[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-134 WASHINGTON : 2024
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair
DARRELL ISSA, California JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking
KEN BUCK, Colorado Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida ZOE LOFGREN, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
LANCE GOODEN, Texas JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey LUCY McBATH, Georgia
TROY NEHLS, Texas MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
BARRY MOORE, Alabama VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
KEVIN KILEY, California DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming CORI BUSH, Missouri
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas GLENN IVEY, Maryland
LAUREL LEE, Florida BECCA BALINT, Vermont
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacant
CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Wednesday, November 8, 2023
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Chair of the Committee on the Judiciary
from the State of Ohio......................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on
the Judiciary from the State of New York....................... 2
WITNESSES
Connor Ogrydziak, University at Buffalo, Class of 2023
Oral Testimony................................................. 6
Prepared Testimony............................................. 9
Jasmyn Jordan, University of Iowa
Oral Testimony................................................. 13
Prepared Testimony............................................. 15
Amanda Silberstein, Cornell University
Oral Testimony................................................. 19
Prepared Testimony............................................. 21
Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder & Chair, The Louis D. Brandeis Center
for Human Rights Under Law
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Testimony............................................. 26
Dr. Pamela Nadell, Patrick Clendenen Chair, Women's and Gender
History, Department of History; Director, Jewish Studies
Program, American University
Oral Testimony................................................. 33
Prepared Testimony............................................. 35
Stacy Burdett, Independent Expert on Antisemitism
Oral Testimony................................................. 43
Prepared Testimony............................................. 45
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
All materials submitted for the record by the Committee on the
Judiciary are listed below..................................... 98
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
York, for the record
Statement from Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO, National Director of
Anti-Defamation League
A letter from Miguel Cardona, U.S. Secretary of Education, Nov.
6, 2023, to the Honorable Mike Johnson, Speaker of the
House from the State of Louisiana
An article entitled, ``The Discourse Is Toxic. Universities Can
Help,'' Oct. 30, 2023, The New York Times
An article entitled, ``House Republicans Plan to Cut Education
Department's Budget,'' Jul. 14, 2023, Inside Higher
Education
Materials submitted by the Honorable Harriet Hageman, a Member of
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Wyoming, for
the record
An article entitled `` `Your speech is violence': the left's
new mantra to justify campus violence,'' Jun. 3, 2023, The
Hill
An article entitled, ``The Diversity Problem on Campus |
Opinion,'' Aug. 21, 2021, Newsweek
APPENDIX
Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking
Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New
York, for the record
An article entitled, ``Why Nazis attend Palestinian college
rallies,'' Nov. 9, 2023, MSNBC
Statement from Dov Waxman, Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert
Foundation Chair, Israel Studies, Director, UCLA Y&S
Nazarian Center for Israel Studies, University of
California, Los Angeles
A letter from Joseph Cohn, Legislative and Policy Director,
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, and Greg
Gonzalez, Legislative Counsel, Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression, Nov. 15, 2023
Materials submitted by the Honorable Andy Biggs, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Arizona, for the
record
An article entitled, ``Why does the world apply a special
standard of conduct to Israel?'' Nov. 6, 2023
Bill text of H. Res. 474, 117th Congress, 1st Session
Bill text of H.R. 845, 118th Congress, 1st Session
A letter from Martha Pollack, President of Cornell University,
Nov. 7, 2023, to the Honorable Wesley Hunt, a Member of the
Committee on the Judiciary, submitted by the Honorable Wesley
Hunt, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State
of Texas, for the record
FREE SPEECH ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES
----------
Wednesday, November 8, 2023
House of Representatives
Committee on the Judiciary
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Hon. Jim Jordan
[Chair of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Jordan, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Biggs,
McClintock, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Cline,
Van Drew, Nehls, Moore, Kiley, Hageman, Moran, Hunt, Fry,
Nadler, Johnson of Georgia, Schiff, Swalwell, Jayapal, Scanlon,
McBath, Dean, Escobar, Ross, Ivey, and Balint.
Chair Jordan. The meeting will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
We welcome everyone to today's hearing on Free Speech on
College Campuses. I apologize for being a little late, we were
having an election in the Republican Conference.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr.
Moore, to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
All. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for
all.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman.
We'll now begin with opening statements. The Chair
recognizes himself.
Over six years ago, we had a hearing about attempts to
curtail free speech on college campuses right next door in the
Oversight Committee. The hearing touched on emerging threats to
the First Amendment, safe spaces, cancel culture, and the
targeting of conservative activist student groups.
Unfortunately, this is not a fad and the hostility toward
certain points of view and particularly conservative points of
view has only grown worse. It's no longer universities just
censoring their students. We now know that American
universities were working with the Federal Government to
systematically target speech on the internet.
Just this week, the Committee released--Committee
Republicans released information showing Stanford University
worked with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency, or CISA, in the State Department's Global Engagement
Center to censor certain speech in the lead-up to the 2020
election. Big government, big academia, and big tech all
colluding to limit Americans' First Amendment free speech
rights. They were targeting jokes and political opinions. Most
importantly, they targeted true information, but the speech
that was censored all leaned a certain way.
What used to be the bastions of free speech in the
marketplace of ideas evolved into institutions of activism and
suppression. With, quote, ``safe spaces and free speech zones
aimed to protect students from violence,'' one would think
Jewish students would have somewhere to turn as violent pro-
Hamas students take to their demonstrations and have harmed
students on college campuses. That's not the case, as we will
see in today's hearing.
Nearly a 400 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents,
including harassment, vandalism, and assault in the two-weeks
after the Hamas attacks against Israel. We need to do more to
protect the freedom of expression. We're actually working with
Ranking Member Nadler on some legislation introduced by one of
our colleagues trying to see if we can put some legislation
forward that would help in this area.
I want to thank my colleagues, including Representative
Virginia Foxx, Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee,
for her important work on these issues. I want to thank
Representative Murphy, who is a leader on this topic, has
introduced two bills to advance free speech on campus, and Co-
Chair of the Campus Free Speech Caucus, Ms. Cammack, for her
work and passion for this issue. I also want to recognize Mr.
Kiley, one of our Members, who introduced a bill just last week
that denounced anti-Semitism on college campuses.
We look forward to hearing from all our witnesses today.
Again, I want to thank you for coming.
I now will turn to the Ranking Member for his opening
statement, and then we'll get right to our witnesses.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. Actually, I forgot. Well, I'll wait until
you're done and then I'll play a short video. We have a short
90-second video I wanted to show.
Mr. Nadler. Why don't you play it?
Chair Jordan. We'll play it right now. Let's play it right
now, a 90-second video. If you can queue that up, we'll play
this about what's going on the college campuses.
[Video shown.]
Chair Jordan. I want to thank our staff for putting that
together.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member, the gentleman
from New York, for an opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, one month ago yesterday, on October 7th, Hamas
launched a barbaric attack on the people of Israel. Hamas
killed more than 1,400 people and kidnapped 250 more, many of
them very old, many of them very young, and some of them
American citizens. The attack represents the largest loss of
Jewish life in a single day since the conclusion of the
Holocaust.
Here in the United States, the Jewish communities had
little time to mourn. The steady rise in anti-Semitism in this
country over the past several years has now reached fever
pitch. A few places have had to bear the weight of that trend
more than our college and university campuses, where according
to an audit published by the Anti-Defamation League months
before the October 7th attack, anti-Semitic activity had
increased by 41 percent in the last year alone.
In many ways, the conduct we need to discuss most urgently
goes far beyond the title of this hearing, ``Free Speech on
Campus.'' Jewish students are being physically threatened and
have legitimate cause to fear for their safety on campuses
across the country. For example, at Cornell University, law
enforcement officials arrested a student for making violent
threats against Jewish students on an internet message board.
These messages included the exhortation that, quote, ``If you
see a Jewish person on campus, follow them home and slit their
throats.'' In another post, the student threatened to, quote,
``bring an assault rifle to campus and shoot all you pig
Jews.''
We are joined today by a student from Cornell University,
Amanda Silberstein.
Ms. Silberstein, I would just like to say that I am sorry
that you and the Jewish community at Cornell have had to endure
these threats simply for being who you are. I am sorry for the
fear they have caused you and your fellow students. It is
unacceptable and we must do better.
There's no excuse for that kind of violence at any school,
against any student. An academic discussion about the First
Amendment is mostly beside the point until we can secure these
campuses. I think that most Members here on both sides of the
aisle would agree, which is not to say, Mr. Chair, that I do
not appreciate your calling this hearing. Congress can help,
but, first, we have to put aside the political stunts and
academic debates and put our money where our mouth is.
The Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Education
is the Federal agency responsible for enforcing the laws that
protect students from discrimination. To be clear, the Office
for Civil Rights had an enormous amount of work to do long
before the attacks of October 7th. The reaction to those
attacks in the United States may threaten to overwhelm the
agency. That is why the Anti-Defamation League and their
partner organization, the Brandeis Center, which is represented
here today, have set up a helpline to aid Jewish students
navigate the process for filing complaints alleging anti-
Semitism during this troubling time.
I would like to commend both organizations for their
important work that encourage Jewish students across the
country to make their voices heard.
Congress also has an obligation to help. More than that, we
have an obligation to offer meaningful help. If we want to get
this situation under control, we need to move past debating the
various theoretical definitions of the word ``anti-Semitism.''
We need to move past the meaningless resolutions on the House
floor declaring our feelings about bigotry generally. We need
to send assistance where it is urgently needed, and we need to
do so today.
Earlier this year, the Biden Administration outlined a
comprehensive National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism. For
that matter, the administration's also announced a National
Strategy to Counter Islamophobia. These strategies are whole-
of-government efforts to combat bigotry in every part of
American life that the government can touch.
The President has put enforcement of our civil rights laws
at the center of these strategies. Long before we could have
foreseen the wave of violent anti-Semitism that would sweep
across the country, President Biden requested a 27 percent
increase in funding for the Office of Civil Rights.
If my Republican colleagues were serious about this issue,
they would fully fund that request. Instead, they are fighting
to slash the office--I'm sorry--they are fighting to slash the
budget of the Office of Civil Rights and other agencies that
would keep our children safe. Their promises about anti-
Semitism and their actions disconnect in other ways as well.
If my Republican colleagues are serious about anti-
Semitism, they would've spoken up after the 2017 Unite the
Right rally in Charlottesville, where neo-Nazis chanted their,
quote, ``Jews will not replace us.'' If my Republican
colleagues were serious about anti-Semitism, they would've
spoken up when President Trump then declared that there were,
quote, ``very fine people on both sides of that rally.'' If
they were serious about anti-Semitism, they would've said
something last year when former President Trump shared a meal
with Nick Fuentes, a notorious White supremacist and Holocaust
denier.
Lest you imagine that I am dredging up ancient history, let
me remind you that if my Republican colleagues were serious
about anti-Semitism, they would not have, just months ago,
invited the Hon. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to testify in this
hearing room after he made appalling claims that Jews appeared
to be immune from COVID-19, a nod to the laughable if not so
insidious conspiracy that the virus was somehow engineered to
spare the Jewish community.
My friends, for too long your silence on these matters has
been deafening. I'm all for free speech on campuses and
otherwise, that includes the right of my Republican colleagues
to say nothing at all about anti-Semitism when silence is
politically convenient, even when the former President of the
United States takes aim at us directly. If you mean what you
say here today, if you believe that the threats and vitriol
that my community faces on college campuses is both unfair and
unjust, then I'm asking you to move beyond the pointless
gestures and political posturing and help us protect our
children. Fully fund the Office for Civil Rights, the
administration's efforts to counter anti-Semitism and other
forms of discrimination. Help us get the boots on the ground.
We can do better, and our students deserve no less.
I thank the witnesses.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be
included in the record.
We will now introduce today's witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Connor Ogrydziak. Mr. Ogrydziak is
a recent graduate of the University of Buffalo. While a student
at Buffalo, he served as the treasurer, Vice-Chair, and Chair
of the university's Young Americans for Freedom Chapter. He
faced threats and protests from fellow students over speakers
that his organization invited to campus. Thank you for being
with us.
Ms. Jasmyn Jordan. Ms. Jordan is a student at the
University of Iowa. She serves as the Chair of the University's
Young Americans for Freedom Chapter. She has received threats
from her fellow students over events that her organization has
invited to campus. Their recent pro-Israel vigil was vandalized
and disrupted by protesters. We apologize for that. Thank you
for doing that.
Ms. Amanda Silberstein. As the Ranking Member has already
talked about, Ms. Silberstein is a student at Cornell
University. She serves on the Student Board of the Roitman
Chabad Center at Cornell, the Leadership of the Alpha Kappa Psi
Professional Business Fraternity, and as the Director of
Marketing and Communications for a Cornell-based startup. Thank
you, Ms. Silberstein, for being with us to today.
Mr. Kenneth Marcus. Mr. Marcus is the founder and Chair of
the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. He
previously served as the Assistant Secretary of Education for
Civil Rights, the Staff Director of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights, and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. We
appreciate your work, Mr. Marcus, and thank you for being with
us.
Professor Pamela Nadell. Professor Nadell holds the Patrick
Clendenen Chair in Women's and Gender History and is the
Director of the Jewish Studies Program at American University.
She has taught a variety of courses on Judaism, Jewish and
women's history, and has published several related books. We
appreciate you being here, Doctor.
Ms. Stacy Burdett. Ms. Burdett is a Public Policy
Strategist and Consultant. She has previously served as the
Vice President for Government Relations, Advocacy, and
Community Engagement at the Anti-Defamation League and is the
Director of Government and External Relations at the U.S.
Holocaust Memorial Museum.
We welcome all our witnesses and thank them for appearing
today.
We'll begin by swearing you in. Would you please all rise
and raise your right hand.
Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the
testimony you're about to give is true and correct to the best
of your knowledge, information, and belief, so help you God?
Let the record show that the witnesses have answered in the
affirmative.
Thank you. You may be seated.
Please know that your written testimony will be entered
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you
summarize your testimony in five minutes.
I think we'll just go like we did, we'll start with Mr.
Ogrydziak, and then we'll move right down the line. So, you're
recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF CONNOR OGRYDZIAK
Mr. Ogrydziak. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, and Members of the Committee--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. We appreciate people being here, but the
Committee has to be in order if you--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. We will remove every single person who
disrupts the Committee.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, and Members of the Committee. My name is Connor
Ogrydziak, and it is an honor to bring my experiences before
you today.
Although I--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The meeting will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. We'll try again.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Although I had hoped that my arrival--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. Mr. Ogrydziak, we'll keep trying.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, and Members of the Committee--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Ogrydziak. It is an honor to bring my experience--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Ogrydziak. My name is Connor Ogrydziak, and it is an
honor to bring my experiences before you today. Although, I'd
hoped that my arrival to higher education would mark the
arrival to a bastion of free speech, many of my firsthand
experiences of freedom of speech violations at the University
of Buffalo came during my membership of UB's Chapter of Young
Americans for Freedom.
Two of the most prominent examples of freedom of speech
bias that I witnessed at the university each came in the form
of speaker events hosted by my chapter. In spring of 2022, as
vice chair of my chapter, I had the opportunity to assist with
hosting Lieutenant Colonel Allen West at UB, an event which was
proceeded by delays in the signing of our contract and a forced
venue change which was exposed by a freedom of information
request.
However, the most striking action taken against us followed
Lieutenant Colonel West's speech, which had included a
discussion of race in America and accounts from his decorated
past. When the floor was opened to a question-and-answer
session, student protesters shouted from their seats before the
audiovisual employees from UB Student Association, the student
government, cut powers to the event's microphones and speakers,
ending the session. Confrontations continued upon the exit from
the event. Once outside, as you just saw in the video before
the opening statements, chapter members were chased by a 100-
person mob across campus.
What that footage did not show was the former Chapter Chair
being forced into a bathroom where she called 911 for rescue
and another board member being physically attacked. With
silence from the university and charges not pressed by the Erie
County District Attorney's Office, I've since been left to
consider the precedent that sets for those who plan to protest
future events on campus. Though I may not be qualified to
determine what constitutes adequate evidence in the eyes of the
justice system, if those who were involved in this mob were
able to result to fear tactics and violence without
consequence, what is keeping a pattern of this despicable
behavior from being set and executed repeatedly?
This thought remained on my mind throughout the planning of
a March 2023 event that I hosted as Chair, featuring Michael
Knowles. This event would grow to gain more pushback than any
event on campus in the previous four years and provide the most
clear-cut examples of freedom of speech violations. This
pushback included delays in contract signing from UB Student
Association that deviated far from their outlying standard
course of action; condemnation of event by a local New York
State Senator and multiple Western New York-based
organizations; a circulated petition constructed by three
university professors calling for the cancellation of the
lecture, which gained thousands of student signatures; a forced
venue change orchestrated not only by university administration
this time, but voted on by a SUNY council; a multitude of
threats and torn literature; and even a tweet from Governor
Kathy Hochul on the day of the event calling comments from
Michael dehumanizing.
The decry of this event garnered a responding statement
from university president, Satish Tripathi, explaining that the
Constitution protects speech on campus, quote, ``no matter how
noxious the content.'' Based on the actions taken by faculty
and the rhetoric used by Tripathi, I cannot name more clear
examples of evidence that demonstrate the case of the
university concerned only with following the letter of the law,
rather than uplifting conservative values to a level equivalent
with the values of the left, which are often celebrated in the
university's own Distinguished Speakers Series. Unfortunately,
this was forced to extend into a Federal lawsuit, with
representation by Alliance Defending Freedom, once our YAF
chapter was banned from campus as the result of a new national
affiliation ban by the student government.
Though I graduated in the previous spring semester and am
no longer able to engage in discourse with opposing students,
I'm fortunate to still have friends on campus, including
current YAF board members who can. Something that has
particularly concerned me recently, both on campus and off, is
the outward support for Hamas under the guise of support for
Palestinian civilians. I will not generalize entire groups,
however, an unsettling number of students who appeared both in
a 300-person pro-Palestine march on campus, as well as a
protest against a pro-Israel speaker, did not solely speak out
in support of Palestinian civilians. Rather, these students
stated their support for Hamas directly. I would like to be
clear, regardless of background, I do not wish for civilian
death. Support for Hamas is not support for Palestinian
civilians, it is the opposite. Support for Hamas is support for
a terrorist organization, and this must know be misconstrued.
Regardless of what side of the political aisle you reside
on, it should be common ground that no student deserves to be
threatened, mistreated, or silenced on campus due to their
personal beliefs. Conservative students currently face a
relentless uphill battle for representation on campus. Though
we may seek support from outside groups and legislators such as
yourselves, we will not accept the label of victims. Standing
up for your beliefs will never be a waste of time. As
Americans, we hold this in our hearts.
I thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ogrydziak follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you.
Ms. Jordan, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JASMYN JORDAN
Ms. Jordan. Good morning, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member
Nadler, and the Members of the Committee. My name is Jasmyn
Jordan, and I'm blessed to have the opportunity to speak with
you all today.
I was raised in the church and homeschooled from preschool
through fifth grade. Both of these were crucial in shaping my
early upbringing and my world view. They gave me the strong
foundation of moral beliefs and values that the Constitution
was founded on. Lessons like ``iron sharpens iron,'' ``be a
leader not a follower,'' and ``so help me God,'' are engrained
into every aspect of my character. As I progressed to the
public-school environment, this strong moral compass guided me
throughout my journey, and I carried it with me to college.
In spring 2022, I joined Iowa Young Americans for Freedom
when I discovered that this organization aligned with the
Christian conservative values instilled in me by my church and
family. The more involved I became in the club, the more I
discovered that the playing field for freedom of speech on
college campuses was not equalized. The first time I noticed
this was when Iowa YAF hosted Kellyanne Conway as a speaker. In
response, I was doxed in a group chat of over 800 students and
was falsely labeled as a Nazi, a token, a White supremacist,
and a bigot. Some individuals even expressed that I made them
uncomfortable and feared that I might commit a hate crime
against them simply because I'm Black and hold conservative
principles. These students believe that if you're conservative,
you are hateful, support oppression, and only want to benefit
straight White men, even though such beliefs are untrue.
When we hosted Lieutenant Colonel Allen West to speak on
campus last year, he spoke on the topic of debunking diversity,
equity, and inclusion, and proved that America is not racist.
We used chalk advertisements to promote the lecture, which is
something many colleges do to effectively let students know
about upcoming events. Immediately, our chalk was altered,
which is a violation of school policy. New messages were put in
place saying that Allen West is racist, and that racism is
prevalent in schools, thus critical race theory should be
supported.
At Allen West's lecture, a protester stood in the back
holding a sign that read, ``Stop the alt-right. Punch your
local Nazi today.'' This is blatant irony. Conservatives are
slandered by students and faculty as harmful, yet here is an
obvious example of someone openly delivering a violent threat
and facing no repercussions. The entitlement continues.
I find that when a conservative doesn't want to hear a
speaker, they just don't attend the event. When a leftist
doesn't want to hear a speaker, they do everything they can to
shut the lecture down.
Our club recently hosted Matt Walsh. Students and faculty
were willing to do anything to cancel the event just because
they found Walsh's speech to be offensive. Some people were so
dedicated to silencing our voices that literally as one of with
us was advertising with chalk, a leftist student was erasing
each of those letters with a wipe. We received death threats,
along with plenty of verbal harassment. That night before the
speaking event, my hall mate, who happened to be the one
erasing the chalk, stalked outside of my bedroom door by
putting his ear on it to see if I was in my room because he was
just so outraged by my involvement. That was a terrifying
experience, but what I find to be more appalling is when I
talked to our hall coordinator about this and she replied,
``People are allowed to think, feel, and react however they
want to about this upcoming event.''
At the event, someone threw 20,000 marbles on the floor to
prevent people from entering the venue. Attendees were spat on.
Outside, a popular pep band well known to our school played
loud music to try and drown out the speaker's message.
I share these occurrences with you all to show that,
despite repeatedly meeting with the university administration,
the rules are continually permitted to be broken by left-
leaning students. They are, in fact, coddled by our school. The
university expresses affirmations and puts together support,
solidarity, and celebration spaces. These individuals act out
against conservatives without care or consequence and are
empowered to act this way because of the lack of action by the
administration and university leaders. Conservative
organizations do not get the same resources that these other
organizations receive. Conservatives often have to hide who
they are and what they believe in so that they do not lose
relationships or receive a lower grade or face constant doxing,
harassment, intimidation, or threats.
I went to college with the expectation that I would hear
different points of view because I thought it would be a place
where young people could come together, disagree, and still be
friendly and courteous to one another. However, after two
years, I've realized that this is not the case at all, and that
students who hold opposing views are often subjected to
frequent violent threats and other forms of harassment with no
accountability.
Our Founding Fathers guaranteed every U.S. citizen the
right to free speech in the Constitution. It is an important
resource for all Americans, not just a small percentage of
them, particularly if they hold different views and ideas than
those of others. To ensure that peaceful continuation of the
Nation, we must all come together and understand that differing
opinions and expressing them, we should nevertheless show
respect for one another and refrain from causing each other
bodily, mental, or emotional harm.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jordan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Jordan.
Ms. Silberstein, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF AMANDA SILBERSTEIN
Ms. Silberstein. ``I was alone in a world gone mad.'' These
are the words my grandfather wrote on the day in October 1942
after his father had been shot dead and the Jews in his small
Polish town, including his entire family, were deported to a
death camp. He was a teenager, alone in a labor camp, with a
bleak future filled with unimaginable suffering.
I have thought about my grandfather's words often in the 32
days since October 7th, as I have watched what I can only
describe as a world gone mad.
I have seen and heard things on and around Cornell's campus
that just over a month ago I could not have imagined. Cornell
Professor, Russell Rickford, publicly justified and celebrated
barbaric acts of terror as exhilarating and energizing,
describing the torture, rape, and murder of innocent women and
children as resistance.
I see classmates perpetuating age-old anti-Semitic tropes
on social media. I walk across the campus defaced with anti-
Israel signage and graffiti, seeing phrases such as ``f _ _ _
Israel'' and ``Zionism equals genocide.''
Anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are inextricably linked.
This is evidenced by the Jew hatred that consistently and
openly accompanies attacks on Zionism.
On campus, I am now confronted daily with shouts to free
Palestine from the river to the sea. This catchy chant is not
about peace or sovereignty for the Palestinian people. It is a
call for a Palestinian State extending from the Jordan River to
the Mediterranean Sea, a territory that encompasses the entire
State of Israel. It is a Jew-hating, genocidal mandate seeking
to deny the Jewish right to self-determination in Israel. It is
a call to exterminate all Jews in accordance with Hamas' open
and unequivocal goal. This chant is not about Palestinian life;
it is about Jewish death.
Imagine that you frequent Jewish events on campus. Imagine
that you live in a Jewish sorority house. Then imagine
scrolling on your phone one day only to discover that a fellow
student wants to shoot up the kosher dining halls and, I quote,
``gang rape all Jew pig women'' on campus. That is what my
peers and I experienced last week when reading the multiple
online threats made by a fellow student instructing other
Cornell students to assault Jews on campus, to follow them home
and slit their throats. This was not just hate speech. It was a
call to action and an immediate threat.
The sentiment did not begin with that student. Professors
and student organizations have been fueling Jew hatred and
spreading it across campus with disregard or potentially even
with deliberate intent to incite.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
I apologize, Ms. Silberstein. You can continue.
Ms. Silberstein. Even after that student's arrest,
professors have continued to teach blatant anti-Israel lessons
in their classrooms. Students in the course Race, Racism, and
Public Policy reported that Professor Lindsey played a video in
class claiming that Israel is committing apartheid, in which
students felt was an attempt to place blame for the terror
attack on Israel.
Students in the writing seminar True Stories taught by
Professor Glaubman reported that the Professor suggested that
Palestine is a textbook case of genocide, and sought to
pressure students who had previously expressed sympathy for
Israel to change their views. These not-so-subtle examples of
bullying and attempts at indoctrination have a tangible impact
on the pervasive Jew hatred spreading throughout my campus.
My grandmother, along with many of my family members and
close friends, live in Israel. Why are they calling me every
day to check in and see how I am doing? Do I feel safe on
campus? Is there enough security? Do other students know that I
am Jewish?
They live in an active war zone with rockets constantly
being fired at them, and yet my safety on an American college
campus is keeping them up at night.
Growing up with the firsthand accounts of what my
grandfather enduring during the Holocaust, I could never
comprehend how neighbors and friends stood by as Jews were
rounded up to be killed and how governments around the world
turned a blind eye, until now. Witnessing such unbridled and
unapologetic anti-Semitism unfold on my college campus is a
testament to the impacts of permitting Jew hatred to fester and
infect the mob mentality of impressionable students.
It is shocking that college campuses have devolved into
echo chambers, fostering animosity, aggression, and bigotry, a
shift that is painfully reminiscent of the vitriol and terror
that my grandfather endured in the 1930s. Anti-Semitism can no
longer be hidden under the guise of anti-Zionism. Disseminating
lies about Israel is an effort to validate violence against
Jews.
I am grateful for the supportive words from the Cornell
administration, but actions speak louder than words. We require
tangible measures, including strict adherence to policies that
forbid threatening or intimidating behaviors toward any
student, and ensures that purveyors of violence are removed
from campus. No student should ever live in fear for their
safety, regardless of background or religion.
What is happening on Cornell's campus and across
universities in this country is not about protecting
expressions of free speech or free exchange of ideas. It is
about enabling and even promoting intimidation and the threat
of harm to Jewish students and supporters of Israel. It is
imperative that decisive action is taken to ensure the
collective safety of students.
Thank you for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Silberstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Silberstein. Thank you for
your courage.
Mr. Marcus, you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH L. MARCUS
Mr. Marcus. Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler,
distinguished Members--
Chair Jordan. Make sure you got the mike--make sure your
mike's on there.
Mr. Marcus. Chair Jordan--
Chair Jordan. There you go. Thank you.
Mr. Marcus. Ranking Member Nadler, distinguished Members,
friends, brave students, thank you for conducting this
important hearing today. I am Chair of the Louis D. Brandeis
Center for Human Rights Under Law and former head of the U.S.
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.
At the Louis D. Brandeis Center, we fight anti-Semitism on
college campuses. I appreciate the kind words from both the
Chair and Ranking Member about the work that we are doing, more
work than ever before. I would have said, if this were October
6th, that we have never seen more anti-Semitism on college
campuses than we were seeing on October 6th. Our staff was
stretched. We were getting more complaints on a daily basis
than ever before and by far. We look back with nostalgia at
those days because, in a week since October 7th, we're hearing
from more students than we would in a month or more before
October 6th. Incidents have gone through the roof.
Let's think about that. We're talking about a situation in
which there was mass murder of civilians, organized rape,
torture, and desecration of corpses. The immediate reaction on
many, many college campuses was for student organizations to go
out and celebrate the murders, the rapes, and the torture. For
so many students that we work with, and you may get a sense
from this from the brave words that you've heard today from
these students, what they're facing is an extraordinary shock
and the difficulty of realizing that the masks are down, and
the students who they thought were their friends are
celebrating murders of people just like them.
This is partly about--
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Mr. Marcus. This is an issue of speech and it's also an
issue of civil rights. Again and again we are seeing Jewish
college students who are being prevented from expressing, not
only their viewpoints, but an integral part of their identity.
For many Jewish Americans, not all, but for many Jewish
Americans, Zionism, a commitment to the Jewish State of Israel,
is an important part of their identity. So, when they are
excluded as Zionists, they feel this as exclusion as Jews. A
rule against Zionists is a rule against Jews.
Even before October 7th, we were finding that large numbers
of college students, including strongly self-identified Jewish
college students such as people who are living in Jewish
fraternities and sororities, were unwilling on a consistent
basis to express their Jewish identity. Majorities were saying
that they sometimes felt it necessary to conceal their Jewish
identity, including, in particular, their support for the State
of Israel. In many cases, we saw this, not just as toxic,
hostile environments, but as specific actions to exclude Jewish
students who had that as part of their identity.
For instance, at Tufts and the University of Southern
California, clients of the Brandeis Center were members of
student government facing organized efforts to exclude them, to
throw them out of student government because as Jews they
support the State of Israel. Similarly--this is difficult, but
I have to say--at SUNY New Paltz, we had two clients who were
thrown out of a sexual assault survivors group because Zionism
was an important part of their identity. At the University of
Vermont, similar issues, as well as a book club in which one
could not participate if one was a Zionist.
Here we found viewpoint discrimination but not just
viewpoint discrimination; that is to say, people were shunned,
marginalized, and excluded not just because of their political
views but because who they are and what their identity is as
Jews.
At my own alma mater, the University of California at
Berkeley School of Law, many student organizations, including
law reviews, have adopted rules including bylaws and changes to
their constitutions that prevent anyone from speaking to their
groups who is a Zionist or a supporter of the State of Israel.
Let me be clear, they were prevented from speaking and are to
this day prevented from speaking on any topic.
This was not just a statement that if your viewpoint
disagrees with us, we don't want to hear you. This was, if you
are a Zionist, we don't want to hear you on any topic. If you
are a feminist legal scholar, we don't want to hear you on
feminist legal issues if you are a supporter of Israel, which
is to say most Jewish Americans would not be able to speak to
these groups because of their identity as Jews.
Since October 7th this has skyrocketed. We are hearing
continually of Jewish students being assaulted, Jewish property
being vandalized, Jewish students being harassed in any number
of different ways, not just on a few college campuses that one
might describe as hotspots but at so many colleges and
universities that one cannot identify any place better safe.
A few quick suggestions, if I may.
First, the Department of Education should have the same
tools to protect students' free speech that it has to protect
the very important issues of antidiscrimination.
Second, a coordinator within the Department to protect free
speech.
Third, the Department of Education has committed to issue a
regulation implementing the Executive Order on Combating Anti-
Semitism and has set a deadline of next month. Be nice to ask
them if they're going to do it.
Finally, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would provide for
the Department of Education a codified definition of anti-
Semitism similar to what's used around the world and has been
embraced by this administration. I would suggest that action
needs to be taken, and I commend you for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marcus follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Marcus.
Dr. Nadell, you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAMELA NADELL
Ms. Nadell. Thank you. Can you hear me?
Chair Jordan. Hit that. Pull it close. Is the light on?
Ms. Nadell. Let's try that. Sorry. Thanks.
Thank you, Chair Jordan, Ranking Member Nadler, and the
distinguished Members of this Committee, for inviting me to
testify today.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order.
Ms. Nadell. I am Pamela Nadell, professor of history at
American University. I am writing a book called, ``Anti-
Semitism, an American Tradition,'' under contract with W.W.
Norton. I am a recipient of a National Endowment for the
Humanities Public Scholars Award to write this book, and I am
delighted to be able to thank the Congress for supporting the
National Endowment for the Humanities for supporting work that
teaches us about the history of our Nation and for this
prestigious award.
Anti-Semitic behavior that we're seeing right now on
college campuses, as we have heard so brilliantly from the
students and from Mr. Marcus, this anti-Semitism is part of
anti-Semitism that is raging across the United States.
The last time that I testified before this Committee in
2017--November 2017, just--three months after the White
nationalists at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,
Virginia, marched across the University of Virginia campus
brandishing tiki torches, and they were deliberately imitating
the Nazi Storm Trooper parades of the 1930s. During that
hearing, I was opposed to Congress legislating any definition
about anti-Semitism, and I remain opposed now because the
definition keeps changing. It keeps morphing and changing over
time. What I can do is I can give you some of the themes that
are ensconced in the word ``anti-Semitism.''
Anti-Semites blame Jews for the death of Jesus and believe
that the Jewish people across eternity should be punished for
that crime. Anti-Semites believe that Jews have been corrupted
by money since Judas sold Jesus out for 30 pieces of silver.
What they've done since then is they have used different code
names over time--Shylock, Rothschild, and now George Soros--to
signify avaricious Jews.
Anti-Semites believe the Jews' primary loyalty is to their
people around the world and not to the nations that they live
in. That conspiracy theory gained traction in the United States
when Henry Ford published in The Dearborn Independent over 91
weeks a series called, ``The International Jew: The World's
Foremost Problem.'' Today, that charge the Jews are
internationalists goes under a different code word,
``globalist.''
Across American history people from all walks of life have
conveyed these anti-Semitic ideas. New Amsterdam's Governor,
Peter Stuyvesant, tried to expel, quote, ``this deceitful race,
such hateful enemies and blasphemers of the name of Christ.''
The future President, John Quinsy Adams, wrote, quote, ``The
Jews would steal your eyes out of your head if they possibly
could.'' Congressman Albert Johnson, a Chief Architect of the
1924 law establishing immigration quotas, told a Jewish
reporter, quote, ``If the Jewish people combine to defeat the
immigration bill as reported by the committee, their children
will regret it.''
That was the past. What about today? We are just five
months out from the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue, and
I could give you so many other examples.
As for the campus anti-Zionism meaning opposition to
Israel's policies, absolutely crosses the line into anti-
Semitism when it leads to discrimination, violence, harassment,
intimidation, and bullying, as we have heard from the students
today.
The barbarity of the Hamas invasion, the torture, the
rapes, the murders, and the taking of more than 200 hostages
adds a terrible new chapter to Jewish history. Anyone who
claims to care about human rights should denounce these
horrors. That so many students on college campuses not only did
not, but that they claim that the savagery was justified, has
caused not just students on campus, it has caused Jews around
the world deep anguish. What happened on October 7th was not
anti-Zionism, it was anti-Semitism.
I deplore hate speech, but in the United States, in
America, hate speech, including anti-Semitic speech, remains
protected speech, for that speech stands at the core of liberal
arts education, an education which I believe every single
Member of this Committee benefited from when you were students
at some of the Nation's elite colleges and universities and the
fine public colleges and universities that our country has.
The value of free speech does not permit discrimination
bias, threats, or violence in any form, including on the
campus. When these occur, our institutions of higher education
have mechanisms for dealing with them.
In May 2023, the White House published the U.S. National
Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism, the first time I believe
that any Nation in the world has published such a strategy. It
talks about how to use Title VI to deal with problems of anti-
Semitism on campus.
I am a proud American and I am a proud Jew. I never used to
be afraid to identify as a Jew in this world. Since 2017, since
that March in Charlottesville, I am afraid.
We can work together in this country to resolve this
problem, but it's not just a problem on campus.
Thank you, Chair.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Nadell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Doctor.
Ms. Burdett, you're recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF STACY BURDETT
Ms. Burdett. Thank you, Chair Jordan, for inviting me and
for having these students able to bring their voices here. We
have too many conversations about them without them.
Chair Nadler, thank you for always being a voice of
conscience in this country against anti-Semitism and for the
civil rights of all Americans.
Listening to these students, if I had a Sharpie, I'd want
to change my name tag just to say ``mom,'' because I too have a
son processing these events on a college campus.
A campus is the most diverse place most people will ever
encounter. For the rest of their lives, graduates will sort
themselves into the right neighborhoods, the right book clubs,
the right school districts, or houses of worship filled with
people who agree with them. In college, they live in the
reality that a free society isn't only about what you get to
say, it's what you have to hear. Managing that experience for
young adults is a very hard job for universities.
Students who can navigate the discomfort of conflicting
ideas--and we've heard some here today--they will be leaders
who can engage in the kind of give and take that we need to
solve the world's biggest problems. We're living in what it
looks like to not be able to have give and take to solve
problems.
Now, just because speech is legal, doesn't mean it can't be
harmful. University presidents and deans have made crystal
clear that anti-Semitism goes against their values. Protecting
expression also means making clear when it crosses a line into
threats or harassment.
Support for Palestinian rights, solidarity with Palestinian
suffering is not anti-Semitism. It is not anti-Semitism to
advocate for curing cancer either. When your advocacy turns
into threats of violence, eliminationist speech, hostility that
goes from online threats and translates into hate incidents
against people because of their identity, well, then we need to
see, and we have seen, schools enforcing their rules, protest
permits, and suspending perpetrators. Schools have been working
with law enforcement to have people arrested and to open
investigations. That's not enough.
The anti-Semitism task forces that have been announced in
some schools can go deeper. They can make transformative change
across systems. They can touch every aspect of student life and
what they learn. The National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism
did that kind of stocktaking. They spoke to 1,000 community
members and experts, and it commits our government to serious
action with time-down deadlines. Federal agencies have already
been fulfilling those commitments, including some mentioned by
my long-time colleague, Mr. Marcus.
In addition to the Department of Education, eight other
Federal agencies have affirmed in writing for the first time
that Title VI bans anti-Semitic discrimination in all Federally
funded programs. So, if you ride on a transit system that gets
Department of Transportation money, you are covered. These
changes and commitments are important and dramatic and
meaningful.
Even the little actions matter. Making a new complaint form
so that it says on the form and makes clear that if you're a
Jew, victim of harassment, you are covered. Making information
available in Hebrew and Yiddish for Orthodox Jews who walk to
and from synagogue and face attacks. They need to know their
rights and they need to know what recourse is available to
them.
This strategy--those are just a few examples of why the
action recommendations in this strategy are a real roadmap to
stem the normalization of anti-Semitism. It's got bipartisan,
bicameral support. So many organizations rallied around and
celebrated this strategy because it's such a serious plan.
First, Congress should implement it if they're serious.
Second, by the time a student files a complaint to the
Department of Education, we failed them. Their peer networks
have failed them, their school has failed them, and now they
will be making a complaint; the number is what Mr. Marcus
called through the roof. They will send those complaints to a
civil rights staff that is already processing a record number
of complaints with less capacity.
So, Congress should fund the Office of Civil Rights, put
investigators in the chairs for the complaints that we know are
going to be coming. We are sad, but we don't want those
students and families to wait.
Finally, it seems like the only thing communities and
Congress can agree on is to fund security, and that is
critical. We can't legislate, regulate, tabulate, or barricade
anti-Semitism out of our society. Jews are saying loudly and
clearly, they feel alienated, they feel alone, and they feel
disappointed in their allies. They want support. Prevention and
awareness building and community building aren't some kind of
extra. The Jewish community values those opportunities. You
should see how many groups are working with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture that never did before.
We want these programs. We want to engage in prevention.
The Department of Justice, civil rights--Community Relations
Service and those programs that we sometimes think of as an
afterthought, they are essential to prevent these incidents
before they escalate.
Jews are a small minority in this country, and we are
targeted so disproportionately by hate violence. That was true
before October 7th, it was true 10 years ago. We don't have the
luxury right now to be partisans of anything but our safety.
Right now, the national strategy is the best blueprint for
action I have seen in 30 years of writing blueprints for
action.
The clock is ticking for us and for Jewish students. So,
the question isn't whether but how quickly is Congress going to
fund and implement it.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Burdett follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chair Jordan. Thank you, Ms. Burdett.
We will now proceed under the five-minute rule with
questions.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Issa, for five minutes.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The testimony today, obviously, is concerning. I want to
touch on a few points and then ask a couple of short questions.
I wish I had more time.
I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood. I grew up at a time in
which there were wars between Arabs and Jews in the region.
Those wars have ended. When this war began, I was in Bahrain, a
country that assigned diplomatic relations with Israel. They
didn't do it because the Palestinians were being treated well
or ill-treated; they did it because, in fact, Israel is a
partner they wanted to have against Iran.
I'm going to say here today, and the protesters who have
all been escorted out probably don't understand, but they are
playing into the hands of Iran. They are playing into the hands
of the last major nation to be, not just anti-Semitic, but
wanting to destroy the State of Israel and doing it, in no
small part, by funding activities around places, including
college campuses.
So, I'm going to agree personally with Ms. Burdett. Yes, we
need to fully fund, but we need to fully fund investigations
into the funding that goes to anti-Semitism, into a pattern
that we see here today.
I want to say to all of you who--both Young Americans for
Freedom and non-YAF members, thank you for standing up to be
conservatives on campus and taking it.
Particularly to Ms. Silberstein, I have a question for you.
You know the history of the Holocaust. You know that before the
terrible time and the mass murders, in fact, Jews had ducked
their heads. They had been forced to reduce or deny who they
were.
Do you see that as a young Jew? Do you see that as a
pattern that today we are at risk if we don't use the full
power of civil rights to protect the right of people to have
their religion, be proud of it, and be proud of all that goes
with it?
Ms. Silberstein. Thank you for your question. The Jewish--
the history of the Jewish people is one of constant oppression
and fear for our lives and for being persecuted for who we are.
As I've mentioned, my grandfather experienced this throughout
his life and was prominently in his childhood during the
Holocaust and suffering at Auschwitz. We are seeing it very
prevalent, especially on college campuses today.
I never thought twice about putting on my Jewish star every
day, about opening my computer with my Hebrew keyboard in
class. Today, I do think twice about that. The thought of being
persecuted for who I am, being looked at differently, and being
discriminated against crosses my mind multiple times a day.
I do see a positive path forward for us. I think that Jews
are--we are resilient, we are perseverant, and we will not stop
shouting out and voicing our concerns and voicing our fear
until it is dealt with. I really do appreciate you all
considering this today.
Mr. Issa. Mr. Marcus, are you concerned that this movement
is not just pro-Palestinian or just anti-Semitic but, in fact,
massive amounts of dollars in support, not just here but
globally, is, in fact, being spent coming from the very country
who paid for the 5,000, now 10,000-plus rockets that have
fallen on Israel that paid for those weapons and it continues
to be virtually the sole funder of attempts to destabilize
Israel and, in fact, led to the murder of more than 2,000
Israelis?
Mr. Marcus. Thank you, Congressman Issa, for your question.
It is well put. Yes, indeed, what we are seeing today,
especially post-October 7th, is not just harassment of Jewish
students, although we are seeing that. It certainly isn't just
support of Palestine, which in and of itself is simply a
political view. What we're seeing is a lethal hatred which may
be supported by funds from other countries.
To that extent, I believe we need to know, first, are
colleges making the disclosures that are required by law? If
not, are there appropriate sanctions being brought on them?
Second, we need to know, if funds are being brought in from
abroad, what is the impact, not just on these groups, but on
university curricula, personnel, and other decisionmaking?
Mr. Issa. Well, and you have our pledge, and my pledge
particularly, to a two-pronged approach: Combat anti-Semitism
using the power of this Committee and particularly civil
rights, and look into and root out the continued foreign
influence that may affect, not just here but around the world,
anti-Semitism and anti-Israel.
Mr. Chair, thank you for your indulgence. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Member from New York,
Mr. Nadler, for five minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Burdett, do you agree that if Congressional Republicans
really cared about enforcing Title VI, they would support fully
funding rather than trying to cut funding for the Office of
Civil Rights at the Department of Education to ensure that the
office has adequate staffing in anticipation of a surge in
Title VI complaints?
Ms. Burdett. I would say that anyone who cares about civil
rights and enforcement against anti-Semitic actions should fund
that office.
Mr. Nadler. Ms. Burdett, was the Office for Civil Rights
already inundated with complaints of anti-Semitism and
Islamophobia before October 7th?
Ms. Burdett. They had their record year of complaints in
2016, I'm sorry to say, and that record was broken in 2022 at
almost 19,000 complaints. They have worked through them, but
they're working with, I think, 12 percent less staff. So, it
just doesn't make any sense at all.
Mr. Nadler. What happened after October 7th?
Ms. Burdett. After October 7th, we already know from NGO's,
like the ones cited where my professional alma mater ADL,
talking about 400--hundreds of percent increase. If you ask,
Mr. Nadler, the NYPD, they--even reports coming to them in just
three weeks have been skyrocketing. When you compare it to an
average month of October, there are three times as many
incidents. I'm sure police departments in a lot of
Congressional districts would say the same.
Mr. Nadler. What do you think will happen going forward?
Ms. Burdett. We know that every time Israel is in the
headlines, unfortunately, attacks against Jews go up. So
inappropriate. There's no war, there's no conflict, there's no
injustice that entitles someone to punch their neighbor in the
face, to spit at them, and all the things we've heard here from
these students.
I think that this war won't be a six-day war. This
conflict, the tension on campus is going to take a very long
time to work through. It's really a work in progress, and I
think we're going to be dealing with these incidents for a long
time. That's why I mentioned the Community Relation Service. I
don't know if we think about it every day, but those civil
rights tools and instruments and outreach programs that we
have, they're going to work first. The universities and those
programs have the ability to help Ms. Silberstein right now
without a law and without a markup.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Professor Nadell and Ms. Burdett, in your testimony, you
noted the White House's National Strategy to Counter Anti-
Semitism. For the record, I would also note that the White
House is also pursuing an analogous national strategy to
counter Islamophobia.
To the extent you are able, can you explain the National
Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism and highlight why you think
it's valuable and effective?
Ms. Nadell. Thank you. Thank you for your question. I was
one of the 1,000 people that the White House talked to as they
were developing the National Strategy to Counter Anti-Semitism.
This is an extraordinary document. It runs to, I don't know,
60-70 pages. It is filled with recommendations about what can
be done to respond to anti-Semitism in different venues and in
different agencies in the U.S. Government.
As I said in my opening remarks, I know of no country that
has ever developed such a strategy. Believe me, as we know from
the testimony of Ms. Silberstein, we know that other countries
could have developed this if they had the goodwill to do so.
So, for example, it talks about, as Ms. Burdett was talking
about, it talks about what should be done in the Office of
Civil Rights in the Department of Education. Since the Obama
Administration, Title VI has protected Jewish students under
Title VI by understanding that they need to be protected based
on ancestry and based on ethnicity because Title VI doesn't
specify based on religion. To understand Jewish identity, it's
a very complicated phenomenon. So, there are these kinds of
measures there.
What I'm hearing from Ms. Burdett, and I'm not an expert on
funding in the government, is that it's not been sufficiently
funded. What is very clear, both from Ms. Burdett's testimony
and from Mr. Marcus' testimony, is that it's going to need more
support than ever before.
Thank you.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
Let me just say to Ms. Jordan and Mr. Ogrydziak--I hope I
haven't mispronounced your name. As a very proud leftwing
Liberal, I hold no truck with trying to silence conservative
voices or any other voices on college campuses or anywhere
else. Freedom of speech is a fundamental value.
I will just say that this is not new. When I was an
undergraduate at Columbia, I was shouted down by an
organization called the Students for Democratic Society because
I was not leftwing enough, in their opinion. This is something
that is an ongoing fight in the liberal society we once
conducted. I am sorry for your experience.
Oh, and I ask unanimous consent to include the following
items in the record: Written testimony of Jonathan Greenblatt,
CEO and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League; a
letter dated November 6, 2023, from Secretary of Education
Miguel Cardona to Speaker Mike Johnson outlining the Department
of Education's efforts to combat anti-Semitism and Islamophobia
on college campuses; an op-ed piece in The New York Times,
dated October 30, 2023, coauthored by the deans at the
Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the
Columbia School of International and Public Affairs; and an
article from Inside Higher Education, titled, ``House
Republicans Plan to Cut Education Department's Budget,'' noting
that Republican appropriators want to cut about 25 percent from
the Department's Office of Civil Rights.
Mr. Issa. [Presiding.] That was a long title.
Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Issa. We now recognize the gentleman from Colorado for
his five minutes.
Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Marcus, I want to visit with you for a few minutes, I
guess, about an issue. I feel like we're talking about college
campuses right now, and we really should be talking at a much
younger age about how to deal with this problem. By the time
students get to college campuses, they have certain views, and
oftentimes engrained, that are then reinforced by other
students.
Would you advocate for some type of education or other
awareness for younger adults in our K-12 system? Isn't our K-12
system really letting down the concept that we have in America
for free speech, but also for responsible free speech, for
speech that doesn't include hate?
Mr. Marcus. Congressman, I would like to be able to tell
you that you don't need to worry that this is just a campus
problem, but the fact is that it is not. K-12 is important not
only because of the attitudes that students develop and bring
to college, but also because there are increasing issues that
we see currently in public elementary and secondary school,
including any number of different forms of discrimination. We
see that especially in certain schools, especially on the West
Coast, that have a particular form of ethnic studies which,
unfortunately, has involved some degree of anti-Semitic
stereotypes and defamations.
There are things that educators can do to address this.
Certainly, there are more school districts that are
incorporating Holocaust education into their programming. What
studies are showing is that Holocaust education isn't
necessarily sufficient, in that it's better to have also
education into the ways in which anti-Semitism manifests itself
today. So, that sort of programming is important, but more than
that, I do think we need to have more attention than we have
been about the increasing problem of anti-Semitism also in K-12
schools.
Mr. Buck. You mentioned funding from other countries. Do
you have any direct evidence of funding from other countries?
Because I honestly believe that it goes on in a lot of
different areas. One of the great things about America is we're
open. One of the great vulnerabilities we have is that we're
open and social media is being used to manipulate us in a lot
of different ways.
Do you have any evidence that Iran or any other foreign
country is using our social media in this country to promote
anti-Semitism?
Mr. Marcus. During the Trump Administration, the Department
of Education revealed various kinds of evidence that there were
not just significant contributions coming from the Gulf States
and elsewhere in the world, but also contributions that were
not disclosed as required by law.
Mr. Buck. These are to college--
Mr. Marcus. To colleges and universities.
Mr. Buck. I believe there was also an effort by the Chinese
Communist Party to establish groups on campuses.
Mr. Marcus. Yes.
Mr. Buck. The Confucius Center, I think, they were often
called.
Mr. Marcus. That's right. If I may, Congressman, the
problem is also going the other way around, which is to say the
increasing perception that there may be support from college
campuses for terrorism abroad; not just money coming one way,
but support coming the other.
Mr. Buck. You're not suggesting that colleges are
supporting terrorism abroad, but students or professors on
college campuses are supporting terrorism?
Mr. Marcus. There are student groups who have indicated
that they are not just in favor of the same issues as Hamas,
but that they are part of that movement. There is a point at
which under Federal terrorism law that promoting the program
and agenda and ideas of a U.S. State Department-designated
terrorist organization may constitute material support for
terrorism.
Mr. Buck. So, where do we draw the line between speech and
where it crosses the line? The Supreme Court has made clear
that anything that encourages violence--and I'm not using the
technical words--but crosses the line. Is anti-Semitic speech
by itself a violative of the First Amendment?
Mr. Marcus. In the case of support for terrorism, of
course, under the--
Mr. Buck. Yes, absolutely, absolutely. I'm just suggesting
someone--we have hateful speech all around, and it's offensive.
Frankly, I want to be the first, and as all my colleagues on
this Committee are, to condemn anti-Semitism and Islamophobia,
racism, and anti-Christian speech. It's terrible. It's hateful.
It shouldn't be in this marketplace of ideas that we have. Is
it--without threats of violence, is that speech a violative of
the First Amendment?
Mr. Marcus. So, what I would say to you, Congressman, is
that the Supreme Court has properly been protective of a wide
range of speech, including much speech that we would describe
as hate speech. However, what we are seeing over and over again
on college campuses is that where you see intense anti-Jewish
hate speech, you will almost always also find hateful conduct.
Hateful conduct, not just words, it can be assault, it could be
exclusion, it's happening over and over again.
So, to address the anti-Semitism, I think that there is
sufficient conduct we need to go after. In terms of speech, I
think there should be the same protections regarding speech in
this area as in any others.
Mr. Buck. I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair, when he showed his video this morning, we
witnessed in that video someone asking the question, is free
speech dead on campus? I think that question applies to
Congress. It's ironic that we're holding this hearing today
about censorship and speech on campus, but last night, MAGA
Republicans and others censured the only Palestinian voice in
the House of Representatives because they didn't like what she
had to say.
She didn't threaten anybody. She did not advocate for
violence. She stated a view as happens on college campuses, it
happens across the country. We have freedom of speech in this
country. She was censured last night for exercising her First
Amendment right to freedom of speech. We're not setting a very
good example here in Congress.
We are all reeling from the situation in the Middle East.
Passions are running high throughout the country, but they are
especially intense on college campuses. Every student,
including students of Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, or Arab
backgrounds, deserves a safe college learning environment free
from threats of violence and discrimination. It should go
without saying that threatening violence against people because
of who they are is illegal and never acceptable.
The Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights is
primarily responsible for combatting anti-Semitism,
Islamophobia, and other forms of discrimination in higher
education. The Office of Civil Rights has already seen a
dramatic rise in Title VI discrimination claims in the wake of
the October 7th attack by Hamas. The Office of Civil Rights
needs sufficient funding to carry out its civil rights
enforcement mission.
President Biden's budget requested a 27 percent increase in
funding for the DOE's Office of Civil Rights, but MAGA
Republicans are pushing to slash its budget. MAGA Republicans
need to stop playing political games with Jewish lives, with
Muslim lives, and all students' lives by giving the Department
of Education the money that it needs to keep students safe.
Professor Nadell, what lessons can we draw from the long
history of anti-Semitism, and what do you think criticism of
the Government of Israel--or let me ask it this way: Do you
think that criticism of the Government of Israel is always
anti-Semitic, or does it depend on context and how such
criticism is expressed?
Ms. Nadell. Thank you for your question. As a historian, I
think everybody depends on context. I think we always need to
think more broadly.
It's very clear the criticism of the Government of Israel
is not ipso facto anti-Semitic. If it were, hundreds of
thousands of Israelis who we have watched in the past months
turning out to throng the streets of Tel Aviv, and if every
city and hamlet in Israel would have been seen as anti-Semitic.
So, criticism of the government's policies is not by itself
anti-Semitic. However, what is anti-Semitic is absolutely to
deny the Jews the right of self-determination, a right that is
internationally protected, and to call for the destruction of
the State of Israel. So, there's no question about that.
What we know from the long history of anti-Semitism is we
know that Jews live with memories of hate against their people
that go back to ancient times, and that they live with the fear
or with the sense that they may encounter it in their lifetimes
and that they are afraid that it will continue forever. We know
that anti-Semitism in those three little examples I gave you,
that anti-Semitism has coursed across American history. It has
risen in some time periods, and it has been more under the
radar than others.
Historians used to call the years between 1933-1945 the
high tide of American anti-Semitism. I have been saying, not
just since October 7th, I have been saying for far longer that
we are living in the high tide of American anti-Semitism, but I
won't be around to write about that. What we hear from the
students, but also what we hear from those who are afraid to
walk into their synagogues, who are concerned about the future
of their children, of their grandchildren.
Ms. Nadell. My niece did not send her daughter to a Jewish
preschool on the day of global jihad because she was afraid it
would be attacked. We need to deal with that in the United
States.
Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you. It wasn't made easier
when ex-President Trump made his remarks about there is good
people on both sides when he was talking about down in
Charlottesville.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Ms. Nadell. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. The gentleman yields back.
I now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz.
Mr. Gaetz. I want Israel to win and Hamas to lose, but this
is not an Armed Services Committee hearing about the military,
it's a Judiciary hearing about speech. In that vein, I am
reminded of the great words of the philosopher Austin Powers
who said, ``There's only two things I can't stand: People who
are intolerant of other people and the Dutch.''
A similar tension seems to be on display today, because on
one side of the witness table we have people saying we have
speech that we would like to have vindicated, and we are under
this tremendous pressure from these entities that offer
hecklers veto of what we're trying to get out. Then on the
other side of the table you have people saying, well, there's
speech we really don't like that's anti-Semitic and
problematic, and we've got to figure out ways to root it out.
There is an inherent tension in having that discussion on
those terms. Increasingly, it feels as though, if we like
speech, then any effort to constrain that speech is really
problematic and the Committee needs to explore it. If we don't
like speech, we're increasingly censuring it on the House
floor, we're increasingly confronting it on pretty negative
terms.
So, I guess I want to just go through some of the
statements some of our witnesses made. So, Mr. Marcus, a
celebration of what happened on October 7th, let me disclaim,
is offensive, horrid, but is it Constitutionally protected
speech?
Mr. Marcus. Thank you, Congressman. It may be, but it
depends, and I'll give you an example.
Mr. Gaetz. OK.
Mr. Marcus. If you say, I'm going to celebrate Hamas, and
then you celebrate them by giving a big talk, doing a little
dance, that can be deeply offensive and protected.
Mr. Gaetz. Right.
Mr. Marcus. If you say, I celebrate Hamas, I am part of
Hamas, their mission is my mission and I will do what I can to
advance them, that may be material support for terrorism,
depending on what exactly you do.
Mr. Gaetz. No, I think that's right, but what you focused
on there is the conduct. I think that was a really good
explanation in parsing of it, because speech is different than
conduct. When someone says, I associate with this known
terrorist movement, then that association has more sort of a
conduct flavor than someone saying, I think what happened on
October 7th was good, right?
Mr. Marcus. So, I think that's right, Congressman, but with
one caveat from the law, interpreting the Terrorism Act, which
is the following: Material support doesn't need to be dollars;
it could be guns. It doesn't need to be guns; it could be pens.
It can be the sort of PR activity that could be done by a
commercial firm.
Mr. Gaetz. Now, see, that's the thing. PR activity sounds a
lot like people talking. So, I just we think have to be careful
with that.
I do want to move on because--I think it was Dr. Nadell. Is
it possible to criticize George Soros without being anti-
Semitic?
Ms. Nadell. I don't know all the tropes that people use to
associate with George Soros, but when they talk about--
Mr. Gaetz. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. No, no, no. Not when
they talk about something else. Is criticism against George
Soros ever not anti-Semitic? That's the question.
Ms. Burdett. I would have to address that.
Ms. Nadell. Ms. Burdett has offered to answer that
question.
Mr. Gaetz. No, no, but you mentioned Mr. Soros. I want you
to answer it. There's no phone and a friend here in the
Judiciary Committee.
Ms. Nadell. What has happened in the United States is that
we use different code words.
Mr. Gaetz. That's not the question.
Ms. Nadell. No, wait, I'm answering your question.
Mr. Gaetz. OK.
Ms. Nadell. We use different code words to disguise anti-
Semitism. So, Soros has become the code word that replaced
Rothschild, that replaced Shylock.
Mr. Gaetz. Is it possible to criticize them without being
anti-Semitic?
Ms. Nadell. I don't know the context. I'm not going to talk
without knowing context.
Mr. Gaetz. That is just an astonishing thing. Similarly,
you said any critique of globalism is anti-Semitic. Now, that
really is an Austin Powers--
Ms. Nadell. No, what I said was that the word
``globalist''--I didn't say any critique of globalism.
Mr. Gaetz. OK.
Ms. Nadell. What I said was the word ``globalist'' had
become the new code word--
Mr. Gaetz. It's not--hold on. I'm going to read--
Ms. Nadell. --for the internationalist code word from the
previous period.
Mr. Gaetz. You ascribe that motive. See, when I criticize
globalism, I'm often criticizing the United Nations, which then
in turn goes around and criticizes Israel. So, if critiquing a
globalist entity that criticizes Israel is anti-Semitic--
Ms. Nadell. So, why use the word ``globalist'' instead of
the U.N.?
Mr. Gaetz. Well, because the U.N.'s goals are to have
global order over things that deprive countries of their
sovereignty. One of those countries is Israel. That is the
great hypocrisy of what I think is, frankly, a reverse trope
that any criticism of Soros or any criticism of globalism is
somehow anti-Semitic. Sometimes they're just criticisms of
Soros and of globalism.
I see my time's expired, and I yield back.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman and yield back.
We now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for being here to testify.
Like so many millions of people, I watched the events of
October 7th with unbridled horror. I found it hard to wrap my
head around the magnitude of the brutality, the nature of the
butchery, the murder of whole families, the rape of women, the
desecration of bodies, the burning families alive, families
clutching each other lying in bed as they were machine-gunned.
I ask myself, how is it possible that people could commit such
acts of barbarism?
I think I probably speak for many in the Jewish community
when I say that as horrifying and traumatizing it was to
witness that, it amplified the pain to see the reaction. The
almost immediate reaction in the United States and around the
world was to not condemn the butchers, but to condemn the
victims, to celebrate Hamas' acts of unbridled terror.
Then I asked myself a different question: How is it
possible that people could justify the butchery of whole
families, the wanton, deliberate violence directed against
these innocent civilians? How could that be celebrated? I don't
think it can be celebrated unless you view Israeli life, unless
you view Jewish life as somehow less than a human life.
We spend a lot of time debating the definition of ``anti-
Semitism.'' I'm not sure I could give you a clear, analytic
answer to that question, but seems to me at its most basic,
viewing Jewish life as less than human life is the very
definition of anti-Semitism, or it's certainly anti-Semitism in
its most extreme form.
What I see happening on the college campuses, with the
glorification, with people talking about how empowered they
felt at seeing women butchered, peace activists mowed down, the
fact that many Jewish students don't feel comfortable
expressing their Jewish identity at a time of their lives when
they should be free to discuss whatever issues they want, free
to be themselves, it's just horrifying.
I remember years ago talking to the President of the Jewish
community in France at a time when many Jews were leaving
France because they didn't feel safe there, and he told me the
French Government was doing what they could to protect the
Jewish community, but who wanted to live in a country where you
needed protection. I remembered thinking years ago, thank God
that's not the case in the United States. Now it is the case.
Not for Jews alone. We've seen the horrific rise of
Islamophobia. Even as we mourn the death of an older Jewish man
in Los Angeles who died when struck at a protest, we mourn the
loss of a six-year-old Muslim child. It's just horrifying.
Dr. Nadell, I'd be interested in your thoughts on how you
see anti-Semitism today, how is it different in character than
what we've seen in the past?
Ms. Burdett, I'd be interested in your thoughts on how hate
online leaps into the real world and what we might do to combat
that.
Ms. Nadell. The anti-Semitism that we see today, since
you've closed with hate online, is horrifically magnified in a
way that it has never been this magnified before because it
is--you can reach millions and millions of people by expressing
anti-Semitic ideas, including all these old ideas about Jews as
internationalists and all the ideas about Jews as corrupted by
money.
So, what we have in this moment in time is we have millions
of people, especially when leading personalities, whether they
are members of the government or they are entertainment
figures, when they posted these kinds of anti-Semitic messages,
and then they--it just explodes. It goes viral.
I don't spend time looking at the social media because I
think you could just spend all your time doing it. I had a
student last semester in my course, Anti-Semitism: Enduring
Hatred, who told me that she had spent the previous week 40
hours looking at TikTok videos. So, I looked at her, I said,
``When did you ever do any of your schoolwork?'' I was a little
concerned. The point is that anti-Semitism is magnified in a
way today because of social media that was just unimaginable in
the earlier eras.
Mr. Issa. I thank the gentleman.
We now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for our panelists, for all of you being here
today. I appreciate it very much.
So, I just want to point out to my friend from Georgia, who
has left the room, that apparently 22 MAGA Democrats also voted
in favor of the censure resolution last night. So, I think
that's important to get out.
Be that as it may, I want to just kind of get into some of
this, deal with some of the anti-Semitism. We'll also talk
about the anticonservative bias in education.
So, I am going to give you two personal examples. I belong
to a church. I think it's the only American church that's ever
been actually an extermination order was issued by a Governor,
Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri, to actually give license to
kill members of my religion over 150 years ago. I can a little
bit--the other thing is--just to relate to this.
So, we talked about the U.N. just a moment ago. So, at 40
years old, having practiced law and tried literally hundreds of
cases, actually representing the NGO's at the United Nations
and other multilateral institutions--by the way, there is no
other organization I know that is so openly anti-Semitic, in my
opinion, than the U.N. The Israeli representative was
constantly ostracized and ignored and maltreated, in my
opinion.
Anyways, so I decided to go back because being a lawyer at
the international level, that was good. Being a Ph.D. at the
international level and a lawyer really got a lot of credence.
So, I decided to go back to get my degree. Unafraid, very
conservative.
The one thing I know is when I was on that campus in
Arizona--by the way, somebody mentioned that I graduated from
elite universities--I can't wait to tell ASU, U of A, and BYU
they're considered elite by some Congressional witnesses.
The point is, as I was there, I had to duck and hide my
beliefs because the professors held every--they held you.
You're sitting in a master's degree or Ph.D. class in seminar,
how could I express my thoughts knowing that a grade below of B
because a professor, the professor disagrees with me? I
experienced that. They control your destiny.
So, I want to ask about--to our three students. Tell us a
little bit--we'll start with you, Ms. Silberstein, Ms. Jordan,
and Mr. Ogrydziak--is that how you say it? Close enough--a
little bit about whether the administration or the
institutional--or the institution, whether it's Cornell, Iowa,
or Buffalo, did anything to hinder your identity as a student
or your beliefs or your--let's just go with that.
Ms. Silberstein. Thank you, Congressman. As for Cornell, in
the case of anti-Semitism, following the massacre on October
7th, President Pollack issued a statement in which she
essentially conflated the horrific massacre of Jews on that day
with various natural disasters occurring in the world, such as
an earthquake in Afghanistan, which was extremely baffling,
tone deaf, and insensitive, and truly hurtful to the Jewish
community on campus.
Now, many incidents, as I've mentioned, have occurred since
then in which the Jewish students at Cornell have been
threatened repeatedly, most recently with a student's comment
posted online to directly go after and attack students.
Mr. Biggs. So, when we have a threat, that is not protected
speech, that is criminal speech. Was there criminal
prosecution, investigation, or arrest made in that case.
Ms. Silberstein. In the case of the student who was just
arrested?
Mr. Biggs. Yes, tell us.
Ms. Silberstein. Yes. So, this student was arrested, I
believe, last week, and he was arraigned. He is currently being
held. His parents claimed that he made these comments due to
his mental health issues. Regardless of any mental health
issues that could have caused these statements, it's evident
that the sentiment created on campus by professors and students
alike of pervasive and just widespread anti-Semitism and anti-
Israel rhetoric has created such an atmosphere that has enabled
him to make these comments. That really fueled the fire within
many students who may feel hostile to Israel to attack Jews
because of it.
Mr. Biggs. Mr. Chair, while my time has expired, I ask the
questions of the others, may they respond, sir?
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] They may respond to that.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
Ms. Jordan. Thank you for your question. So, our flyers
have been torn down. Our chalk is washed away. We even had an
advertisement sign for one of our speakers, Chloe Cole, stolen.
The police recovered the sign, but they didn't figure out, I
guess, who took the poster. We never received that back. This
stuff has been ongoing, continues to go on. It's obviously
showing that there isn't equal opportunity for our speech.
The left-leaning students' groups, they get their posters--
like, theirs are literally right next to ours. You can see the
remnants of the tape and our poster design still there, but
then their posters are completely unattacked. I have met with
the university president, I've met with other staff members to
discuss this, and it just seems like there's no move toward
change. I've asked. I was like, ``OK, what can we do to at
least let our messages be heard, so we can have people attend
our events and hear different points of view?'' I still haven't
received any other options.
Because, it's a shame that we have to have different things
be done so that we can have our speech heard. We should have
the equal opportunity to have our flyers up just like their
left-leaning students. We should have equal opportunity for our
chalk to be unerased, so that we shouldn't have to do something
different.
Also, all these actions that these students are doing
violate school policy. It's very clear in the handbook. Again,
it still keeps happening. So, I just would like to see
something positive. Like, just us being able to stay
represented without being hindered.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Thank you for your question. I was very
fortunate myself to not face any academic penalty while I was
still enrolled at the university; however, I was also a
biological sciences major. Oftentimes, political topics stayed
outside the classroom. However, we did have those three
professors that I had mentioned in my opening statement
circulating a petition heavily protesting our Michael Knowles
events, calling for it to get shut down.
So, I do recognize as well that, while I was lucky, I did
not have these professors in class. I recognize other students
may not be quite so lucky.
Additionally, it was very obvious that the protests
following our Allen West lecture was mishandled. There was
danger posed to students. This was widely documented through
police reports, yet there was no apology from any university
officials.
Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California for
five minutes.
Mr. Swalwell. Ms. Burdett, you are an expert on anti-
Semitism, and I want to read a few different statements to you,
and if you can just give me a yes or no as to whether you would
consider them anti-Semitic.
I prefer my kids knew Hanukkah from Kwanzaa. At least it will
come with some financial engineering.
Anti-Semitic or not?
Ms. Burdett. Very potentially.
Mr. Swalwell. ``I just think that's what they're about, is
making money,'' in a reference to Jared Kushner and his Jewish
family. You think that's anti-Semitic.
Ms. Burdett. Anti-Jewish stereotype.
Mr. Swalwell.
Planned Parenthood was made by Margaret Sanger, a known
eugenics, with the KKK to control the Jew population. When I
say Jew, I mean the 12 lost tribes of Judah, the blood of
Christ, who the people known as the race Black really are. This
is who our people are.
Anti-Semitic or not?
Ms. Burdett. A little too confusing for me to decipher.
Mr. Swalwell. We'll get to that.
This ain't a game. Imma use you as an example to show you the
Jewish people that told you to call me that no one can threaten
or influence me. I told you, this is war. Now, gone get you
some business.
Still confusing?
Ms. Burdett. Uses two stereotypes about Jews as being
motivated only by business and having nefarious control that
isn't real.
Mr. Swalwell. Last one:
I'm a bit sleepy tonight, but when I wake up, I'm going death
con 3 on Jewish people. The funny thing is I actually can't be
anti-Semitic because Black people are actually Jew. Also, you
guys have toyed with me and tried to blackball anyone who
opposes your agenda.
What do you think about that one?
Ms. Burdett. Anti-Semitic.
Mr. Swalwell. Yes. So, what I'm concerned about is that we
have anti-Semitic posts coming from this Committee. Last
October, the Chair tweeted out on October 6th, ``Kanye. Elon.
Trump.''
Those five statements that I just read to you were from
Kanye West, who had made a number of anti-Semitic statements
before this tweet was put up, and then made the death con
statement about a day after the tweet was put up.
I, the Chair at the time, Chair Nadler, many people in the
Jewish community, asked the Chair, Chair Jordan, to take this
down. It wasn't just Members of Congress. It was nonpartisan
Jewish organizations who said, ``Kanye West is anti-Semitic.''
I don't know what you're doing, but please do not give him a
platform by leaving this tweet up.
It stayed up for months. Defiantly, the Chair kept this
tweet up.
So, Mr. Chair, I want to be just today your accountability
partner, your online accountability partner, and just go
through your social media. Because if we're going to have a
hearing about anti-Semitism, we can't allow a tweet like this
to be posted on our side or your side.
In 2019, Chair Jordan also tweeted, ``@Tom Steyer,'' and
used the dollar sign for Steyer, to spell his name. Again,
known Jewish philanthropist playing into what Ms. Burdett
mentioned earlier, tropes about Jewish people and money.
So, this Committee should have a conversation and a hearing
about anti-Semitism. I would first insist that the Chair--I
don't know why he put this tweet up. Either he believes it,
which I hope is not the case, or he just wanted to own the
libs. If that's what you're doing, you're hurting a lot of
people by keeping that tweet up for so long, especially knowing
what it represents.
If we're talking about being your online accountability
partner, Chair, you still have a subpoena in your inbox that's
about 500 days old.
With that, I'll yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. First, does the Chair wish to dignify that
with a response? I can yield time.
Chair Jordan. No, I don't.
Mr. McClintock. It seems to me there are only two ways I
know of to resolve our differences as human beings. There's
reason and there's force. I don't know of any other way.
The American Founders established an empire of reason,
democracy. Freedom of speech is the beating heart of democracy.
Fact, the sole purpose of this building and the others like it
in this complex is solely to talk out our differences and
resolve them. It seems to me there's only one way to separate
truth from lies or wisdom from folly, and that's to expose one
to the other and then trust the people to sort out the
difference. Our entire form of government is based on that.
Speech can be ugly, it can be disgusting, hateful,
prejudiced, alarming, but it can never be dangerous to a free
society as long as men and women of goodwill have the freedom
to dispute it, to challenge it, and to reject it. I've never
been comfortable with this concept of hate speech simply
because it always seemed to be a very short step between
banning hate speech and banning speech we hate.
Mr. Marcus, this chant, ``from the river to the sea,'' that
clearly calls for the eradication of Israel. It is genocidal at
its roots. The House just censured a Member for repeating it.
Let me say it is absolutely despicable. Should that be banned
or punished, the mere repetition of that phrase?
Mr. Marcus. So, thank you, Congressman. I'll just begin by
saying again that most hate speech is protected speech under
our Constitution, but context matters. Are we talking about
public institutions or nonpublic institutions? Are we talking
about public fora or nonpublic fora? I will also say again that
where one finds hate speech, one often almost invariably finds
hateful conduct.
Mr. McClintock. Well, there's a very bright line between
speech and conduct. Speech, we tolerate because it can be
combatted by appealing to the better angels of our nature, by
exposing the nature of evil that is behind it. That's how we
resolve our differences without resorting to force.
Now, my point is this: We have this chant that calls for
the eradication of Israel, and we punish people for using it.
Well, I happen to believe in the eradication of Hamas. I'm not
making a moral equivalency. There couldn't be a stronger
contrast between good and evil than that. The same freedom of
speech that protects my right to advocate that position is at
stake here, is it not.
Mr. Marcus. So, I also very strongly support free speech,
even freedom of speech to say things that we hate. I believe
that the Trump Executive Order on Combatting Anti-Semitism does
something important, which is to say it indicates that in many
other areas of the law we can use speech, not as something to
punish or suppress, but as an indicator of the nature of
conduct.
So that, for example, if you say certain things and then
throw a rock through the window of the Hallel building, your
statement may be used to determine whether that conduct was
intentional, whether you intended to hit the building or not,
and whether it was motivated in a way that implicates either
student conduct codes or other rules of behavior. I believe it
is important for rules, whether within universities or within
the Federal Department of Education, to use conduct in this
way. That is to say, speech must be protected, but it is
sometimes a way of understanding conduct which often crosses
the line--
Mr. McClintock. Well, yes, but then you're talking about
the conduct and the influence to speak on it. The issue is the
conduct, not the speech.
What measures--let me ask the students. What measures would
you propose to protect your rights to free speech on the
campuses?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Ultimately, I would just ask for less
pushback from the university. I mean, as long as we can more
equally represent all perspectives, I think it would be much
easier, much more conducive to do so for other students.
Mr. McClintock. There is a word for that. It's called
tolerance.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Correct. Yes, and it would be much less of a
step up to speak your mind when you know that violence is not
coming your way for doing so. Now, it is so polarized, I just
wish we can step that back or increase speech, allow others to
not face such consequence when doing so that would promote it.
Mr. McClintock. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. Yes. So, I support what Connor said, and I
think really instilling within the campus community that we
need to be more tolerant of others' beliefs, whether we agree
with them or not. Like, my school does a free speech training,
but people will just click through that just to get it over it.
They're not actually being taught to respect people just
because of beliefs.
Like, that's just what we're asking for, to be respected.
We aren't asking to be doxed. We aren't asking to be violently
assaulted or harassed or anything like that. We are simply
sharing our viewpoint, and we respectfully listen to other
students' and faculty's viewpoints, but they won't do the same
to us.
Ms. Silberstein. Similar to Mr. Marcus' comments, conduct
often follows words. We saw at Cornell, after chants of free
Palestine from the river to the sea, which calls for the
genocide of the Jewish people and the eradication of the State
of Israel, that soon following that, a student posted direct
threats to murder Jews on campus. Those are very interrelated,
and they cannot be separated.
Mr. McClintock. So, you're saying the conduct should be
banned or the speech should be banned or both?
Ms. Silberstein. Speech advocating for violence should not
be tolerated on college campuses.
Mr. McClintock. Well, but what about the eradication of
Hamas?
Ms. Silberstein. The eradication of Hamas is--the
eradication or recognized terror organization?
Mr. McClintock. Well, so it depends on your viewpoint. Is
that what you're saying?
Ms. Silberstein. When students who are protesting the
Jewish people's right to exist, their fellow students' right to
exist, leads directly to violence against those students--
Mr. McClintock. Who's going to decide, though, which
viewpoint is legal and which one is illegal? That's what
concerns me.
In a free society, we've put all those viewpoints out there
and let the people make that judgment for themselves.
Ms. Silberstein. In the context of a college campus, it is
the school's--the school has a right and the school is
obligated to protect all its students from violence, and
students should all feel safe on their campus. I know that
Cornell is implementing additional DENI training that now
addresses anti-Semitism that all students will be required to
complete so that all students feel safe. There should be
similar DENI training to prevent Islamophobia on campus as
well.
When talking about college campuses, the main priority is
ensuring that students feel safe and that they can freely
express their opinions without feeling harmed or that harm is
coming their way.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Texas.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to make it very clear that our Committee is not
undertaking this hearing today because my Republican colleagues
actually care about free speech on college campuses or even
care about anti-Semitism. These are the same Republican
colleagues who worked tirelessly to defund all efforts for
diversity and inclusion initiatives in the appropriations
bills. These are the same folks who want to censor and remove
books they disagree with from classrooms and school libraries.
The same folks--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady will suspend just for a
second.
Ms. Hageman. My point of order was the statement that her
colleagues, her Republican colleagues do not care about anti-
Semitism on college campuses or freedom of speech. I would
request that those words be taken down because they're
absolutely untrue.
Mr. Nadler. It's just a matter of opinion. It's a matter of
opinion, it's not--
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady from Texas was stating her
opinion. We've talked about this before in the Committee. I
think all of us should be cognizant of attributing motives to
our colleagues and/or other individuals in the government.
Whether that be the President, the Vice President, or former
President, we should all be cognizant of that.
The gentlelady is recognized for the remainder of her five
minutes.
Ms. Escobar. I'll correct that. I'll say some of my
Republican colleagues.
However, again, these are the same folks who've worked to
defund efforts for diversity and inclusion initiatives in the
appropriations bills. Those are a matter of record. Those votes
are available for anyone to view.
These are also some of the same folks who want to censor
and remove books they disagree with from classrooms and school
libraries, and the same folks who balk at the prospect of
teaching accurate history lessons on slavery and its
repercussions in the United States. All that is on the record
and factual and available for anyone to review.
What is going on here is that there is an effort to
capitalize on an emotionally charged issue to sow further
frustration and division. I have frequently complained and
expressed my concerns around the fact that there are egregious
efforts to continue to divide our country, and many of those
efforts are coming from this Committee.
In the last four weeks alone, we've seen horrific incidents
in the United States fueled by both anti-Semitism and
Islamophobia alike. In the community that I represent of El
Paso, Texas, we know full well, my community knows full well
the power of speech, the power of hate, and how that drifts
into conduct.
On August 3, 2019, a White supremacist drove over 10
miles--I'm sorry--10 hours to my community, and he published a
screed online talking about the invasion of migrants and
Hispanics and immigrants into the United States. Many of us
flagged that speech as dangerous and life-threatening, and yet
Members of this Committee continue to use that same speech,
knowing full well the kind of danger it creates for my
community and other communities like mine.
I want nothing more than for students to feel safe on their
college campuses. I want all of us to feel safe and be able to
express our opinions and to be able to address controversy
head-on without fearing for our lives or the lives of people
who live with us, among us, near us.
These conversations are critical and important, and I want
to thank our panelists for participating in these
conversations. It is really important that all of you put
pressure on all of us to ensure that everyone can live in peace
and dignity, free from the fear of violence, especially young
people on college campuses.
Professor Nadell, Ms. Burdett, can you give us concrete
strategies and policies that colleges can use to create those
safer spaces for young people?
Ms. Nadell. You want to take it?
Ms. Burdett. Sure. Thank you very much for your question.
Indeed, there's a lot of serious work to do on this issue, and
there are actions that could help that aren't being taken,
aren't being funded. I respect very much the spirit of what
you're saying.
So, campuses have rules, and the way we use our rules tells
the story of our values. That's why I mentioned campuses are--
they've had someone arrested, they have suspended people. There
are privacy concerns around speaking openly about disciplinary
action against a student, especially in such a charged time.
You get a protest permit. There's an approval process. There
are rules you have to follow in that protest. Not all speech is
permissible in our country and on a campus.
I think we heard one of the Committee Members say before
that it's just up to people to decide. That's just not OK.
Because, of course, I'm here to testify on behalf of free
speech. I'm invited by the Democrats. I don't know why someone
tried to divide this witness panel into two sides. I haven't
heard two sides. I've heard people of conscience, my fellow
panelists.
When you call immigrants vermin invading our country, hates
crimes against people who look like an immigrant go up. I'm a
practitioner. That's my indicator.
When Israel is in the front page and people are fighting
about Israel, and you assault a Jew because of their connection
to Israel, that's bigotry, that's a hate crime.
Words do have consequences. Of course, we can walk and chew
gum at the same time. I like the Austin Powers movie also, but
we are civil society and elected leaders. We can distinguish
the difference between free expression that people don't like,
including conservative views that should be aired on campuses.
Ms. Jordan should never have been called a Nazi. I was
tearing up while she was talking about it. Words have
consequences, and we can't just have Lord of the Flies in our
free speech marketplace.
Thank you for that question.
Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Hunt.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
College and free speech go hand in hand. College is meant
to be a place where students are safe to express ideas and
confront ideas that they may or may not necessarily agree with.
We've heard for years about microaggressions and how
silence is violence. Colleges have spent years condemning and
martyring speeches they deem dangerous. When actual physical
threats or violence occur, do colleges know how to react?
Under the logic of the left, microaggressions are hate
speech. Physical threats of violence can be free speech,
depending on if the group being threatened is not oppressed
enough.
It appears that colleges have labeled everything hate
speech but hate speech itself. They claim to be committed to
diversity, equity, and inclusion, but the dirty little secret
is that there is a hierarchy of oppression within a DEI club.
Colleges fail to act when they consider these less oppressed
groups to be threatened.
Tragically, universities have put their responses to free
speech under the DEI lens, and oftentimes that lens fails to
respond to threats for fear of angering the DEI gods.
I went to Cornell. I earned three master's degrees in four
years from Cornell. I went to Johnson, our law school, and got
a master's in public administration. I graduated in 2015. I
didn't see any of this when I was there. I cannot believe what
has happened over the course of the past year.
The threats to you, ma'am, are pretty disgusting. It is not
just happening at Cornell. It's happening all over the country.
The attacks are not just coming from students.
A week after the horrendous Hamas attacks on Israel on
October 7th, Cornell professor, Russell Rickford, said at a
rally: ``Challenge the monopoly of violence, and that terror
attacks against defenseless Jews were exhilarating and
energizing.''
I have a motion to submit to the record a letter from
Cornell President Martha Pollack addressing that issue, sir.
Mr. Hunt. According to this letter, Professor Rickford's
punishment is that was placed on this person was a leave of
absence for the duration of the academic year while the
university is considering whether or not his personal opinions
demonstrate an unfitness to serve. An unfitness to serve.
That's it.
This man was praising Hamas attacks on Jews, and there
needs to be an investigation as to whether or not this guy
displayed a fitness to serve.
I think this response from Cornell demonstrates the problem
going on in our institutions of higher learning today. I have a
sneaking suspicion that if this professor made these hateful
statements against Muslim students, Black students, like me, or
trans students, the professor would have been out of a job
immediately. No investigation. I dare anybody who would tell me
I'm wrong, because of what we see virally in schools in the
past few years.
As a Cornell alum and a father of three children, I can
guarantee you that if this is how this university is going to
approach anti-Semitism, my children will not be attending
Cornell.
Whenever we have this kind of behavior and people don't
step up and call it out for what it is, we have students that
then make comments like Patrick die. He said:
If you see a Jewish person on campus, follow them home and slit
their throats. Rats need to be eliminated from Cornell.
Interesting. He also said:
Rape and kill all the Jew women before they birth more Jewish
Hitlers.
I'm a combat veteran. I've seen a lot. I've heard a lot.
I'm an Apache pilot, so you can imagine some of the things I've
seen in combat. Hearing things like this really boils my blood,
because it shouldn't be happening to students like you.
I've been Black for my entire life. I've been as
conservative probably about as long as I've been Black.
Ms. Jordan, thank you for being here. It's OK to be Black,
and you don't ever--be a Black conservative, and you don't ever
have to put up with anybody telling you differently. This is
America. I fought for these freedoms, and you have the right to
think however you want to think and express it the way that you
see fit, without persecution.
Ma'am, thank you so much for being here. I really
appreciate it.
The text messages that I have gotten from my Jewish friends
and colleagues that actually took me to Israel twice while I
was at Cornell during Passover to learn about their culture, I
promised them that I would defend them. I promised them that I
would defend their rights, and we will continue to do just
that. We are not going to rewind this clock back to 1930, not
on our watch.
I really appreciate your bravery. Thank you so much for
being here.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Tiffany. [Presiding.] The gentleman yields.
The Chair recognizes Ms. Ross for five minutes.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't know what's going on with this--but thank you to
all the witnesses for being here today. This is a highly
charged topic at a highly charged time in our country, but it's
not new.
I want to begin by joining my colleagues in condemning all
forms of anti-Semitism on college campuses and all forms of
discrimination. That is not what America is about.
Like many communities across the country, my region in
North Carolina has seen a spike in anti-Semitic incidents since
Hamas' horrific attack on Israel on October 7th. We had seen a
spike earlier.
That's why Congress is giving money to religious
institutions, in particular, to synagogues, to be able to
protect people. When I have worshipped with my constituents,
there are armed guards in front of synagogues in my district.
I've also spoken to Hallel leaders in North Carolina, who
have told me that their students, in particular, have reported
an alarming number of anti-Semitic incidents in the past month,
and these students fear for their safety. All students, whether
Jewish or Muslim, progressive or conservative, deserve a safe
learning environment at school.
College campuses are supposed to be places where people can
discuss ideas, including foreign policy, with civility and with
the goal of understanding different perspectives and learning
from their peers. This sort of environment is only possible
when harassment, discrimination, and behavior that seeks to
silence, intimidate, and dehumanize is not allowed.
Congress' role here should not be to dictate which
perspectives held by students are acceptable but, rather, to
address this problem writ large. It is the duty of the
Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, an office
that my colleagues on the right have refused to fully fund, to
help you with this mission.
At this moment, when tensions on college campuses are high,
we must ensure that the Office of Civil Rights has the tools it
needs to properly address anti-Semitism and all discrimination
on college campuses.
My first question is for Professor Nadell and Ms. Burdett.
Could you just--let's go back to the basics. Why is it
important that students at universities have freedom to espouse
and explore a wide range of ideas?
Ms. Nadell. It's critical that the university continues to
uphold the value of free speech, because what happens on the
university campuses is that these are the places where our
students learn to be future leaders. How are they going to
learn to be future leaders if they're not exposed to opposite
ideas and different points of view?
I think one of the most powerful statements comes from the
dean of students at the University of Chicago when he wrote to
the entering class of 2020, and he told them that, yes, you
have to be on campus--campus is certainly a place where you
cannot be challenged, you cannot be threatened. There are not
going to be trigger warnings in the classrooms, that you cannot
shut down a speaker. Speakers have to be able to come and hear
the points of view.
I've heard what the students have said about their
campuses. At the University of Chicago, they have upheld the
value of hearing these diverse points of view so that when
their graduates go out into the world, they can become leaders
and they know what people will be saying on multiple sides of
issues. So, we have to maintain that value.
Ms. Ross. Ms. Burdett, do you have anything to add to that?
Ms. Burdett. Of course. Universities have harder jobs than
any of us in this room, because they have to teach people how
to think, not tell them what to think. We haven't really
mastered that.
They are chartered. Their mission is to create a platform
that students, including some of the young people in this
hearing room and Jewish students, can fill with their ideas and
their perspectives and their voices. That's how we learn.
I don't think for one minute there's a university that
doesn't know what's right and wrong when it comes to, was Hamas
justified in that massacre? They have a very hard job. They
agreed in 1967, the University of Chicago issued the Kalven
principles, which is still a very influential document. They
protected the right of young people to say, I don't want to die
in Vietnam. I'm scared. It wasn't always the predominant view.
So their jobs are hard. We sit around and tell people what
to think all the time. It's really harder to teach them how to
come to their own conclusions. I just have utmost respect for
the challenge they're facing. We should be helping them do
better, not walking away and pulling our marbles and our
funding and our kids away.
Thank you.
Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Tiffany. The gentlewoman yields.
I will take five minutes for questioning now.
First, I will deign to respond in regards to the gentleman
from California in regards to anti-Semitic tropes, in
particular, in regards to one gentleman named Tom Steyer. That
had nothing to do with anti-Semitism. He was a Presidential
candidate. He was taking his enormous wealth and putting it
into a Presidential campaign. In America, it is fair game to be
able to criticize someone when they've chosen to enter the
field of politics.
The gentleman, Mr. Steyer, threw in huge dollars. He was
described by the gentleman from California as a philanthropist.
He was a Presidential candidate who was throwing in hundreds of
millions of dollars to political campaigns here in America.
That is fair game. Using the cudgel of racism to stop free
speech is also wrong.
Mr. Marcus, if you could do it really brief, so many of
us--I have three children, much the same age as them. Where is
this intolerance coming from? Where is this intolerance that
really is a bit foreign for someone who went to college a few
decades ago? Not just the anti-Semitism. Where's the
intolerance coming from?
Mr. Marcus. Mr. Chair, this has been a long time coming.
The intolerance toward other groups is not unrelated to the
intolerance toward Jews. We have, for too long, seen political
polarization throughout our country, with extreme aspects on
the college campus.
There are extremists on the left. There are extremists on
the right. On the college campus, the extremists on the left
have considerably more influence, louder voices, and the
greater ability to make their views heard. Oftentimes, that
means not just presenting their own opinions but trying to
silence others.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you for that.
So, I turn to Ms. Jordan. Why do administrators fear the
left?
Ms. Jordan. I would say that they fear the left because
they don't want to hurt their feelings. I know that they
probably are trying their best to be equal, be fair, but it
honestly feels like they are favoring those students. I know
there are a lot of different departments within a Big Ten
university, and so some of those--we have a lot of diversity,
equity, and inclusion spaces.
So, a lot of those that are directly funded, directly
associated with the university, those are especially the
leaders in initiating the activities that I feel like coddle
left-leaning students and empower them to attack us.
Mr. Tiffany. Because, Mr. Ogrydziak, isn't it true that
they don't fear you on the right on campus, that you're going
to tear things down, that you're going to go out and do a nasty
demonstration to deny somebody from coming into the campus who
comes from the left point of view to speak? I'm assuming that
administrators don't fear you guys.
Mr. Ogrydziak. I would certainly hope that they would never
expect us to commit any acts of violence against opposing
speakers.
Mr. Tiffany. So, we heard earlier in testimony, the quote
was used in one of the panelists:
We have failed them. By the time it gets to the Office of Civil
Rights, we have failed them.
So, Mr. Marcus, why would we put more Federal dollars into
something like this? I think this is part of what you're
hearing from some of us up here is we are saying, is there
really a Federal role? Should we be pumping more Federal
dollars in?
In fact, as we put more Federal dollars in and we hear
about more intolerance, less tolerance for free speech, are we
going in the wrong direction by saying, Federal Government, you
should try to do more, because maybe the Federal Government is
being counterproductive?
Mr. Marcus. Mr. Chair, my experience with the Office for
Civil Rights is that it has had lean years, and it has had fat
years. In either case, the head of that agency has been able to
do what the head feels needs to be done. That is to say, there
may be in a particular year 15 or 17 or 19 thousand cases, but
the number of anti-Semitism cases will never be one percent and
will seldom be one-tenth of a percent.
So it is my sense that while there may be political reasons
and a host of policy reasons to support either increases or
decreases of the budget for that agency--and the Brandeis
Center is a nonpartisan group, we don't support others--that
the Office for Civil Rights can focus the resources it needs on
fighting the problems that needed to be fought as long as it
has the political will and regardless of the budget in a
particular year.
Mr. Tiffany. I want to get one more question in here for
Ms. Silberstein. By the way, you're engaged with one of the
most incisive questioners we have up here in Mr. McClintock. It
is a terrific lesson many of us have learned.
Why not tell parents, just take your dollars elsewhere? If
Cornell is going to act the way they do, if Madison, University
of Madison refuses to condemn pro-Hamas demonstrators chanting
glory to the murders, why not just tell parents to take your
dollars elsewhere?
Ms. Silberstein. Of course, private individuals are
entitled to do what they wish with their money. With regards to
sending students to these schools, I've been faced with that
question numerous times and have had to grapple with it myself,
about why I would put myself in such a situation that could
potentially lead to my own harm.
I have gone to a Jewish day school my entire life. Coming
to Cornell, I was hoping to encounter a variety of diverse
perspectives from whom I'd be able to learn. On coming here,
I've realized that I've been hit with a lot of hatred and
virulent anti-Semitism, and it's something that makes me feel
the need and the right to be there more, to combat it and to
continue to fight against it and to not let it win.
Mr. Tiffany. I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here today. Thank you very much.
Ms. Burdett. May I have a minute to clarify my words that
were used? Is that possible within the rules?
Mr. Tiffany. Sure. The Chair will give you--let's take a
minute. Go ahead.
Ms. Burdett. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
So, I'm the one who said we failed them. Fighting hate and
preventing hate is a whole-of-society job. We all have a job to
do. If all we do is investigate a crime after someone's dead
because of their identity, I'm just saying we can interrupt it
earlier.
I hope we won't throw up our hands about what the United
States of America and its government can do to help encourage
our society to be more tolerant and moral. So, let's please not
throw up our hands. Interventions work.
When the FBI counts hate crimes, that is a deterrent. When
a school has a policy against hate, all they have to do is post
it online, there are less hate crimes. So, let's just make the
FBI count hate crimes. It's optional right now. Why?
Ms. Tiffany. So, Ms. Burdett, we can have more of a
discussion on this offline. Thank you for your comments.
Ms. Burdett. Thank you for the time.
Mr. Tiffany. I yield and would like to recognize the
gentlelady from Georgia for five minutes of questioning.
Ms. McBath. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As a woman, a woman of color who's lost her son to murder,
the very kinds of bigotry and discrimination and hatred that
we're talking about today, I wake up every single morning, and
when I see all the elevated instances of anti-Semitism and
bigotry and hatred and just racial division, I ask God every
single day, are we losing our humanity?
With that said, first I'd like to thank the Committee for
holding this critical hearing to highlight the need to fund the
Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education and the
importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion offices across
our schools as we address these incidents of hate speech across
our college campuses.
Yes, we have a right to speak our minds. We have a right to
share our views and be ourselves. Free speech is an invaluable
right that is granted to us by the First Amendment, and we must
use it to nurture our diverse and ever-changing country.
However, in a Nation made up of many cultures and backgrounds,
hate has no place, especially at our schools where the minds of
our young people are really being nurtured.
College campuses are places where people expand their
knowledge, they gain new perspectives, and pursue future
success. The recent occurrences on campuses where students have
use their freedom of speech to harm and intimidate their
classmates are despicable and should prove our absolute need to
incorporate diversity, equity, and inclusion education
throughout all of our school systems.
Not only would DEI offices and education reducing the
likelihood of these events happening in the future by bringing
awareness and knowledge to students who otherwise, they may not
learn about the richness of other cultures until well into
their adulthood, but it will also educate and support the
diverse interests of our children. I truly believe this at
heart, because I'm a mother to my core. I mean this with every
fiber of my being. We are losing our way.
In addition to DEI offices, we need to fund the Office of
Civil Rights to equip students and faculty experiencing
intimidation, threats of violence, and other harmful acts with
the tools necessary to protect them. Without these support
resources, students will continue to live in fear of harm while
they know that they have little or no support in the event that
they experience such personal and hate-filled instances.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for having this hearing today. Let's
work to protect our students and affirm the value of all
cultures by funding the Office of Civil Rights at the
Department of Education and supporting diversity, equity, and
inclusion programs on campuses across our country.
Ms. Burdett and Dr. Nadell, throughout your professional
careers, have either of you found that individuals with a
better understanding and background of cultures dissimilar to
theirs tend to be more understanding and accepting when
speaking to or about someone who's from a different culture?
Ms. Burdett. One of my favorite things about the
President's strategy against anti-Semitism is that it talks
about the need to celebrate Jewish heritage. Of course,
understanding matters. That is where communities can actually
stop problems before they happen, with understanding.
You mentioned DEI. There are people out there who want to
tell Jewish people that DEI, those three letters are our enemy
because it doesn't care about Jews. I work with DEI
professionals all the time. Sometimes they weren't addressing
anti-Semitism in the past, and it's a process to explain it, to
integrate Jews into DEI work. Everything I hear these last four
weeks tells me Jews want to be welcome and included, and that's
what the ``I'' stands for.
Ms. McBath. Thank you.
Ms. Burdett. Thank you.
Ms. McBath. Dr. Nadell.
Ms. Nadell. What I would add to that is that it is
imperative to understand and learn about the diversity of
cultures in American life.
So, to respond to one of the things Ms. Burdett said, we
have had proclaimed in the United States May as Jewish American
Heritage Month at least since one of the Bush Administrations,
I forget which one, maybe at least since 2004, and that this is
a way in which Americans can learn a great deal about Jewish
Americans. We also have an array of specific months dedicated
to learning about the different cultures of the United States,
and so we need to support those efforts.
Ms. McBath. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. [Presiding.] The gentlelady yields back.
I should have mentioned this earlier. You've been here now
about a couple hours, almost three hours. If anyone needs a
break, just let us know. If you need to step into the restroom
or anything, just let us know. We probably have about 45 more
minutes of questioning. We'd like to keep going, because we are
going to have to go to the floor for votes. So, if it's OK with
you, we'll continue to go.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Roy.
Mr. Roy. I thank the witnesses. Thank you for being here.
A couple of questions, particularly for the students, and
appreciate you all being here. Have any of the three of you
ever in any meaningful way received support from the Department
of Education to perpetuate your viewpoints on campus, to the
best of your understanding?
Mr. Ogrydziak. I have not received any supporting
sentiments from them, no.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. I have not received sentiments either.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Silberstein?
Ms. Silberstein. I, as well, have not received any.
Mr. Roy. Yes. I hear a lot from my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle about how important it is to have these
offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion. I'm just wondering
if any of the three of you--we dance around these topics all
the time in this thing, but we have a White male, we have a
Black female, we have a Jewish female.
Have any of you felt exalted or supported or helped by
these offices of diversity, equity, and inclusion so that you
feel comfortable on campuses?
Ms. Jordan. Never. Actually--so the story I was telling
earlier about how I was doxed in a group chat of over 800
students, those were all Black students. It was a group chat
for Black people on campus. At the time of my involvement as
Secretary of Young Americans for Freedom, I served as the
first-year representative on the Black Student Union, which is
an organization within the Afro House, which is a part of the
DEI organization department within our school. They requested
my removal. They had a meeting for that, and they said, if I
did want to continue being on the board, ``I'd have to have a
discussion with the executive board and their director on how
Black students can have different viewpoints.''
I decided to discontinue my position, because I felt like
that's unnecessary. You shouldn't have to have a discussion on
how people can have different viewpoints, because that's common
knowledge.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Silberstein, anything to add?
Ms. Silberstein. Yes. I would just like to point out that
I've only been at Cornell for about 1\1/2\ years now, and this
problem far exceeds my time at Cornell. It has been a
persistent problem on college campuses for many, many years.
My brother attended the university about five years ago,
and swastikas were posted outside of his dorm. Following the
Tree of Life synagogue shooting a few years ago, three
swastikas were found within nine days on campus. Then we're
seeing this happening now.
Mr. Roy. Did the university do anything about that?
Ms. Silberstein. The university issued what was, in my
opinion, a weak response. Clearly, it is evident that it was
weak as it has persisted on campus and nothing is being done to
stop these hateful symbols from being spread around campus.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Silberstein, a quick question for you and a
question for the three of you. So, I have this concern right
now that I believe that we've got a world in which students
fear disagreeing with professors don't feel afraid for calling
for the eradication of Jews, for example.
Now, there might be some free speech lanes that are wide
enough to have some very hateful statements made, and I
certainly support a very wide lane of tolerance with respect to
free speech and the First Amendment. The point here is
something a little bit different, because all of us who have
gone to law school and have studied the whole idea of yelling
fire in a crowded theater, right, that we all get that there
are some limits to speech.
I fully associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman
from California, Mr. McClintock, in our need to defend free
speech. I feel like there's something that we are not talking
about here that's actually at the center of all this while we
just go around the barn saying the same stuff over and over
again, and that in a world in the 21st century with TikTok and
with a whole lot of, say, political actors and technological
actors at play driving rhetoric and speech and driving what
people see as news and information, that we've got elements
that are arising to something akin to yelling fire in a crowded
theater.
I'm looking at TikTok data over the last week, and I'm
seeing a massive ramp-up of the stand with Palestine versus the
stand with Israel. This is not accidental. That's not just
something that just materializes.
My point is, when there's purposeful action designed
directly to foment actual response and hate and targeting of
individuals, you have now stepped into the very action that the
gentleman from California, Mr. McClintock, was talking about.
So, my question for you as students: To the extent that you
think that these devices are harmful or helpful for society
generally--and I've got my views on that--with respect to
TikTok and the use of technology, can you expand on, each of
the three of you, the extent to which this, TikTok, and others
have been used to dox you, target you, undermine you and
undermine your ability to engage in free speech and free
thinking as conservative or as free-thinking Americans?
I'll start with you, Ms. Silberstein, and go down the line.
Ms. Silberstein. So, from my experience, over the past few
weeks, the rise in anti-Semitism that we've seen, yes, it has
been around in person, at rallies, at protests, on campuses,
but a large part of the issue stems from many of the comments
made on social media.
People think that they can hide behind some perceived veil
of anonymity and post whatever comments, however hurtful,
however targeted, however menacing they may be. People think
that they can post them about Jews with impunity and not
receive any ramifications for their actions.
So, I think that social media, in general, has been fueling
the fire and as we've seen with the Cornell student who was
recently arrested, that veil of anonymity was pierced. Your
words have consequences. I think that all students should
really take that to heart, that what you write online can be
traced back to you and people take it to heart.
Mr. Roy. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. I feel like technology usage is a double-edged
sword, because on one aspect you can connect with people,
especially like-minded people. That can also be dangerous,
because it can create a mob mentality, the experience I've
discussed repeatedly.
Also, I feel like with social media channels, especially
TikTok, they can just create targeted things. Once you like
something, then it shows you similar content. So, if someone
just happens to a pro-Palestine graphic, then they're absorbed
more and more. Then, once people start sharing stuff on their
stories, that's a huge thing.
If you're the only one who shares an Israel one, then
people start like DMing you and attacking you. It's a lot of
fear, because it's like, are you scared to lose friends and
followers? Do you want to stand up for what you believe?
Then that kind of translates to like being physical,
physically involved in groups and organizations on campuses. So
much fear kind of what you share online. Should you have the--
which side flag should you have in your bio, things that are
hotly discussed.
Also, I feel a lot of people use online to kind of organize
too, which in one aspect you can kind of see what they're up to
and what they plan to do to your event, because that's where we
find that a lot of people want to protest our conservative
events. Also, it makes them gauge a larger community, honestly,
of hate.
It's just--I don't know. It's a very hard thing to have
discretion over knowing what's right, what should be allowed
and what shouldn't be. In general, it's very, very divisive.
Mr. Roy. Thank you.
Mr. Ogrydziak, we're way over time, but if you would answer
really quickly.
Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Chair, there isn't time.
Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
Mr. Ogrydziak. I would certainly like to echo many of Ms.
Jordan's sentiments about social media opening up the door to
conflicting thoughts. Of course, there's no debate that it
certainly does open up to more speech. However, yes, it is very
unfortunate that it is a common tool of doxing.
I've been a victim of this. My friends, fellow YAF members
have. I'm not a user of TikTok, but across both Instagram and
Snapchat no shortage of leaking addresses, untrue slurs about
myself and others. It is extremely unfortunate that this is the
case.
I know we are well over time here, but I would like to
address your previous question regarding DEI, if I may.
Chair Jordan. We're going to hold on that. I'll give you
time on that when I get to.
We'll go to Ms. Jayapal.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you all so
much for being here and for your testimony.
Every student, staff, and faculty member deserve a college
campus in a world that's free of discrimination.
Anti-Semitism is wrong. I have consistently spoken out
against it. I've consistently worked to ensure that we have
full inclusion in our society and for people to be able to be
who they are. It's also why I cosponsored a factually correct
Senate-passed bipartisan resolution this week denouncing anti-
Semitism on college campuses and have consistently supported
legislative efforts to combat hate crimes and anti-Semitism.
I'm glad my colleagues are talking about the dangers of
fomenting hate, because I think that is a real problem in our
country. Anti-Semitism is not confined to our Nation's
universities. According to a January 2023 report entitled,
``Anti-Semitic Attitudes in America,'' the Anti-Defamation
League concluded that 85 percent of Americans believe at least
one anti-Jewish trope as opposed to 61 percent in 2019. A more
recent ADL report shows a 388 percent rise in anti-Semitic
incidents in the United States since the Hamas attacks.
Yet, our condemnation is not always consistent,
particularly from my colleagues across the aisle. When the
former President and 2024 Republican Presidential frontrunner,
Donald Trump, fanned the flames of anti-Semitism during his
time in and out of office, Congressional Republicans failed to
call him out on his bigotry. For instance, as Jews all over the
world were celebrating Rosh Hashanah in September 2023, Donald
Trump accused the Jewish people who did not support him in 2020
of voting to, quote, ``destroy America and Israel.''
Professor Nadell, you mentioned in your opening remarks
that you were opposed to Congress legislating any definition of
anti-Semitism in 2017, and you remain opposed today. Respecting
your stance, can you briefly explain whether Trump's recent
statement was anti-Semitic and why?
Ms. Nadell. Could you give me the recent statement you want
me to respond to?
Ms. Jayapal. The statement was--he accused--in September
2023, he accused the Jewish people who did not support him in
2020 of voting to, quote, ``destroy America and Israel.''
Ms. Nadell. I absolutely thought that this was anti-
Semitic, and there have been other similar statements that I
have thought were anti-Semitic. Because what that statement was
doing was buying into one of these very classic anti-Semitic
tropes about the loyalty of the Jewish people and that the
question that they cannot be loyal to the Nation in which they
live because they hold a higher loyalty to their own people. To
say that they were being disloyal to the United States because
they voted for a different political party is not saying that
one is disloyal to the United States. It's just that they had a
different view in terms of the party they preferred.
Ms. Jayapal. Unfortunately, that wasn't the first time that
Trump attacked American Jews, nor was it the first time the
2024 Republican Presidential frontrunner engaged with anti-
Semitism for political means.
When White supremacists chanted, quote, ``Jews will not
replace us,'' in 2017 as they marched in Charlottesville,
Virginia, Donald Trump said--and he was President at the time--
said there were very fine people on both sides. That is an
exact quote. ``Very fine people on both sides.''
Professor Nadell, you discussed this example in your
opening statement. Why are Donald Trump's words here anti-
Semitic?
Ms. Nadell. They are anti-Semitic because those people who
were marching in Virginia were deliberately echoing Nazi
practices. The tiki torch parade that they had that evening was
designed to look exactly like a Nazi Storm Trooper parade in
the 1930's. They had planned the phrase ``Jews will not replace
us.'' That's a reference to the notion of White supremacy. The
idea that the Jews are somehow--again, one of these conspiracy
theories----masterminds who were working to replace Whites in
America, because they were bringing in immigrants and they were
helping African Americans. The idea underpinning that
conspiracy theory is that those groups are not capable of
orchestrating something like that by themselves. Only a
worldwide Jewish conspiracy could do that.
Ms. Jayapal. Ms. Burdett, anything you want to add to that?
Ms. Burdett. I had a great opportunity to work at the
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum down the street with
the least political people you'll ever meet in your life. I had
the opportunity, just through some amazing historians, to learn
a lot about Nazi propaganda and the Goebbels playbook.
One of the key aspects of how Nazi propaganda worked, they
said, ``try to take all the negativity about Jews''--remember,
their anti-Semitism, which is a fake lie to blame Jews for what
was wrong in their lives. That's what it is today--right, left,
center--it's just a lie to blame me for what's wrong in someone
else's life.
They said, ``Try to take all the negative characteristics
of Jews.'' It's effective if you can pull it together in the
character of one person. Der Sturmer very famously would have a
picture of one Jew. The historian told me, `` . . . that's the
George Soros conspiracy theory straight out of the Goebbels
playbook.''
So, people should criticize him. He is a philanthropist.
It's OK. We've talked about philanthropists before. We don't
always think about that direct connection. That man and that
family, pound for pound, are probably, because we have the
internet, the largest single targets of anti-Semitism in Jewish
history. It doesn't mean you can't disagree with them, but I
learned a lot from those apolitical historians educating me.
Thank you.
Ms. Jayapal. Thank you so much. I hope we speak out against
anti-Semitism everywhere that we see it, not just in certain
places.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Indiana is recognized.
Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for being here.
As someone who grew up in Soviet Union under tyranny and
also being enlightened, when the Soviet Union fell apart and I
went to college where a diversity of ideas and freedom of ideas
were had in debate, which universities should be, I was very
shocked when I came here young, very idealistic, learning from
Alexis de Tocqueville and Voltaire and Friedman and Hayek, and
inspired by this idea what a tyranny of opinion would have.
Unless you agree with who is in charge, whether the
presidents of university or who's in charge of government, you
actually can have a mob rule and actually try to intimidate
you.
So, I think it is a very dangerous trend. I truly believe
if we do not do something about it, we're going to fail as a
Republic. A lot of people don't realize it's a Republic. We are
not a pure democracy for a reason. We're actually a Republic to
protect rights of the minority to express opinions unless
they're harmful and try to hurt.
So, I was very disappointed also, and this was very strange
to me when I first came here that they put people in categories
woman, male, Black, and White. I was like, they only did it to
Jews in Soviet Union to oppress them. Why are we doing that?
That was very strange to me, because it's divisive. It's
divisive. We're all Americans that believe in our country and
our ideas and we have to fight for them.
So, my question is for you, Mr. Marcus, just briefly. Do
you think we should really rethink how we're doing this, of how
we can unite the country with our ideas instead of separating
and dividing us constantly, talking about--because it shouldn't
matter. I was like, why should it matter if I'm female or male?
If I am really good at something, I'm going to pursue my
happiness.
So, what do you think?
Mr. Marcus. Thank you, Congresswoman. I agree, and here's
the way I would put it. When we see the response of so many
college students to such atrocities, the question shouldn't be
do we criticize, do we condemn, and do we punish the speech?
The question should be, how in the world did we get here? How
did we get to a place where a significant portion of students
at some of our best colleges and universities, students in many
cases who view themselves as progressive leaders, have adopted
some of the vilest values that one could possibly imagine?
I think we have to say that this is not just a question of
do we issue a statement, but do we say, these institutions have
to be completely rethought, and we have to figure out how it is
that the moral fiber has frayed and what can we do to repair
it.
Ms. Spartz. I appreciate it. Listen, I am someone who
actually went and sometimes not a popular thing, I defended
some crazy things that Marjorie says and actually was one of
the few Republicans that was--actually, somebody on the other
side who tabled the resolution, because it was a badly written
resolution talking about October 18th event as insurrection. It
wasn't insurrection, as well as was January 6th wasn't
insurrection.
So, let's just be honest. We need to have here that being
honest and not play politics with people's lives. I hope people
on the other side will also be able to do something where you
go against your own party and get attacked and not to be afraid
to do it.
So, my question is for all of you, just quickly: Do you
believe that diversity of ideas, freedom of speech as well as
conservative speech should be protected on college campuses?
Ms. Burdett, just yes or no?
Ms. Burdett. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. Dr. Nadell?
Ms. Nadell. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. Mr. Marcus?
Mr. Marcus. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Silberstein?
Ms. Silberstein. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. Mr. Ogrydziak? If I said it right.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Yes.
Ms. Spartz. So, do we believe that we do have protection of
freedom of speech right now on college campuses?
I'll start with you, Mr. Ogrydziak.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Completely? No.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. No.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Silberstein?
Ms. Silberstein. No.
Ms. Spartz. Mr. Marcus?
Mr. Marcus. No, ma'am.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Nadell? Dr. Nadell, sorry.
Ms. Nadell. That's OK. I think we have mechanisms put in
place to protect speech.
Ms. Spartz. Do we have it right now, protected freedom of
speech and ideas and the real expression, that people are not
afraid?
Ms. Nadell. Based on what some of the students have said,
no.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Burdett?
Ms. Burdett. Yes, we do. It's messy, and we need to make
sure that the rules are applied fairly to these students.
Ms. Spartz. So, the conservative and all the speeches are
protected right now?
Ms. Burdett. All speech is protected by the rules, and
humans implement the rules.
Ms. Spartz. So, when we're talking about our
implementation, but how old is diversity and inclusion? It's
becoming like a tyranny unless you're agreeing, right. Is it
correct? Are they effective with diversity?
I'm talking about giving more money. Department of
Education also accredits on health justifies accreditation. Is
it being effective, just quickly? I know that my time is
expired. Quickly. Are they being effective, diversity,
inclusion, all this initiative?
Mr. Ogrydziak. No, it has not been effective.
Ms. Spartz. No. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. It has absolutely not been.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Silberstein?
Ms. Silberstein. Definitely not, no.
Ms. Spartz. Mr. Marcus?
Mr. Marcus. Diversity and inclusion programs have been a
mixed bag, at best.
Ms. Spartz. Dr. Nadell?
Ms. Nadell. They're working on it.
Ms. Spartz. Ms. Burdett?
Ms. Burdett. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't work
right away, but we had to work on it for hundreds of years.
Don't give up.
Ms. Spartz. I think we have a difference of opinion between
students and adults, but thank you.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentlelady from Vermont is recognized.
Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll be honest, many parts of this hearing were extremely
difficult to listen to. My grandfather, Leopold Balint, was
murdered in the Holocaust, and my family has warned me my
entire adult life that anti-Semitism is always lurking just
below the surface. We are seeing that today in stark relief in
this Nation, but also around the world. So, it's been
personally difficult for me to sit through this, that here we
are again. Here we are again.
I also had to pick my jaw off the floor when one of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle bemoaned the use of
dehumanizing language on college campuses, because I have not
forgotten what was said in a fear-mongering hearing on the
dangers of trans Americans right here in this Committee. It was
a hearing full of dehumanizing language. It made me sick. As
the only member of the LGBTQ community on this Committee, I
have not forgotten.
Now, it's been a long hearing, so I'm going to just cut to
the chase here. In these situations, it's best to just follow
the money, not the rhetoric, not the messaging, not the talking
points. Just follow the money.
So, there is a clear policy solution to combating the rise
of anti-Semitism and other abhorrent discrimination on college
campuses, and that is to fully fund the Department of
Education's Office for Civil Rights.
Budgets--when you're in government, budgets are a statement
of your values. How we spend money demonstrates what we really
care about. We should care about the rise in hateful speech and
dehumanizing language in America generally and specifically, as
is the topic of this hearing, on college and university
campuses.
Fearmongering and hateful speech isn't just destroying our
communities. It's actually tearing this Nation apart. So, we
all have a part in that as well, all of us in Congress. So, we
can point fingers at college campuses, we can point fingers at
what's happening in our elementary schools, but I would also
say we have a part in that too, in putting an end to it.
Now, it's my understanding that the Office of Civil Rights
has already had a reported dramatic increase in Title VI
discrimination claims in the wake of the terrorist attack on
October 7th. Yet, many of my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle have proposed a significant funding cut to OCR.
The Office of Civil Rights is one of the largest Federal
civil rights agencies in the country. It has over 500 staff,
who serve as attorneys, investigators, support staff. So, it's
been underfunded for years. When it's underfunded, people who
have cases, people who have claims, the staff's not there to do
the investigation, to do the followup. So, I would ask us to
put our money where we say our values are.
Now, a cut that has been proposed to the tune of reducing
from $131 to $105 million, that is a significant cut. It will
have a detrimental impact on the ability of OCR to do its vital
work. So, again, I urge us all, follow the money.
It seems like we are in a lot of agreement here on the
things that are making us very uncomfortable. The antidote to
speech we don't like is more speech. It's not shouting people
down. It's not talking louder. It's not dehumanizing language.
It is engaging in meaningful conversations when we have
disagreements. It's that simple. So, let's fund the office that
is dedicated to making sure we're dealing with discrimination
on college campuses.
So, I have 33 seconds. In that time, Ms. Burdett, can you
just tell me, what would be the ramifications if we were to cut
from $131 million down to $105 million? Just really quickly,
just give us a list of what's going to happen if that happens.
Ms. Burdett. We know that when hate crime victims and
students like these have no place to call, of course, that's a
secondary victimization. It means the law enforcement can't
respond to you. It means you have no recourse. Why would we
take that away?
If we are having a hearing, this isn't the PTA that has
other tools. This is the House Judiciary Committee, where I
think we should look at what are the tools available. We know
where we have data about hate, and the civil rights--Office of
Civil Rights does data collection on what's happening in
schools. Data--we're not a--government's not a university. We
collect data because when we know what's happening, we can
intervene. We can put resources there. If we're not here to
talk about how the Federal Government can make my boy safer,
then we could be at a PTA meeting or at another kind of
organization meeting.
So, the budget is a moral document. I'm even saying it's
not enough to have investigators. Can we please invest in
interrupting it before it happens? Not a single family of a
victim of the Tree of Life shooting feels better that someone
was punished. They'd rather have their brother back.
Ms. Balint. Thank you so much. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentlelady yields back.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized for five
minutes.
We have 30 more minutes if that's good. Like I said, if
anyone needs a break, feel free to take a break.
Mr. Marcus?
Mr. Marcus. Mr. Chair, I might take you up on that generous
offer.
Chair Jordan. Sure. Go right ahead.
The gentleman from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Well, it's a good time for Mr. Marcus to
leave because I didn't have any questions for him, so that's
fine.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
University of Wisconsin System, which is located in my home
State, has been quite a hotbed for campus free speech issues
over the years. Some in this room may remember in 2016, when
protesters blocked conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from
taking the stage at Young Americans for Freedom event that was
on the campus at UW-Madison.
Similarly, when a very conservative speaker, Matt Walsh,
came to Madison last year, there were protesters. Those
protesters vandalized the Student Union and the Alumni Park.
According to a freedom of speech survey conducted by the UW
System itself in 2022, over 14 percent of UW-Madison students
believed it was acceptable to disrupt invited speakers whose
messages they didn't agree with. This is unacceptable, and
universities across the country, should be doing more to foster
an environment that welcomes kind of an honest discussion and
debate.
I think there's muscle memory that should happen here, so
when we end up in the position where we have elevated and
expanded demonstrations, that universities know how to handle
those and do it in a responsible way to keep everyone safe.
There is a bill--one of my colleagues, Congressman Greg
Murphy, has authored it--Campus Free Speech Restoration Act,
which requires universities to report First Amendment
violations to the Department of Education. The bill I think
would provide a much-needed check on some of the Federally
funded institutions, and I'm certainly hoping that this
Congress could move swiftly on it.
What I wanted to do was just first ask the students that
are with us this afternoon to just--are there any examples of a
similar situation that may have happened on your campus where a
speaker was invited and then they were shouted down or not
allowed to actually deliver their full remarks?
Ms. Silberstein, do you want to go first?
Ms. Silberstein. Thank you, Congressman. Regarding the
specific issue of anti-Semitism, I'm not exactly sure. I'm sure
that there have been speakers in the past who were not invited
or accepted onto campus for their beliefs, but I cannot
specifically speak to that.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Ms. Jordan?
Ms. Jordan. Thank you for your question. None of our
speakers have been shouted down, but a similar situation was
when we hosted Matt Walsh. The protesters were right outside
the venue, and they couldn't enter because most of them had
signs, and so they blocked the streets. People had a really
hard time driving home, getting out.
Then we recently hosted Chloe Cole on campus. The
protesters blockaded the building so people could not get in or
out of the building. My best friend could not get to her class,
which was really disappointing.
They ask us--the university, they were like, OK, do you
want police at this event? We were like sure. It's not enough
to have the police. We need to ensure that all students feel
safe and are able to access the building. That shouldn't have
to be something that's in question.
Also, another thing I've noticed is that left-leaning
students don't need all this police, all this security at their
events. It's why do we get so viciously attacked for what we
do?
Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good.
Mr. Ogrydziak?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Yes. When we hosted Michael Knowles, there
was a protest of about 800-1,000 community members and students
outside. This did foster a pretty intimidating environment for
the attendees who were waiting to enter. Fortunately, Mr.
Knowles was able to speak.
However, when we hosted Lieutenant Colonel Allen West, the
second half of that event had opened up to a question-and-
answer session, allowing anyone in the audience to pose a
question respectfully if they would like to. However, instead
of moving forward with that, the protesters that were in
attendance began to shout from their seats. Power to both the
speakers' microphones were cut, and this did end our session.
Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you all for being here. I think it's
an important part of this hearing today.
I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Van Drew, is recognized.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I want to thank the three of you. These three
students, their bravery, their strength, their honesty, and
their courage. It is not easy to be a conservative on a college
campus today. Yet, you stand strong. I swear to God you're my
heroes today. I really, really am proud of you. I know that
many of our Members are. Thank you for being here.
I'm pro-Israel. I'm unabashedly pro-Israel. I'm pro-Israel
because they are our partners. They are a force of
civilization. They are a Nation that since its founding has
gone through hell, and yet they still prevail.
So, I'm pro-Israel. You can check me out. You can see
anything I've ever written, anything I've ever said I believed
in, everything I've ever voted for, every speech I've ever
given. I am pro-Israel.
Yet, I still believe that we shouldn't use these words to
try to say, well, if you believe that George Soros is involved
in our local elections--because he is--if you believe that he
is funding prosecutors and local officials that have a
different vision for America than most Americans do--he is--
that doesn't make me racist. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong. It
means it's my opinion. It's what I believe.
What we do now is we use these catch words, ``Globalism.''
I'm going to tell you what globalism is. Maybe there's some
people who are bad people that use it. I was at an event
recently and I spoke. This has happened to me numerous times. I
talked about Americanism, American exceptionalism, and how we
are the shining city on the hill. Dammit, I believe that, and I
know the three of you do too. We are in a special place.
Without us, the world would go into chaos. Are we perfect? No.
Globalism says--and this is a theory that's put forth by a
lot. When I was at the event, some people came to me, because I
spoke about all those things. They said, ``you're wrong.''
America is like any other place in the world. They said, ``we
don't believe in Americanism. We don't believe in American
exceptionalism.''
I disagree with them. That doesn't make me racist. It means
that I can use the word ``globalism.'' I can't help if there's
a bad person that uses that word. I still think it's a real
issue and a real challenge.
So, Dr. Nadell, I'm going to ask you one thing, and I would
just like a yes-or-no answer. I'm sorry to do that to you, but
we're so time-constricted.
Do you believe in American exceptionalism?
Ms. Nadell. I believe that there is an idea of American
exceptionalism that has been upheld by scholars and--
Mr. Van Drew. Ma'am, I appreciate--
Ms. Nadell. I cannot--I can't answer in one word.
Mr. Van Drew. You can't answer that you believe in American
exceptionalism. OK, that's good.
Ms. Burdett, do you believe in American exceptionalism?
Please, yes or no.
Ms. Burdett. I don't find the question relevant to this
hearing.
Mr. Van Drew. It is very relevant. It's relevant to what's
happening on college campuses. I thank you.
Mr. Ogrydziak, I have a tough time--Ogrydziak, do you
believe in American exceptionalism, yes or no?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Unequivocally, yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. Ms. Jordan, do you believe in American
exceptionalism?
Ms. Jordan. Undoubtedly, yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. Thank you.
Ms. Silberstein, do you believe in American exceptionalism?
Ms. Silberstein. I do.
Mr. Van Drew. These are great young people. You have the
courage to tell the truth and give an answer. So, I want to
thank you.
I just want to talk about some of my personal experiences
really quick, and I'm running out of time.
Condoleezza Rice, some people may remember her. It was
back--she was the National Security Advisor, the highest
ranking African American in history at that time of the Federal
executive branch. She was supposed to speak at my alma mater,
Rutgers University, a great school. I was premed/predent and
got a great education.
Boy, if you had a different opinion even back then--and
this is not--I'm further back than that. I watched in dismay as
the professors at my alma mater led the charge opposing her
appearance, because they didn't want to hear another opinion.
Every student at Rutgers, regardless of their political
stance--Liberal, Conservative, Socialist, Libertarian,
Democrat, Republican--mandates an exchange of ideas. It's the
marketplace of ideas.
Do you agree with that?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. Ms. Jordan, do you agree with that?
Ms. Jordan. Yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. Ms. Silberstein?
Ms. Silberstein. Yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. You know why--I'm going to wrap up with this.
You know why we don't want to fund DEI? Do you know why we're
concerned about the Office of Civil Rights? Because they don't
protect their rights. Now recently, they're starting to talk
about the Jewish issue more, but, basically, it was just
certain groups, certain left-wing groups, and certain groups
that were in. It was in vogue to protect certain groups.
Dammit, it's not in vogue to protect conservatives. They
don't have the same opportunity in their university experience
that every single other person does. That is wrong, it's un-
American, and that's why it doesn't get funded. Bad things
happen when you do bad things, and that's bad.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Marcus, do you believe in American exceptionalism?
Mr. Marcus. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes, I do.
Mr. Van Drew. I'm sorry I skipped you. I'm sorry.
Chair Jordan. I didn't want you left out, and I figured you
would respond.
No, it was a great line of questioning. I appreciate it.
The gentleman from Alabama is recognized, Mr. Moore.
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for being here today.
I'm certainly proud of my alma mater. It's Auburn
University, and recently been ranked one of the top colleges in
the country that advocates for free speech and robust debate.
Unfortunately, that is not the case throughout many
campuses across the country. With the shout-downs and immediate
conservative voices, the heckler's veto, if you will, has the
adverse effect of what the First Amendment is supposed to
support.
Some extreme groups use this silencing method under the
guise of tolerance. Yet their definition of tolerance is,
ironically, not tolerant at all. The heckler's veto effectively
silences the speech and messages through fear and
disinformation--or intimidation, I should say.
Fifty-six percent of the students across the Nation fear
stating their views would put them in harm's way. Actually,
even my nephew. He went to Auburn, and there were times in
classrooms he was afraid to speak out because he knew that it
would affect his grade.
Do all of you experience that? Have you experienced that,
Ms. Silberstein? Then I'll go down the line with the students.
Ms. Silberstein. So, I am a business major, so I personally
have not experienced that, but many of my friends have.
Mr. Moore. Ms. Jordan, any of your friends, do you
experience that?
Ms. Jordan. I know my friends have experienced it. Then
personally, the first day of class they always ask us to say
our pronouns. I'm the only student usually who doesn't say any
pronouns, because it's unnecessary.
Then just in general in class, they often just have
discussions that more people support liberal viewpoints.
Sometimes I do get that, my heart starts beating fast. I should
I say something, should I not?
Because a lot of students just know my face. I'm one of the
only Black conservatives on campus. So, it's kind of hard just
making friends, talking to people, because once they find out
you're conservative they ostracize you.
Mr. Moore. Yes. I can imagine because I know I can't keep
my mouth shut sometimes. So, I couldn't imagine being in a
classroom nowadays, being a conservative and actually having to
say something maybe contradictory to what the professor might
be saying.
Mr. Ogrydziak, have you had that experience as well?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Similarly to Ms. Silberstein, just based on
my major, those topics were often left out of the classroom. I
can vouch for my political science friends and say that they
were not so lucky.
Mr. Moore. See, and these are conservative universities.
General Schwarzkopf said about Auburn University, he said,
``I send my sons to West Point and my daughters to Auburn.'' I
have noticed, like my son, he's at Auburn now. He's a building
science major, so he doesn't--he's is like you, Ms. Jordan--or,
I guess, Ms. Silberstein, he doesn't have--the issue of
politics does not come up often in the classroom. To me, my
son's roommates are from New York now. His buddies are from New
York and Arizona. They are coming to these universities where
they feel they have a right to have an opposing viewpoint and
actually speak up.
So, first, Ms. Silberstein, I have a question for you. How
has your life been affected by the threatening rhetoric of
these activist groups on Cornell's campus?
Ms. Silberstein. Every day when I walk outside, I question
what I do, I question how I appear. I question what I say out
of fear that someone might hear me who disagrees or who
disagrees with my very existence and could threaten me with any
actions. As the Chair mentioned, I'm on the Chabad board for my
university and I go to Shabbat dinner every Friday night, and
I'm scared to walk outside. I'm scared to walk alone without
the police protecting us.
Mr. Moore. Ms. Silberstein, let me say this: It's as easy
as 1, 2, 3. Genesis 12:3 says ``if you'll bless Israel, you'll
be blessed and if you curse Israel, you'll be cursed.'' So,
Judeo-Christian values, we understand Jesus was Jewish. We want
to rally behind the Jewish Nation and the Nation of Israel.
I was over there recently traveling, and the thing that I
noticed about the Nation of Israel is most of their weapons are
defensive weapons, whether it's reactive armor on their tanks
or the Iron Dome or the Iron Beam. Those are all weapons to
push back against attacks.
So, they are people, they are a peaceful people. So, I just
want to you to know that as a Christian we certainly support
the Nation of Israel. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3, just remind all
your Christian friends.
So, Ms. Jordan, have you had an opportunity to--do you feel
sometime intimidated on your campus? Do you feel maybe that you
just--where you couldn't stand up--I guess you had to stand up
and not say your pronouns. Is that kind of--that is so weird to
me. As old as I am, I guess, Mr. Chair--but I've never had
that. So, tell me about some experiences.
Ms. Jordan. Yes. So, for me with the pronoun thing I just
say my name, hometown--
Mr. Moore. Everybody looks at you when you stand up and
don't say your pronoun?
Ms. Jordan. Typically, not. I don't know if people notice
as a mental thing or not. I kind of hope they don't. Yes, with
my experiences, I guess--could you repeat the question again?
Mr. Moore. So, have you had an opportunity--or an
experience where you felt maybe intimidated by other students?
Ms. Silberstein said she's a little bit nervous sometimes now
going to certain events.
Ms. Jordan. Yes. So, the second time that I was doxed, my
photo and name, along with several of our other--
Mr. Moore. What's doxed, for us old people?
Ms. Jordan. Yes. So, it is when your personal information
is released. So, the first time I was doxed in that 800-person
group chat, my Instagram profile was screenshot and sent to all
those people. It had my name, personal information, things like
that.
The second time is a screenshot from a group chat. It had
my name and photo, along with several other YAF member's names
and photos. So, this was printed out and put all around
downtown Iowa City and campus. On my birthday, me and some YAF
members were walking downtown to get frozen yogurt to
celebrate. This girl walks right by us. Don't think anything of
it. I don't know where she starts screaming her head off and
she's like, ``f-_-_-_ you. You don't belong here. Get out of
Iowa City. We don't like your people, stuff like that.''
Mr. Moore. The tolerant left as we call them.
Ms. Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Moore. Mr. Chair--I'm sorry I didn't get to this.
Mr. Chair, I yield back. I'm over time.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
Kiley.
Mr. Kiley. A truly terrible sickness has afflicted colleges
and universities in this country which has reached horrifying
levels over the course of the last month. We have to ask, how
is it that in the United States of America in the 21st century
have our supposedly most elite institutions been gripped by one
of the most ancient retrograde prejudices that the world has
ever known? How is it that universities that have
systematically suppressed free speech for years, how have they
suddenly discovered the First Amendment and invoked free speech
as a reason not to condemn terrorism and anti-Semitism? How is
it that institutions that have proliferated their diversity,
equity, and inclusion bureaucracies are turning a blind eye now
to attacks on Jewish students on their own campuses? How is it
that university administrations that have weighed in into every
political issue of the day are now suddenly bound by
institutional neutrality when it comes to the murder of
children?
Perhaps the intolerable irony and hypocrisy of it all is
best illustrated by Harvard University, whose leadership
remained silent and said nothing for days after October 7th.
Meanwhile, 24 student groups filled a vacuum with a statement
explaining that Israel itself was solely to blame for the
attack. It was only after enormous criticism from alumnae like
myself and Representative Elise Stefanik that Harvard President
Claudine Gay came out with a very tepid statement which still
refused to condemn the student groups, and instead said that
Harvard is committed to free expression.
The thing is Harvard is not committed to free expression.
There was a recent ranking of how committed 248 universities
are to free expression, and Harvard was ranked dead last,
number 248. The only institution to receive the abysmal rating.
I actually think that these things are not unrelated. Mr.
Marcus, I think your testimony established that. That the
suppression of free speech and the rise of anti-Semitism
actually in some ways go hand-in-hand.
Do you believe that the systematic suppression of free
speech on college campuses has served to fuel the rise of anti-
Semitism by silencing and excluding Jewish students on campus?
Mr. Marcus. Yes, sir, Congressman. I think that there is a
culture of intolerance in which certain viewpoints and certain
identities are privileged and certain other ones are condemned.
We no longer have on even our greatest college campuses a sense
that we should have a reasoned debate among all or that every
group should be treated with the same degree of equality. What
we have is a kind of orthodoxy which has taken over from the
faculty and also the student body. This has implications not
only for conservatives but for other groups who are disdained
within the institution, including Jewish Americans.
Mr. Kiley. I'd like to read a portion of a letter from the
Legislative Jewish Caucus in California to show just how dire
the situation is at the public universities in my own State.
This is a letter addressed to the CSU, California State
University, and the leader--and the UC leaders. It says:
Among numerous other examples, we have heard from Jewish
students at UC Berkeley, UC Davis and San Jose State who are a
part of being physically attacked for expressing support for
Israel. Jewish students at UC San Diego who required a police
escort in order to safely leave a student meeting; obscene
anti-Israeli graffiti on a Jewish ritual space at Cal Poly
Humboldt; anti-Israel rallies at UCLA that interrupted classes
with hate filled rhetoric; a social media post by a UC Davis
faculty member with a knife, axe, and blood emojis calling for
violence against Zionists in their homes and in their kids in
school; and an increased need for armed security at Jewish
student centers on multiple campuses.
Shockingly, the letter continues:
Anti-Israel student groups immediately celebrated the Hamas
terrorist attack on October 7th, where UC ethnic studies
faculty counsel glorified the largest mass murder, rape, and
kidnapping of Jewish civilians since the Holocaust as worthy of
support as part of the Palestinian freedom struggle.
The letter goes on from these 18 legislators that Jewish
students and faculty have shared with us disturbing examples of
Jewish students being denied opportunities afforded to other
student groups. Examples include administrators providing space
on campus to various identity and affinity groups, but not the
Jewish student organizations. At least one Israeli student at
UC Berkeley being told she could not participate in a class-
related conference because of her nationality.
Given your experience at the Civil Rights Division at the
Department of Education, do you believe there is more that the
Department could be doing about this sort of discrimination and
activity on campuses?
Mr. Marcus. Absolutely. There's more that the Department
can be doing, and it can do it tomorrow. The Department has
sent out links for Jewish students to file complaints. It has
added language to its complaint forms. That's fine. There is no
reason why the Department needs to wait for Jewish students to
come to them. The Department has the authority to initiate
self-directed investigations.
Anytime it opens the newspaper and sees that there is a
problem at an institution that receives Federal funds, and
that's every single day, if they are reading the papers.
Moreover, Secretary of Education has the authority to commence
nationwide compliance reviews in particular areas that are of
concern. Again, there's no way that one can pay attention to
higher education today and not realize that this is a serious
national problem.
These are things that can be done quickly that don't
require legislation, they don't require significant infusions
of funds. They can be done with the current resources and that
can be done with the authority that the Secretary of Education
already has.
Mr. Kiley. Thank you. I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Fry.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for having this
hearing today actually.
Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee, I think is the
central theme for conservatives on college campuses. That's the
unfortunate truth that we really see perpetuated by college and
university administrators across the country.
Think about the few examples we've kind of hit on today a
little bit, including yours. Riley Gaines was attacked twice
when she went to San Francisco State University. It didn't stop
there. The school kind of glossed over it by saying that
students took tremendous bravery for the students who
participated peacefully on campus. Or when the acting associate
dean for administrative affairs at the University of Arizona
sent an email to students that they may be impacted by Charlie
Kirk coming to the school and provided them with counseling for
anyone who was--considered that, I guess, violence of some
flavor. Or most recently, just last month, in a classroom at
Stanford University a lecturer asked Jewish students to raise
their hands if they were Jewish and put them in the corner of
the room and said, ``that is what happens in Palestine.''
Colleges and universities should be epicenters of American
freedoms. Schools should robustly protect the right of students
to defend their position, to articulate their position, to
express those viewpoints on campus. These are the labyrinths of
our future of this Republic. Many college university
administrators have shown their commitment is not to the
protect free speech, unless it is speech in which they agree
with.
Let's play a video really quick.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Fry. So, these are our college campuses in America
today. Is this your experience, collectively, the three of you?
Ms. Silberstein. I personally have not experienced, thank
God, violence toward myself, but the rhetoric being spread and
the incitement to violence, yes.
Ms. Jordan. Yes, this is very similar to what we have we
were tabling. Also, the lectures that we host on campus.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Unfortunately, yes it is. We had a violent
mob chase us across campus following one of our lectures. I
have had literature comparing me to a Nazi, to a fascist, with
many other obscenities written in the letter, sent to the
address of my parents' house. So, these issues extend off
campus.
Mr. Fry. See, that's the problem I think most of us see, is
that colleges should be the environment in which you learn,
that you learn how to debate, that you learn how to defend your
ideas to grow as a person. That doesn't seem to be the case
here. Scholars have said that the purpose of the American
public school system it to prepare the future citizenry of this
Republic, but that doesn't seem to be taking place.
Ms. Jordan and Mr. Ogrydziak--did I pronounce that right?
OK. I know there's a lot of variations of that I heard today. I
just wanted to confirm that A 2022 report from the Foundation
for Individual Rights and Education [sic] revealed that roughly
three and five students expressed worry about damaging their
reputation because someone misunderstanding what they have said
or done. Roughly one out of two students reported that they
feel discomfort expressing their own views on college campuses
on controversial political topics.
Can genuine learning transpire in such repressive academic
institutions?
Ms. Jordan. Sorry. Could you repeat the question again,
please?
Mr. Fry. Can general learning transpire in such a
repressive academic environment?
Ms. Jordan. Are you asking if learning can happen from how
these students are kind of acting out?
Mr. Fry. Right. So, if one out of two students feel that
they can't express themselves because of discomfort of a
controversial political topic, can you truly be learning?
Ms. Jordan. Absolutely not, because you're just running
away from the conversation. You're not engaging in dialog.
You're learning nothing. Recently, me and a fellow YAF member
had been accosted by two pro-Palestine people. When we were
sharing our viewpoints and someone else who actually had a
personal connection to two hostages started sharing our
viewpoints, the two students just ran away. They learned
nothing, got nothing out of the discussion, because they can't
tolerate a different point of view and can't be exposed to
another side. They've heard it is just a constant echo chamber
of misinformation.
Mr. Fry. Mr. Ogrydziak, isn't that self-censorship,
basically, in that you're not allowed to participate or express
your viewpoints? Isn't that concerning?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Yes, that is concerning to me. Of course,
true education, true understanding, you know, questioning your
own morals can only come when everyone in the room, everyone
who is in that center for learning is able to completely
express their values, their viewpoints. If you are unable to do
so, I don't understand how new ideas can form.
Mr. Fry. Thank you.
Just in conclusion, Ms. Silberstein, I noticed in your
written testimony that you talked about how relatives from
Israel have called you to see how you were doing here. This is
in light of the recent events that are going on in Israel right
now. How insanely ironic that is that they are calling you to
check on you and your status at Cornell University.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. With that, I yield back.
Chair Jordan. The gentleman yields back.
I apologize, I have to get to--I'm 10 minutes late for
another engagement I have to get to. I want to thank all of you
for being here.
The Chair would ask Ms. Hageman if you could come up and
take the Chair while we go to Mr. Moran, and then Ms. Hageman
will close out our hearing.
I did have two quick things. You had a point you wanted to
make earlier, and I said I'd give you time. You can make that
point if you have it.
[Disturbance in hearing room.]
Chair Jordan. The Committee will be in order. Could we get
the Capitol--he decided he'd become--not wait for the police.
So, if you want to do that really quickly, and then I did
have a question for Mr. Marcus.
Mr. Ogrydziak. Of course. Yes, I just wanted to touch on
Representative Roy's question regarding application of DEI
offices and why they not be so effective.
Of course, my biggest problem with these offices is the I
in DEI, inclusion. Of course, I think it's a pretty safe
assumption that everyone here wants the inclusion of all
viewpoints. However, I don't understand how such offices can
pretend to facilitate that when it's so unequally applied.
When we hosted Allen West on our campus, he came to speak
about race, and this was heavily protested, especially by
members of this office. The university itself, in their
Distinguished Speaker Series, which is pretty well-known in the
Buffalo area, was able to host Nikole Hannah-Jones, who is the
founder of the 1619 Project.
These speakers each came to talk about race. They each have
large followings. The response to them was vastly different. If
DEI offices were committed to handling these topics equally, I
fail to see why there was this discrepancy.
Chair Jordan. So, one of the things I just recently learned
about, and you made me think of it, I know on campuses we had
these safe spaces, we have free speech and all this stuff at
Disney. It seems to me that free speech on its own should be
everywhere; it's called the First Amendment. We have these
things.
I learned about this issue called no contact orders. Have
any of the three of you students experienced that dynamic on
campus where someone says they don't like your point of view,
they report to the DEI office or someone in the campus in
authority, and then there's an order that you're not allowed to
have contact with another student because that student is
somehow offended by what you believe or what you may have said?
Have any of you had any experience with that?
Ms. Silberstein. I personally have not had any experience
with that, no.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Ms. Jordan. I also have personally not experienced that.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Ogrydziak. I have not either.
Chair Jordan. That's good to hear. Maybe it's not very
prevalent, which would be a good thing.
Mr. Marcus, in your opening statement, you talk about four
things you thought should happen that you suggested the
Committee do. If you could just--I just wrote down one of four,
but I didn't get those. If you could just recite those for me
again, that'd be great.
Mr. Marcus. Certainly, Mr. Chair. I suggested that Congress
could provide the education department with tools to address
violations of the freedom of speech, similar to the way in
which it handles violations of the right to be free of
discrimination.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Marcus. Second, that there could be a special adviser
or coordinator for free speech within the Department of
Education reporting to the Secretary.
Chair Jordan. Promoting free speech, promoting the First
Amendment, not the Disinformation Governance Board that the
Obama--or that the Biden Administration tried to set up that
would limit speech. Is that right?
Mr. Marcus. That's right, Mr. Chair.
Chair Jordan. Yes.
Mr. Marcus. If free speech is addressed, if at all, by the
Office of General Counsel, by the Office for Civil Rights,
there are implications of work done by the Office of Post-
Secondary Education and other components, but there is no
institutional repository of knowledge on how it is that free
speech can be protected.
Chair Jordan. OK.
Mr. Marcus. Third, I suggested that the Anti-Semitism
Awareness Act would provide important tools for the education
department.
Fourth, I believe the is that there could be a check on
whether the Biden Administration is indeed planning to issue
the promised regulations implementing the Trump Executive Order
13899 next month as promised in the OIRA unified agenda and
regulatory plan, but for which there's been no talk.
Chair Jordan. That's something that's current that we need
to pressing right now.
I want to thank all our witnesses, particularly our
students. Ms. Silberstein, especially you and what you've had
to endure. Thank you all for being here.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for five
minutes.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to address in context of this hearing my
concerns about diversity, equity, and inclusion offices on
campuses, in particular. We've heard some of that today, but I
noticed a trend that's very disturbing to me, and then I want
to come to some of the students and ask you about your
experiences on campus as well.
It seems to me that staff at diversity, equity, and
inclusion departments on many college campuses today are
noticeably anti-Semitic. Go about their work in a manner
contrary to the stated intent of treating all with equality or
equity.
In 2021, Heritage did a report on the anti-Semitism of DEI
staff at universities that objectively validates my hypothesis
on this matter. In conducting its study, Heritage searched the
Twitter feeds of 741 DEI personnel at 65 universities to find
comments regarding Israel, and for comparison, also looked at
their comments about China. Those DEI staff tweeted, retweeted,
or liked almost three times as many tweets about Israel as
tweets about China.
Here's what's disturbing. Notably, of the tweets about
Israel, 96 percent were critical of the Jewish State, while 62
percent of the tweets about China were favorable toward China.
So, consider that.
It appears to me through that data that DEI staff simply
across our college campuses or universities are favoring China
and disfavoring Israel. In my view, this explains in large part
the lack of response toward anti-Semitic instances by DEI staff
on college campuses. Seems clear to me that there are a number
of higher education institutions whose DEI staff are
disconnected with the values and the strategic objectives of
the U.S., and what's more, they are clearly anti-Semitic.
One of the most painful videos from the fallout of the
Hamas attack on Israel on this issue, in particular, is from UC
Berkeley. In the video, you can watch Jewish students pleading
with the vice chancellor of DEI to do something to protect
Jewish students on campus. That DEI administrator talks about
how they didn't have enough time to work with Jewish students
and that they were overworked. Despite the unwillingness of the
DEI administrators to assist, the students themselves put
together a vigil for Israel within 24 hours, despite their busy
schedules and despite their workload and despite the fact that
they're not getting paid to do that as part of their job.
Simply put, Jewish students in many cases received
disproportionate pushback and opposition by DEI staff on
college campuses. It's atrocious to me.
Dr. Nadell earlier defined anti-Semitism in a number of
different ways, but on campuses, she said, quote, ``it involves
threats, violence, intimidation, and discrimination on
campuses.'' That was part of her definition.
So, I want to come to you, Ms. Silberstein, because it
appears to me you've experienced this. Have you indeed
experienced such threats, violence, intimidation, and
discrimination on campus?
Ms. Silberstein. Yes, I have. As I've spoken about before,
threats were made saying that they would come to our only
kosher dining hall on campus and shoot it up, shoot all the
people who are in it; bomb all of the Jewish houses and
facilities on campus that I regularly attend. So, yes, I was
directly threatened.
Mr. Moran. I'm curious, you do have a DEI office at Cornell
located there on campus, correct?
Ms. Silberstein. Yes. Actually, a few weeks ago, the now
former DEI Chair, who I'm not sure if his leave was related to
this or unrelated, but was found to have made anti-Semitic
remarks and support of Hamas online.
Mr. Moran. Did that office provide you any support in
response to the intimidation that you faced on campus?
Ms. Silberstein. No.
Mr. Moran. That's amazing to me, because when I googled DEI
and Cornell, the first thing that came up on their web page,
Cornell's web page is a big highlight from this last week that
says Cornell awarded excellence in diversity and inclusion.
First, paragraph of that says: ``Cornell University has been
awarded the 2023 Higher Education Excellence in Diversity Award
by INSIGHT Into Diversity magazine for its outstanding
commitment to diversity and inclusion.''
Would you agree that they have outstanding commitment to
diversity and inclusion?
Ms. Silberstein. So, I was made aware that they recently
added anti-Semitism to their DEI training that every student
and I believe faculty member must go through, but I haven't
seen tangible results.
Mr. Moran. This is just emblematic of what's going on
across the Nation. I note that a Stanford University professor
was recently suspended for forcing Jewish students in two
classes to stand in a corner while he called them colonizers.
That professor shrugged off the deaths of six million Jews in
the Holocaust and called Hamas terrorists freedom fighters.
Joseph Massad, a professor at Columbia University, called
the Hamas massacre of Israeli and American citizens, quote,
``awesome,'' and, ``a stunning victory.'' These are horrific
statements.
Zareena Grewal, a professor at Yale University, stated on
X, formerly Twitter, that Israel is, quote, ``a murderous,
genocidal settler State and Palestinians have every right to
resist through armed struggle.'' To me this is disgusting. It
is being propagated by the DEI offices on our college campuses,
which are actually working contrary to their stated intent.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back, in disgust.
Ms. Hageman. [Presiding.] Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes herself for five minutes.
Giving more money to the Federal Department of Education
isn't the answer. It never has been, and it never will be. In
fact, it's the Federal Department of Education that's largely
responsible for the free speech crisis that we're seeing on our
campuses, both in grade school, high school, and college.
What do I mean by that? The testimony that you've provided
today has been very enlightening, very fascinating, and very
disturbing. We must identify what the real cancer is here so
that we can actually at some point start addressing it. It is
our Federal Department of Education.
Now, don't get me wrong. I come from a long line of
educators: My grandmother, my mother, my sisters, my aunts,
great aunts, and sister-in-laws. I come from--I am a product of
public education in the State of Wyoming. They used to focus on
that, education, not indoctrination.
I have watched with absolute horror, especially as a
Constitutional attorney, over the last 10 years or so as those
on the left being unable to defend their noxious ideas in the
free speech marketplace are now working overtime to prevent us
from speaking at all. They are fascists. They are the ones that
are preventing our students from engaging in the free
marketplace of ideas.
So, forgive me if I don't necessarily believe you when you
talk about wanting to fight for free speech on campus when I
watch university after university after university, and people
just like you go in and say, yes, we believe in free speech,
but we don't necessarily agree with what these young people
have to say. So, we don't know that they should be allowed to
bring our speakers to campus the way that others should.
We spent an awful lot of time talking about what happened
over the last 30 days and what happened on October 7th, and it
is definitely at the forefront of our minds. The very purpose
of this hearing was to talk about the importance of free speech
on campus and how it has been squelched, how our campuses have
been preventing people from engaging in that free marketplace
of ideas.
Ms. Jordan, I'd like to talk to you for a moment. I very
much appreciate your experience and what you've described.
You're some very brave young people, very brave young people,
much braver than the people who were sitting in the back of the
room with their faces covered.
You highlight that because of your conservative and
Christian values, other students felt you were capable of
committing a hate crime or hateful or that you supported
oppression. This seems to be part of a larger trend we are
seeing on campuses where opposing views are redefined as
violence just to justify attacks on certain viewpoints all
together.
Through your experiences at college, do you think your
fellow students' actions in condemning your beliefs are part of
that broader trend?
Ms. Jordan. Could you please repeat the question?
Ms. Hageman. Sure. Through your experiences in college, do
you think your fellow students' actions in condemning your
beliefs are part of that larger trend?
Ms. Jordan. The larger trend of--
Ms. Hageman. That we are seeing people attack you simply
because of your beliefs. That's the trend that I'm seeing on
university campuses. They don't want to engage you about your
conservative ideas, your conservative ideals, so they attack
you personally and accuse you of things, such as that you are
being hateful or that you support oppression.
Do you see that as part of a larger trend?
Ms. Jordan. Yes, I definitely do.
Ms. Hageman. OK. Why do you think your fellow students view
your belief system in this manner?
Ms. Jordan. I think a majority of the students are afraid
of the truth. That's to simply put it. They can't agree that
there's only men and women. I had a student tell me chromosomes
don't matter, which is one of the most preposterous statements
I've ever heard. A lot of students, when they're faced with
this truth, they know it's true but they just want to deny it
because they want to continue living in their delusions. It
just causes a lot of chaos, honestly, which is really
disappointing because the constant denial of the truth is why
our country is in such a disarray as it is.
Ms. Hageman. Uncertainty. That's exactly right.
As a recent graduate yourself, I think your perspective on
this growing issue and witnessing it for the entirety of your
college experience is incredibly important. In your testimony,
you covered the hurdles that you faced as a member of Young
Americans for Freedom.
I want to make sure that I address the classroom situation
as well. You have outlined the threats and the direct acts of
violence that you witnessed due to the speakers your group was
bringing in and, clearly, your student groups differing
viewpoint was not accepted by some on campus.
Did this also translate into the experience in the
classroom either by you or other people that you know?
Mr. Ogrydziak. It did, yes.
Ms. Hageman. How did that happen?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Yes. Other students in class have been
called out for wearing YAF memorabilia, YAF shirts, a YAF hat
in classes related to their major. I'm fortunate that this has
not happened to me, but it did happen to others.
Ms. Hageman. So, our professors are also engaging in the
suppression of freedom of speech?
Mr. Ogrydziak. Unfortunately, yes. Contrary to my
preferences, the political beliefs of professors are not being
left at the door.
Ms. Hageman. OK. With unanimous consent, I have two
articles I would like to submit for the record: `` `Your speech
is violence': The left's new mantra to justify campus
violence,'' by Jonathan Turley; and ``The Diversity Problem on
Campus,'' by Dorian S. Abbot and Ivan Marinovic.
Without objection.
Ms. Hageman. That concludes today's hearing. We thank our
witnesses for appearing before the Committee today.
Without objection, all Members will have five legislative
days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses
or additional materials for the record.
Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
All items submitted for the record by Members of the
Committee on the Judiciary can be found at https://
docs.house.gov/Committee
/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116550.
[all]