How university leaders privately reacted to lawmaker scrutiny over campus unrest

This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

The House’s Republican-led education committee released a scathing 325-page report Thursday accusing 11 high-profile colleges of failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitism and calling for a review of their federal funding.

The report from the Committee on Education and the Workforce follows a monthslong investigation into the colleges — including Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania— that unearthed more than 400,000 pages of documents.

The committee released the findings with only days to go before the U.S. selects the next president — an election in which the majority of registered voters rank the Israel-Hamas war as an important issue to them. The lengthy report signals that Republican scrutiny is continuing to escalate over how college leaders have handled campus unrest amid the conflict.

In a Thursday announcement, the committee accused university leaders of making “astounding concessions” to pro-Palestinian students who set up encampments and of choosing to “withhold support from Jewish students.”

The report suggests these actions likely amount to violations of Title VI, which requires federally funded colleges to prevent discrimination based on race, color or national origin.

“The totality of circumstances on these campuses demonstrate an environment hostile to Jewish students likely in violation of Title VI,” the report states. “The Committee’s findings indicate the need for a fundamental reassessment of federal support for postsecondary institutions that have failed to meet their obligations to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff.”

Based on disclosed exchanges between high-ranking college officials, the report also alleges that top leaders considered congressional oversight “a nuisance at best,” the announcement said.

“Our investigation has shown that these ‘leaders’ bear the responsibility for the chaos likely violating Title VI and threatening public safety,” Rep. Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the committee, said in a statement Thursday. “It is time for the executive branch to enforce the laws and ensure colleges and universities restore order and guarantee that all students have a safe learning environment.”

Below we’re rounding up several conversations, drawn from the Oct. 31 report, between the universities’ presidents and their board leaders that provide insight into how they processed the heightened scrutiny from lawmakers.

Table of Contents

Harvard leader slams lawmaker as ‘purveyor of hate’

Former Harvard University President Claudine Gay faced backlash after a December congressional hearing, when she refused to give a yes-or-no answer when asked if calls for the genocide of the Jewish people would violate the Ivy League institution’s policies.

Instead, Gay said Harvard would only punish such speech if it crossed the line into harassment. The two other campus leaders at that hearing — Liz Magill, then the president of University of Pennsylvania, and Sally Kornbluth, the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — gave similar answers to lawmakers.

Rep. Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York, led the viral line of questioning and called for Gay’s resignation several times during the hearing. Gay ultimately resigned in early January amid mounting plagiarism allegations and criticism of her leadership in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war.

Speaking to Harvard’s Board of Overseers only a few days after the December hearing, Gay said she should have expressed that calls for violence against the Jewish community shouldn’t be allowed, according to meeting notes.

Gay also made an “apparent reference” to Stefanik, according to the report, calling her a “purveyor of hate” and supporter of the neo-fascist Proud Boys. According to The New York Times, Stefanik has circulated political ads that allude to themes of the great replacement theory, a white supremacist belief that Proud Boys members have promoted.

The House report called both of Gay’s accusations false.

In a Friday statement, a Harvard spokesperson said the university has taken steps to strengthen its rules for campus spaces and its disciplinary policies.

“Harvard is steadfast in our efforts to create a safe, inclusive environment where students can pursue their academic and personal interests free from harassment and discrimination,” the spokesperson said. “Antisemitism has no place on our campus, and across the university we have intensified our efforts to listen to, learn from, support, and uplift our Jewish community, affirming their vital place at Harvard.”

Columbia board chair pans House activity as ‘nonsense’

The December hearing led to heightened scrutiny of the three leaders present, with Magill resigning only a few days afterward.

But in the immediate aftermath, The New York Times published an article suggesting then-Columbia University President Minouche Shafik had largely avoided a similar public relations crisis, though the reporter noted she was “walking a precarious path.” The article attributed some of that to luck. While lawmakers had asked Shafik to attend the December hearing, she said she couldn’t because of a previous obligation at a climate conference.

Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s board, celebrated the Times article in a text exchange with Shafik the same day. “Most critically I think it heavily inoculates us for a while from the capital hill nonsense and threat,” Shipman wrote in her text.

The report does not say whether Shafik responded.

Shafik ultimately testified before House’s education committee on April 17, the same day pro-Palestinian protesters set up an encampment at Columbia, inspiring other students to erect similar encampments nationwide.

And in the end, Shafik did not escape the fallout. She resigned the Columbia presidency in August amid backlash over her handling of the campus unrest. The university selected Dr. Katrina Armstrong, CEO of the university’s Irving Medical Center, as her interim replacement.

“Columbia strongly condemns antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we are resolute that calls for violence or harm have no place at our University,” a spokesperson said in a Friday statement in response to the House report. “Since assuming her role in August, Interim President Armstrong and her leadership team have taken decisive actions to reinforce Columbia’s academic mission, make our community safe, and address the Committee’s concerns, including by strengthening and clarifying our disciplinary processes.”

UPenn leaders criticize Chris Christie campaign

Leaders of high-profile universities were facing calls to step down even before the House hearings kicked off. A few weeks before the December session, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said Magill should be fired, accusing her of not protecting Jewish students from antisemitism.

“The president of Penn should be fired today without hesitation,” Christie said during a foreign policy speech. “This is not about freedom of speech. This is about rank incompetence.”

Christie — who at the time was campaigning to be the Republican presidential nominee — also said the leaders of Cornell and Harvard should be fired for the same reasons.

Scott Bok, then board chair of the University of Pennsylvania, emailed Magill a few days later, calling Christie’s comments “outrageous” and ill-informed.

“Part of the political branch of this campaign,” Magill said in response.

Bok replied, “And that group is so easily purchased.”

The House report says the exchange is an “apparent reference to efforts by Jewish and non-Jewish Penn alumni to hold the University accountable” for the way it handled antisemitism on campus in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war. It also accused Bok’s comment of using “words that echoed longstanding antisemitic tropes about Jewish money and influence.”

But in a Friday email, Bok said he was puzzled as to why this email exchange was singled out.

“I stand by my view that commentary from someone with no connection to Penn who was in the midst of running for public office was not going to be helpful to anyone at Penn,” Bok said. “And I don’t think I’m the first person to suggest that donors can have influence over politicians generally.”

Like Magill, Bok resigned only a few days after the December hearing.

link