
House panel on campus antisemitism likened to cold-war ‘un-American' committee
A congressional panel investigating antisemitism on US college campuses on Wednesday was accused of trying to chill constitutionally protected free speech and likened to a cold-war era committee notorious for wrecking the lives of people suspected of communist sympathies.
The comparison was made by David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law centre, who told the House education and workforce committee that its proceedings resembled those staged by the House un-American Activities Committee (Huac) during and after the second world war.
Cole, a former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused the present-day committee of 'broad-based charges of antisemitism without any factual predicate'.
'These proceedings, with all due respect, have more in common with those of the House un-American Activities Committee,' he told committee members. 'They are not an attempt to find out what happened, but an attempt to chill protected speech.'
HUAC, originally formed in 1938 to investigate Nazi subversion, switched focus to communism after the war and grew infamous after its high-profile hearings – including into suspected communism in Hollywood – led to blacklists and people losing their jobs.
Cole's criticism came in the eighth hearing held by the committee, which has previously looked into antisemitism sparked by anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests at elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes in the governance of some of the country's leading universities, including Harvard – prompting a backlash from academics and administrators, who believe antisemitism is being used as a pretext to curtail academic freedom.
Pervious hearings had led to the resignations of several university heads after they were deemed to have given legalistic responses to questions – mainly posed by Republicans – over whether certain anti-Israeli slogans were genocidal or protected by free speech.
Wednesday's hearing included presidents from Haverford College in Pennsylvania, DePaul University in Chicago and California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.
Even before it began, questions were raised about how truly concerned some members of Congress were with prejudice against Jews.
A memo signed by Haverford academics – most of them Jewish – and reported by the Guardian expressed concern that one had quoted Adolf Hitler, others had failed to condemn antisemitic activity in their districts, and Tim Walberg, the committee's Republican chair, had links to a Christian group that 'trains students to convert Jewish people to Christianity'.
Jewish Voice for Peace, a leftwing group, took nine Jewish students from Columbia to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress on Tuesday, while condemning the hearings as 'McCarthyite' and more concerned with suppressing pro-Palestinian protest than antisemitism.
Walberg told the hearing campus antisemitism 'continues to traumatize students, faculty and staff'. He cited a letter from a group of Jewish students at Haverford who claimed to have been 'marginalized, ostracized and at times, outright attacked. College officials reacted with 'indifference',' he said.
Cole, who had been called as a witness by the committee's ranking Democrat, Bobby Scott, said the hearings were flawed on free speech grounds and for focusing on the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which – under Title VI – outlaws discrimination in education on the grounds of race, colour or national origin in institutions receiving federal funding.
'Antisemitic speech, while lamentable, is constitutionally protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech and homophobic speech,' he said, adding that the US supreme court had defended the rights of the Nazi party to march in a town where Holocaust survivors lived.
On civil rights, he said: 'Title VI does not prohibit antisemitic speech. An antisemitic slogan at a protest or on line does not deny equal access to education any more than a sexist or a racist comment.'
More broadly, Cole said, committee members had not conducted proper investigations into specific incidents.
'Getting to the bottom of what happened requires fair hearings where both sides are heard about specific incidents,' he said. 'This committee has not held a single hearing looking into a specific incident, having the perpetrator and the complainant testify.'
Suzanne Bonamici, a Democratic representative from Oregon, who is Jewish, cited a letter from 100 Jewish faculty members at Northwestern University in Illinois expressing 'serious concerns' about how the committee was addressing antisemitism.
'We are united by the conviction that our Jewishness must not be used as a cudgel to silence the vigorous exchange of ideas that lie at the heart of university life,' she quoted them as saying.
She added: 'As an active member of my synagogue for more than 25 years, I can no longer pretend that this is a good faith effort to root out anti semitism.'
Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, who rose to prominence in December 2023 with a high-profile cross-examination that prompted the resignation of the former president of the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Magill, tried a similar tack with Haverford's head, Wendy Raymond.
'Is calling for the genocide of Jews protected speech on your campus?' Stefanik asked.
Raymond replied that it was not, but struggled to answer when asked if students or staff had been disciplined or investigated for using such language. Stefanik said: 'Respectfully, president of Haverford, many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions.'
She added: 'For the American people watching, you still don't get it. Haverford still doesn't get it. It's a very different testimony than the other presidents who are here today, who are coming with specifics. This is completely unacceptable. Higher education has failed to address this gorge of antisemitism, putting Jewish students at risk at Haverford and other campuses across the country.'
Hashtags

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


BBC News
36 minutes ago
- BBC News
Be ready to be shocked and offended at university, students told
Students should be ready to be shocked and offended at university, according to the man in charge of ensuring free speech on Ahmed, from the Office for Students (OfS), which regulates universities, told the BBC that exposure to views which students might find offensive was "part of the process of education".It comes as the OfS published guidance for universities in England on how a new law, designed to protect free speech, will work when it comes into force from had requested clarity from the OfS on how to best uphold freedom of speech, after the University of Sussex was fined £585,000 for failing to do so in March. The university was issued with the fine earlier this year under existing powers, after the OfS said its policy on trans and non-binary equality had a "chilling effect" on freedom of Stock had previously resigned from her post as philosophy professor at the university, following protests by students against her gender-critical university has begun a legal challenge against the fine, arguing that the investigation was flawed. Universities UK, which represents 141 institutions, said at the time of the fine that it would write to the OfS to clarify what would represent a breach of freedom of speech now say they are "pleased" the OfS has taken on feedback, and would "make sure universities are appropriately supported to comply" with the new this summer, the new law will place a stronger responsibility on universities in England to uphold freedom of speech and academic OfS can sanction universities, with the potential for fines to run into millions of pounds, if they are found to have failed to do every aspect of university life - from protests to debates, training and teaching - is covered by the new guidelines on how the law will be returning students, or those starting university this year, there may be not be a noticeable immediate change, but Dr Ahmed says the law is about the freedom for anything to be discussed or directly to students, the director for free speech said: "You should expect to face views you might find shocking or offensive, and you should be aware that's part of the process of education."He added that students should be able to express any view, no matter how offensive it is to others, as long as it is not outside what is generally allowed by law, such as harassment or unlawful discrimination. 'Be respectful of everyone's opinions' Paris and Marie-Louise, who both study mental health nursing at the University of Salford, said they felt that being respectful of others' opinions is key. Paris said she thought it was important to be able to "express your emotions and feelings without being disrespectful", and allow others to do so too."I think it's important to be able to allow other people to express themselves, because at the end of the day everyone's gone through different situations that may lead to them having different opinions," she Marie-Louise said freedom of speech "doesn't mean you have to be nasty" or "act out of manner", but rather "just stay true to yourself".In the OfS guidelines, 54 detailed scenarios are used to explore how the new law might be interpreted, with some likely to provoke debate and even looks at "simulated military checkpoints" as part of student protests about Palestine - something that has happened in the United States, but not on campuses in the right for peaceful student protests is balanced with universities being able to limit the time and place they happen, in order to ensure no students are intimidated or prevented from attending guidelines also make it clear that any agreements with foreign states that enable censorship on campus must be changed or scrapped. 'Offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing' But not everyone accepts there are serious issues around freedom of expression at challenged on the scale of the issue, Dr Ahmed pointed to polling carried out for the OfS, which he said suggests a fifth of academics do not feel free to discuss controversial topics in their issues most frequently highlighted by those expressing concern were race and racism, as well as sex and gender, with women more likely to feel unable to speak out. The guidelines also make clear that the OfS expects universities to support and protect academics whose views might provoke protest from students, and not to delay speaking up in their Ahmed told the BBC universities could not sack a lecturer "simply because that person expresses views students find offensive, shocking, controversial or disturbing - and that's essential to academic freedom."What is less clear is what happens when an academic leaves a job because they feel the situation is Jo Phoenix won a case for constructive dismissal with the Open University, and a tribunal found she had faced harassment for her gender-critical employment tribunal, due to take place next year, will look at an allegation by a different academic that he was constructively dismissed after students boycotted his teaching over his opinion that racial diversity programmes had gone too the meantime, the law will come into effect, with a complaints system to follow. Students will be able to complain to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator if they feel free speech or academic freedom is not upheld, while academics or visiting speakers will go direct to the OfS. Universities have expressed unease about the new system, pointing out they already have a legal obligation to uphold free speech. A Universities UK spokesperson said: "We strongly agree that universities must be places where free speech is protected and promoted."It added that issues were complex, and said it was pleased the regulator had taken on board feedback on its previous draft guidelines.


Daily Mail
42 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
National anthem singer reveals true extent of fury at her incendiary ICE protest before Dodgers game
Singer Vanessa Hernandez has revealed she has received death threats following her ICE protest at a Los Angeles Dodgers game last week. The 30-year-old, known by her stage name Nezza, defied orders from the Dodgers to sing a Spanish rendition of the American national anthem before Saturday's game against the San Francisco Giants. The Dominican singer claimed they tried to stop her performing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish, before she did it anyway as a show of solidarity with ICE protestors in the city. Nezza executed the poignant tribute against the Dodgers' wishes on the day of 'No Kings' protests across the US over Donald Trump 's controversial immigration policies, which came after a week of unrest in LA. She has now told TMZ that online trolls have sent her death threats but she stands by her decision to sing in Spanish and is adamant she's 'on the right side of history'. Nezza also revealed that George Lopez, Becky G and other musicians had reached out to offer their support. She said: 'I have received quite the backlash but it's been way more positive and love so that kind of outweighs that. I already knew in my heart that what I did was right but this triple confirms it for me. 'The death threats are one things but that's just the internet. I'm taking that as that is going to come from something like this. Anything that involves politics is going to involve a death threat. 'The main thing I have been seeing is that it was "disrespectful". I don't think it was because the lyrics are the exact same as the English version. 'I am a proud American. I was born here, raised her, my dreams came true here in LA and I think being a proud American and still wanting better for your country can be the same truth and I think people are forgetting that.' After Nezza posted a clip on TikTok which showed a Dodgers official telling her to sing the anthem in English, before she stunningly defied that request, a large portion of the team's fans heaped praise on her. One replied to her latest TikTok video by saying: '50 year dodgers fan & proud of you, no more games til they make this right.' 'As a la native and a dodgers fan, I'm disappointed in them,' said another. 'I'm so glad you SANNNG it in Spanish even though they told you not too! You got a new follower queen'. 'God damn. Dodgers have botched the last week pretty badly,' another fan posted on X about the anthem controversy. While one said about Nezza: 'Good for her. The @dodgers are being hypocritical. They'll have Mexico Night, hire Mariachis to play at the games, & have surely cashed in on billions of $ of revenue from a loyal Latino fan-base, much of it undocumented. Maybe when/if they get hit in the pocketbook….' However, other members of the Dodgers faithful were less impressed by her protest after being invited by the team to sing in English. 'Total lack of respect by @Nezza,' one concluded. 'She's invited by @Dodgers to sing in English. But makes decision to sing in Spanish. This is why people don't take WOKE /DEI/serious. People should boycott her music'. Another commented: 'If the @Dodgers invite Nezza back to Dodger Stadium for another reimagining of our Star Spangled Banner I know I won't be the only one who stays away. Spoke to many friends (Latino included) and it doesn't sit right with any of us. She can serenade Dominican Rep crowds instead.' While one even claimed: 'After Nezza singing [in Spanish] and not being banned forever, I will never attend another Dodger game'. In a tearful follow-up video to her original TikTok post, Hernandez suggested she has been banned from Dodger Stadium after ignoring the request to perform in English. 'Thank you for all the sweet messages,' she concluded at the end of the video before adding, 'I love you guys so much. Safe to say I am never allowed in that stadium again.' Yet according to The LA Times, she was not punished for ignoring the team request and is not banned from Dodger Stadium in the future.


Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘I may do it, I may not': Why Trump's unpredictability on Iran could be his biggest asset
Donald Trump made a dramatic exit from the G7 summit in Canada and then hunkered down with his National Security Council in the White House situation room to plot his next moves on Iran. Then on Wednesday he was asked by reporters whether he was about to send his bombers into action. 'I may do it. I may not do it,' he said on the South Lawn after chatting with construction workers putting up a 27-metre flagpole. 'I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble.' It is a familiar playbook. In a recent analysis of Mr Trump's leadership style, Julius Kirimi Sindi, an expert in business strategy said the president was not so much governing as running a non-stop negotiation. 'This uncertainty forces people to constantly second-guess their positions, giving Trump the upper hand in any negotiation or political battle,' he wrote. 'The strategy keeps both allies and enemies in a perpetual state of anxiety, which in turn, solidifies his control.' Not for the first time, the president has deployed intentional ambiguity as he keeps friends and foes guessing about his intentions. And once again, he is seeking to gain the upper hand by deploying a trusted 'art of the deal' technique to a tricky geopolitical challenge. His final decision could be the most consequential of his presidency. Join with Israel in attacking Iran with B2 warplanes armed with bunker busting bombs and it could prevent Tehran from ever building a nuclear weapon. But it might also unleash attacks on American interests in the Middle East, and tear apart his Maga coalition at home. urging him not to become entangled in another foreign war. Mr Trump was keeping his options open for now, according to Robert Shapiro, professor of political science, in the hope that something would turn up. 'I think in the best of all worlds for him, he would be perfectly fine with a negotiated settlement, which would give him the prospects of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, which is something he's always talked about,' he said. 'On the other hand, he likes the idea of clean military victory by dropping a bomb and claiming credit for that.' The strategy of unpredictability has been at the heart of this White House. It was how he handled his trade war, for example. A week after 'liberation day,' a day before his steep tariffs were due to go into effect and one hour before the stock market was due to close, journalists peppered the president with questions about his levies and the turmoil they had unleashed. Were they a bargaining chip to secure better deals? Or were they here to stay as part of an attempt to reshape the entire global economy? 'It can both be true,' he said. 'There can be permanent tariffs, and there can also be negotiations.' And he has repeatedly fended off questions about his Ukraine strategy, punting questions about Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and his desire for peace into the future. 'I can't tell you that, but I'll let you know in about two weeks,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office,' he said seven weeks ago. The idea may be to keep adversaries on their toes, but it is just as awkward for allies. The G7 summit came and went without a joint statement on Ukraine in part because no one is sure where Mr Trump stands. On Wednesday evening, standing in front of reporters in the Oval Office, Mr Trump once again parried questions about whether he was about to launch strikes on Iran or allow more time to begin negotiations. Is he for real or is it all a monumental bluff? 'I have ideas as to what to do,' he said. 'I like to make a final decision one second before it's due.'