University Leaders Face Tough Questions in House Hearing on Antisemitism
In a three-hour hearing, Robert Groves, interim president of Georgetown University, Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, chancellor of the City University of New York, and Rich Lyons, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, asserted a commitment to combating anti-Jewish hatred while defending campus rights to free expression. Groves has been in his position since last year, Matos Rodríguez since 2019 and Lyons since last summer.
Tuesday's is the latest of a series of hearings over alleged failures to protect Jewish students that the House Committee on Education and the Workforce has held since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. Tuesday's hearing had combative moments but was less explosive than some previous ones. Earlier hearings put intense personal scrutiny on leaders of other universities, some of whom eventually resigned after controversial exchanges with lawmakers.
The hearing was briefly interrupted a number of times by protesters yelling, 'There's blood on your hands' and 'Free Palestine!' After the fourth interruption, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Florida) yelled, 'Shut up and get out of here!' to the demonstrators, then turned to the university presidents and said he blamed them for the disruptions.
'I hold you all responsible for this,' he said. 'It is the attitude that you have allowed on your college campuses that make people think that this is okay.'
Facing questions about specific cases of alleged antisemitism on their campuses, the university leaders sometimes demurred or said they could not comment on individual disciplinary matters.
In one case, however, Groves said that Jonathan Brown, a professor still listed on his faculty page as the chair of Islamic civilization at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, had been stripped of his chair title after posting on X last month that he hoped 'Iran does some symbolic strike on a base' amid news of U.S. strikes on Iran.
'He's on leave and we are reviewing the case,' Groves told lawmakers. Committee Chairman Tim Walberg (R-Michigan) said he found the news 'encouraging' but 'long overdue.' Brown did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Walberg questioned Matos Rodríguez about a Palestinian studies job posting at Hunter College that called for scholars who could 'take a critical lens' on issues including 'settler colonialism, genocide, human rights, apartheid' and other topics. The listing was removed in February following a demand from New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D).
'We made sure to tell Hunter College that it was entirely inappropriate to have that posting,' Matos Rodríguez said at the hearing.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) pressed Matos Rodríguez on whether he sees it as problematic that the president of CUNY's faculty and staff union personally supports BDS – the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that targets Israel. In response, the president stressed that the union 'does not speak for' CUNY. Foxx responded: 'You obviously don't think it's problematic.'
Pressed by Fine and Rep. Lisa C. McClain (R-Michigan) on why history professor Ussama Makdisi, who had posted on social media, 'I could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7,' had not faced discipline at UC-Berkeley, Lyons said Makdisi is a 'fine scholar.' McClain retorted: 'I'm sure there's a lot of murderers in prison who are fine people, too, fine scholars, but they do some pretty nefarious and heinous acts.' Makdisi did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pennsylvania) pushed Groves to condemn a Georgetown employee who had compared Israel's actions in Gaza to Nazi concentration camps in a social media post. 'I reject those kinds of statements,' Groves said. 'I want everyone to know that to the extent that that hurt Jewish students, Jewish faculty, Jewish staff at Georgetown, I apologize for that,' he added.
Republicans repeatedly criticized the leaders' handling of faculty unions, which Walberg said have 'played a critical role in fomenting the rise of antisemitism.'
The committee's first hearing on antisemitism, in December 2023, put the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University under intense scrutiny over an exchange with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York), who asked whether the presidents would punish students if they called for the genocide of Jews. Claudine Gay of Harvard and Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania said their response would depend on context. Both resigned in the aftermath.
The next hearing, four months later, also sparked controversy as the president of Columbia University, Minouche Shafik, drew criticism from some members of the university when she denounced specific professors and revealed disciplinary details, taking a more aggressive stance against pro-Palestinian leaders on her campus. She also later stepped down from the role.
The GOP's critics say the hearings do not represent genuine efforts to combat hatred directed at Jewish students, but rather an attempt to use antisemitism as a pretext to stem anti-Israel rhetoric on American campuses – and cut funding for those institutions.
'I am extremely disappointed in the majority for exploiting my community's legitimate fears and concerns as they advance discriminatory, regressive, unconstitutional, and harmful policy,' Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Oregon) said. 'Jewish Americans and the American people deserve better.'
Democrats also criticized the hearings as political theater and condemned the congressional committee's focus on antisemitism as coming at the exclusion of other urgent concerns. 'This is yet another hearing to demonize Muslims and their religion, to demonize Palestinians, including those in Gaza,' Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pennsylvania) said.
The Trump administration has leaned on allegations of antisemitism to go after elite universities including Harvard, UC-Berkeley and Columbia in an unprecedented attack on the nation's higher education system. As administration officials have opened investigations into schools and sought to strip them of federal funding, they have expanded their probes beyond antisemitism.
The administration has opened two investigations into the University of California, one probing alleged antisemitism and the other investigating its hiring practices for evidence of diversity measures.
The schools in Tuesday's spotlight have looked to portray themselves as hard on antisemitism, in part by cracking down on encampments – a movement that swept college campuses in the spring of last year.
CUNY was the site of a prominent encampment in New York City and the attempted occupation of an administration building. The school eventually brought in New York police, leading to the arrest of dozens of protesters.
'We learned from that experience,' Matos Rodríguez said in his opening statement, saying the school significantly beefed up security. 'We now have a zero-tolerance policy against encampments.'
The encampment at UC-Berkeley ended after the school agreed to review its investments following three weeks of pitched tents and protests. The school strengthened its rules against encampments and banned face masks under some circumstances.
Georgetown largely avoided the high-profile encampments that roiled many campuses last year, as D.C.-area student protesters gathered for a united encampment at George Washington University, blocks from the White House.
In 2024, the university hosted families of Americans who were taken hostage by Hamas in the 2023 attack for a speaking event, which Groves stressed in his statement to the committee. In a letter to the House committee last week, some of the family members praised Georgetown and its students and faculty.
'During a fraught time in so many public spaces after October 7, 2023, Georgetown created space for something different: a conversation rooted in empathy, dignity, and truth,' the families wrote in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Japan Times
4 hours ago
- Japan Times
Early 2026 U.S. midterm ads focus on Medicaid access and Trump tax cuts
Residents of Columbus, Indiana awoke last week to a yellow billboard purchased by the Democratic National Committee blaring: "Under Trump's Watch, Columbus Regional Health is Cutting Medical Services." Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which oversees races for the U.S. House of Representatives, this month launched a digital ad campaign touting U.S. President Donald Trump's tax cuts and blaming Democrats for spiking inflation. As members of Congress return to their home districts for the August recess, the Democratic and Republican parties are launching ad blitzes centered around the tax-cut and spending bill Trump signed into law on July 4, in an unofficial start to the 2026 midterm election campaign. Democrats are focusing their message around access to health care, three party operatives and three officials from allied groups said. Republicans are countering that the tax provisions will put more money in voters' pockets — particularly wage workers and seniors, four party operatives said. The bill makes permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funds his immigration enforcement crackdown, while reducing health care and food aid. It devotes $170 billion to immigration enforcement while cutting $1.1 trillion from Medicaid and other public health programs and $186 billion in food assistance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 as a result of the bill, and that the tax provisions and increased immigration and military spending would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. "How voters feel about Trump and the economy may be the most important factor next fall — but so is how voters feel about the Republican response to their concern," said Jacob Rubashkin, a nonpartisan analyst with Inside Elections. Republican strategists concede that Democrats, who campaigned against the bill while it was working its way through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, are starting with an upper hand in messaging around the legislation. But they say they have plenty of time to sell the bill's benefits. "We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular,' said Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the NRCC. And the party has a cash advantage. The RNC had $81 million in cash at the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission data, compared to the DNC's $15 million during the same period. The DNC has trailed the RNC in fundraising in the first half of the year at the same time as it has deepened its financial commitments, spending in every state, FEC disclosures show. The RNC also enjoys a huge asset in a sitting president who is still holding fundraisers for big-ticket donors. "At the end of the day, Democrats got a jump start on messaging,' said a Republican Senate operative who asked to remain anonymous to discuss party strategy. "They have won the battle. Now we have to focus on winning the war.' Republicans can only afford a net loss of two of the 220 seats they hold in the House to maintain control. In the Senate, they have a 53-47 advantage. 'Critical opportunity' The messaging battle, largely focused on battleground states and districts, is key to defining the bill in the minds of voters. "The bill is currently unpopular, and there's been a lot of conversation among Republicans about how to refocus on the more popular aspects and use the upcoming recess to sell the bill to skeptical voters,' Rubashkin said. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted last month as the bill was moving through Congress, some 64% of registered voters oppose cuts to Medicaid and food stamps in return for lower taxes for everyone. Democrats are seizing on that sentiment, pushing the idea that Republicans have taken away health care to pay for tax giveaways for billionaires. The DNC has purchased billboards in a handful of Republican districts facing reduced services and shutdown of rural hospitals and health facilities. "Republicans threw working families under the bus to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, and we'll never let them — or voters — forget that,' said DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman in a statement to Reuters. "This will define the midterms.' Republicans say the bill's provisions on tips, overtime and Social Security show the party is focused on issues affecting working families. They also point to a $50 billion fund the bill establishes to help rural hospitals. In a memo earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged candidates to talk about the bill in personalized terms, highlighting "service industry workers who will keep more of their hard-earned tips,' "first responders and critical workers who will keep more of their overtime pay' and "working parents and caretakers who benefit from increased tax credits for child and dependent care.' Another Republican strategy memo prepared by Tony Fabrizio and David Lee, Trump's pollsters, urges candidates to "lead on kitchen-table issues." The memo was commissioned by One Nation, a super PAC that last week launched a $10-million-plus TV and digital ad blitz playing up the tax features of the bill. The ads will air in states like Georgia and Texas where Republicans are defending seats. Another Republican PAC, Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group founded by Charles Koch and the late David Koch, will launch a TV and digital ad campaign in key districts next month, said Bill Riggs, a spokesperson for AFP. And the American Action Network is running TV and digital ads in 29 battleground congressional districts in Arizona, California, New York and Pennsylvania, emphasizing tax cuts and border security. "It's a new America, full of hope, thanks to President Trump and House Republicans," the ad intones. 'Trump tax' Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to tie Medicaid cuts to reduced health care access and higher costs. The DNC's website claims that the bill will "cost the poorest 10% of households $1,600 a year while raising the income of the richest 10% of Americans by $12,000 a year." Unrig Our Economy, a left-leaning outside group focused on populist economic messaging, is running ads in Iowa, Arizona and Pennsylvania depicting voters voicing frustration at their Republican lawmakers for voting for Trump's bill. "I'm so angry that Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks just voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in history to give tax breaks to billionaires,' said one ad running in Iowa, featuring a Davenport resident identified as Maria. The group plans to spend $7 million by the end of the year, according to spokesperson Kobie Christian. On Monday the group launched a "multi-million dollar' ad campaign focused on the Medicaid cuts in four Texas congressional districts. Protect Our Care, a left-leaning health care advocacy organization, said it plans to spend up to $10 million on ads in the first half of next year, largely focused on urging Republican lawmakers to restore funding to Medicaid. "Republicans won't be able to spin their way out of their parents being kicked out of a nursing home,' said Brad Woodhouse, the group's executive director. Environmental groups are also targeting the bill's rollback of clean energy incentives. Climate Power and the League of Conservation Voters spent $500,000 on an ad pressuring lawmakers in six congressional districts to vote against the bill, claiming that it will increase electricity rates, according to League of Conservation Voters President Pete Maysmith. "The bill just happened, so let's start communicating with people when it's fresh and happening,' said Maysmith. "We don't want to show up later and try to pick up that conversation.'
Japan Times
6 hours ago
- Japan Times
Who buys the F-150s, and more Japan deal mysteries
The long-awaited trade deal between the U.S. and Japan has investors celebrating after months of uncertainty. But as the song goes, nagging questions always remain. Who is going to buy the "cars, SUVs and trucks' that U.S. President Donald Trump has promised to sell? Who is going to purchase the 100 Boeing jets? And what possible structure could the $550 billion fund, allegedly financed by Tokyo with 90% of profits going to U.S., actually take? Answers are sorely needed, not just because of an already growing comprehension gap between the countries over what was actually agreed, but to inform South Korea, the European Union and other close U.S. allies who are trying to wrap up similar deals before Aug. 1. Let's start with autos, long the main source of Trump's dissatisfaction with Tokyo, as well as the largest single cause of the trade deficit. The White House fact sheet (if indeed it can so be called) declared that "long-standing restrictions on U.S. cars and trucks will be lifted, granting U.S. automakers access to the Japanese consumer market.' Of course, U.S. carmakers have enjoyed unlimited access to the Japanese market for decades. As I noted in April, the problem is that U.S. cars just aren't good enough for the local consumer — and Detroit largely isn't interested in trying to muscle its way into a hyper-competitive market dominated by domestic players. Tokyo can try making it a little easier to import U.S. vehicles, such as simplifying inspection procedures. But it can't rebuild cities to fit the bloated models U.S. automakers favor. Around 84% of streets in Japan are municipal roads with an average width of just 3.7 meters (about 12 feet). Even if Tokyo gave everyone a Ford F-150 pickup, its 2.4-meter width would prevent two from passing on narrow streets. Hence cute minivans and kei-cars dominate while, as my colleague Liam Denning said this week, "U.S. automakers do not, in general, make an adorable little anything.' In any case, Japan's auto market has been shrinking for years, with new cars sold down about 20% from a 1990s peak. Automakers constantly fret that young people are losing interest in learning to drive, while the growing numbers of elderly citizens are encouraged to return their licenses. But more significant is what form the $550 billion investment fund will take. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that the "innovative financing mechanism' was the key to Tokyo getting a deal at all. But neither side seems to agree on what it looks like. The idea first surfaced in May when the Financial Times reported that SoftBank Group founder Masayoshi Son had suggested a joint sovereign wealth fund. The White House calls it an "investment vehicle' that will "rebuild and expand core American industries.' Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, however, refers to a combination of equity, loans and guarantees that will be led by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation and guarantees by Nippon Export and Investment Insurance. That sounds more like overseas development aid than a wealth fund — though few could argue American infrastructure might actually benefit from that. Trump now promises Japan will "give us 90% of $550 billion!' Tokyo is saying that applies to projects where 90% of investment is from the U.S. — in other words, profits are proportional. Does the figure include funding already pledged, such as SoftBank's promised $100 billion? Who knows?! Indeed, a leaked photo from the talks shows what looks like a proposal from Japan for a $400 billion fund, crossed out with $500 billion handwritten on top. That proposal also suggested a 50% profit share. Is this just repackaged existing spending into a simple PowerPoint slide? After all, Japan already invested $783 billion in the U.S. in 2023 and Ishiba pledged in January to boost that to $1 trillion in the future. The problem is that at some stage, this needs to be worked into actual policies. And this is where Ishiba's rush to agreement might come back to bite, especially if he's no longer in the job when the talks get down to details — something that, despite his denials, still seems all but certain after the drubbing his Liberal Democratic Party took in recent Upper House elections. There are plenty of parts of the deal that do make sense. The 100 Boeings can find a home at the country's airlines, though Japan has admitted the number includes at least some already-planned purchases. As the world's largest buyer of liquid natural gas, Tokyo's participation in the Alaska project always seemed logical. Even if the two sides don't seem to agree on what they decided on defense, Japan needs to spend more and the U.S. is the logical seller. Above all, it's encouraging to see the White House, after all these months of tense relations, again describe its ally as the "cornerstone of peace in the Indo-Pacific.' But with all these questions — and Washington continuing to hold the threat over Japan's head with a quarterly evaluation of its compliance with the deal — the market's sigh of relief might still be premature. Gearoid Reidy is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering Japan and the Koreas.
Japan Times
9 hours ago
- Japan Times
Eight opposition parties agree to push for extra gasoline tax to be scrapped
Eight opposition parties on Tuesday agreed to push for scrapping the provisional add-on gasoline tax rate on Nov. 1. At the day's meeting among policy chiefs, the parties, including the main opposition Constitutional Democratic Party of Japan (CDP), affirmed a plan to jointly submit a bill to implement such a tax cut during an extraordinary parliamentary session slated to be convened Friday. The opposition parties are hoping to raise public expectations for political change, as the ruling coalition no longer holds a majority in either chamber of parliament after losing their combined majority in the July 20 election for the House of Councilors, the upper chamber. Meanwhile, the CDP is aiming to foster trust among opposition parties. Tuesday's meeting was attended by policy chiefs from the CDP, Nippon Ishin no Kai, the Democratic Party for the People, Sanseito, Reiwa Shinsengumi, the Japanese Communist Party, the Conservative Party of Japan and the Social Democratic Party. The CDP plans to call on the ruling camp of the Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito to hold talks on ways to ensure the abolition of the provisional gasoline tax rate. "We'll strongly push for the enactment (of the bill) during next month's extraordinary parliamentary session," CDP policy chief Kazuhiko Shigetoku told reporters after the meeting. "We'll not allow the tax cut to be postponed beyond Nov. 1," he added. As the LDP has expressed reluctance to scrap the extra gasoline tax rate starting in November, talks between the ruling and opposition parties may stall.
