
US university leaders challenge campus antisemitism claims in House hearing
The committee accused the schools of failing to respond adequately to allegations of bias or discrimination; however, the university leaders said that disciplinary action had been taken where appropriate and stressed the importance of protecting free speech.
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.
Lyons, who has just completed his first year as chancellor, is also the first UC leader to face the House committee during the Trump presidency. In his opening remarks, he defended the campus' commitment to free speech.
'As a public institution, Berkeley has a solemn obligation to protect the quintessential American value of free speech,' Lyons said. 'This obligation does not prevent us, let me repeat, does not prevent us from confronting harassment and discrimination in all its forms, including antisemitism.'
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 over Israel's indiscriminate bombing of Gaza, which has killed more than 60,000 people, in retaliation to Hamas' 7 October 2023 attack 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 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,' said the California representative Mark Takano.
Republicans said 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,' Tim Walberg, a Michigan representative and 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. Randy Fine, a Florida representative, 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. Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative of New York, pressed the 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.
Robert Groves, the interim president at Georgetown, 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 Israelis and Palestinians who've lost their lives. US families of US hostages in Gaza. Georgetown is not perfect, and as events evolve, we've had to clarify rules of student behavior.'
Lyons, as well, said his campus has 'more work to do' to prevent antisemitism.
'I am the first to say that we have more work to do. Berkeley, like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in antisemitism. And as a public university, we have a solemn obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment, while also upholding the first amendment right to free speech,' he said.
This article was amended on 16 July 2025. An earlier version misnamed Robert Groves as 'Richard' Groves and said that Rich Lyons was in his first year as chancellor of UC, Berkeley, when he is in his second year.
Hashtags

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


Daily Mail
20 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Diane Abbott says it is 'silly' to claim anti-Semitism is as bad as racism faced by black people as she reignites row that got her suspended by Labour
Diane Abbott sparked a new racism row today as she doubled down on claims about discrimination faced by Jews that got her suspended by Labour. The veteran backbencher used a BBC interview to say she had no regrets about her 2023 claim that anti-Semitism and anti-Traveller discrimination was not as bad as prejudice based on skin colour. And she reiterated the opinions aired in a letter to the Observer two years ago that led to her losing the whip and making a public apology. Speaking to BBC Radio 4's Reflections programme, she said: 'Clearly, there must be a difference between racism which is about colour and other types of racism because you can see a Traveller or a Jewish person walking down the street, you don't know (what they are). 'I just think that it's silly to try and claim that racism which is about skin colour is the same as other types of racism. 'I don't know why people would say that.' Her reiteration of her views will heap pressure on Sir Keir Starmer to take action against her as he did in 2023. A party spokesman said: 'There is no place for anti-Semitism in the Labour Party. 'We take these comments incredibly seriously, and will assess them in line with the Labour Party's rules and procedures.' It comes a day after he stripped the whip from four leftwing labour backbenchers for 'persistent breaches of party discipline' while blocking his welfare reforms. The Hackney North and Stoke Newington MP was suspended by the Labour Party in 2023 after suggested that Jewish, Irish and Traveller people experience 'prejudice' but 'are not all their lives subject to racism'. 'They undoubtedly experience prejudice,' Ms Abbott wrote in the Observer. 'This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they are interchangeable. 'It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. 'But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. 'In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.' She later issued a statement to 'wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them' as she blamed drafting 'errors'. But Labour pushed ahead with action against the ex-shadow minister in any case. Ms Abbott issued a public apology in 2023 to 'wholly and unreservedly withdraw my remarks and disassociate myself from them' She was given the whip back before the 2024 election but was at the centre of a fresh party row then when attempts were made to stop her from running for re-election in her north London seat. She eventually was allowed to stand as a Labour candidate and won with a much reduced majority of 15,000 in one of the party's safest seats. The longest-serving female MP in the Commons, who entered Parliament in 1987, told the BBC last night she got a 'bit weary' about people labelling her anti-Semetic and said she had 'spent a lifetime fighting racism of all kinds'. She said she was 'grateful' to be a Labour MP but was sure the party leadership had been 'trying to get me out'.


Times
37 minutes ago
- Times
Why a ban on gagging orders could have unintended consequences
As a Hollywood mogul, before his spectacular fall from grace in 2017, Harvey Weinstein produced some modern classics: Pulp Fiction, Shakespeare in Love, Gangs of New York. Yet his lasting legacy will be to have sparked the MeToo campaign and his convictions in California for rape. Meanwhile, in the UK, as of last week it could be argued that he will be responsible for the death of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). Ministers unveiled an amendment to the Employment Rights Bill that will ban employers imposing gagging orders in relation to deals struck over allegations of harassment and discrimination. Angela Rayner, the deputy prime minister, said that the government acted after having 'heard the calls from victims of harassment and discrimination to end the misuse of NDAs. It is time we stamped this practice out …' Zelda Perkins, Weinstein's former British assistant and the founder of the campaign group Can't Buy My Silence UK, who blew the whistle on the 73-year-old movie mogul by breaking her gagging order, greeted the move. 'This change has been a very long time coming,' she said. 'For every person who has spoken out, despite fear, legal threats or personal cost — this is proof that your voice made a difference.' Perkins warned, however, that the regulations imposed under the legislation must be 'watertight'. Those backing the move have claimed — as Perkins said — that NDAs, or confidentiality clauses, 'have been used to cover up harassment and discrimination for decades'. Hailing the legislation as 'a major turning point', Perkins's group said that it would make 'the UK a global leader in workers' protection and in ensuring the law is not used unethically'. • MPs press for extension of gagging order ban It is beyond doubt that NDAs have been abused, with no more graphic example than that of Weinstein, who, owing to ill health, has been moved from New York's notorious Rikers Island prison to hospital while his appeal is pending. However, the issue is hardly straightforward, as Nikola Southern, a partner at the law firm Kingsley Napley, points out. While 'banning non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and discrimination sounds like the right thing to do and many will welcome the change as a major step forward', she warns that the legislative ban could have unintended consequences. 'Many victims of harassment and discrimination — including of sexual harassment — rely on non-disclosure agreements to protect their own interests and identity,' Southern says. She notes that confidentiality can 'work both ways in settlement agreements' and that the imminent statutory changes will mean 'that while poor treatment can be exposed, victims will have less control over what information about them and their experience makes it into the public domain'. As a result, the lawyer argues, some victims might be 'less inclined to raise complaints of harassment and discrimination'. Employment law specialists also raise the concern that businesses will be less inclined to settle claims involving allegations of discrimination or harassment if the comfort of confidentiality is not available. Emily Morrison at the firm SA Law agrees, arguing that the ban 'may seem like a win for transparency — but it risks doing more harm than good'. • Efforts to ban non-disclosure agreements could backfire Morrison maintains that many victims of harassment and discrimination 'opt for confidentiality to avoid the stress, cost and publicity of litigation'. And she says that 'stripping away that option could force them into a lengthy, traumatic tribunal process just to secure redress'. Those with concerns over the looming legislation note that most settlement agreements already allow for whistleblowing and do not prevent employers from addressing underlying issues. Karen Jackson, the director of Didlaw, an employment specialist practice, invokes a colourful analogy, describing workplace litigation as 'ultimately a game of cat and mouse'. Jackson argues that limiting the availability of gagging clauses 'removes the cat's incentive to settle and squashes the mouse entirely'. Jackson argues that the women she has represented 'want confidentiality, they want closure. They don't want to be tainted by their experiences or defined by them, they want to move on.' • Harvey Weinstein found guilty on one charge in rape retrial What lawyers should be doing, the employment law experts say, is to advise alleged victims that confidentiality can be the price of a deal in which they get something in return. 'And if you don't want confidentiality,' Jackson says, 'then you do not have to sign anything. No client of mine has ever signed an agreement under duress: in such a case it would be voidable anyway. If anyone has signed under pressure I blame it on bad lawyering.' After the Weinstein case blew up in 2018 the watchdog in England and Wales, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, issued a warning notice regarding the use of NDAs, which listed a range of public policy exceptions that solicitors were required to include in all employment confidentiality provisions. Euan Lawrence, a partner at Blacks Solicitors, notes that the government's proposed change 'goes significantly further' than that regulatory warning in protecting the workers' right to speak up. 'It covers any allegation, irrespective of whether there is any substance or evidence, relating to the discrimination or harassment — except allegations about reasonable adjustments,' says the lawyer. 'There is no requirement that it be made in the public interest, or even good faith, and it also encompasses allegations made to colleagues or the press.' Still, proponents of tighter legislation remain buoyed by the government's move. Louise Haigh, the former Labour transport secretary, said the announcement meant that 'bad employers can no longer hide behind legal practices that cover up their wrongdoing and prevent victims from getting justice'.


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Volvo CEO wants EU to cut 'unnecessary' auto tariffs to defuse Trump threat
STOCKHOLM, July 17 (Reuters) - The chief executive of Volvo Cars ( opens new tab urged the European Union to cut its 10% tariff on American-made cars, arguing that European automakers do not need protection from U.S. competitors, in an interview with Reuters on Thursday. Brussels, along with representatives from the auto industry, has spent months trying to persuade Washington to lower its 27.5% tariff on imports of European cars. "If Europe is for free trade, we should be the ones showing the way and going down to very low tariffs first," Hakan Samuelsson said after the company reported second-quarter earnings. U.S. President Donald Trump has threatened to raise tariffs on European Union auto imports to 30% from August 1, increasing pressure on the bloc to strike a deal. Before Trump's tenure, the U.S. had a 2.5% tariff on European-made cars, while the EU had a 10% duty on vehicles imported from the U.S, which Samuelsson previously said was unfair. "I think it's absolutely unnecessary, the European car industry definitely does not need to have any protection from American auto builders," he told Reuters. Volvo Cars, majority-owned by China's Geely Holding ( is one of the most exposed European automakers to U.S. tariffs as the bulk of its cars sold there are imported from Europe. Volvo announced late Wednesday that it would start U.S. production in late 2026 of its best-selling model, the hybrid XC60 as a way to mitigate the tariffs. Currently, its South Carolina plant only produces the Polestar 3 and electric vehicle model EX90 which has struggled to gain traction with U.S. consumers. Volvo has also started slimming down its product offering in the U.S., Reuters reported on Wednesday. "These are the measures we have control over, rather than when it comes to tariffs we can only have an opinion like everybody else," Samuelsson said.