US universities are teaching their students to be antisemitic - opinion

It may seem we have all the information we need about antisemitism at Harvard, MIT, and UPenn from the university presidents’ response to the question about whether calling for the genocide of Jews counts as harassment on campus: “It depends on the context.”

But watch all the hours of the House hearing, as I did, and you’re likely to observe an even more disturbing reality than the now-famous “context” clip suggests.

The presidents have been criticized for appearing dismissive, even contemptuous, of the House committee. There was also visible anger on the part of some House members toward the presidents. University leaders also lost credibility by so quickly issuing clarifying statements of much stronger support for Jewish students than they had offered to the committee. Why didn’t they say this in the first place? 

This was likely because they were testifying under oath, as Congresswoman Elise Stefanik reminded them. The threat of potential perjury appeared in their answers to Representative Foxx’s question: “Do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?” Each president responded, “Israel has the right to exist.” But that wasn’t the question.

Would the presidents have had trouble acknowledging the right to exist of any other democratic nation with an ethnic majority? The New York Times and Politico apparently tried to help by deleting “as a Jewish nation” from their reporting, and CBS News simply changed the presidents’ answers to “Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation.” These errors are neither surprising nor likely unintentional, given the considerable political overlap between academia and mainstream media on the topic of Israel.

Do Ivy League schools lack ideological diversity?

Congressman Glenn Grothman expressed concern that, although the US is split in half politically between left and right, only 1% of Harvard faculty are on the right. He asked if a “lack of ideological diversity” may be a problem for students on campus. President Claudine Gay responded that Harvard focuses on hiring the “most brilliant, accomplished“ faculty. One percent bothered Grothman enough to ask, “Do you feel you’re not as diverse as you could be? But Gay’s response did not change.

Like many interactions during the hearing, the vast distance between non-campus and campus, between “town and gown,” was clear. Ideological diversity is simply not a campus value. In fact, the gulf between a Republican majority House and life at universities probably made Grothman’s question appear absurd from a university perspective.

Likewise, Congressman Jim Banks asked if it was acceptable for a UPenn professor to lead students in chanting, “There is only one solution/Intifada Revolution,” a call for the end of Israel and the annihilation of Jews. President Magill cited the values of the campus for free speech. 

Indeed, free speech was the answer to many of the questions asked. Banks countered that UPenn has blocked many speakers, including, for example, Prime Minister Narendra Modi. He said that the university has speech codes against “speech it doesn’t like,” and students and faculty know exactly “where the lines are drawn.”

Congressman Burgess Owens said he felt the situation on campus returned him to the 1960s, to divisiveness rather than inclusion, to “keeping people segregated” and focusing on our differences. He objected to “teaching that whites and Jews are the oppressors” and to the divisiveness he finds in Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs.

When the presidents disagreed with this assessment, Owens asked, “Yes or no? If we found that there is a direct link between DEI and Black Lives Matter, Pro-Hamas, and Antifa,” would you end your DEI programs? But the presidents simply continued explaining DEI. 

The educators seemed unable to engage with the plain meaning of Owens’ words, with his assessment that Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion achieve the opposite of those terms. The problem may be unresolvable while DEI is considered essential to students’ education.

The treatment of Jews on college campuses

MANY MEMBERS of the committee expressed alarm about the treatment of Jews on campus. Congresswoman Manning offered data that campus antisemitism has “skyrocketed since the October 7 Hamas attacks.” This statistic alone should cause concern for universities. She cited a Harvard professor telling a Jewish student to “leave the classroom because the other students would not be comfortable with him there” and Jewish students who were told to stay in their rooms “for their own safety” during campus protests. President Gay agreed that there was “work to be done.”

Congressman Kevin Kiley asked Harvard’s president if she could meet with a Jewish family, “look them in the eye and say their son or daughter” would be safe and “feel welcome on campus.” President Gay responded, “We are committed to safety.” Kiley responded, “With someone who advocates for the elimination of the State of Israel?” President Gay said, “I’ve answered your question.”

The horrific sexual assaults on women by Hamas were the topic of Congresswoman Julia Letlow’s five minutes. She asked how it was possible that no action was taken against the 33 Harvard student organizations that officially endorsed the attacks and held Israel responsible for terror. “I can only imagine how terrifying it must be to be a woman on any of your campuses,” she said without asking for a reply.

Congressman Nathaniel Moran asked, “Have any students been disciplined in any way” for violating the rights of Jewish students to be safe on campus? After several tries with Moran rephrasing the question and President Gay repeating that Harvard follows their policies, Moran gave up.

Congresswoman Lori Chavez-DeRemer addressed the core of university bias at all three schools. She praised Harvard's 125 undergraduate courses on Black, Latino, Pacific Islander, and other cultures. Yet she observed that there are only two courses on Jewish history, one of which focuses on Jews as “occupiers.” She offered a powerful conclusion: Students were “at the ready to harass, threaten, and attack Jewish students” because of what they had been taught.

The writer is a professor emerita from California State University; she taught at Harvard for two years and is the author of Framing Israel.