Republicans press leaders of Georgetown, Berkeley and CUNY on antisemitism complaints
In their appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the three university leaders said that they had taken disciplinary action where appropriate and stressed the importance of protecting free speech.
UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons pushed back on the suggestion that antisemitism was more present on college campuses than anywhere else.
'If somebody is expressing pro-Palestinian beliefs, that's not necessarily antisemitic,' he said.
The hearing was the ninth in a series Republicans have held to scrutinize university leadership over allegations of antisemitism on campuses after a wave of protests following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attacks on Israel. Widely criticized testimony before the committee by the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University in 2023 contributed to their resignations.
At Tuesday's hearing, Democrats blasted Republican committee members for their focus on antisemitism while not speaking out on the dismantling of the Education Department, which is tasked with investigating antisemitism and other civil rights violations in schools.
'They have turned this hearing room into a kangaroo court, where they spend our time litigating a predetermined outcome to do nothing, actually, to help Jewish students, just make public theater out of legitimate pain,' Rep. Mark Takano, D-CA.
Republicans said the university leaders have allowed campus antisemitism to run unchecked.
'Universities can choose to hire antisemitic faculty, welcome students with a history of antisemitism, accept certain foreign funding, and let the behavior of antisemitic unions go unchecked," Michigan Rep. Tim Walberg, committee chair, said in his opening statements. "But we will see today they do so at their own risk.'
The hearing was periodically interrupted by protesters, who shouted pro-Palestinian slogans before being removed by Capitol police. Rep. Randy Fine, R-FL, berated the college presidents and said they were responsible because of the attitudes they had permitted on their campuses.
Republicans pressed the three college leaders on whether they had disciplined or fired faculty and employees for behavior they said was antisemitic. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., pressed CUNY Chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez on the employment of a law professor who worked on the legal defense of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist the Trump administration attempted to deport over his role in protests at Columbia University.
Stefanik pushed Matos Rodríguez to answer whether the professor should be fired. Without responding directly, Matos Rodríguez defended CUNY and said antisemitism had no place at the school. He said any student or employee who broke CUNY rules would be investigated.
University leaders also emphasized the importance of free speech on campuses for students and faculty.
Interim Georgetown President Richard Groves said that as a Jesuit university, fostering interfaith dialogue and understanding was a key part of the school's mission. He said the university has not experienced any encampments or physical violence since the Hamas attack in October 2023.
'Given our Jesuit values, we expose students to different viewpoints on the Middle East," Groves said. "In addition to speakers on Gaza, we've hosted IDF soldiers, families of Israeli and Palestinians who've lost their lives. U.S. families of U.S. hostages in Gaza. Georgetown is not perfect, and as events evolve, we've had to clarify rules of student behavior.'
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill'
President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' finally cleared the House and the Senate and was signed by the president on July 4. The bill has several policies that could impact the middle class. Making some money moves and preparing for the new changes can help you save money and grow your portfolio. Read Next: Check Out: Here are some of the top money moves the middle class should make. Also see how much the definition of middle class has changed in every state. Capitalize on Clean Energy Credits Now The bill is cycling out of energy credits, which affect electric vehicles, solar panels and other clean energy sources. Chad Gammon, CFP, owner of Custom Fit Financial, suggested making clean energy purchases before the deadline if you've been holding out. 'If you are considering any upgrades, now would be the time to do it. Some credits, such as electric vehicles, are available until September 30, 2025. Other credits, like the residential clean energy credit, will end on December 31, 2025. This can help if you anticipate higher energy bills in the years to come, and reputable installers can assist with an estimated payback period,' he said. Be Aware: Open a 'Trump Account' A 'Trump account' can give your child a head start with investing money and accumulating wealth. Gammon highlighted the promising opportunity while encouraging people to monitor how it will work before investing additional money. 'If you have a child in 2025, I'd look into opening a 'Trump account.' The federal government will give $1,000 as a starter contribution. There are options to contribute further. I'd wait for more details on that, but would set it up for the initial $1,000,' he said. Children who are born between 2025 and 2028 are eligible for a $1,000 deposit, per CNBC. The money in the account will be invested in a fund that tracks the U.S. stock market, the outlet reported. Plan Your Taxes The bill can reduce your tax burden, especially if you use the standard deduction. Gammon explained how the new bill can add more money to your wallet. 'I would also look at your estimated 2025 taxes and adjust withholdings, if needed. The standard deductions moved for [couples who are married and filing jointly] from $30,000 to $31,500, or if you are single, it went from $15,000 to $15,750. This could lower your tax liability, where you can adjust your withholdings on your W-4 and free up extra monthly cash,' he said. Seniors can also get a boosted tax deduction thanks to the bill. Seniors who are 65 or older can get an additional $6,000 tax deduction if their modified adjusted gross income is below $75,000. Married couples filing jointly can capitalize on the additional tax deduction if their combined modified adjusted gross income is below $150,000. This additional tax deduction for seniors currently applies for the tax years 2025 to 2028. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 These Cars May Seem Expensive, but They Rarely Need Repairs 7 Things You'll Be Happy You Downsized in Retirement This article originally appeared on 3 Money Moves the Middle Class Should Make After the Passing of Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
25 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: The market usually fails the environment when the government doesn't help
To the editor: Contributing writer Veronique de Rugy is evenhanded when it comes to government subsidies: There should be none for the private sector. Let the market determine winners and losers in the economy ('Good riddance to those green-energy tax breaks. Now keep closing other loopholes,' July 17). When it comes to consumer goods, private enterprise can be an effective allocator of resources, but the market has proved woefully deficient in other ways. It has failed to provide a decent life for all on a healthy planet. Short-term profit has overwhelmed long-term well-being. Corporate dominance has brought us a world fouled by chemical and plastic residues and climate-changing pollution. Even as renewable energy becomes practical and affordable, its relative powerlessness compared with the fossil fuel industry impedes its quick adaptation. Meanwhile China, which has embraced a major role for the government in the economy, is eating our lunch in this regard. Electric vehicle manufacturing and more sustainable artificial intelligence are just two of its recent successes. China is still a major emitter of carbon dioxide, but it leads the world in renewable energy investment. I don't want to live in authoritarian China. I want to live in a democratic USA that recognizes that the market must be supplemented by rational policy. If we don't prioritize humanistic, environmentally friendly policies via government action, they will not prevail. Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: De Rugy appears to present a rational argument: She wants more green energy, but subsidizing it is the wrong way to get there. She says, 'When you compare the size of green versus fossil-fuel subsidies, the difference is staggering.' Nonsense. I would assume an economist such as De Rugy would know the term 'externalities' — that is, social costs that come from economic activity. Burning fossil fuels creates horrendous externalities. Air pollution kills more than 8 million people annually. Carbon emissions from burning coal, oil and gas overheat the planet and cause more frequent and intense heat waves, droughts, floods, rising sea levels and wildfires, which all cost communities billions of dollars. I agree that subsidizing clean energy is not the most effective government policy to correct the energy marketplace. Instead of focusing on subsidies, however, De Rugy should join fellow economists, including some conservative Republicans, who call for mitigating fossil fuel externalities with a tax on carbon pollution. Caroline Taylor, Santa Barbara .. To the editor: De Rugy's support for eliminating green energy subsidies in the 'Big Beautiful Bill' omits vital context. While President Trump didn't get the $1 billion he reportedly sought from the fossil fuel industry during his 2024 campaign, he did receive more than $75 million from various interests associated with fossil fuels. That aligns with his constant 'drill, baby, drill' chants and his bizarre, debunked claims that wind turbines cause cancer. Meanwhile, the country reels from the devastating effects of climate change, from deadly floods in Texas to wildfires in California. The green energy subsidies De Rugy criticizes were part of the Inflation Reduction Act, one of the Biden administration's major successes, backing proven clean energy companies. Let's be honest: This repeal isn't about sound policy. It's about political revenge — and protecting fossil fuel donors. Mark Winkler, Studio City
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
The Great State Government Return-to-Office U-Turn
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) banned remote work for state employees in March. By June, he was signing a bill that allowed it again. This stunning reversal in just three months tells you everything you need to know about the new reality of government work. The Texas about-face isn't an isolated incident. It's part of a fascinating pattern playing out in state capitals across America, where rigid return-to-office mandates are collapsing under the weight of economic reality and employee resistance. What started as executive orders demanding compliance has evolved into nuanced negotiations that treat office attendance as currency. California's Gavin Newsom escalated from two-day to four-day office requirements, only to watch unions trade away salary increases to keep their flexibility. Indiana's new governor included 'limited exceptions' in his return-to-office order from Day 1, signaling that negotiation had always been the endgame. The numbers driving these reversals are impossible to ignore. When California saved $700 million by downsizing office space and Texas discovered that remote work actually boosted productivity while slashing turnover, the economic argument for forcing everyone back to their desks evaporated. This transformation reveals a new playbook in which location has become as negotiable as salary. The speed of Texas's reversal deserves closer examination. When Abbott issued his executive order in March banning telework for state agencies, he positioned it as a matter of principle. State workers needed to be in state buildings, he said, serving Texans directly. The rhetoric was forceful, the timeline immediate. Yet within weeks, the facade began cracking under operational strain. State agencies that had already downsized their physical footprints suddenly faced the prospect of scrambling for office space. Parking lots that had been decommissioned would need resurrection. And employees who had restructured their lives around remote work began polishing their resumes for private-sector opportunities. The bipartisan rebellion that followed wasn't driven by ideology but by data. Texas's own productivity study showed that remote work hadn't just maintained service levels — it had actually improved them while dramatically reducing employee turnover. When Republican Rep. Giovanni Capriglione introduced House Bill 5196 to let agencies set their own remote policies, he wasn't making a statement about worker rights. He was acknowledging mathematical reality. Abbott's signature on the bill in June represents more than a policy reversal. It's an admission that top-down mandates can't override bottom-up economics. But while Texas stumbled into reversal through legislative intervention, California's governor appears to be playing a more sophisticated game. His journey from two-day office requirements to a four-day mandate might look like escalation, but the emerging pattern suggests something more strategic. When the Professional Engineers in California Government secured their one-year reprieve from the four-day requirement, they paid for it with salary concessions. Days later, the attorneys' union struck a remarkably similar deal. Newsom's mandate created leverage where none had existed before. SEIU Local 1000's lawsuit challenging the order cites the state's savings of 'at least $700 million' from office downsizing — money that would evaporate if 95,000 hybrid workers actually showed up four days a week. The California Department of General Services has shed 1.2 million square feet of Sacramento office space, a 14 percent reduction that represents real taxpayer savings. Reversing that efficiency would require a real estate shopping spree at precisely the moment California faces a $12 billion budget deficit. The genius lies in how the mandate functions as a negotiating tool. Unions that might have held firm on salary increases suddenly found themselves trading compensation for commute time. The Professional Engineers accepted mandatory unpaid time off that effectively negates their 3 percent raise for two years. In both cases, the unions prioritized flexibility over pay, revealing just how valuable remote work has become to their members. These reversals illuminate a broader transformation in how governments value physical presence versus actual productivity. When Gallup research indicates that flexible work arrangements can cut attrition by 50 percent, and when replacing skilled professionals costs between half and twice their annual salary, the mathematics of mandatory office attendance stop adding up. Indiana's new governor, Mike Braun, seems to be taking notes from both states with his executive order requiring state workers back by July 2025 but leaving 'limited exceptions' for ongoing negotiations. For public-sector unions, this new reality requires strategy. The California engineers and attorneys who accepted pay concessions to maintain remote work flexibility made a calculated bet that their members value time and autonomy over marginal salary increases. They are establishing that workplace flexibility has become a fundamental term of employment that can't be altered by executive fiat. The return-to-office reversals sweeping through state governments represent acknowledgments that the fundamental nature of work has changed. We are witnessing the emergence of a new employment paradigm where location flexibility has become as negotiable as wages and benefits. The smart leaders are those who recognized that physical presence has become a bargaining chip, valuable precisely because employees prize flexibility so highly. Rather than squander political capital on unenforceable mandates, they are trading flexibility for concessions that actually improve their states' fiscal positions. The organizations that thrive will be those that recognize flexibility not as a perk to be revoked, but as a strategic asset to be thoughtfully deployed. Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller' Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'
