Inside Higher Ed carries a description of the congressional hearing yesterday concerning antisemitism on campuses: [excerpt]
NOTE: The hearing can be seen at https://www.youtube.com/
“I do not refer to colleges and universities as ‘higher education,’ because it’s my opinion that higher-order skills are not being taught or learned, and I think today’s hearing indicates that,” said North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx, the top Republican on the House Education and Workforce Committee, which hosted the hearing.
“I have always defended higher education, but today I am embarrassed,” said Louisiana representative Julia Letlow, also a Republican.
Harvard president Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania president Liz Magill and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Sally Kornbluth testified Tuesday and defended their actions over the past two months as tensions flared on their campuses following the start of the Israel-Hamas war. The hearing was the committee’s second in the last month focusing on campus antisemitism, and likely not the last. House Republicans have used the recent protests and campus tensions to perpetuate their attacks on higher education.
The presidents stood by their policies and commitments to free expression, their efforts to support Jewish students and their institutions’ diversity, equity and inclusion programs, which Republicans on the committee have blamed for the rise in antisemitism. Gay, Kornbluth and Magill all condemned antisemitism and said they need to do more to make students and faculty aware of its “insidiousness.”
“We must get this right,” Magill said. “The stakes are too high. Penn would not be what it is without its strong Jewish community, past, present and future. I am proud of this tradition and deeply troubled when members of our Jewish community share that their sense of belonging has been shaken. Under my leadership, we will never, ever shrink from our moral responsibility to combat antisemitism and educate all to recognize and reject hate.”
Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the start of the war and subsequent campus protests, college administrators have sought to find a balance between promoting free expression and keeping students safe. In the process, they have struggled to please anyone. The challenge of striking that balance was on display at Tuesday’s hearing.
Many students at Harvard, Penn and other colleges have rallied to support Palestinians—demonstrations that outside organizations, lawmakers and alumni have criticized as supporting terrorism. Meanwhile, Jewish students have reported feeling unsafe on campuses in light of the protests, and campuses nationwide have seen an increase in antisemitism. Muslim students also have reported a rise in Islamophobia since the start of the war. Although the hearing didn’t focus on those incidents, the presidents and some Democrats on the committee did acknowledge that many Muslim and Arab students are hurting...
From start to finish, the hearing laid bare the minefield college administrators are facing right now when it comes to free expression.
Stefanik, allotted several rounds of questions, repeatedly sought to pin down the presidents on when exactly speech violates their institutions’ code of conduct. In a combative round of questioning near the end of the hearing, she asked each president whether calling for the genocide of Jews amounts to bullying and harassment.
Stefanik, allotted several rounds of questions, repeatedly sought to pin down the presidents on when exactly speech violates their institutions’ code of conduct. In a combative round of questioning near the end of the hearing, she asked each president whether calling for the genocide of Jews amounts to bullying and harassment.
https://www.
All three said that decision depended on the context of the remarks in question and whether the speech turned into student conduct—a common refrain throughout the hearing.
“It’s a context-dependent decision?” Stefanik said. “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent upon the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”
Then Stefanik turned to Gay, who agreed with her colleague that whether speech violated the code of conduct depends on context and whether it is targeted at an individual.
Stefanik closed her final round of questions by accusing Gay of “dehumanizing” the Jewish people. “It doesn’t depend on context, and this is why you should resign,” she said. “These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
All three said that decision depended on the context of the remarks in question and whether the speech turned into student conduct—a common refrain throughout the hearing.
“It’s a context-dependent decision?” Stefanik said. “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent upon the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”
Then Stefanik turned to Gay, who agreed with her colleague that whether speech violated the code of conduct depends on context and whether it is targeted at an individual.
Stefanik closed her final round of questions by accusing Gay of “dehumanizing” the Jewish people. “It doesn’t depend on context, and this is why you should resign,” she said. “These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
No comments:
Post a Comment