University Antisemitism Hearing

Mr. Walberg (00:00):

… Palestine, but after October 7th, chapters of the faculty variant of this group, faculty and staff for justice in Palestine proliferated at universities across the United States. Over 100 new chapters have been established in an effort to bring anti-Semitism into the classrooms and lend institutional legitimacy to anti-Semitic actions. We'll examine faculty unions. Secondly, faculty unions have played a critical role fomenting anti-Semitism at universities under the guise of labor rights.

(00:43)
As we'll see today, unions across the country encourage anti-Semitic activism through protests, demands and workshops. Third, we'll look at Middle East studies centers. Many such centers have become beachheads for faculty with extremist ties who seek to demonize Israel and the United States. We support the study of the Middle East and recognize that it's important for our national security, but we do not support promoting anti-Semitism and Islamism, a radical political ideology.

(01:24)
Fourth, we'll examine foreign funding. Foreign funding can influence research priorities, faculty appointments, public statements, and events on campus. This is especially the case for U.S. universities with a separate campus abroad. We need greater transparency into foreign funding when it comes to higher education. The Deterrent Act passed on a bipartisan basis through this committee and the house earlier this congress would achieve that goal.

(01:58)
Finally, and more broadly, we'll be examining the diversity, equity, and inclusion policies universities use. The DEI ideology embraced by so many university bureaucrats, categorizes Jews as white oppressors and therefore excuses or even justifies anti-Semitic harassment. The violence, fear and alienation felt by Jewish students is at its core result of administrators and their staff lacking the moral clarity to condemn and punish anti-Semitism that is creating a hostile environment for Jewish students on America's campuses. We've seen that in evidence at past hearings sadly, to a great degree.

(02:51)
Speech that is protected by the First Amendment can still contribute to a hostile environment and universities are obligated to do something about it. Universities can choose to hire anti-Semitic faculty, welcome students with a history of anti-Semitism, accept certain foreign funding, and let the behavior of anti-Semitic unions go unchecked. But we will see today they do so at their own risk.

(03:21)
While I appreciated our discussions with the presidents and chancellors yesterday in my office and I sincerely appreciated it, especially in light of the change in schedule that forced your changes in schedule as well. It is time for clear action on your campuses that can be quantified and can be exemplified to the watching world around. With that, I yield to the ranking member, my friend from Virginia for an opening statement.

Mr. Scott (03:55):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for being with us today, and we begin by acknowledging the seriousness of today's hearing topic. Combatting anti-Semitism, like all forms of hatred and bigotry must be a moral and civic priority, but I'd be remiss if I did not point out that this is our ninth hearing on anti-Semitism in 18 months.

(04:22)
Also note that since this committee's first anti-Semitism hearing in December 2023, we've not held a single hearing addressing racism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, or other challenges affecting other student groups on American college campuses. I have witnessed this committee's silence on the administration's wholesale attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility, DEI initiatives designed to make campuses more welcoming to all groups.

(04:54)
And if we're seriously to address anti-Semitism and other forms of hate on college campuses, the process that we could best use would be the vigorous enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, enforced by the Office of Civil Rights in the department of education. Yet this committee majority has said nothing about the wholesale firings attacking the Office of Civil Rights.

(05:19)
And while the committee is engaged in holding its ninth hearing on anti-Semitism critical issues affecting public education in this country and in viability of institutions of higher education institutions have been ignored. For example, in the last six months, our administration has taken harmful steps in the area of education. Specifically, nearly 50% of the department's workforce have been proposed to be fired, thus threatening the key role of department plays in keeping our nation's schools running and our students access to safe welcoming environments.

(05:54)
And yesterday the Supreme Court majority green-lighted this fatal blow by permitting the department to proceed with this plan firing of employees responsible for managing student loans, collecting data and student learning trends, and relevant to this hearing, enforcing the civil rights protections of students. Yesterday evening, President Trump announced on a social media platform that based on the Supreme Court decision that Secretary of Education should proceed with the dismantling of the department of education.

(06:28)
We're seeing the impact on this action department is requiring many of those with student loans to change to another loan program, but those students are unable to do it because of inadequate staff at the Department of Education, that's before more people are being fired.

(06:47)
Now the area this committee has not held a hearing on is the impact of stripping critical federal funding on the integrity of higher education institutions and their contributions to science, medicine, and global competition. This committee has also not examined how the recent enacted reconciliation law or as Democrats call it, the big ugly bill, will impact student loan borrowers.

(07:10)
This law will raise costs for students seeking higher education by forcing student loan borrowers into unaffordable repayment plans, eliminating resources to help struggling borrowers, pushing students into predatory private loan market by eliminating graduate PLUS loans, capping parent PLUS loans and limiting Pell Grant access. Further, the law exposes students to predatory for-profit institutions stopping the implementation of the 2023 Borrower Defense regulation, which provides student loan relief with millions of borrowers defrauded by their schools or the 2023 closed school discharge regulations, which provide student loan relief of students whose institutions closed, of course, before they were able to complete their programs.

(07:56)
Also on July 1st with little warning and no justification, this administration announced it was pausing nearly $7 billion in education programs that administration initially proposed to eliminate next year's fiscal 2026 budget. Again, we have had no hearings to examine the effect of the threat of loss of funding on the following programs.

(08:23)
Title II-A programs Supporting Effective Instruction Grant Programs which support professional development and other activities to improve the effectiveness of teachers, school leaders, including reducing class sizes. Three, a program English language acquisition, which supports language instruction to help English language learners become professional in English.

(08:46)
The Student Support Academic Enrichment grants Title IV-A program which provide flexible funding for school districts for a wide range of activities including supporting STEM education, accelerating learning courses, college and career counseling, school-based mental health services, and improving school technology among others.

(09:06)
And another Title IV program, Title IV-B, 21st community learning centers, which support high quality before and after school programs focused on providing academic enrichment opportunities for students. Title I-C program Migrant Education, which supports educational needs of migratory students including children of migrant and seasonal farm workers and the adult basic literacy education state grants including integrated English literacy and Civics Education state grants, which support adult education and literacy programs to provide basic skills to help prepare adults and out-of-school youth for success in the workforce.

(09:53)
All of these programs are at risk of the abrupt loss in funding. In response, a number of the state attorneys general have filed an emergency lawsuit just yesterday. However, cash-strapped school districts, particularly those in low-income and rural areas, cannot afford the delay in funding and will likely be forced to either lay off staff or cut back programs and services and we should be having hearings to support and strengthen our learning institutions.

(10:22)
We should be insisting that the department of education not abdicate its responsibility and ensure that all students are afforded safe, quality, and equitable education regardless of their race, gender, immigration status, socioeconomic status, religion or disability status. When we should call on the officials from the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education to testify and ensure that they are implementing their longstanding duties to investigate, monitor, and provide resources to victims of potential civil rights violations and that they are enforcing the laws that fight anti-Semitism.

(11:01)
So Mr. Chairman, as we conduct our ninth hearing on this issue, I urge you to also focus some of your attention on those who have the responsibility to protect students from hate and discrimination, the Office of Civil Rights or whatever's left of it, and the pressing issues facing colleges and students today. With that Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Walberg (11:25):

I thank the gentleman. Pursuant to committee rule 8C, all members who wish to insert written statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the committee clerk electronically in Microsoft Word format by 5:00 PM, 14 days after this hearing. And without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material noted during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record.

(11:56)
I'll now turn to the introduction of the four witnesses. Our first witness is Dr. Robert M. Groves, the interim president of Georgetown University right here in Washington D.C., welcome. Our second witness is Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, the chancellor of the City University of New York in New York City, welcome. Our third witness is Matt Nosanchuk, I hope I got close on that, a principal for Mattnos Strategies and former deputy assistant secretary Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education in Washington D.C., welcome.

(12:36)
Our last witness is Dr. Richard K. Lyons, chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, California, welcome. We thank the witnesses for being here today. Pursuant to committee rules, I would ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a three-minute summary of your written statement. The clock will count down from three minutes as committee members have many questions for you and we would like to spend as much time as possible on questions.

(13:06)
Pursuant to committee rule 8D and committee practice, however, we will not cut off your testimony until you reach the five-minute mark. I would like to remind the witnesses to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information to the committee. I'll first recognize Dr. Groves for your testimony.

Dr. Groves (13:26):

Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott, members of the committee. Since 1789, as the first Catholic and Jesuit U.S. University, Georgetown's religious beliefs have demanded the absence of anti-Semitism and other hatreds. Indeed, the church has directed the Jesuits to foster dialogue across all religions. Therefore, any hatred or fear among our students destroys that dialogue.

(14:03)
Anti-Semitism is incompatible with living our mission and the same applies to Islamophobia and racism. Hence, we try to react quickly to threats on collaboration. On October 8th, a day after the Hamas attack, Georgetown condemned it, one of the first universities to speak out. Similarly, we try to act quickly to student conduct violations but have learned that we need to adapt to changing circumstances, almost continuously.

(14:41)
Addressing interfaith conflict has been aided by the largest set of full-time religious leaders at any U.S. research university, Georgetown. Since 1968, a full-time Georgetown rabbi, but also Jesuit and Orthodox priests, Protestant ministers, an imam, a director of Dharmic Life and Hindu Spiritual Advisor.

(15:08)
We've also built academic units, the Center for Jewish Civilization, a Center for Muslim Christian Understanding, and the Berkley Center for Religion Peace and World Affairs among others. We also try to carry out the Jesuit mission globally now working in 16 different countries around the world. This has taught us the need to respect laws of other countries and their cultures despite disagreeing with some of their government's policies.

(15:40)
For example, in 2005, we brought Western Jesuit education and international affairs to Qatar. There, nearly 70% of our students are women, a group with historically limited access to education. There, we have full control over the curriculum, admissions, faculty hiring, and research activities. At Georgetown, non-U.S. financial support is accepted only to fulfill our longstanding mission, but never to alter it.

(16:15)
Given our Jesuit values, we expose students to different viewpoints on the Middle East. In addition to speakers on Gaza, we've hosted IDF soldiers, families of Israeli and Palestinians who've lost their lives, families of U.S. hostages in Gaza. Georgetown is not perfect, and as events evolve, we've had to clarify rules of student behavior. But since October 7th, Georgetown has not experienced an encampment physical violence, cancellation of commencement activities or city police activities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walberg (16:58):

Thank you. I now recognize Dr. Matos Rodríguez for your testimony.

Dr. Matos R. (17:06):

Thank you, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. I am Felix Matos Rodríguez and it's a privilege to serve as a chancellor of the City University of New York and to represent our institution here today.

(17:26)
This committee has highlighted the alarming rise in anti-Semitism on university campuses. Our university has not been immune, but let me be clear, anti-Semitism has no place at CUNY. I share your commitment to identifying and addressing the underlying factors, instigating anti-Semitism on campuses.

(17:49)
In fact, I have confronted anti-Semitism since the moment I became chancellor in 2019. CUNY is a unique institution. We are the nation's largest urban public university. We are comprised of 26 campuses spread across New York City's five boroughs. We serve nearly 200,040 degree seeking students and employ 40,000 people. Each of our campuses as its own president and administration. And as chancellor, I oversee the university's operations and policies to advance our mission of providing accessible high quality education. Our annual in-state tuition, which is under 5,000 for community colleges and under 7,000 for senior colleges, remains among the most affordable in the nation. Due to our focus on affordability, educational quality, and meaningful job opportunities for our students, we have been recognized as a powerful engine of social mobility. We are proud that we propelled more students into the middle class than all Ivy League schools combined.

(18:59)
The size and scope of our community also comes with challenges and we confront this head on, including the unacceptable rise in anti-Semitism. Those challenges only grew more pronounced after the horrific terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th of 2023. And although our response has not always been perfect, our commitment to this important work has never wavered. Our commitment to the safety of the members of our Jewish community and to our entire community is non-negotiable.

(19:36)
I have been committed to forging deep ties with Jewish organizations on our campuses and have invested nearly 2 million to educate our community to combat hate and anti-Semitism. I have created a center to centralize and improve CUNY's anti-discrimination policies, made Title VI training mandatory and launch our constructive dialogue initiative, which is designed to help foster mutual understanding and combat hate, and I have made the safety of our Jewish students a top priority.

(20:08)
I would like to highlight one example that I think encapsulates the challenges that we face and how we have learned from them. In the spring of 2024, an encampment disrupted city college campus during our spring break, in response, I secure emergency funding for increased security personnel. We ended the encampment with the help of the New York City Police Department, but not before damage was done to campus property. We learned from that experience and we now have a zero tolerance policy against encampments.

(20:42)
We've also hired more than 150 full-time security employees and contracted with an additional 250 security personnel. Our approach has shown results. This past spring, we apply our zero tolerance policy and work with CUNY Public Safety to prevent an encampment at City College. Our student safety is and must remain a top priority, and we're committed to constant vigilance against anti-Semitism.

(21:13)
Although I am proud of the progress that we have made, I know that we must never rest until every student on our campus is safe, feel safe, and can fully participate in student life. I hope to discuss in greater detail today during today's hearing, the many efforts with undertaken to combat anti-Semitism on our campuses and address it root causes. Thank you and I look forward to your questions.

Mr. Walberg (21:39):

Thank you. I recognize Mr. Nosanchuk, Nosanchuk?

Matt N. (21:48):

Nosanchuk.

Mr. Walberg (21:49):

Nosanchuk. Simple to say it that way for your testimony.

Matt N. (21:54):

Good morning, Chairman Walberg and Ranking Member Scott. My name is Matt Nosanchuk. I'm a civil rights lawyer with a track record of fighting anti-Semitism in the Obama White House at the Justice Department Civil Rights Division, and as a former deputy assistant secretary in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights.

(22:13)
I bring three key messages today. First, anti-Semitism in America and on campuses is real, responding to it demands actions that are tailored to universities, properly implemented and adequately resourced. Second, this administration's approach is contradictory and counterproductive. It includes the broad anti-democratic crackdown on foreign students, slashing funds for universities, disregarding the Title VI process and gutting the office mandated to enforce the law while claiming to champion the fight against anti-Semitism.

(22:47)
Third, Congress must fulfill its core responsibilities, meaningful oversight, and adequate resources for effective solutions, not political theater that inflames campus climate and ultimately harms the students it claims to protect. My written testimony describes the unacceptable discrimination Jewish students face, social ostracism, verbal harassment, sometimes physical violence.

(23:10)
In the classroom, faculty have targeted Jewish students who've responded by dropping classes, concealing their identity or retreating from campus life. The bottom line is this, no students should be forced to choose between their identity and social acceptance. This includes their connection to a Jewish homeland, whether they express it through Zionism or generally identify as Jewish.

(23:33)
When these problems persist, it's natural to demand forceful solutions and accountability. We have robust tools under Title VI, the most effective investigations. OCR launched an unprecedented number following October 7th, result in detailed monitored resolution agreements, obligating schools to take verifiable action. They include, for example, climate surveys, mandatory training, and ensuring all complaints get addressed promptly and effectively.

(24:01)
Here's what one campus Hillel director said about change from his campuses agreement. "Jewish life has improved remarkably. Jewish students now receive responses to bias incidents within 24 hours, the Hillel Center reported a 40% increase in daily usage. Parents feel confident sending their children there." In short, Jewish life on campus is thriving. These agreements work. That's why OCR use them in anti-Semitism investigations during the first Trump administration, proper enforcement creates meaningful, positive change. None of that is happening now.

(24:37)
This administration boasts it is combating anti-Semitism while systematically dismantling the infrastructure needed to do it. They've gutted OCR the office with the expertise and mandate to enforce Title IV, closing most of its regional offices and cutting staff in half. Thorough investigations are impossible, OCR dismissed over 3,400 complaints in just three months. An unprecedented number suggesting students in harm's way are being ignored.

(25:04)
The administration relies on press reports rather than actual complaints from harm students sending ultimatum styled as notices of violation riddled with inaccuracies and political hyperbole. The current approach reminds me of the Wizard of Oz projecting an intimidating, demanding, and illusory image of action, but here the man behind the curtain cancels funds for civil rights enforcement and cancer research.

(25:29)
Fighting anti- Semitism is actually the camel's nose under the tent for ideological assaults on universities that have undertaken extensive efforts to address the problem. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized that the administration is overstepping its authority by imposing sweeping conditions on funds that weren't spelled out by Congress and shooting first and investigating later.

(25:52)
And administration committed to strengthening enforcement against anti-Semitism invests in responsible offices and critical personnel. It doesn't shutter agencies and fire staff. Many leading Jewish community voices and a majority of American Jews reject the false choice between confronting anti-Semitism and upholding democracy. Our safety as Jews has always been tied to the rule of law and protection of rights for all.

(26:16)
Anti-democratic actions taken in our name don't make Jews safer, they make us targets. Harming universities makes everyone less safe, including Jews. Congress has a choice. Continue down this destructive path gutting enforcement capacity Congress created and funded or return to evidence-based solutions, restore regional offices and OCR funding to at least $200 million.

(26:37)
We hire experienced staff who know how to investigate cases. Every day we delay Jewish students hurt unnecessarily, but every day offers an opportunity to choose effective action over ideological assaults support. Don't weaken the institutions charged with protecting students. Thank you. I look forward to taking your questions.

Mr. Walberg (26:57):

Thank you. I recognize now Dr. Lyons for your testimony.

Dr. Lyons (27:02):

Good morning, Chairman Walberg, Ranking Member Scott and members of the committee. I'm Rich Lyons and I just finished my first year as chancellor of UC Berkeley. Thank you for inviting me to discuss Berkeley's efforts to combat anti-Semitism and support our Jewish community.

(27:20)
Berkeley unequivocally condemns anti-Semitism. Our commitment to our Jewish students, colleagues, and community is unwavering. Since well before the horrific terrorist attacks of October 7th, Berkeley has been partnering with our Jewish community to combat anti-Semitism and foster a vibrant Jewish life. I am the first to say we have more work to do. Berkeley like our nation, has not been immune to the disturbing rise in anti-Semitism.

(27:54)
And as a public university, we have a solemn obligation to protect our community from discrimination and harassment while also upholding the First Amendment right to free speech. After a year as chancellor, I can confidently say that Berkeley is committed to meeting this challenge. We have adopted new initiatives to design. These are designed to curb anti-Semitism by confronting the rise in hate directly.

(28:25)
I work in close collaboration with my chancellor's advisory committee on Jewish Life with the Berkeley Center for Jewish Studies and our pioneering anti-Semitism education initiative. These programs help us recognize and confront anti-Semitism, support the Jewish community, and navigate the complexity of lawful protest versus harassment.

(28:50)
We recently instituted new anti-Semitism training for all incoming students, and we continue to invest in new security and safety measures to strengthen compliance with campus rules. These are just some of our new initiatives. We continue to work with our Jewish community to respond to the ignorance at the heart of this deplorable hatred. I'm proud of Berkeley's long history and vital contributions to our nation's success.

(29:23)
Our mission requires that we strive for a campus where all people feel safe and respected. That same mission enables our research to advance the health and well-being and security of the American people. That mission allows Berkeley to lift more students further up the economic ladder than any other university. Our undergraduates create more funded new businesses than any other university in this country.

(29:54)
As a public institution, Berkeley has a solemn obligation to protect the quintessential American value of free speech. This obligation does not prevent us, let me repeat, does not prevent us from confronting harassment and discrimination in all its forms, including anti-Semitism. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.

Mr. Walberg (30:20):

Thank you. Thank you to each of our witnesses. Under committee rule nine, we will now question witnesses under the five-minute rule. I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Let me ask the college university leaders this first question, I'd like you to define anti-Semitism, as understood by in your case, Dr. Groves, Georgetown University in all its campuses.

Dr. Groves (30:57):

Thank you. We define anti-Semitism as hatred of the Jewish people and all of the behaviors that might be connected with such hatred.

Mr. Walberg (31:10):

Thank you. Dr. Matos Rodríguez? Yes.

Dr. Matos R. (31:15):

Thank you-

Mr. Walberg (31:16):

What is CUNY's definition?

Dr. Matos R. (31:17):

Thank you. anti-Semitism is hatred or prejudice against Jews or individuals who are perceived to be Jewish.

Mr. Walberg (31:27):

Thank you. Dr. Lyons, similarly, your microphone.

Dr. Lyons (31:35):

I define anti-Semitism as hatred or discrimination against Jewish people.

Mr. Walberg (31:42):

Okay, thank you. Appreciated the fact that each of you were able to quickly define it and simply, at least for your institution as you understand it. Chancellor Matos Rodríguez, does CUNY have an anti-Semitism problem? Yes or no?

Dr. Matos R. (00:00):

Dr. Matos R. (32:01):

We are not immune from antisemitism. It is something that I've been committed to working since 2019.

Mr. Walberg (32:08):

Without objection, I'd like to enter into the record the testimony of dozens of CUNY students who have experienced severe antisemitism on campuses? Hearing no objection, they will be entered. How many Jewish students have transferred out of CUNY since October 7th 2023?

Dr. Matos R. (32:30):

I don't have that information, Chair.

Mr. Walberg (32:33):

Be good information to get. How many antisemitism complaints has CUNY received system-wide since October 7th 2023?

Dr. Matos R. (32:45):

We have received, in 2024, 68 complaints of antisemitism. On the current year, 2025, we have 16.

Mr. Walberg (32:56):

Thank you. How many students has CUNY suspended or expelled for antisemitic conduct since October 7th 2023?

Dr. Matos R. (33:06):

We have, over the last two years, disciplined 18 students for antisemitic conduct, and we have disciplined another 25 for inappropriate behavior in protests, demonstrations, or rallies.

Mr. Walberg (33:20):

Thank you. Chancellor, you have referred to the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a vital resource. Does that mean university officials are employing this definition to determine what constitutes antisemitism across the CUNY system?

Dr. Matos R. (33:37):

Thank you for your question, and that is correct. And we've added in our training for all the individuals who participate in the investigations on our campuses, the ones who are hired in this year received new training, which includes using the definition as stipulated by OCR. And it's also part of refreshing courses that we have for all personnel, in addition to public safety officers.

Mr. Walberg (34:05):

Does CUNY have any antisemitic faculty?

Dr. Matos R. (34:09):

We have faculty that might conduct themselves in antisemitic behavior and we have no tolerance for it, and we're clear about the expectations to follow all our rules and policies. And if any individual breaks those rules, they will be investigated, and the appropriate disciplinary action will be taken if warranted.

Mr. Walberg (34:31):

How many Zionist professors has CUNY hired since October 7th?

Dr. Matos R. (34:36):

We do not track the hiring of faculty in terms of ideology or things of that nature, so wouldn't be able to tell you that information.

Mr. Walberg (34:48):

But you're able to tell us that you had antisemitic professors?

Dr. Matos R. (34:53):

Well, that is based on some of the disciplining and behavior that we had in some of the campuses, so-

Mr. Walberg (35:00):

Without objection, I'd like to enter in the record a complaint filed by Hunter College Jewish Studies chair Leah Garrett against CUNY, alleging a hostile workplace environment? Without objection, I hear none, that will be submitted. While Dr. Garrett was suffering under CUNY's indifference to antisemitism, in February 2025, Hunter College posted a job announcement looking to hire a Palestinian Studies professor well-versed in settler colonialism, genocide, and apartheid. As you know, Hunter College was forced to edit this antisemitic job description. Did Hunter College still hire people for this position?

Dr. Matos R. (35:43):

When that posting reached my attention, we made sure to tell Hunter College that it was entirely inappropriate to have that posting, that it needed to be modified, and that they need to also take steps to make sure that any postings in the future would not contain language like that. That hiring process is ongoing.

Mr. Walberg (36:05):

That's an issue of great concern to us. We continue to hear rhetoric denouncing settler colonialism and Israeli genocide contribute to antisemitism in the college, and CUNY specifically. My time has expired, and now I recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.

Suzanne Bonamici (36:28):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you, Ranking Member, and thank you to the witnesses. Since our last hearing on this issue in May, the Jewish community has experienced more devastating losses, including the fatal shooting in Washington, D.C. of two Israeli embassy employees, and the Molotov cocktail attack on peaceful marchers in Boulder, Colorado. As I have said before in this committee, there has been an undeniable rise in antisemitism and hate speech across the country and around the globe. Jewish students and all students deserve to feel safe and be safe on college campuses and everywhere. No one should be afraid of harassment or discrimination because of their faith.

(37:11)
And I have said before that if the majority wanted to fight antisemitism and protect Jewish students, they should condemn antisemitism in their own party and at the highest level of government; they have failed to do so. Multiple White House officials have ties to antisemitic extremists. This includes the current liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, the communications director for the Office of Management and Budget, and the press secretary of the Department of Defense, who posted Nazi slogans on her personal social media accounts and promoted the antisemitic Great Replacement conspiracy theory. The leader of President Trump's so-called antisemitism task force actually talked about revoking "Jew cards", and shared a post on social media from the former leader of a white supremacist organization that called for the, quote, "Nazification of America".

(38:05)
Donald Trump has continued to spout antisemitic venom, most recently at a rally, where he said, "No going to the banks and borrowing from, in some cases, a fine banker, and in some cases, Shylocks and bad people." He tried to walk back those statements, saying, incredulously, that he had never heard the term Shylock used in an antisemitic way. Words matter, and the president of the United States should not be using words, especially antisemitic tropes, if he does not know what they mean.

(38:35)
Have any Republican colleagues here today condemned these acts of antisemitism from the president and members of the administration, or called for removal of these individuals from office? No, because that would require real and meaningful commitment to rooting out antisemitism from the top down. Instead, my colleagues are weaponizing the real problems of the Jewish community, a community I am an active member of, in furtherance of their attacks on and plans to defund colleges and universities. As members of this committee, we sit with the responsibility of enacting policies that best educate our youth, and this ongoing attack on higher education is shameful.

(39:17)
As Mr. Nosanchuk so compellingly testified, combating the rise of antisemitism on college campuses requires investing in the Office for Civil Rights, an agency dedicated to investigating and resolving civil rights violations, including antisemitic incidences at schools and universities. But instead of supporting that office, Secretary McMahon has already fired about half of OCR staff and closed seven of their 12, more than half, of their regional offices. Republicans have said nothing. In the past months, what's left of OCR dismissed a staggering more than 3,400 cases, but again, Republicans say nothing. Meanwhile, the Department of Justice recently slashed Hate Crime Prevention grants, claiming they do not align with the administration's priorities. Will my Republican colleagues stand against the ongoing attacks on the Office for Civil Rights? And what about the Hate Crime Prevention grants? Will any Republican colleagues advocate for these funds to be reinstated? Of course not. That would be real action. Why do that when we can create another political sideshow instead?

(40:25)
Education has always played a significant role in the efforts to end antisemitism, but that's not what this committee has been doing. With drastic budget cuts, the hiring of bigoted individuals at the highest levels, the embrace of white Christian nationalism, and, I might say, in stark contrast to Jewish values, the abhorrent failure to respect basic human and constitutional rights, this administration is creating a culture of disrespect and danger, not just for Jewish students. Perhaps that should be the focus of this hearing.

(40:59)
Additionally, instead of giving OCR the staff and resources they need to do the fact-based Title VI investigation, the Trump administration has actually withheld hundreds of millions of dollars from colleges and universities, apparently to punish for them rather than address antisemitism. But this kind of imposition of collective punishment hurts all students, including Jewish students, because it will lead to fewer academic options and higher tuition. I wonder if that isn't the point?

(41:29)
As I have said before and will continue to repeat, I am a member of the Congressional Jewish Caucus, I'm a mother who raised her children in a Jewish home, I'm an active member of my synagogue. I am extremely disappointed in the majority for exploiting my community's legitimate fears and concerns as they advance discriminatory, regressive, unconstitutional, and harmful policy. Jewish Americans and the American people deserve better. I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (41:55):

Gentlelady's time has expired. Now recognize the chairwoman emeritus of this committee, Representative Foxx.

Virginia Foxx (42:03):

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our witnesses for being here today. And I will ask you, when it's appropriate, I'd like a yes or no answer. Dr. Matos Rodriguez, CUNY's faculty and staff union, the Professional Staff Congress, or PSC, has passed multiple resolutions that support the antisemitic BDS movement. Do you support forcing Jewish faculty and staff to be represented by a union that endorses BDS? Yes or no?

Dr. Matos R. (42:42):

Thank you. I have repudiated BDS, and have said that there is no place for BDS at the City University of New York.

Virginia Foxx (42:50):

So, you didn't give me an answer yes or no, so I have to assume it's no. Or yes, excuse me. In 2021, the EEOC substantiated a claim by a Jewish CUNY professor that the PSC discriminated against him and other Jewish professors because of their religion. What disciplinary action did you take against those responsible?

Dr. Matos R. (43:19):

That case of the EEOC, we thought it was entirely inappropriate to discriminate against any member of our community, and that was a matter taken by the EEOC.

Virginia Foxx (43:32):

And so no disciplinary action? You didn't state a disciplinary action?

Dr. Matos R. (43:37):

Not to my knowledge.

Virginia Foxx (43:38):

Does the PSC have an antisemitism problem? Yes or no?

Dr. Matos R. (43:44):

The PSC does not speak for the City University of New York. We've been clear on our commitment against antisemitism and against BDS.

Virginia Foxx (43:52):

So, the president of the PSC personally supports BDS. Do you view this as problematic?

Dr. Matos R. (44:01):

Again, the PSC does not speak for the City University of New York. My understanding also that the last vote that they took, they rejected-

Virginia Foxx (44:08):

So, you obviously don't think it's problematic. Thank you.

(44:12)
Dr. Groves, after the U.S. successfully struck Iran's nuclear infrastructure, one of the professors at Georgetown Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Jonathan A. C. Brown, said, quote, "I hope Iran does some symbolic strike on the base." Is this person really suited to be educating the next generation of American diplomats?

Dr. Groves (44:40):

Thank you for the question. Within minutes of our learning of that tweet, the dean contacted Professor Brown, the tweet was removed, we issued a statement condemning the tweet, Professor Brown is no longer chair of his department and he's on leave, and we're beginning a process of reviewing the case.

Virginia Foxx (45:03):

So, he's been making similarly appalling statements for years, but he has been kept around for years. So, you are now investigating and disciplining him, from what you've said?

Dr. Groves (45:18):

Yes, Congresswoman.

Virginia Foxx (45:20):

Thank you.

(45:22)
Dr. Lyons, several UC Berkeley faculty and staff have made antisemitic remarks and justified Palestinian terrorism. In February 2024, history professor and Chancellor's Chair Ussama Makdisi tweeted, "I could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7th", referencing an article that praised Hamas terrorists and denied reports of sexual violence against Israeli women. In 2017, Continuing Lecturer Hatem Bazian, co-founder of Students for Justice in Palestine, posted antisemitic tweets, including one depicting a stereotypical ultra-Orthodox Jew with the statement, "Mom, look, I is chosen. I can now kill, rape, smuggle organs, and steal the lands of Palestinians. Yah." An October 2023 survey found 85% of Jewish students felt UC Berkeley had not adequately addressed their safety concerns. Understandable, given the conduct of some university personnel. Dr. Lyons, do you condone the statements made by these Berkeley employees?

Dr. Lyons (46:36):

I'm unable to comment on the discipline of an individual faculty or a comment of an individual faculty. What I can say is that you've mentioned several different phrases in different events, so, separate from the people that you're mentioning, if I heard or saw some of those statements, I would both view them as objectionable, if not reprehensible, and I would also immediately report it. And I would also have empathy for our Jewish community.

Virginia Foxx (47:09):

So, what are you doing to make reforms to your hiring practices to see that you don't bring people like that onto the campus in the future?

Mr. Walberg (47:18):

Let's make the answer brief. The time has expired.

Dr. Lyons (47:23):

When hiring faculty, we use academic standards to hire faculty. We don't use ideological conditions to hire faculty.

Virginia Foxx (47:33):

Well, obviously your academic standards have been failing you, and I'd look for other standards, if I were you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walberg (47:40):

Gentlelady's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Takano.

Mark Takano (47:45):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. Mr. Nosanchuk, in your time with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, you helped to lead the most resolutions of antisemitism cases in OCR's history. Congratulations on that. In your experience, is a committee hearing such as this an appropriate venue to determine whether an individual school, individual school, has violated Title VI laws?

Matt N. (48:12):

Thank you for the question. Title VI investigations are very fact-intensive. When they're opened, OCR investigators go onto a campus and speak with people, look at documents. It is not a inquiry into whether any specific word is antisemitic, but it's a holistic determination as to whether there was harassment or hostile environment that violates Title VI.

Mark Takano (48:39):

So, it's fairly non-political, a dry, fact-intensive inquiry?

Matt N. (48:47):

Yes, non-political.

Mark Takano (48:48):

Okay. The Trump administration has made a lot of commitments to combating antisemitism on college campuses. Is the current Office of Civil Rights, or OCR, equipped to fulfill those promises?

Matt N. (49:01):

From what I understand, Congressman Takano, it is not. As I noted in my testimony, the staff has been cut by half. I understand that now the average caseload for the investigators remaining is 200 cases per person. And it's very important to note that of the seven of 12 regional offices that were eliminated, those were the offices where the greatest expertise was for investigating and bringing to resolution the antisemitism cases that we resolved. And as I said, we resolved a record number of five times more than the first Trump administration.

Mark Takano (49:41):

So, in your experience, pursuing antisemitism charges or claims determining whether or not antisemitism did occur, or any form of discrimination under Title VI, it's a time-intensive and staff-intensive process?

Matt N. (49:58):

Yes, absolutely. And it's not simply determining whether there was an instance of antisemitism, but it's determining whether the instances that occurred rise to the level of harassment or hostile environment, such that Title VI has been violated.

Mark Takano (50:11):

Thank you. OCR has dismissed over 3,000 civil rights complaints between March and June of this year. Mr. Nosanchuk, what is the difference between conducting investigations based on press reporting and external sources, as the Trump administration is doing, and doing a process-based Title VI investigation that's based on specific complaints filed, as was the practice of past administrations?

Matt N. (50:36):

Thank you for the question. I think the best illustration of that is actually in a U.S. News & World Report opinion piece that a student at Harvard, Sarah Silverman, just published yesterday. She wrote that she had had her mezuzah stripped off of her doorpost. It was a one instance of individual discrimination that was detailed in the Harvard Notice of Violation, and the administration did not even talk to her about what had happened. So, relying on press reports, relying on broad statements or perceptions is not how Title VI is supposed to work. Again, it's looking at the antisemitic discrimination that's occurred, and then determining whether it has risen to the level of a hostile environment, determining whether Jews have been targeted unlawfully.

Mark Takano (51:27):

Thank you. Have the Trump administration's actions made campus more safe or less safe for students who are victims of antisemitism?

Matt N. (51:36):

Based on everything I'm hearing from Jewish students, including the one whom I just mentioned, it's making campuses less safe.

Mark Takano (51:45):

Mr. Nosanchuk, Republicans claim that certain institutions of higher education, like Georgetown, are subjects of foreign influence that radicalizes their students. As a former federal government employee, you've taken a number of ethics trainings in your own career. Which would you say is an example of undue foreign influence? A, a long-standing two-decade academic partnership with a foreign country that serves to build diplomatic partnerships, or B, a $400 million luxury plane gifted to the president of the United States by a foreign government for his personal use?

Matt N. (52:19):

Thank you for the question, Congressman. I would say there are rules for transparency and reporting that pertain to funding from foreign governments to universities, and those, I believe, need to be followed.

Mark Takano (52:35):

Thank you. Well, the majority uses hearings like this one to rail against foreign influence while their own administration routinely violates clear ethics boundaries with foreign governments. They have turned this hearing room into a kangaroo court where they spend our time litigating a predetermined outcome to do nothing actually to help Jewish students, just make public theater out of legitimate pain. This scorched-earth warfare against higher education will endanger academic freedom, innovative research, and international cooperation for generations to come. And I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (53:09):

Thank the gentleman, his time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson.

Glenn Thompson (53:14):

Oh, thank you, Chairman. Dr. Groves, well, first of all, once again, thank you for the care at Georgetown University Hospital that I received with some treatments. Just very impressed there. Dr. Groves, recently something did come to my attention, and I want to see if you're aware of it. Are you aware that in 2024, flyers designed to mimic eviction notices were placed on Jewish students' dormitory doors on your campus, falsely accusing Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing?

Dr. Groves (53:50):

I am aware of that. This was during move-in weekend for our new students. We acted on that immediately, removed the eviction notices with a assembly of staff around, identified the perpetrator of this, and discipline was done for him.

Glenn Thompson (54:14):

Very good. So, obviously this violates the Georgetown policy?

Dr. Groves (54:19):

This was abhorrent. And for the students who saw this and were hurt by this, we apologize as a university. This is intolerable at Georgetown. We cannot have this sort of behavior.

Glenn Thompson (54:34):

Well, thank you for taking that action, and thank you for taking the disciplinary action. Incredibly important. Dr. Groves, does Georgetown employ any antisemitic faculty members or fellows?

Dr. Groves (54:47):

We have faculty that have the range of opinions on every issue facing humankind. We police carefully the behavior of our faculty in the classroom and their research activities. They are free, as all residents in the United States, to have speech in the public domain, and-

Glenn Thompson (55:16):

Yeah, I wanted to point out one in particular, one to start with, anyone. Emad Shahin, a Senior Fellow at Georgetown Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, which I find interesting, Muslim-Christian understanding, and he applauded the terrorist attack on October 7th, stating it would, quote, "Bring about this change that we long for." Does Shahin's description of the October 7th terrorist attack, the, quote, "change that we long for", end quote, violate your university's harassment and discrimination policies?

Dr. Groves (55:56):

That was an abhorrent tweet that was sent out. That is not the Georgetown policy. What we do in cases like that is to assure that the student welfare and the welfare of the GU community is protected through events like that.

Glenn Thompson (56:17):

So, the protection, did that include disciplinary action or an investigation into Emad Shahin for his statement?

Dr. Groves (56:25):

We have. I can't cite that particular case, but I can assure you, Congressman, that we have dismissed faculty for antisemitic behavior on social media and the classroom, and also dismissed staff for the same behavior.

Glenn Thompson (56:39):

Well, there's another one. In a social media post, the Associate Director of the Bridge Initiative of Georgetown, Mobashra Tazamal, reposted a statement that said Israel has been recreating Auschwitz in Gaza for two years. Do you believe it's appropriate for a Georgetown-affiliated scholar to publicly endorse a statement comparing Israel actions in Gaza to the evil of Auschwitz?

Dr. Groves (57:09):

I reject those kinds of statements. That's not the policy of Georgetown. And I want everyone to know that, to the extent that that hurt Jewish students, Jewish faculty, Jewish staff at Georgetown, I apologize for that. But that's behavior covered under the First Amendment on social media that we don't intervene on. What we do intervene on quickly is behavior that affects our students in the classroom and research-related activities that involve students.

Glenn Thompson (57:40):

So, this individual didn't face any disciplinary action or consequences?

Dr. Groves (57:47):

Not to my knowledge.

Glenn Thompson (57:49):

Yeah. In a director position, no less. Dr. Groves, what message do you think the university's inaction sends to Jewish students on your campus?

Dr. Groves (57:58):

We have a variety of ways to stay in touch with our Jewish community. Our Jewish Life office is a wonderful resource. We meet with our rabbi, we meet with Jewish students, we meet with Jewish faculty to keep a sense of the pulse of the culture, and-

Glenn Thompson (58:19):

Dr. Groves, I appreciate it. My time is almost gone. If I may, just one more question. When hiring faculty, does Georgetown currently have a vetting process that includes screening for antisemitic content in a candidate's public record?

Dr. Groves (58:34):

Not at this time, Congressman.

Glenn Thompson (58:34):

Thank you.

Mr. Walberg (58:37):

Thank the gentleman. His time has expired. I now recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Adams.

Alma Adams (58:42):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today. Let me start with something that shouldn't need to be said, but it must be said clearly. Antisemitism is real, it's rising, and it has no place on our campuses. We have a responsibility to make sure that every student, Jewish, Muslim, Black, brown, or otherwise, feels safe and respected where they live and where they learn. And that means calling out hate when we see it. It also means upholding the civil rights protections that have long protected our students from discrimination.

(59:20)
Now, I spent over 40 years as a professor, and what I know is this. Classrooms are where we ask questions, where we challenge each other, and yes, sometimes where we disagree. But I'm concerned about what I see happening here, because instead of solving a problem, we're watching some try to use antisemitism as a reason to go after higher education. I've heard it in this committee that DEI is to blame, that foreign scholars are a threat, that faculty ought to be punished for their views.

(59:56)
But I'll tell you, we don't need political scorecards, we need real solutions. And that means following the law. It means fully funding the Office of Civil Rights, not hollowing it out. And let's not forget, as we sit here today holding this hearing, the Department of Education is withholding more than $6 billion in congressionally-mandated funding from our K-12 schools. That's money for students, for teachers, after school programs, and for communities already stretched thin.

(01:00:31)
So my question, Chancellor Lyons, thank you for being here, your institution has a long history with student protests, some of it deeply troubling, and some of it a reflection of the moment that we're in. But I want to ask you something else. How does your institution protect academic freedom while also keeping students safe? And what does it say about your values when those freedoms are tested?

Dr. Lyons (01:01:02):

Thank you for the question. You're describing what is a very complex set of questions. The freedom to discover, the freedom to learn, the freedom to teach, these are fundamental freedoms. And so when we talk about academic freedom, let's just be clear that those are the fundamental freedoms that we protect. And, at the same time, we have this obligation toward free speech. Does it frustrate us as presidents? I'll speak for myself. This is frustrating. People say, "Well, just drive down the middle of the road." This is a very complex road to drive down. And so we are constantly making judgments around how do we keep people safe and supported? And also how do we make sure that we are protecting free speech and the marketplace for ideas?

Alma Adams (01:01:53):

Thank you, sir. Let me move on.

(01:01:54)
Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, thank you as well. CUNY is a large and complex system, 26 campuses across five boroughs. That's no easy task. So, let me ask you first, have some of the protests we've seen involved people from outside the CUNY community?

Dr. Matos R. (01:02:17):

Absolutely appreciate the nuance. Our campuses are the city of New York. So, in many, many cases, some of the events that occur are really occurring in the streets of New York City that are contingent to our campuses. So, that presents challenges to us.

Alma Adams (01:02:38):

So, you can give me a yes or no?

Dr. Matos R. (01:02:39):

Yes.

Alma Adams (01:02:40):

Okay. Thank you. Second, how is CUNY working across New York's diverse neighborhoods to confront antisemitism in a way that includes everyone?

Dr. Matos R. (01:02:49):

Thank you. Since I mentioned I've been committed to this since I became chancellor in 2019, I had learned as president of Queens College that you needed to bring people together. We had, at Queens College, the largest Muslim and Jewish populations of our campuses at CUNY, and I learned the value of bringing people together. So, I have a Jewish Advisory Committee on Jewish Life that I brought together in 2023 to listen to the members of the community to get their feedback and get answers.

Alma Adams (01:03:21):

Okay, thank you so much. Let me say one final thing. We've heard concerns from faculty who were recently not reappointed, despite having full enrolled classes scheduled for the fall. And I understand that those matters may be going through a formal process. I know you may not be able to speak to individual cases, but as a former professor myself, and a department chair, somebody who believes deeply in transparency and fairness, I want to ask you, would you be willing to follow up with my office and provide more information on the policies and procedures that guide faculty appointments and reappointments at CUNY?

Dr. Matos R. (00:00):

Dr. Matos R. (01:04:01):

I appreciate the question. We're here to answer all the questions and cooperate fully with the committee.

Ms. Adams (01:04:06):

Okay. Thank you, sir. I think my time is up. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (01:04:10):

I thank the gentlelady. Now I recognize the gentlelady from New York, Ms. Stefanik.

Ms. Stefanik (01:04:14):

Thank you. I want to begin by discussing the heinous scourge of anti-Semitism on your watch as chancellor at CUNY. You are aware at Baruch, Jewish freshmen were welcomed with heinous anti-Semitic taunts about the hostages killed by Hamas. " Where's Hirsch? You ugly expletive, expletive. Go bring them home." "You ain't going home tonight. Go back to Brooklyn. All Zionists are terrorists." Are you aware of those anti-Semitic harassment slurs?

Dr. Matos R. (01:04:46):

Those are deplorable statements and if they were associated with the event at Baruch, an investigation was done and students were disciplined.

Ms. Stefanik (01:04:55):

And students were disciplined in both of those cases? At Hunter, Jewish students were forced to enter the main university building under a swastika for hours. Is that correct?

Dr. Matos R. (01:05:07):

My understanding of that is that the swastika was placed outside and we have a custom of erasing also deplorable symbols. In that particular case, there was a delay because it had to be referred to the NYPD for the anti-hate investigation.

Ms. Stefanik (01:05:25):

Let me remind you of this particular case because that's not according to your own staff. In fact, the Hunter College Director of Jewish Studies emailed university leadership requesting that the swastika be taken down. And instead this was the response, for everyone to see, "Apologies, but it is not that simple." Is that the position of CUNY?

Dr. Matos R. (01:05:47):

It is entirely unacceptable that-

Ms. Stefanik (01:05:47):

And was this administrator disciplined, who emailed?

Dr. Matos R. (01:05:50):

Again, in that particular case, we were working with the New York City Police Department.

Ms. Stefanik (01:05:53):

No. Was this administrator disciplined for sending this response?

Dr. Matos R. (01:05:59):

Any case that we have, we'll investigate and the appropriate action will be taken.

Ms. Stefanik (01:06:04):

So what was the appropriate action taken against this administrator in this case?

Dr. Matos R. (01:06:07):

In this case, as I mentioned to you, we are working with the New York City Police Department [inaudible 01:06:13].

Ms. Stefanik (01:06:12):

So no disciplinary action has been taken by CUNY? Is that correct?.

Dr. Matos R. (01:06:15):

Again, we will investigate any action-

Ms. Stefanik (01:06:17):

So investigation, but no actual action. Like so many of these failed university presidents. But it's not just this case. You talked about how you focused on this since 2019, but let me remind you, in 2021 you hired Abd Alla as CUNY's chief diversity officer, and this role includes overseeing anti-Semitism complaints and initiatives. Were you aware at that time that this senior administrator you hired was previously employed by CAIR-

Dr. Matos R. (01:06:45):

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. Stefanik (01:06:46):

… the Council on American-Islamic Relations?

Mr. Walberg (01:06:49):

The gentlelady will suspend.

Ms. Stefanik (01:06:52):

My time. Can you hold the time? It was 2:25.

Mr. Walberg (01:06:55):

We'll hold the time.

Dr. Matos R. (01:06:56):

Does the committee have a policy on publicizing people's personal emails?

Ms. Stefanik (01:07:05):

This is a university administrator's email.

Speaker 1 (01:07:08):

Addresses.

Dr. Matos R. (01:07:09):

Email addresses.

Speaker 1 (01:07:12):

No, we don't have a policy on that.

Mr. Walberg (01:07:13):

No, we don't have a policy, I'm told, on that. And again, this is at the university.

Ms. Stefanik (01:07:17):

This is a university email, a public university in the state of New York. Following up at 2:25, which my time is. I'm referencing the CUNY chief diversity officer who you hired in 2021. They were previously employed by CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Is that correct?

Dr. Matos R. (01:07:37):

So she was hired to be the chief diversity officer at the central office with no responsibility over cases that have to deal with students or faculty.

Ms. Stefanik (01:07:48):

But yet you were aware that she was previously employed by CAIR?

Dr. Matos R. (01:07:52):

Again, I was not directly responsible for that hire.

Ms. Stefanik (01:07:56):

Even though she was the senior chief diversity officer?

Dr. Matos R. (01:07:59):

As I mentioned to you, I was not directly responsible for that hire.

Ms. Stefanik (01:08:02):

So is it okay from your perspective, obviously it is, to have a former employee of CAIR? Let me remind you, CAIR was a co-conspirator in a terrorist financing case and has ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Is she currently still employed by CUNY?

Dr. Matos R. (01:08:19):

She is.

Ms. Stefanik (01:08:22):

There you go. So no action, just words here today. And by the way, her salary is paid for by the New York taxpayers, correct?

Dr. Matos R. (01:08:31):

We have the expectations of total professionalism and compliance with all the rules and policies of CUNY. Any employee that breaks our policies or our rules will be investigated and action will be taken.

Ms. Stefanik (01:08:43):

But it obviously doesn't break CUNY's rules to have a senior employee who was previously employed by a terrorist affiliated organization. That is unacceptable to New York taxpayers. It is unacceptable to American taxpayers. But it's not just that, are you familiar with CUNY Clear? This is the clinical arm of CUNY School of Law.

Dr. Matos R. (01:09:03):

CUNY Clear, I'm not familiar with them.

Ms. Stefanik (01:09:06):

Well, I will remind you. The CUNY Clear founder and professor is the head of Mahmoud Khalil's legal defense fund. Are you aware of that?

Dr. Matos R. (01:09:16):

No.

Ms. Stefanik (01:09:17):

Does it concern you that New York taxpayers are paying the salary for the legal defense fund of Mahmoud Khalil? And I'll remind you who Mahmoud Khalil is. This is the chief pro-Hamas agitator that led to the anti-Semitic encampments at Columbia, the rioting and violent takeover of Hamilton Hall, the harassment and physical assault of Jewish students.

Dr. Matos R. (01:09:39):

And we do not condone any kind of anti-Semitism on our campuses.

Ms. Stefanik (01:09:41):

But you allow the head of the clinical legal organization and a professor to be the chief legal aide to Mahmoud Khalil and do his legal defense fund?

Dr. Matos R. (01:09:52):

Those decisions are made in the clinics, are made in the individual campuses.

Ms. Stefanik (01:09:56):

It goes up to you. You are the chancellor.

Dr. Matos R. (01:09:58):

Those decisions are made at the individual campuses.

Ms. Stefanik (01:10:00):

So you take no responsibility?

Dr. Matos R. (01:10:02):

I take responsibility for any behavior of our faculty [inaudible 01:10:05].

Ms. Stefanik (01:10:05):

So is this acceptable?

Dr. Matos R. (01:10:07):

Any behavior that is anti-Semitic and is in violation of our rules-

Ms. Stefanik (01:10:10):

Is it acceptable that the legal defense fund for Mahmoud Khalil is the head of CUNY Clear? That's acceptable under your watch?

Dr. Matos R. (01:10:18):

We have no tolerance for anti-Semitism on our campuses and we've been very clear.

Ms. Stefanik (01:10:22):

So will this person be fired?

Dr. Matos R. (01:10:24):

Anybody that breaks our rules and our policies, there'll be an investigation, we'll investigate and if there's any disciplinary action to be taken, we'll take it.

Ms. Stefanik (01:10:32):

Let me make a prediction. No disciplinary action. This individual is not going to be fired. Because it's all words, no action. You have failed the people of New York. You have failed Jewish students in New York state. And it is a disgrace. I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (01:10:45):

Thank you, gentlelady. The gentlelady's time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. DeSaulnier.

Mr. DeSaulnier (01:10:51):

Thank you. Chancellor, do you want to have a few moments of my time to respond to that outrageous attack by my colleague?

Dr. Matos R. (01:10:58):

Again, thank you for the opportunity. I just want to make clear that the rules of the City University of New York apply to all our students, faculty and staff. Anybody who behaves in any way that it is anti-Semitic and sponsors violence against members of the Jewish community or any community, discriminate or harass, will be investigated and held accountable based on our rules. That is clear, it's our commitment. I have been engaged in fighting anti-Semitism as chancellor since I became the chancellor in 2019. I have been working very closely with many of our Jewish stakeholder organizations. Led a delegation of presidents and deans to Israel back in 2019 to encourage our ties with universities in Israel and cultural institutions and artistic institutions in Israel. We have made very clear our time and place and manner policies on our campuses to make sure that individuals can exercise their right-

Mr. DeSaulnier (01:12:05):

Thank you, chancellor. Appreciate it. I want to save a little bit of my time, but I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter from Jewish faculty at the University of California supporting the actions of the administration against anti-Semitism.

Mr. Walberg (01:12:21):

Without objection and hearing none, it'll be entered.

Mr. DeSaulnier (01:12:24):

Thank you. I want to thank all the witnesses here. Dr. Groves, I want to start with you as a proud alumni of a Jesuit education where they taught us to service to others and lifelong learning. So thank you for your presentation. And you have an example of that Jesuit education with former member Moran, who's a proud graduate like myself of the College of the Holy Cross, sitting behind you. Chancellor Lyons, it's always delightful to see you. I don't have the honor of representing the campus itself, but I like to say that I can look down on your campus from Grizzly Peak on my side of the district. I want to first of all mention that you are from the Haas School of Business, one of the best business schools in the country. Hardly a hotbed of anything but excellence. So you as the dean of that school, it's the stereotypes that we get into. It's a very big school with a lot of great programs.

(01:13:23)
It also can be proud of the fact that out of the University of California, Berkeley, there've been 59 Nobel Laureates between alumni and faculty. I would also add as a friend of the current rugby coach, it's also the home of 29 Rugby Championships. But could you talk about some of the things you've already mentioned that you've done, elaborate to any degree you'd like about your involvement and your predecessors in trying to balance the First Amendment rights as a public university, the best public university in the country, and arguably the best in the world, against hate and violence and anti-Semitism. Which is no small feat.

Dr. Lyons (01:14:03):

Well, thank you. I think a place to start is around what are so-called time, place and manner rules. We encourage the expression of free speech on the Berkeley campus. That's an important part of a vibrant campus. It's an important part of a vibrant society. So I've been in my role for a year now. And we were very, very clear at the beginning of the year, across the whole UC system, I should say, certainly at Berkeley, tents are not allowed. Tents are not part of an expression of free speech. Were we tested? We were tested, we took them down immediately.

(01:14:40)
There's a gate on the campus called Sather Gate. It's right in the middle. It got partially blocked in some of the times before I became chancellor. One of the no-tolerance rules we communicated it clearly is, no blocking the gate and any part of the gate. There was a sukkah that got erected in front of the gate. We took it down effectively immediately. So anyways, part of the time, place and manner rules, that's not just something to counter anti-Semitism. Those time, place and manner rules need to be content-neutral and they are. But we needed to communicate what the standards are while at the same time making sure students know that expressing your views consistent with the First Amendment is something that Berkeley doesn't just condone, it actually encourages it.

Mr. DeSaulnier (01:15:28):

And consistent with a letter from the faculty that I'm submitting, how have the various communities responded to that?

Dr. Lyons (01:15:37):

Well, thank you. I'm particularly heartened by that faculty letter. They did not need to do that. There were over 80 of them. These are our Jewish faculty who are saying not that Berkeley is perfect, as I said in my opening statement, we have some getting better to do and we're going to do it. But the idea that we've made a lot of progress over the last year and they are with us and with me is heartening. And like what they say, we've made a lot of changes, not just around time, place and manner. We're connecting with Jewish community and Jewish leadership in new ways. We have changed our education and training initiatives. We have a new course called Openness to Opposing Views that we plan to roll out as much as possible to incoming students. So there're many fronts.

Mr. Walberg (01:16:21):

Appreciate that. The gentleman's time has expired. I recognize the gentleman from Georgia, Mr Allen.

Mr. Allen (01:16:29):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all of you for being here today and testifying. Growing up, my parents basically ingrained in me the biblical definition of free speech. And that was, my mother always said, "If you can't say something nice about somebody or your country, don't say anything at all." AI says, in a biblical context, free speech is not an absolute unrestricted right. Instead, it is a freedom that comes with responsibilities and limitations. While the Bible emphasizes the importance of speaking truth and building others up, it also highlights the need for restraint, graciousness, and love in communication. Wouldn't this place be a better place if we could all behave like that? Isn't that amazing? So I've got to ask some hard questions. Dr. Groves, are you familiar with Francesca Albanese?

Dr. Groves (01:17:38):

Yes, I am.

Mr. Allen (01:17:39):

In 2014, Albanese wrote, "America and Europe, one of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust." When did Georgetown bring Albanese on as an affiliated scholar?

Dr. Groves (01:17:57):

I think she came in 2015 roughly, but she only gave a few lectures. She is not on the payroll of Georgetown and never was, congressman.

Mr. Allen (01:18:07):

Was Georgetown aware of Albanese's anti-Semitic statements at that time?

Dr. Groves (01:18:13):

Not to my knowledge. That's the first I've heard of that statement.

Mr. Allen (01:18:17):

In the decades since, Albanese has continued to endorse terrorism and spread anti-Semitism. In that time, did Georgetown consider terminating its relationship with Albanese?

Dr. Groves (01:18:31):

I don't know the answer to that. Happy to follow up on whether that was a consideration. But she is not at Georgetown, she is not on the payroll, and she's not present on campus.

Mr. Allen (01:18:42):

Last week, the Trump administration sanctioned Albanese over her long track record of supporting terrorism and perpetrating anti-Semitism. Is Albanese still an affiliated scholar of Georgetown?

Dr. Groves (01:18:55):

She's still listed as an affiliate, but she's not present on campus nor participating in the center that [inaudible 01:19:03].

Mr. Allen (01:19:03):

And let me tell you the problem we have here. Like I said, the way I was brought up, you have accountability. In other words, you've got to have guardrails and if you get outside of those guardrails, you do something about it. You don't let this stuff linger on because it just rots. And that's the problem we all, I think, have up here is, for crying out loud, you've got to get rid of these people that are perpetrating this hate. A question here. Last April, the violent encampment at Columbia filled headlines, City College of New York, this encampment caused $3 million worth of damage. For example, how many CUNY students, staff and faculty were involved in the encampment? Do we know?

Dr. Matos R. (01:19:55):

So we ended up disciplining seven individuals in that encampment who ended up breaking into one of the buildings.

Mr. Allen (01:20:07):

Well, I mean, were they put in prison? Have they been indicted? Have they gone before a jury of their peers for their crimes?

Dr. Matos R. (01:20:18):

We collaborated with the district attorney in those cases and there were seven individuals who were disciplined. I cannot comment on the individual discipline. But what I can tell you also, we have a zero tolerance policy on encampment. Some of the lessons learned in that encampment have guided our work after that and that we've been successful in making sure that we have had no other encampments in our campuses as a result of that experience.

Mr. Allen (01:20:48):

Well, all I could tell you, things have changed a lot since I was in college. Where I went to college, they didn't put up with the stuff and you knew it and that's why you stayed within those guardrails. Of course, that's the way it was in high school and middle school as well. How many students have been suspended or expelled this year because of this violence and vandalism? How many students have been expelled?

Dr. Matos R. (01:21:13):

Because of the encampment?

Mr. Allen (01:21:15):

Right.

Dr. Matos R. (01:21:17):

We had three students of the seven that were disciplined as a result of [inaudible 01:21:23] the encampment.

Mr. Allen (01:21:23):

How about faculty?

Dr. Matos R. (01:21:24):

There were four.

Mr. Allen (01:21:26):

When you say discipline, what does that mean?

Dr. Matos R. (01:21:28):

I cannot comment on the individual cases. Discipline goes from reprimands, training, suspension or termination. And we have terminated individuals in the faculty and staff for violating our policies on anti-Semitism.

Mr. Allen (01:21:45):

Well, the great thing about this country is you have the right to prove that you're innocent. But if you're guilty, you know what? You get fired. Thank you. I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (01:21:55):

The gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Mannion.

Mr. Mannion (01:22:01):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. The rise in anti-Semitism across the United States is profoundly troubling. We simply must do more to respond to these actions and ensure our Jewish neighbors and communities can live free from harassment, intimidation, and violence. We all must stand together to reject any targeted hatred or bigotry against any group due to their religion, ethnicity, or other demographic. But as we hold this hearing, let's be clear about the problem that we're facing. Anti-Semitism is not limited to just college campuses. It has spread rampantly in our communities, our online platforms, and our politics. Yet the majority of this committee are set on repeatedly singling out higher education and attacking university presidents and labor unions that represent their faculty while refusing to pursue serious comprehensive solutions.

(01:23:03)
In fact, they've supported this administration's moves to gut the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education, canceled grants for hate crime prevention, and openly it has embraced individuals with known records of offensive, conspiratorial, hateful rhetoric. I call my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to hold those in their own party accountable and approach this issue in a more thoughtful manner. Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, given the importance of combating anti-Semitism in our state, I'd like to give you an opportunity to elaborate on CUNY's efforts. Your testimony describes the independent investigation that was commissioned and the resulting report, which included a set of recommendations. What steps is the CUNY system currently taking to implement those recommendations?

Dr. Matos R. (01:23:56):

I appreciate the question. And those are the recommendations from the Lippman report, which we collaborated fully when the judge was conducting it, and we have embraced the recommendations that came from the judge and his team. One of the main ones was indicating that a decentralized structure made the follow through in the cases of discrimination and the investigations not as responsive as they should be. Something that we knew that was a challenge and we have been advancing our work in that area. So I created a center. Now all the complaints around discrimination, harassment are handled by one single center, which works on the training of all the individuals conducting the investigation. So we have more timely investigations. We're more responsive to that work.

(01:24:49)
We also had a lot of critiques, valid critiques, to our portal that we created to centralize some of that before. And now we have procured a state-of-the-art system to manage all those cases so that we can be more responsive to the individuals who submit the claims and they can be informed. So we can have better data to be more transparent to all the stakeholders that hold us accountable. And to manage those cases more and more effectively and to have best practices all across the system replicated.

(01:25:24)
So that's one of the recommendations from the Lippman report that we have embraced. The Lippman report also ask us to invest more in bridge building and giving tools to our faculty, students, and staff to navigate difficult conversations and issues. We launched the Constructive Dialogue Initiative. Actually, we have half of the campus is in training today at the central office. I would've been participating there had I been on the campus. And this is to give faculty, students, and staff tools to be able to have difficult conversations. We do not want people shying away from difficult conversations. They need to do it civilly, they need to do it respectfully, and they have to do it following the rules. So those are some of the investments that we've made as a result of the judge's recommendations.

Mr. Mannion (01:26:16):

Yes. And you have communicated the progress in certain ways. Can you elaborate on how you've articulated that progress to students, faculty, and the broader community?

Dr. Matos R. (01:26:26):

So we've been engaged in communicating the work that we have done. I've indicated before that I have a Jewish Advisory Life Committee that has been both a resource to us of listening to what the community thinks we should be doing, but also as a way for us to convey some of the work that we have been doing in this arena. And we've remained committed to this work with many of our Jewish stakeholder partners.

Speaker 2 (01:26:53):

[inaudible 01:26:54].

Speaker 3 (01:26:55):

Get her out.

Mr. Walberg (01:26:59):

Suspend the lady.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):

[inaudible 01:27:02].

Speaker 1 (01:27:21):

[inaudible 01:27:18] still on Mr. Mannion. Proceed.

Mr. Walberg (01:27:24):

Mr. Mannion, you may proceed.

Mr. Mannion (01:27:26):

Thank you. Chancellor, go ahead.

Dr. Matos R. (01:27:29):

Thank you. I was going to mention one of the great joys of being the chancellor of CUNY is that we provide about a third of the new teachers that go to the public schools in New York every year. We have a partnership in a pilot with the UTF Federation of training for all our students who are going to go to teach in managing difficult conversations in anti-hate, in anti-Semitism so that the teachers that are going to the New York City Public Schools are better equipped to be handling some of these issues. So we are deeply engaged in this work and it's our commitment that we'll continue to do so.

Mr. Mannion (01:28:10):

Thank you, chancellor. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walberg (01:28:12):

Gentleman's time has expired. I now recognize the vice chairman of this committee, the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Owens.

Mr. Owens (01:28:19):

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I would say that, to start off, that little outburst we saw a minute ago is exactly why we're having these hearings. The genesis of this anti-Semitism, this hatred that we are seeing across our country is coming from our universities. They come there with their tails wagging, ready to go out and build their dreams, they leave hating our country, hating each other. And anti-Semitism is flourishing because of it. This has been going on way too long and we're going to have as many hearings as we have to to dig this cancer out of our system. Our kids need to be leaving here knowing how to talk to each other, respect each other, and not having that kind of stuff we just had a minute ago. By the way, I don't doubt we might have some more before this is all over with. That's how they think they can get their message through.

(01:29:04)
We're going to have as many oversight meetings we have to eradicate this evil of discrimination that we're seeing on our college campuses. We have a dual mission here with this committee to be the voice of Jewish students who pay good money, $70,000 per year, to be harassed, to be hated, and to be disrespected. The message to college school leaders is very simply this, either eradicate this cancer or there will be consequences. This is coming from top-down, not bottom-up. And we're going to make sure we change that. There's been a lot of debate over what constitutes anti-Semitism. I just want to ask real quickly for the leaders here, the college leaders. Yes or no, in denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination, is that anti-Semitism? Yes or no? Start with-

Dr. Matos R. (01:29:51):

Yes.

Dr. Groves (01:29:54):

Yes.

Mr. Owens (01:29:57):

Is celebrating violence against Jews with phrases like "Globalize the intifada," anti-Semitism, yes or no?

Dr. Groves (01:30:05):

As a threat, absolutely, congressman.

Dr. Matos R. (01:30:09):

And any call to violence against Jewish members of our community is anti-Semitic and against our policies.

Dr. Lyons (01:30:17):

If it's an incitement to violence, yes, it is.

Mr. Owens (01:30:20):

And I agree with your comments. Unfortunately, it's been so normalized, nobody seems to be held accountable for it when this stuff happens, by the way. Just want to make that point. Dr. Groves, you're familiar with Mohammed El-Kurd, right?

Dr. Groves (01:30:36):

No, I don't know that name.

Mr. Owens (01:30:38):

Mohammed El-Kurd?

Dr. Groves (01:30:38):

No.

Mr. Owens (01:30:40):

No? Okay. He's an activist that has been spending a lot of time on your campus. He says, "Israelis harvest organs of the martyred and they have an unquenchable thirst for Palestinian blood." He's also said that the Jewish people control the media and wish that every single Zionist to parish. Would this be considered anti-Semitism?

Dr. Groves (01:31:05):

Absolutely, congressman.

Mr. Owens (01:31:07):

He's also stated that Hamas had good political reasons for taking hostages and captives and were well-treated. Now, this is after 250 innocent men and women and children were taken hostages, women raped and children killed by Hamas. Would you consider good political reasons as agreement with what he just said about Hamas?

Dr. Groves (01:31:26):

No, I find that abhorrent.

Mr. Owens (01:31:28):

Okay. Would you agree that that's pure evil for what they did and for those who support what they did?

Dr. Groves (01:31:35):

We abhorred that attack and made the first statement on October-

Mr. Owens (01:31:40):

Okay. Can you agree with me that this is pure evil?

Dr. Groves (01:31:43):

Yes.

Mr. Owens (01:31:43):

Okay. This same person, back in Georgetown, October 23rd, the same month of the massacre, El-Kurd described Hamas as the liberation movement and that the October 7th attack was a resistance tactic. After 1,200 people had been massacred. Any idea how many times Georgetown students and faculty have invited Mohammed El-Kurd to speak in the last three years at Georgetown?

Dr. Groves (01:32:16):

I'm not aware of how many times.

Mr. Owens (01:32:18):

Okay. Four times. And the last one was February 16th of this year. Georgetown University in partnership with Georgetown faculty and staff for Justice in Palestine invited him to pump his books, to launch his book tour. You and I came through the same era, the '50s and '60s, Dr. Groves, so I would imagine I know how you're going to answer this, I think. Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths of Black Americans to speak at Georgetown?

Dr. Groves (01:32:51):

No. But we endeavor to have speakers from many different sides to give our students-

Mr. Owens (01:32:58):

So a KKK member in today's environment, you would invite, you'll give him-

Dr. Groves (01:33:04):

I don't think we would. We do want to have our students exposed-

Mr. Owens (01:33:07):

This very specific. This is a hate. You remember what the KKK used to do to Black people, right?

Dr. Groves (01:33:14):

Yes.

Mr. Owens (01:33:14):

Okay. So would you give them the platform to do that?

Dr. Groves (01:33:17):

No, I don't believe so.

Mr. Owens (01:33:18):

Okay. Well, to that point, if Georgetown would prevent white KKK bigots on the campus, would disallow it, why would the university allow faculty or students to invite Palestinian anti-Semitic bigots? Because that's what this guy is. I'm about to run out of time. I just want to say this-

Mr. Walberg (01:33:41):

You have. Your time has expired.

Mr. Owens (01:33:45):

Yes. Okay. It's time to get this together and I'm glad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing what we're doing right now. Appreciate it.

Mr. Walberg (01:33:51):

I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentlelady from Pennsylvania, Ms. Lee.

Alma Adams (01:33:56):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like others, I've expressed my concern that despite nine hearings on anti-Semitism since I've joined Congress, that we've yet to have a single hearing on any of the other very pervasive forms of hatred that's rising in our country right now. Anti-Blackness, of course, which remains foundational, anti-Muslim hate, which is approaching levels unseen since 9/11. We can't pretend that these are not pressing when a member of this committee who is Black and Muslim is being called a terrorist by another member of this committee. Still, I was encouraged that today's hearing was planning to focus on the underlying causes of anti-Semitism and hate. Something the previous eight have quite frankly failed to do in earnest. Because we do need to address the underlying factors if college students and any of us ever hope to live in a peaceful and a safe society.

(01:34:50)
Instead, it was made immediately clear, unsurprisingly, that this is yet another hearing to demonize Muslims and their religion, to demonize Palestinians, including those in Gaza who have undeniably faced unspeakable harms, the humanitarian crisis and human rights crisis, and particularly the young students, activists and faculty who are determined to stand up against human rights violations. This is predictably another public opportunity for Republicans to pit Jewish Americans against Muslim Americans, Muslim against Christian, Black against white, to reinforce the actual underlying factors of hate, which are real systemic harms of white supremacy and its reinforcement at its highest levels of government. One glaring example is the administration's selective misinterpretation of the weaponization of the civil rights laws. Mr. Nosanchuk, in your testimony, you discussed how the Trump administration is imposing Jiconium penalties that are completely divorced from supporting Jewish students or addressing anti-Semitism. Briefly, how is this administration's assessment of civil rights violations undermining meaningful oversight of campus safety efforts that would support students?

Matt Nosanchuk (01:35:58):

Thank you for the question, congresswoman.

Matt N. (01:36:00):

Congresswoman, as I said in my testimony, there is a proven way to address civil rights violations. Congress, this body, charged the Office of Civil Rights with enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and ensuring that all students have an opportunity to access their education free from discrimination. So when we would conduct an investigation and reach a resolution agreement, it would result in a whole series of steps that many of which my fellow panelists here have discussed to address the antisemitism that has occurred and to change the campus climate so that antisemitism doesn't exist.

(01:36:42)
In addition, when investigations are conducted, it's not like there's only one type of discrimination that's occurring often when an investigation is conducted and there's evidence of say, anti-Black discrimination. We might also have found evidence of anti-Semitic discrimination and expanded the investigation to encompass that we had that flexibility. Imposing a $900 million penalty on a university is not going to prompt the university presidents sitting here to think about how they're going to address antisemitism. They're going to think about how are they going to fill this huge hole in their budget that's just been created by a penalty that has nothing to do with the discriminatory conduct that has actually occurred.

Alma Adams (01:37:23):

Thank you. And I want this to be clear that we don't allow ourselves to be lost in rhetoric. This administration's attack on colleges isn't just about campus safety. I argue it's not about it at all. It's about suppressing education. The point of college we've talked about is for students to expand their worldviews, develop critical thinking skills, make them less susceptible to disinformation, and navigate how to stand up for what's right and important to them. Against things that they disagree with, which might include authoritarianism. That's why this administration is doing everything and beyond in its power to dismantle higher education.

(01:37:55)
Censor dissent, freezing funding, forcing university presidents to resign, threatening to remove accreditation, banning entire offices and departments, and revoking students' visas, disappearing students, eroding student loan programs, gutting civil rights resources, and of course, as it was mentioned at the outset of this hearing, putting an end to diversity, equity, and inclusion and accessibility, the boogeyman of MAGA Republicans who were determined to sow hate and division instead of equity inclusion. But at the same time as the crusade against diversity, the Trump administration and Republicans have said that colleges must hire more conservative faculty to increase viewpoint diversity on campuses while calling for disciplinary action against professors who believe they disagree with.

(01:38:34)
Really very quickly, Mr. Nosanchuk, do you think it's appropriate for colleges to make higher and disciplinary decisions based on pressure from whatever party happens to be in Congress or in charge? Just yes or no.

Matt N. (01:38:44):

No.

Alma Adams (01:38:45):

Thank you. These attacks on colleges are not solving the real problem, so make mistakes. This is yet another opportunity to exploit legitimate concerns of antisemitism on college campuses to further their attacks on the institutions of learning. I think that it's incredibly clear hearing the opening testimonies and statements and the testimony that we'll continue to hear throughout today. I hope that you'll consider that. Thank you. And I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (01:39:06):

I thank the gentlelady and I recognize gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.

Mr. Kiley (01:39:11):

Good morning, Chancellor Lyons. Thanks very much for being here. I want to say from the outset, I know you've only been chancellor for a year, so I just want to ask a few questions, not for the purpose of assigning blame, but for getting a better understanding of the expectations that members of the Berkeley community can have going forward. And I also want to say at the outset that while I think Berkeley's reputation as being kind of a cartoonishly leftist institution is well-earned in some ways, in other ways, it is an enormously important institution for our country that does tremendously beneficial research, continues to do so, and provides tremendous opportunities to students across all of its campuses.

(01:39:52)
So I want that to be acknowledged as an important part of the story as well. But let's just start with a simple question. Why do you believe antisemitism is so pervasive at Berkeley?

Dr. Lyons (01:40:06):

antisemitism is pervasive in the world. It's pervasive in this nation, in society. I think our universities are reflections of our societies, especially a large public university.

Mr. Kiley (01:40:18):

But I think we'd agree that universities have been where the problem is probably most visible, and institutions like Berkeley among a handful of others have been the worst offenders in a sense. Why do you think that is?

Dr. Lyons (01:40:34):

Well, have they been where it's most visible? I'm not sure that it's where they're most present, but I think part of what we do see in universities is there is a freedom to express one's views even if there's some learning that needs to happen through that process. And I think that's a healthy part of what universities do. So students do express their views. If 200 students express their views on our main plaza called Sproul Plaza, that's one-fifth, 1%.

Mr. Kiley (01:41:09):

I guess why does it exist at all? I mean, we're talking about not something like littering on campus. This is the world's most retrograde prejudice. It's the prejudice at the heart of the worst crime in human history. Why does this exist at all on your campus? Have you thought about that? What the explanation might be?

Dr. Lyons (01:41:27):

Well, I think we have to come back to anyone's use of the word, antisemitism. If somebody is expressing pro-Palestinian beliefs, that's not necessarily antisemitism

Mr. Kiley (01:41:39):

You've acknowledged that there is an antisemitism problem that predates October 7th and there's been a disturbing rise. So I'm asking why do you think that is?

Dr. Lyons (01:41:50):

I did agree to that. I believe that part of it has to do with geopolitical events and a war in Gaza.

Mr. Kiley (01:42:02):

I'm not sure that's a full explanation, but I do want to move on to a couple other topics. So there were some incidents that were deeply disturbing on your campus such as a checkpoint at Sather Gate where Jewish students, their movement was impeded. Would you agree, and I'm not asking you to comment on individual cases, but going forward, a student or faculty member who physically obstructs the movement of someone on the basis of their race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, that is just an automatically expellable or fireable offense?

Dr. Lyons (01:42:34):

Going forward, we have a very clear no-tolerance rule for blocking Sather Gate for any reason, and I will enforce it and we have enforced it. I mentioned that in an earlier comment.

Mr. Kiley (01:42:47):

But if someone does this specifically against a Jewish student or for someone, any other form of identity, I mean, what should the expectation be for what that student's or faculty member's punishment will be? I think there are some things, if someone's convicted of murder, you'd say automatically expellable offense, I'm sure. Right. So what's the punishment here?

Dr. Lyons (01:43:05):

Well, it's an important question as we in most universities implemented more sharply defined time, place, and manner rules, we also have to think about how are we going to enforce those rules usually with some kind of what we call tiered response. So the question is this a first offense? Is it a 20th offense? How extreme was it?

Mr. Kiley (01:43:26):

I mean, I've given you a very specific example though. I don't know if it matters to me whether that's the first or 20th offense. If you're physically stopping someone from getting onto their campus because of who they are, that assertion should be expelled, shouldn't they?

Dr. Lyons (01:43:37):

Well, part of it is were they physically restricting people that were from a different identity group at the same time? There's a lot of context and facts before somebody could say we need to jump to the point where somebody's getting expelled and we investigate those. We're very rigorous about our investigations.

Mr. Kiley (01:43:56):

What about the encampment? So we know that your predecessor reached a deal with the encampment organizers and part of which was to endow this chair, this department that's now headed by the wannabe terrorist Maqdisi. Would you agree going forward that it's not appropriate to make policy changes in response to demands made by those who are in the process of violating campus rules?

Dr. Lyons (01:44:23):

I can't second guess my predecessor. The facts and circumstances under which she was leading us at the time, really I was not in the role as you've pointed out. Going forward, I can speak to that and that's why you invited me here. And going forward, for example, there are certain things that we talk to students about all the time. They make demands. Let's leave ourselves beyond the antisemitism question as, do we discuss improving the campus with students? We need to-

Mr. Walberg (01:44:54):

Gentleman's time has expired. I'm sorry, we have to move on.

Mr. Kiley (01:44:57):

My time has expired. I think that the issue with the encampment was that it clearly violated the campus policies, but that was rewarded by the then chancellor by acceding to their demands. And I would hope that that is not going to be the approach taken by Berkeley going forward.

Mr. Walberg (01:45:11):

I thank the gentleman and I recognize the gentlelady from Arizona, Ms. Ansari.

Ms. Ansari (01:45:16):

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. Antisemitism has undoubtedly been on the rise for years. As we all know, although Jews constitute only 2% of the US population, anti-Semitic attacks account for 15% of all hate crimes and almost 70% of all religion-based hate crimes in the country. In the current climate, almost 50% of Jewish college students report feeling uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on campus because they're Jewish. That is unacceptable. Particularly on college campuses, we've heard concerns about faculty members using rhetoric that at times crosses the line into antisemitism and creates hostile environments for Jewish students.

(01:45:59)
And while we are holding hearings to combat antisemitism on campuses, the very office in the Department of Education that works to protect Jewish students, the Office for Civil Rights has been attacked, undermined, and cut by the Trump administration. This office works to protect individuals based on race, color, or national origin, sex, age, religion, and disability. And I would be remiss if I didn't mention that in addition to the sharp rise in antisemitism, data shows a very clear rise in Islamophobia as well, especially in recent months, a rise in anti-Asian hate, persistently high rates of bias-motivated crimes against Black communities and FBI data also shows prejudice against sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability bias.

(01:46:48)
And just yesterday, the Trump administration and the Trump-appointed Supreme Court affirmed his plan to dismantle the Department of Education and fire nearly 1400 employees, one-third of their workforce. Mr. Nosanchuk, what effect will the decimation of the Department of Education and especially this office of civil rights have on efforts to combat college antisemitism?

Matt N. (01:47:16):

Thank you for that question, Congresswoman. It is the job of the Office for Civil Rights to enforce civil rights laws and keep students safe. If there aren't the investigators and the resources to do the job, who is going to be going on to these campuses in response to complaints when instances of anti-discrimination occur to protect these students? I'm trying to think of another instance where there's a policy preference that says we need to prioritize this particular policy objective and now we're going to gut the office charged with the responsibility to do the work.

Ms. Ansari (01:47:53):

And since mass layoffs earlier this year, has the pace of investigation and resolution become faster or slower?

Matt N. (01:48:02):

My understanding is it's become slower and that one approach that's been taken is just to dismiss wholesale, whole host of complaints, some unprecedented number within a three-month period.

Ms. Ansari (01:48:15):

So on that note, if you could clarify, do you know how many civil rights cases have been dismissed by the Trump administration and how that may compare to prior administrations?

Matt N. (01:48:24):

Well, I do know that there was 3,400 that were dismissed within a three-month period from March through June, that outpaced any rate of dismissal before. The way in which OCR operated when I worked there is every complaint that was filed that stated claim which was within the jurisdiction of OCR was opened for investigation.

(01:48:47)
Doesn't mean that it necessarily resulted in a resolution agreement, but it was opened for investigation because the belief was that every student who has a complaint needs to be heard and their complaint examined to determine whether there has been discrimination that rises to the level of harassment or hostile environment under Title VI and what the university that is accountable for protecting that student's civil rights is doing about it.

Ms. Ansari (01:49:14):

Thank you so much. This year, in addition, the Trump administration shuttered seven out of 12 civil rights enforcement offices, including the offices in New York City and San Francisco. Two of the regions that are obviously represented on this panel today. Those offices were in the middle of handling over 6,000 cases. Mr. Nosanchuk, what role did these offices play in combating antisemitism under your tenure at the Office of Civil Rights?

Matt N. (01:49:39):

Thanks for that question. They played a very significant role. The offices that were shuttered were some of the most effective offices within OCR. I don't think, frankly, that that's a coincidence and it happened that a number of those offices were the ones where a significant majority of the unprecedented number of antisemitism-related investigations that we opened were being handled and there was tremendous expertise if you added it up.

(01:50:05)
I imagine it would be decades or centuries of expertise if you added all the years of all the investigators who worked in these offices and really were deeply committed and are now shattered by the fact that they've lost their jobs and seen the office that they were dedicated to be basically eviscerated.

Ms. Ansari (01:50:24):

Thank you. This administration has been weaponizing the rise of antisemitism in their war against higher education. If they were serious about protecting Jewish students and educators, they would be providing more funding and more staff for the Office of Civil Rights. Thank you.

Mr. Walberg (01:50:39):

I thank the gentlelady. Her time has expired and I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Onder.

Mr. Onder (01:50:45):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all the witnesses for being here today. Chancellor Lyons, the UAW represents 48,000 academic workers in the University of California system. How many on the Berkeley campus are you aware?

Dr. Lyons (01:51:06):

I don't have that [inaudible 01:51:08]

Mr. Onder (01:51:08):

Well, the UAW has endorsed encampments that feature imagery supporting terrorism, has led students sessions on how to agitate on campus, union leaders have even come to campus participating in anti-Semitic chants. A microbiology grad student filed a lawsuit, Yaniv versus UAW 4811, alleging that the union's activity contributed to a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII and the California Fair Employment Act. In your opinion, does the UAW contribute to antisemitism on the University of California Berkeley campus or in the system?

Dr. Lyons (01:51:55):

It would be inappropriate for me to speak to a case that is clearly in litigation, so I won't do that. I think it's also important to understand that unions are independent organizations, right? We don't control them, they don't control us, so it's not something that we have any direct control over.

Mr. Onder (01:52:25):

Now here is an area where the union does seek to interact with Berkeley. The UC UAW strongly supports BDS, Boycott, Divest, and Sanction, and is looking to impose it on the U of California system in January and April of 2024. The UAW passed resolutions to that effect. If in the next round of collective bargaining, the UAW demanded a provision that implements BDS, would you counsel for agreeing to such a provision or oppose it?

Dr. Lyons (01:53:02):

It is the stated policy of the University of California that we do not boycott countries. We do not… We have specific rules for when divestment can be considered, and we're very systematic about how we apply those roles. I can speak for myself personally. Personally I would oppose it.

Mr. Onder (01:53:28):

Thank you. And it's been reported that the UC UAW prepared a list of members of the UC Board of Regents with Jewish or Israeli ties and targeted them for investigation. What if UAW proposed a provision under which Berkeley and other University of California schools would disclose to the union, any grants, donors, programs, or professors with ties to Israel? Would you counsel for agreeing to such a provision?

Dr. Lyons (01:54:05):

There were some facts on the front end of your question that I take to be true, but I have no information on, so I can't comment on that whatsoever. If they were asking for… In general, we do not provide information to the public or to outside entities like unions. And if it's publicly available, then it's publicly available, they can find it. So in general, we would not provide that kind of information unless there's some legal reason why we needed to.

Mr. Onder (01:54:42):

Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Groves, so Georgetown has a number of foreign campuses, Jakarta, Florence, London. I found myself wondering how did the Qatar connection and Qatar campus of Georgetown University come to be? Did Qatar approached Georgetown or vice versa or how did that work?

Dr. Groves (01:55:07):

This happened right before my time, so it's only through oral history that I know the answer.

Mr. Onder (01:55:13):

How long has it been?

Dr. Groves (01:55:13):

2005. That's been 20 years ago. And my understanding is that the vision of the Qatar Foundation at the time was to build a group of western universities in Doha that would offer Western education to the region in a vision that Qatar would gradually become a hub for higher education and research.

Mr. Onder (01:55:45):

Western-style, Jesuit-style higher education.

Dr. Groves (01:55:47):

Yes.

Mr. Onder (01:55:48):

In the Middle East. Thank you. I'm out of time. Thank you very much. I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (01:55:53):

I thank the gentleman, now I recognize the gentlelady from Georgia, Mrs. McBath.

Mrs. McBath (01:55:59):

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our Ranking Member Scott, thank you to all of you that are witnesses today. We appreciate your time and being here. I also want to thank the students that are watching today, and I want to say again to each and every one of them, I'm very sorry to those who have been victims of violent hate crimes at some of our other schools and that have appeared previously before this committee. As a mother of a child, myself, who was killed in a racially motivated shooting, I know what it is like for your family to be attacked solely because of who you are or how you were born. I know how painful it is for those preconceived notions that someone may have.

(01:56:48)
Preconceived notions that have nothing to do with the actions you have taken as an individual. For those notions to drive someone's entire view of you or your loved ones as a person. That is the type of dangerous mindset that took my son from me. And I want to remind everyone here how important it is that we engage in good faith to get this right. Antisemitism remains a growing threat on campus today, but the actions taken by the majority are not motivated by the rooting out of the evils of antisemitism and other forms of hate in American society. These actions today, they're not going to improve the situation. They're only fostering further distrust between different groups on and off campus.

(01:57:52)
Instead of taking real steps to address antisemitism, the majority has cut the funding, as was mentioned earlier by one of our witnesses and fired the federal employees tasked with responding to these incidents on school grounds. They have paused funding meant to protect synagogues and other Jewish community centers from shootings through the nonprofit security and targeting violence and terrorism prevention grant programs. They have openly defended the actions of violent felons and rabid anti-Semites, criminals that were directly involved in attacking police and killing an officer here at our capitol on January 6th.

(01:58:40)
When white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia chanting "Jews will not replace us," the president said that there were "very fine people on both sides." These are not the actions of a party or president who is engaging in good faith. In the attempt to explain away one of the oldest forms of hate solely for political gain is truly wrong. It undermines the centuries of interfaith struggle to build bridges and take the difficult but very necessary steps that will bring peace. It cheapens the sacrifice, the contributions of countless everyday people who have lived these realities, who put their reputations on the line, and found it within themselves to put those preconceived notions aside to really try to solve and resolve these differences, not just talk past each other.

(01:59:38)
Fighting antisemitism should not be used as a political tool. The work is simply too important. The stakes are just too high. Today, Georgia is home to the largest population in the deep south. My state. My home state has become a beacon of prosperity for Jewish families hoping to live together in peace free from judgment regarding their faith. But it has not always been this way. I live just a few miles from the site of one of the most heinous and violent acts of antisemitism in the history of this country. The lynching of Leo Frank. It takes the vigilance from all of us to ensure that the atrocities of the past never repeat themselves.

(02:00:25)
I ask the American people and all those who care about religious freedom in this country, all those who want this country to live up to the promise that all of us were created equal. Please compare what they hear from my Republican colleagues during these hearings to the actions that they take when the cameras aren't rolling. And I yield.

Mr. Walberg (02:00:55):

Thank you, gentlelady. And I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Mackenzie.

Mr. Mackenzie (02:01:00):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the fact that we're continuing our hearings about antisemitism in higher education because it continues to be a persistent problem that we see far too often. My first question is for Dr. Lyons. This is the Education and Workforce Committee. We just heard from the last questioner on our side of the aisle about the relationship with the Union UAW Local 4811 at the UC system, and how they have been engaging in explicitly political activity demanding divestment from Israel. And you've said that you don't support that. So what guardrails is the university going to put in place to make sure that collective bargaining is not used to push foreign policy demands?

Dr. Lyons (02:01:57):

I am not an expert in collective bargaining, but demands can be made. The other side of any negotiation is free to make demands. I think the position of the University of California has been clear and will continue to be clear.

Speaker 4 (02:02:13):

[Inaudible 02:02:17]

Mr. Walberg (02:02:16):

Gentleman will suspend.

Speaker 4 (02:02:17):

Free Palestine. Free Palestine.

Mr. Walberg (02:02:24):

All in attendance are reminded in accordance with Rule 11, Clause 4, the House Representatives to observe standards of dignity, propriety, courtesy, and decorum traditionally observed by the House and this committee. The chair notes that there is this disturbance that takes place, but this committee will continue and will complete its planned hearing. I now recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania to continue.

Mr. Mackenzie (02:02:54):

Well, thank you Mr. Chairman. And I would just go back to the questioning here. They can certainly make demands, but in a negotiation, if the administration stakes out a very clear position that they will not be accepting of foreign policy considerations being forced into a union negotiation, obviously that would help your leverage in this process and make it less likely that those things would go forward. Is that something that you're going to be willing to do?

Dr. Lyons (02:03:20):

I just want to double underscore that the University of California position is that we will not be boycotting Israel or any country. That is my understanding of an already well-stated and clarified position. In any event, I can speak for myself, which is all I can speak for in response to your question. And the answer is yes, that that position is that we should not go in that direction.

Mr. Mackenzie (02:03:45):

Thank you. Next, I'll go to Dr. Matos Rodriguez. And this is relating to the unions that are representing some of your faculty and staff on your campus. We have heard, and there was a Wall Street Journal opinion article just from last week, how labor unions are feeding the antisemitism on campus and the unfortunate incidents where members of the faculty and staff from Israel to game the representation that they seek in a union are being forced to sign up with a union that holds explicitly anti-Israel positions.

(02:04:23)
And so I would like to understand what you might be willing to do to help those faculties and staff because of that exclusive representation provision. How do they accurately express their views in a college setting and make sure that the union who is their representative is not running counter to their own interests?

Dr. Matos R. (02:04:46):

Thank you for your question. Our first responsibility is to make sure that in our campuses the freedom to express your opinion is as preserved and individuals have different perspectives as the ones that you commented in your questioning today.

Speaker 4 (02:05:02):

Burning children's lives. [inaudible 02:05:07]

Mr. Walberg (02:05:06):

Suspend time of-

Speaker 4 (02:05:08):

[inaudible 02:05:17].

Mr. Walberg (02:05:16):

I don't know if it's appropriate, but I was expecting that one. I now recognize the gentleman to continue his questioning.

Dr. Matos R. (02:05:28):

So having said that, the other part of that is that we expect everybody to conduct themselves, every faculty, staff member, and student at the city University of New York with the almost level of professionalism and to abide by oral policies. So our role is to make sure that we make those policies clear, that we make everybody understand that they have to abide by them. And if anybody breaks them, that we investigate and take the appropriate action. So that would be our role in making sure that the policies against any kind of discrimination against any kind of harassment are not tolerated.

Mr. Mackenzie (02:06:11):

That's fine. I understand that. What is the recourse for an individual faculty member if the representative body is a union that holds explicitly positions that run counter to their own interests? Can that person go around that exclusive representation? Would you support that?

Dr. Matos R. (02:06:30):

Those individuals have the resources available to them privately. What we can do is make sure that the voice of the city, university of New York, as I mentioned to you, no tolerance of antisemitism, north star of safety, that everybody in the university understands that and is safe to be able to-

Mr. Mackenzie (02:06:51):

Would you negotiate a contract with an individual not in the union?

Dr. Matos R. (02:06:56):

That is not something that we are allowed to do by law.

Mr. Mackenzie (02:07:00):

But would you support that? Because again, if the only representative body is one that is anti-Israel and this faculty member is from Israel, you're putting that person in a catch 22.

Dr. Matos R. (02:07:12):

We are clear about what the positions of the university are. I have been very clear about my opposition to BDS and I have traveled to Israel with our presidents and deans to show that it's not just a statement that we are building bridges and connecting with universities and cultural organizations there. Our role is to make sure that we put together what the vision of the university is and labor has… They're independent so that they don't speak for the-

Mr. Walberg (02:07:43):

Gentleman's time has expired. And I recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Fine.

Mr. Fine (02:07:49):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm going to be honest. I find the testimony today both disgusting, dishonest, and to be gaslighting. And I'm going to point it out here. We've heard that we unequivocally denounce antisemitism

Mr. Fine (02:08:00):

On wavering support for our Jewish students, we have a zero tolerance policy and we will not put up with a call for violence. So let's explore that. I'd like to start with Dr. Rodriguez. Emmanuel Ness, the chair of your political science department said he supports, quote, "Resistance by any means necessary, which includes violence." How can you say those statements that you support your Jewish-

Speaker 5 (02:08:21):

Stop the hate.

Mr. Fine (02:08:22):

Shut up and get out of here.

Mr. Walberg (02:08:22):

Gentlemen, we'll suspend-

Speaker 5 (02:08:23):

[inaudible 02:08:25].

Mr. Walberg (02:08:24):

Gentlemen we'll-

Mr. Fine (02:08:25):

Get out of here you loser. Come on.

Speaker 5 (02:08:26):

[inaudible 02:08:27].

Mr. Fine (02:08:27):

By the way, to be clear, I hold you all responsible for this. It is the attitude that you have allowed on your college campuses that make people think that this is okay. That is why this happens. Because you have someone like Emmanuel Ness that says resistance by any means necessary. And I assume this person still works at your school. Is that correct?

Dr. Matos R. (02:08:50):

Any call for violence.

Mr. Walberg (02:08:51):

Microphone, please.

Dr. Matos R. (02:08:52):

Any call for violence against Jewish members of our community is entirely unacceptable.

Mr. Fine (02:08:56):

So why does this person still work there?

Dr. Matos R. (02:08:59):

Any individual or faculty that has a complaint of breaking our rules, we'll investigate them and take the appropriate disciplinary action if warranted.

Mr. Fine (02:09:09):

Corinna Mullin at John Jay College said, "After October 7th, the right of Palestinian armed resistance is just, and just last month, was filmed chanting, "Up, up, up with freedom, down, down, down with Zionist scum." This is a professor that teaches your Jewish students. How can you say you have an unwavering zero tolerance policy when this person teaches at your school?

Dr. Matos R. (02:09:34):

Again, I believe that that faculty member is no longer teaching with the university. Any call for violence, any call for supporting Hamas or terrorism is entirely unacceptable and we made those statements several times.

Mr. Fine (02:09:49):

At Berkeley, you're next. You created in the fall of 2024, you named Ussama Makdisi, the inaugural chair of a new endowed program in Palestinian Arab studies. On October 7th, Makdisi described the Hamas attack against Israel as quote, "Resistance." Why would you give a job… See, I understand freedom of speech, but you get to decide who to hire. Why would you give a position to someone who said October 7th was justified? Why?

Dr. Lyons (02:10:20):

Ussama Makdisi, Professor Makdisi is a fine scholar. He was awarded that position from his colleagues based on academic standards.

Mr. Fine (02:10:29):

Great. So on February 5th, 2024, this great academic, you're showing the problem, said quote, "I could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7th." This is what you think is good and then we're surprised when people come in here and behave this way. I'm going to move on to Georgetown. You've got a campus in Qatar. I note when my colleague Vice Chair Owens said, "What would happen with a KKK student on campus?" You said, "Yes, but." That's the problem with all of this. We believe that we should deal with racism and we should, and I did a lot in the Florida legislature to do with that, but there should not be a but after it when it comes to anti Semites.

(02:11:07)
So at your school in Qatar, you had a October 24th, 2023rd, an event titled, "Decolonization is Not Just a Theory, it was a Exhibition of Armed Resistance in Africa, in Solidarity with Palestine." What does, 'decolonization is not just a theory' mean to you and what does it mean to Georgetown?

Dr. Groves (02:11:31):

I don't have knowledge of that exhibition. This was a student-led event, Congressman.

Mr. Fine (02:11:37):

All right, I have 90 seconds left and I'm going to end with this. I have a 17-year-old who will be applying to school next year. He's in Washington interning right now. And how in good conscience could you tell my son who is Jewish, who's the reason I wear this kippah, how could you tell my son in good conscience that he would be safe at any of your schools? I'll give each of you 20 seconds to try to answer that question.

Dr. Groves (02:12:00):

I would deeply hope he would feel safe and there's a reason for this at Georgetown. If Jewish students don't feel safe, if they have fear, if it's not just hurtful to them, it destroys our mission of interfaith dialogue.

Mr. Fine (02:12:18):

They don't feel safe right now. Your turn.

Dr. Matos R. (02:12:22):

I have spoken to many students. We have recruited actively in the Jewish community at CUNY. I've actually began a program of extending a program that we have of recruiting in the high schools to the Yeshivas, which is College Now. And again, we have listened. I have met with the students, gone to Hillel, listened to their concerns and I've told them that we need to do better. We have made the changes and we're showing the results and listening and being committed to their safety is something that I wake up every day to do.

Mr. Fine (02:12:54):

Yeah, I don't even need an answer from Berkeley given the answer to that question about that professor. I would tell you this, the Jewish students on your campus, they do not feel safe today and you all should be ashamed about that. With that, I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (02:13:09):

I thank the gentleman and I recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Grothman.

Mr. Grothman (02:13:15):

Thank you. First of all, just a quick general statement. This has been talked about the third or fourth, fifth, whatever committee hearing dealing with anti-Semitism on American campuses. The fact that in many campuses the Jewish students don't feel safe because of what's going on or not being done on the part of the administration. I'll point out, we could sit here for years. We're never going to have a committee hearing on anti-Semitism at the construction site. We're never going to have one anti-Semitism working in retail or working in manufacturing or in the military or anti-Semitism in the retirement home. This is basically a university problem, and I think it became a problem because we have such a slanted overall view of the world and the university compared to the country as a whole. In an ideal world, I think you'd say that the university faculty represents a cross section of the country, but we all know that's not true.

(02:14:21)
If we talk to university professors, they'll tell you, "I was the only person out of 20 people here who voted for President Trump in my department," or whatever. And not every state keeps track of which party you register in, but in universities that they do keep track or people do studies, the universities are just overwhelmingly Democrat, which is a breeding ground for this anti-Semitism because right now the progressive wing of the Democrat party, not the entire Democrat party, but the progressive wing of the Democrat party, which kind of drives the train over there, this anti-Israel feeling has become one of the things, along with global warming or racism or whatever, that becomes the norm.

(02:15:14)
I'll ask a couple of you guys. I guess I'll start with Dr. Lyons, do you feel your university ideologically across the board represents the country as a whole or even California, in disciplines in which there's an ideological component? Law school, journalism school, political science. The country as a whole right now is about 50/50. Does it bother you, that I assume like most college campuses, your student body and your faculty, especially your faculty, don't even remotely represent America.

Dr. Lyons (02:16:02):

Ideological or political considerations are not conditions for employment at UC, Berkeley. That's faculty-

Mr. Grothman (02:16:10):

No, the question is, if we were talking about affirmative action and you had 8,000 faculty and five were black, you would say that's a problem. Now, given that everybody brings a certain ideology to their job, particularly if you're teaching students, that is a problem if it doesn't represent America. I mean, I've been doing this for over 20 years, a politician back home and here. Again and again and again, I hear from college students who can't say what's on their mind in an essay or whatever because they know the teacher give them a bad grade or feel the teacher give them a bad grade, if you didn't give the progressive viewpoint of the world. Does this bother you and do you think this is any of the problem? We'll ask you Doctor.

Dr. Groves (02:17:06):

Well your statement about getting a bad grade because of-

Mr. Grothman (02:17:10):

Does it bother you? Does it bother you that you're-

Dr. Groves (02:17:12):

It bothers me.

Mr. Grothman (02:17:13):

Does it bother you that your faculty does not remotely represent America?

Dr. Groves (02:17:19):

It bothers me-

Mr. Grothman (02:17:20):

It is disproportionately not only Democrat but progressive Democrat, which is where this idea that anti-Israel is the thing to be come from. That's where it comes, from the progressive left, and way disproportionately your faculty also comes from the progressive left. That's why these people get away with this and think it's normal.

Dr. Groves (02:17:41):

What bothers me, Congressman, is anything that interrupts a dialogue across different intellectual positions.

Mr. Grothman (02:17:48):

So it doesn't bother you if 95% of your faculty in disciplines they have an ideological component are progressive Democrats?

Dr. Groves (02:17:56):

Not if we have a thriving dialogue [inaudible 02:17:59].

Mr. Grothman (02:17:58):

Well good. Mr. Rodriguez, what do you think about that?

Dr. Matos R. (02:18:01):

Well, we have about 20,000 faculty members of the City University of New York, and they are a diverse group of-

Mr. Grothman (02:18:09):

Do they even remotely represent America as a whole?

Dr. Matos R. (02:18:14):

I have no way of knowing that.

Mr. Grothman (02:18:16):

You must an idea. When you walk around campus and it was a week going to the last election where there robust debates in which half the people were for Trump? Of course not. Your very, very skewed faculty, which is where this whole problem comes from. Do you acknowledge that your faculty does not ideologically represent America.

Mr. Walberg (02:18:33):

Ask the gentlemen to finish the question as quickly as possible.

Dr. Matos R. (02:18:35):

Again, we have a large number of faculty and they represent diverse points of view, diverse political views point, all across the City University of New York.

Mr. Grothman (02:18:46):

If I ask you to name-

Mr. Walberg (02:18:47):

The gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Grothman (02:18:48):

Thank you. Fear of being friendly.

Mr. Walberg (02:18:51):

Yields back. I now recognize the gentlelady from Minnesota Ms. Omar.

Ms. Omar (02:18:58):

Thank you Chairman. It seems that the majority on this committee is eager to continue enabling this administration's repressive agenda. President Trump's attack on civil liberties and academic freedom are well documented. While Republicans continue their charade. New information about the Trump administration's policy of ideological deportations is coming to light. Last week a senior ICE official testified in court that the agency is using the website Canary Mission to target students for deportation. Canary Mission is an anonymous site that blacklists and doxes individuals charging them with anti-Semitism through little evidence or zero due process. It has long been criticized for its McCarthyism tactics that surveil students repress speech and instill a cultural of fear across campuses. This is a site that refrains attending an anti-war protest as supporting pro-Hamas rally. It is not known who runs this site, but the agenda is clear, pro-Palestinian advocacy cannot be tolerated. And now this ideological agenda has a direct line to state power.

(02:20:22)
Let's recall the high-profile case of student Rumeysa Ozturk who was illegally detained by ICE and held for six weeks after writing an op-ed in support of Palestine. Curiously, that op-ed was published in entirely a year before ICE chose to target her. But right before her abduction, Canary Mission posted a profile of her on its website accusing her of anti-Israel activism for writing the article. The same profile that ICE has now admitted to using in their internal memo. In a matter of weeks she was picked up and her student status was terminated. Canary Mission loudly claimed credit for her detention and it seems that credit was earned. This shameless authoritarian display of weaponizing a blacklist to crack down on political speech and detain academics is a page directly out of the McCarthy playbook. President Groves, Chancellor Rodriguez and Chancellor Lyon, this question is for the three of you. In the light of these escalations with students facing detention, deportation, in retaliation for their clearly protected speech, how are your campuses protecting students who are exercising their first amendment rights?

Dr. Groves (02:21:51):

We have free speech policies that are crystal clear and in fact we've clarified them over time to permit speech. We don't permit any violence with regard to the promotion of any particular viewpoint, and we try to act on violations of those policies quickly and fairly.

Ms. Omar (02:22:13):

Thank you. Chancellor Rodriguez.

Dr. Matos R. (02:22:16):

We make sure that all students are informed about our policies. We want students and all the members of our community to exercise the right to free speech, but they have to do it abiding by our rules and regulations. We're also investing, as I indicated earlier in this constructive dialogue initiative, we want individuals to have the tools to have difficult conversations, to be able to have them, but to do them in a way that is respectful and civilized, and the best way also to empower the students is to provide them with information.

Ms. Omar (02:22:45):

Chancellor Lyons?

Dr. Lyons (02:22:48):

We are supporting with education and training over 30 anti-bias initiatives to make sure that students can see into these issues more deeply. New curriculum like what I mentioned earlier of course, like Openness to Opposing Views, sharpening where the no tolerance lines are, which was very, very helpful I believe for the students to feel like they could safely express their free speech rights and understand-

Ms. Omar (02:23:13):

At what stage do the three of you again, will you intervene when students are being doxed? We've seen fans in front of your campuses with students being doxed.

Dr. Lyons (02:23:25):

Well, at Berkeley, the question there is if a doxing or other discrimination or harassment event would be reported and we would follow it up with an investigation and make a decision.

Dr. Matos R. (02:23:43):

And we have a web page that we indicate to members of the community as a resource for the different things that can be done if someone is a subject of doxing.

Dr. Groves (02:23:57):

Reports of doxing are acted on quite quickly and investigated.

Ms. Omar (02:24:01):

Appreciate that. Thank you. And I yield bank.

Mr. Walberg (02:24:03):

I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris (02:24:09):

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I thank all of you for your time and your patience and being in the panel. I appreciate your written testimonies and had an opportunity to review those as well as hear you today.

(02:24:22)
Dr. Groves and your testimony you said, and I quote, "As a Jesuit university, we believe that working with someone with conflicting views to yours, does not imply that you've been captured by their beliefs." End quote. And I agree with that statement. Unfortunately, it seems that some at Georgetown have been captured by the beliefs of some ideologies that are at odds with Georgetown's Catholic and Jesuit mission. In fact, it looks like you are celebrating ideas that are indirect opposition to those values. Earlier this year you awarded a medal to Sheikha Moza Bint Nasser, the mother of Qatar's Emir and chair of the Qatar Foundation. Yet months prior to giving this award, Sheikha Moza had posted on social media comments praising the October 7th attack on Israel. She praised the mastermind of the October 7th attack, Yahya Sinwar, saying, quote, "The name Yahya means the one who lives. They thought him dead, but he lives." End quote. And she added, apparently referring to Israel, quote, "He will live on and they will be gone." End quote.

(02:25:42)
I mean, I have to ask, why did you give a medal to someone who had made such anti-Semitic comments and represents a government that supports a US-designated terror organization like Hamas?

Dr. Groves (02:25:59):

Well, thank you. Thank you for the question. The award to Sheikha Moza was given for her work, decades-long work for educating, getting access to education to the poorest children around the world. At this point there are 22 million children in the world that would not have had access to education without her work. It was for that work that we honored her.

Mr. Harris (02:26:26):

Okay, and I hear that, but you also said at the award ceremony that the medal, quote, "Is reserved for individuals whose contributions reflect the university's deepest commitments." End quote. Is a destruction of Israel something Georgetown would support?

Dr. Groves (02:26:46):

The deepest commitments of Georgetown stem from our Jesuit heritage of educating youth around the world and she amplified, she's a great example of that through her work over the decades.

Mr. Harris (02:27:02):

But I'll repeat the question. Is the destruction of Israel something Georgetown would support?

Dr. Groves (02:27:08):

I don't support that tweet. That tweet is not consistent with Georgetown policy. We honored her for her decades of work in access to education to the poorest children of the world.

Mr. Harris (02:27:21):

Okay. If her remarks don't reflect the university's deepest commitments, would you consider revoking the medal?

Dr. Groves (02:27:30):

We will not revoke the medal because the reason for the medal remains true. Her decades-long work and educating the poorest children of the world. 22 million children having education that they wouldn't have had without her work.

Mr. Harris (02:27:46):

Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, a Jewish student withdrew from Brooklyn College after her professors repeatedly described Jews as white oppressors. They told her that Jews therefore had no right to speak about their history of oppression. Are Jews white oppressors?

Dr. Matos R. (02:28:05):

I do not share that belief. I find the commentary entirely unacceptable and I also find deeply disturbing that a student that was accepted to one of our schools felt that needed to do something like a transfer because of that.

Mr. Harris (02:28:20):

DEI is fundamentally based on dividing people by the color of their skin and categorizing them on that basis as oppressor or oppressed. With that in mind, do you believe that DEI ideology makes campuses a safer place for Jewish people?

Dr. Matos R. (02:28:39):

Diversity has been part of the City University of New York since its founding. We represent the diversity that we have all across our five boroughs. Has been one of the key elements of the DNA of CUNY since the founding of the Free Academy. So we are committed to that work of diversity and it's been part of CUNY's work since its founding.

Mr. Harris (02:29:03):

So are DEI programs an effective way, you would say, to address anti-Semitism?

Dr. Matos R. (02:29:10):

In our work, when we work with students who are coming in and we teach them about the diversity of all our communities, we include anti-Semitism and the members of the Jewish community as part of that diversity effort.

Mr. Harris (02:29:23):

Okay. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (02:29:26):

I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Messmer.

Mr. Messmer (02:29:32):

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Matos Rodriguez, following up on Ms. Stefanik's line of questioning from earlier. In 2021, you hired Saly Abd Alla as CUNY's Chief Diversity Officer despite her previous employment at the Council of American Islamic Relations or CARE. The director of CARE said after the October 7th attacks that he was happy to see people breaking the siege. Is CARE an anti-Semitic organization?

Dr. Matos R. (02:30:00):

Again, the comment that you described is entirely unacceptable and inappropriate. I mean, CARE, I don't know about their policy about being anti-Semitic or not. For the City University of New York, we do not tolerate anti-Semitism of any kind.

Mr. Messmer (02:30:16):

Okay, thank you. You previously stated that Abd Alla does not handle cases directly pertaining to students and faculty, but she is the chief diversity officer. Considering her background, was it appropriate to hire her to oversee CUNY's anti- discrimination efforts?

Dr. Matos R. (02:30:31):

Again, that hire was not a direct hire that I made. Our commitment is that all our employees and faculty and staff abide by our policies and by our code of conduct, which would include no tolerance for anti-Semitism. That's the conduct that we expect, and if any employee is seen to be breaking those rules, they'll be investigated and the appropriate disciplinary action will be taken.

Mr. Messmer (02:31:02):

Okay. You have said that Abd Alla's work of care is consistent with CUNY's commitments to inclusion and respect. Do you remain confident that she could objectively investigate anti-Semitism at CUNY?

Dr. Matos R. (02:31:11):

We have had no complaints with that employee and again, as I said before, our commitment is if any member of the CUNY community, faculty, staff or student, violates our policies, violate our code of conduct, we will investigate. We've done it and we've taken action.

Mr. Messmer (02:31:31):

Has she been removed from any anti-Semitism investigations at this point?

Dr. Matos R. (02:31:35):

Again, there was one case in which in the petition by an individual involved, suggested, and we accommodate that individual.

Mr. Messmer (02:31:47):

Okay. Chancellor, earlier you said that only three of the seven students were disciplined at CUNY for their participation in an encampment. Why were only three disciplined and what kind of discipline did they receive?

Dr. Matos R. (02:31:58):

Again, I cannot speak to the specific cases of discipline. We work with the district attorney's office in that case, and they were individuals that were engaged in breaking into the administrative building at City College. As I indicated before in my testimony, the experience of that encampment is one that we've taken to heart. We have zero tolerance for encampments in CUNY right now, and we have doubled down in our efforts to make sure that our rules about time, place, and matter are clear to the students and we've also invested heavily in additional security to be able to prevent any such situation occurring again.

Mr. Messmer (02:32:47):

Okay. Thank you. Chancellor Lyons. A Berkeley professor, Ussama Makdisi described Hamas' October 7th attack as resistance. He also reposted an article praising a determination and courage of Hamas terrorists saying they heroically defended their homeland. Do these statements endorse violence against Jewish people?

Dr. Lyons (02:33:12):

I cannot speak to the specific elements of that. Different people have different views on that. Any call to violence or repeat of the horrific violence of October 7, in my perspective is objectionable and unacceptable. So those that would view those remarks that way would have to take it the same way. They are unobjectionable and arguably a call to violence.

Mr. Messmer (02:33:47):

About a year after the October 7th attack, Berkeley rewarded him by naming him the inaugural chair of a new Palestinian studies program. This was one of the demands of the UC, Berkeley's violent anti-Semitic encampment. In April of 2024, Berkeley contributed $500,000 to this new program. I know you were not chancellor then when it was stood up, but in your view, was this decision to appease anti-Semitic violent student demonstrators wrong or right?

Dr. Lyons (02:34:14):

I can't speak to the context. I don't have the facts or the circumstances upon the making of that investment in that program. I will also say that a very similar investment was made in our Jewish studies program at the same time.

Mr. Messmer (02:34:27):

Okay, thank you. I yield back for the rest of my time.

Mr. Walberg (02:34:32):

I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentleman from Washington, Mr. Baumgartner.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:34:37):

Thank you Mr. chair. Well, it very much pains me what has happened to higher education in America and its current status. I'm the son of a university professor. Actually. I spent a year in between WSU and Harvard teaching at the Catholic University of Mozambique, living and working with the Jesuits. So I have strong affinity for the Jesuits, but the radical leftward bent of America's higher education system has accelerated in the last five years has been extremely concerning. The diversity statements that have many college administrators have forced their faculty hires through to promote even more of a radical ideology, I think is very destructive.

(02:35:19)
And I think what you're seeing from Congress these days is representation that the American people have very much lost trust, or large segments of the American people have very much lost trust in higher education and that trust needs to be restored. It is my belief that one of those ways that trust could be restored would be to fully account for any foreign influence or foreign spending on your college campuses. And Dr. Groves, I'd like to start with you. Does Georgetown fully account and is Georgetown fully transparent with foreign money spent on your campus?

Dr. Groves (02:35:58):

We certainly attempt to report all of our receipts from non-U.S sources. One measure of that was with regard to Section 117 reporting, that there was an investigation of Georgetown along with other universities, and after months of reviewing the data we had submitted to the Department of Education, we received a letter commending us for our reporting. This is in 2021, 2022.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:36:34):

And can you commit right now to the American people that every dollar of foreign spending you'll be transparent with?

Dr. Groves (02:36:41):

I would be happy to commit to that.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:36:43):

Okay, thank you. Dr. Lyons, could you talk to us about foreign spending on University of Berkeley's campus? Do you think the American people have the right to know if foreign dollars are being spent on your campus?

Dr. Lyons (02:36:58):

We like other universities, we're very, very careful about any foreign monies that come into the university. The university is funded across many, many different sources and we are very, very careful to vet countries of concern as America's interests would require us to.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:37:19):

And you would commit to full transparency of foreign spending on your campus?

Dr. Lyons (02:37:23):

Well, as a public university, I am not ready to commit to that on the fly. There are different donors to the university who request anonymity.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:37:35):

Well what do you think that says to the American people when you want to hide foreign influence on your college campus? Do you think that restores trust?

Dr. Lyons (02:37:40):

I can assure you, and what I'd be very, very happy to be very transparent about is exactly what is our process for vetting those things. We say no to a lot of foreign money, I promise you that.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:37:50):

Give me an example of foreign money you've said no to?

Dr. Lyons (02:37:52):

I'm not in a position to provide that information, but I'm very happy to be fully transparent.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:37:59):

But you could understand at a time when large segments of the American population has seen university campuses go ever farther left-wing and more radical, and there's a deep concern about foreign influence on college campuses, lack of ability for Americans high school graduates to be able to get spots on college campuses. You could understand why it'd be concerning to have university president come before Congress and say, we don't want to be fully transparent about foreign influence.

Dr. Lyons (02:38:29):

I want to be fully transparent about the process by which we make sure that our process has integrity and that we are acting in America's best interest.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:38:39):

But why, if a foreign government wants to put money onto your campus, wouldn't you be willing to tell lawmakers, the American people about that?

Dr. Lyons (02:38:46):

Well, my understanding is that there in fact currently a lot of disclosure requirements around that, although it's not an area of my specific expertise. I think we disclose an awful lot of that information to the government currently.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:38:58):

Okay. Well, I'm just going to ask you one more time. Do you commit today to being fully transparent, every dollar of foreign spending that takes place on your college campus, you would let the American people know about?

Dr. Lyons (02:39:08):

I am glad to bring that back with my team and consider it, but I'm not ready to make that commitment today.

Mr. Baumgartner (02:39:15):

I yield back, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Walberg (02:39:19):

I thank the gentleman. I recognize the gentlelady from Michigan for her five minutes of question, Ms. McClain.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:39:25):

Thank you and thank you all for being here today. Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I want to start with you, Dr. Lyons. You're the chancellor at the University of California Berkeley. And you've been at the university for how many years?

Dr. Lyons (02:39:41):

I was an undergraduate there and came back on the faculty just over 30 years ago.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:39:46):

Okay. So you've been around, you've seen a lot of things. Do you believe that Jewish students feel safe on your campus?

Dr. Lyons (02:39:56):

I believe that most Jewish students feel safe

Dr. Lyons (02:40:00):

… safe on our campus.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:40:01):

Do you think there's any that don't?

Dr. Lyons (02:40:03):

Yes.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:40:04):

Yeah. Why do you think that is?

Dr. Lyons (02:40:07):

Well, I think there are Jewish people that don't feel safe in lots of parts-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:40:13):

I'm not talking about lots of parts, I'm talking about the university in which you are in charge of. Why do you think that is?

Dr. Lyons (02:40:21):

I think there is anti-Semitism in society and we-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:40:25):

I'm not talking about society and I appreciate your diversion of the question. I'm talking about the university. So why do you think Jewish students don't feel safe at your university in which you are in charge of? Just curious.

Dr. Lyons (02:40:41):

Well, I think part of safety for most people is some of it is physical, some of it is more emotional and am I being harassed but not necessarily being confronted with potential violence? So I've admitted already there is anti-Semitism on campus and I think that is-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:41:00):

And I'm asking a simple question, why do you think that is? And we've spent almost 30 seconds you avoiding the question.

Dr. Lyons (02:41:08):

Well, I do believe that public universities are reflections of society and I believe that the anti-Semitism on society is present on our campus.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:41:20):

Do you believe you can influence the direction and how people feel on your university? Do you have any influence on that? Do you believe the actions that you or your staff or faculty members take have influence on that?

Dr. Lyons (02:41:35):

Yes.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:41:36):

I would agree. Are you committed to taking the action to making sure that all Jewish students as well as all students feel safe on your campus?

Dr. Lyons (02:41:45):

I'm committing to striving to reach that goal, correct.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:41:48):

Wonderful. Okay. So just quickly, if a Black student's home was vandalized with a noose and racist graffiti and a note was left saying that you are next, would you consider that an example of racism or discrimination

Dr. Lyons (02:42:06):

On its face, personally, yes.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:42:08):

Wonderful. Well, in December of 2023, while you were a senior executive there, a Jewish student's home was robbed and a note was left saying F you. They wrote out the real word, free Palestine from the river to the sea. You think that's helpful for the Jewish students?

Dr. Lyons (02:42:26):

No.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:42:27):

No. What action did Berkeley take?

Dr. Lyons (02:42:33):

I believe that was predated my time. But what I can say is-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:42:36):

It predated your time as chancellor, but you were there as a senior executive.

Dr. Lyons (02:42:41):

Well, I don't know this for a fact sitting here, but I am almost sure that that was reported and that was investigated and I-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:42:50):

And what was the result?

Dr. Lyons (02:42:53):

It is hard-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:42:54):

I mean it's great that we report it and we investigate it, but you notice the one thing that's missing is like the result. Okay, we're going to… All right. In your testimony you rightly acknowledged Hamas's invasion of Israel as a terrorist attack. Dr. Makdisi, a professor of history at Berkeley University, on the other hand said, I could have been one of those people who broke through on the siege on October 7th. What do you think he meant by that?

Dr. Lyons (02:43:27):

I can't speak to-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:43:29):

I know, but you're a pretty intelligent man or at least come off as a pretty intelligent man. What do you think he meant by that?

Dr. Lyons (02:43:36):

I'm not-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:43:36):

Put yourself in a Jewish student's…

Dr. Lyons (02:43:41):

Look, I think I want to separate the phrase from the person. If I heard some other person-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:43:45):

We can't separate the phrase from the person because of this professor who works at the university in which you are charge of. So as much as we want to separate it and dance around it, let's not because the person that works at your university said this. So I would like to know because you're so educated and you are and tout yourself at that and you've earned that. What do you think the professor meant? Hello?

Dr. Lyons (02:44:16):

I believe it was a celebration of the terrorist attack on October 7th.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:44:24):

Right. Did you have any conversations with this professor?

Dr. Lyons (02:44:32):

I've had conversations with this professor, yes.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:44:34):

Yeah. And what was his response and what were the conversations?

Dr. Lyons (02:44:43):

He's a fine scholar and-

Suzanne Bonamici (02:44:45):

A fine scholar that spews hate and the people who pay the students don't feel safe, that's great he's a fine scholar. I'm sure there's a lot of murderers in prison that are fine people too, fine scholars, but they do some pretty nefarious and heinous acts. So you want to explain what the conversation was?

Mr. Walberg (02:45:05):

Gentlelady's time has expired.

Suzanne Bonamici (02:45:06):

Saved by the bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walberg (02:45:10):

I thank the Gentlelady. Now I recognize the ranking member of the committee, Mr. Scott from Virginia.

Mr. Scott (02:45:19):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nosanchuk, we've had a lot of comments entered into the record complaints and comments with no indication of the resolution or status of an investigation. What's wrong with drawing conclusions, just having one side, just having heard the complaint?

Matt N. (02:45:45):

Thank you for the question, Congressman Scott. What's wrong with that is that the investigation hasn't been completed. There is such a thing as due process and there's such a thing as process. And both of those need to be observed so that everyone involved in a particular investigation has their views or perspectives heard, and then the evidence can be evaluated and the determination can be made as to whether in the case of a Title VI violation, the criteria for harassment or hostile environment have been met.

Mr. Scott (02:46:24):

Now Title VI has a process starting with a complaint, an investigation, an opportunity to cure, and then a sanction if it's not successful. What's wrong with imposing a sanction in the beginning, like withholding funds or something like that before the investigation has even taken place?

Matt N. (02:46:48):

Thank you for the question. What was wrong with that is first of all, it prejudges the situation, it preempts the long-established processes. As I said in my testimony today, previous administrations, including the first Trump administration, have adhered to these processes in order to hold universities responsible for Title VI violations. And in addition to that, taking huge amounts of funds away ultimately hurts the very students who it's supposed to help and depletes the university of resources that it could use to address issues like rising anti-Semitism on campus.

Mr. Scott (02:47:32):

We've been focusing on anti-Semitism alone, none of the other forms of hate. What's wrong with that?

Matt N. (02:47:40):

Well, we are living in a time of increased hate and prejudice and bigotry of all types. Many of the investigations that OCR resolved involving anti-Semitic discrimination also included instances of anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Palestinian discrimination, race discrimination. The fact of the matter is that if a university is falling short in its responsibility is to protect one group, there's certainly the possibility that their policies and procedures and responses are inadequate to protect other groups.

Mr. Scott (02:48:17):

Thank you. Dr. Groves, we've heard a lot about foreign influence. Can you tell me what influence your university has had on the culture in Qatar?

Dr. Groves (02:48:33):

We're very proud of our mission in Qatar. It's completely consistent with the Jesuit animation of working at the frontiers of serving groups that are not served easily in Washington. So we are giving a curriculum that's precisely the same as the curriculum we give in our DC campus, but we're giving it to students who represent 80 different countries of the world. They are receiving the Jesuit education. They take two theology courses and two philosophy courses. On our campus they enjoy all the give and take of academic freedom that takes place at our DC campus. And 70% of the students are young women, a group that is underserved in that region. So over the 20 years-

Mr. Scott (02:49:36):

And what effect does that have on the culture?

Dr. Groves (02:49:40):

I'm convinced that gradually opening the eyes to new ways of thinking that we represent there, you can see the change occurring already. Our alumni are taking positions of great importance over time in many countries of the world.

Mr. Scott (02:49:59):

Thank you. Do any of the colleges have title VI monitors?

Dr. Groves (02:50:06):

Yes, we do. Georgetown does.

Dr. Matos R. (02:50:09):

That is done by the new center that we instituted.

Mr. Scott (02:50:14):

Okay, Dr. Lyons?

Dr. Lyons (02:50:16):

Yes, Berkeley does.

Mr. Scott (02:50:18):

And what is… Well, I guess I'm out of time. Thank you.

Mr. Walberg (02:50:24):

Why are you worried about being out of time?

Mr. Scott (02:50:25):

Well, [inaudible 02:50:27]-

Mr. Walberg (02:50:26):

Nobody else is. That's why I like my ranking member. And I recognize now the gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Miller.

Ms. Miller (02:50:39):

Thank you Chairman Walberg and I especially want to thank you for your continued commitment to rooting out all anti-Semitism on our college campuses in recent months and since the October 7th attack, anti-Semitism has exploded, especially on the campuses that we're discussing today. Many of these colleges are hiding behind the First Amendment claiming that anti-Semitic speech is protected. However, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act specifically prohibits harassment that creates a hostile work and learning environment on any campus that receives federal funding. Sadly, dozens of anti-Semitic incidents have occurred in my home state of Illinois at Northwestern University, DePaul University and the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. This committee has taken the lead on addressing anti-Semitism on college campuses, all to ensure that Jewish students and faculty are protected. We will continue to hold every college accountable for anti-Semitic rhetoric and acts of violence on their campuses because this hateful ideology has no place in America.

(02:51:53)
So Chancellor Matos Rodriguez, a professor at the CUNY Graduate Center, Saadia Toor referred to the terrorist group Hamas as resistance fighters. Secondly, a professor at Brooklyn College, Immanuel Ness has said the Zionists are Nazis. So what I want to know is how can you expect to have a safe campus for all students, faculty and visitors when your professors publicly condone violence against Jews?

Dr. Matos R. (02:52:27):

Well, I have been very clear that Hamas is a horrible terrorist organization and we have no tolerance at the City University of New York for anyone who would embrace that support of Hamas.

Ms. Miller (02:52:44):

So in light of having no tolerance, does that mean that these professors were dismissed then?

Dr. Matos R. (02:52:51):

I don't know the first case of the professor. Let me just tell you that I clearly condemn the statements and it's been my testimony here and our practice that if any member of the City University community violates our policies and our code of conduct, we will conduct an investigation and if discipline is warranted, we will take it and we will not hesitate to do that. And we have done so.

Ms. Miller (02:53:19):

Is this the first you're hearing about these two professors?

Dr. Matos R. (02:53:22):

I am not familiar with the first. The second one I'm familiar with-

Ms. Miller (02:53:26):

Was there a hearing and an investigation.

Dr. Matos R. (02:53:29):

And I'm not familiar with the comments that you made, which I mentioned to you, I find entirely reputable. But my commitment has always been, and our policy is, that if those things come to attention they will be investigated and action will be taken.

Ms. Miller (02:53:47):

Well now that it's brought to your attention, I trust that you're going to go back and there will be an investigation and consequences. One thing I learned when I raised my children, you could say whatever you want, but if there aren't consequences, the behavior will not change.

(02:54:02)
Dr. Lyons, in February the Gender and Women's Study Department at UC, Berkeley hosted an event entitled Feminist and Queer Solidarities with Palestine. During the event, speakers repeatedly denied that Israeli women were gang-raped by Hamas terrorists on October 7th, 2023 and argued that Israel was weaponizing feminism. So I want to know why was this event ever allowed on UC, Berkeley's campus?

Dr. Lyons (02:54:37):

This was an online event and it was an event that was pulling together faculty. It was organized by one of our fine faculty, full professor. And we knew that the ideas might be controversial. We did not know exactly what people were saying. It was a legitimate event. I did not prevent it from happening because I felt that keeping the marketplace for ideas open was really important in this instance.

Ms. Miller (02:55:10):

Well, you called the faculty a fine person or whatever and this is what they said. So has there been any other kind of investigation into this professor?

Dr. Lyons (02:55:24):

So what you quoted was not something, as I understand it, that the Berkeley faculty member said, there were four people that were involved in this event. It was organized by a Berkeley faculty member.

Ms. Miller (02:55:36):

Did that faculty member dispute this? Did they call it out as reprehensible?

Dr. Lyons (02:55:44):

They did not call it out as reprehensible.

Ms. Miller (02:55:45):

Okay. Because silence, it means something. So this is terrible. And I yield.

Mr. Walberg (02:55:53):

I thank the Gentlelady. Now I recognize the ranking member, gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott for his closing remarks.

Mr. Scott (02:56:04):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I give closing remarks [inaudible 02:56:08] unanimous consent to enter to the following documents into the record. A letter to the Chair and Ranking Member dated July 11th from six family members of hostages taken on October 7th entitled, In a Time of Unimaginable Pain, Georgetown Made Space For Us. A second letter for the record to the Chair and Ranking Member dated July 10th from Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend the Arc: Jewish Action. Third, an op-ed that appeared in the US News and World Report yesterday by Sarah Silverman entitled, "I faced anti-Semitism at Harvard. Don't destroy the University in my Name." And finally, an audit from the Anti-Defamation League from 2024 that shows that anti-Semitic incidences are all over the United States, not just on college campuses.

Mr. Walberg (02:57:05):

Without objection, they will be received. Hearing none.

Mr. Scott (02:57:10):

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to take a moment to note two incidents that occurred during this hearing that demand a response. First, the committee member used a visual exhibit displaying an email that did not redact the email addresses of sender and recipients of the email. There's no reason not to redact the addresses on that email. The truth of the matter being asserted in the email was clear without the personally identifiable information. So to not redact it was unnecessary and can lead to harassment and members ought to be sensitive to that. Since October 7th we've seen if during insidious incidences of doxing of individuals on all sides of the issue and the committee should not be contributing to that. I understand based on my parliamentary inquiry that the committee does not have a policy on this, but I urge that we work together to develop such a policy.

Mr. Walberg (02:58:05):

Duly noted.

Mr. Scott (02:58:06):

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further in the line of questioning, Chancellor Rodriguez was asked questions about choices made at a CUNY law clinic as to who they choose to represent. Basically I think it's wrong to evaluate lawyers based on their clients. But this is not the first time the committee has asked questions about how a law school clinic operates and who they represent. The last time we attempted to do so, the called the committee and two of the chairs in the court argued in their lawsuit that the letter, quote, reflects a bare desire to harm plaintiffs for their association with left-wing causes that the committee does not like. And for the protected speech reflected in their progressive left agenda. At a hearing, Matthew Barry, the House counsel representing the committee said in regard to that legal clinic inquiry, quote, I want to be absolutely clear that the formal request has been withdrawn. It is not a cover for, and there's not going to be any informal behind-the-scenes request for the same documents. I find it troubling that what we promised not to do to one school in court we've attempted to do in another school in an open hearing.

(02:59:31)
I want to reiterate something fundamental. Institutions of higher education must be places where all students, faculty, regardless of background, can learn and teach free from discrimination, harassment or violence. This is not a partisan issue, it's a moral imperative. But what we've seen from the Trump administration is not a good faith effort to uphold those values. Instead, we've seen a radical reinterpretation of our nation's civil rights laws, one that weakens protections for students while empowering political actors to meddle in academic spaces. If shifted the standards, schools must meet stripped institutions of clear guidance and in doing so created an atmosphere of fear, confusion, and intimidation.

(03:00:16)
If the administration was truly concerned with civil rights enforcement, they wouldn't have gutted the Office of Civil Rights, the very agency charged with investigating discrimination on campuses across the country. You can't claim to be a champion for civil rights while disarming the body meant to enforce them. Then we need to be honest about what's happening. The Trump administration is destabilizing higher education itself, eroding trust, silencing, dissent, and undermining universities' ability to promote diversity and critical inquiry while at the same time sabotaging the Office of Civil Rights.

(03:00:55)
Who suffers most from the strategy? It's the students, Jewish and non-Jewish, marginalized and unrepresented. They're the ones left vulnerable and voiceless. And this should not be a partisan debate. It should be about ensuring that our schools are safe, inclusive, and intellectually vibrant. If we're serious about fighting anti-Semitism and all forms of hate, then we must be equally serious about defending institutions that educate the next generation and serious about increasing funding for the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Education. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Mr. Walberg (03:01:36):

I thank the gentleman and I thank the panel for being here today. It's been a long, long hearing, but I think it's important hearing. I will stand by the contention that these hearings must continue. We need to continue to highlight bad actors in our higher education institutions. That's the reason we have an education and workforce committee to deal with education. The philosophy of this administration, as well as mine, is that our responsibility federal level is to make sure that the local schools, K-12, are primarily manned, encouraged, directed, guided by, and cared for by the state and locals. But our institutions, especially those that receive federal dollars, we have an oversight responsibility. And in this light with anti-Semitism that's gone on all under the hands, the most egregious in most recent history took place with OCR, Mr. Nosanchuk, I'm glad that you're here and I appreciated your responses. But I must state that some of the most egregious events occurred encampments, violence, destruction of property, fear production in Jewish students lives took place while OCR was allegedly at full strength.

(03:03:21)
But I've seen that at the universities as well encouraging that Georgetown discipline Professor Brown. But this was long overdue. I'm disappointed that in what we've heard today, CUNY, as a chancellor, Mr. Rodriguez, you couldn't say care is anti-Semitic. Georgetown refuses to recognize anti-Semitism at its Qatar campus, at least unwilling to say that their responsibility is to make sure that the activities that go on at the campus, that the awards that are given to people who are anti-Semitic seems to continue. I'm concerned about that. Berkeley admits abhorrence of the views of the professor at a reward with his own program, but won't do anything about it and refers to him as a fine scholar. That's something I could not refer to him when he misses a moral issue of humanity.

(03:04:34)
Georgetown couldn't affirmatively say it wouldn't allow a member of the KKK to come speak. CUNY severely underrepresented the number of anti-Semitism complaints received. So those are concerns that we still have. I express appreciation for the statements that each of you have made about attempting to do better, to push back on anti-Semitism. I express appreciation sincerely for that. I hope that other institutions that watch this hearing are enlightened of the fact that that's expected of them as well. We also know that there are hundreds of higher ed institutions all across this country who have none of this anti-Semitism in a virulent nature evidenced on their campuses. They're still humans on the campuses. We get that. But we have to end this.

(03:05:35)
And then I would also add that our concern is that as students leave these campuses with the experience of anti-Semitism and faculty members that are indoctrinating them in that direction, that our K-12 students are in danger next. And that's what our states will have to face as they come to understand that this is something that can be experienced and accepted if we're not careful. So I say we ought to have these hearings and we'll have plenty of other hearings as well on other issues and topics. But I would contend as well that anti-Semitism is also available to express anti-Americanism as well. We have a responsibility for that. So I thank you again for being here today. I would say for those that are watching, we expect you to step up to the plate and aggressively end any type of anti-Semitism, racism, we'll add that as well, Islamophobia or anything else to make sure that we have diverse campuses, but they promote education that refines builds up and is secure for all students on campus. I would like to thank our witnesses again and I'd like to ask that they be allowed to leave before the rest of the audience because of some of the concerns. And I note that it was not the Jewish spokespersons disrupting this hearing today. And I think that can be noted all across. But we'd ask that the witnesses be allowed to leave first. Without objection, there being no further business, the committee stands adjourned.