down 20% compared with December 2024. ' Consumers appear to have settled somewhat from the shock of the extremely high tariffs announced in April and the policy volatility seen in the weeks that followed,' Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a written statement. 'However, consumers still perceive wide-ranging downside risks to the economy.' Americans have largely taken a darker view of the economy's future after President Donald Trump unleashed a wide-ranging trade war, imposing steep tariffs on China, the European Union, and dozens of other countries. Yet in April Trump postponed a set of sweeping tariffs on about 60 nations and last month reached a temporary truce with China, after both sides had sharply ratcheted up tariffs on each other. U.S. duties remain elevated compared with historical levels, but so far they have not worsened overall inflation.


The Guardian
19 minutes ago
- The Guardian
A week of US protests: how immigration raids in LA escalated to mass outcry
The Trump administration's immigration raids in Los Angeles prompted mostly peaceful protests, which escalated when the president sent in the national guard – and then the US marines. Here is a video timeline of how the crisis has unfolded so far