On December 5, 2023, Harvard president Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania president Elizabeth Magill and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Sally Kornbluth were called before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce for a hearing titled, “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism”.
They were asked to testify about their institutions’ responses to campus antisemitism because, according to a committee spokesperson, these schools “have been at the center of the rise in antisemitic protests”.[1][2]
Towards the end of the hearing, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), a 2006 Harvard graduate, asked each one in turn if calling for the genocide of Jews violated their respective universities’ rules or code of conduct. Their responses generated a firestorm of condemnation from, among others, both political parties, students, and Jewish advocacy groups.
Harvard constitutional law professor (Emeritus) Lawrence Tribe, a noted liberal academic, had this to say about their responses:
“It should have been very easy for all of the university presidents to answer [Stefanik’s] question. It was softball, not a got-you…They all relied on obviously terrible legal advice, suggesting that they should answer in a kind of hyper-technical way that kept all of their options open. That was a mistake.”[9]
Why weren’t these “softball questions” easy to answer? I was quite troubled by that as I listened to the hearing. The purpose of this post, and those following, is to better understand what the answer(s) might be.
First, here is a transcript of the interaction between Stefanik and the three presidents:
Stefanik: Dr. Kornbluth, at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MIT’s code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Kornbluth: If targeted at individuals not making public statements.
Stefanik: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?
Kornbluth: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for Intifada.
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.
Stefanik: So those would not be, according to the MIT’s code of conduct or rules.
Kornbluth: That would be investigated as harassment if pervasive and severe.
Stefanik: Ms. Magill at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?
Magill: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment. Yes.
Stefanik: I am asking, specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
Magill: If it is directed, and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.
Stefanik: So the answer is yes.
Magill: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
Stefanik: It’s a context dependent decision? That’s your testimony today, calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer Yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes? Yes or no?
Magill: If the speech becomes conduct. It can be harassment, yes.
Stefanik: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? The speech is not harassment? This is unacceptable. Ms. Magill, I’m gonna give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s Code of Conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Magill: It can be harassment.
Stefanik: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay at Harvard? Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Gay: It can be depending on the context.
Stefanik: What’s the context?
Gay: Targeted at an individual targeted, as at an individual.
Stefanik: It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? Yes or no?
Gay: Antisemitic rhetoric when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation, that is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
Stefanik: So the answer is yes. That calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard Code of Conduct. Correct?
Gay: Again, it depends on the context.
Stefanik: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
Backlash
The presidents’ responses, particularly those of Dr. Magill and Dr. Gay, were criticized for being hesitant and avoiding a clear yes or no answer. This led to accusations that they were equivocating on a fundamental issue of tolerance and safety for Jewish students. Additionally, some saw their focus on the context of such speech as potentially legitimizing calls for genocide under certain circumstances.
Their reluctance to provide clear and unequivocal answers, sparked a backlash. For example:
Democrats
Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) called Magill’s comments “offensive,” and said “calling for the genocide of Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.”
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) said Magill’s testimony was “embarrassing for a venerable Pennsylvania university.”
Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), despite Magill’s apology video, said the Penn president “ should still be fired!”
Democrats slam Harvard, MIT, UPenn presidents after Stefanik grilling[15]
Republicans
Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador and Republican presidential candidate, expressed her disgust at the presidents’ responses, stating, “Calling for genocide of Jews is no different than calling for genocide of any other ethnic, racial, or religious group. The equivocation from these college presidents is disgusting”.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise joined the call for the presidents to resign, posting that “their hypocrisy is stunning.” He added, “Disgusting that the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn refused to say that ‘calling for the genocide of Jews’ is considered harassment and intimidation. Let’s be clear: It is.”
Harvard’s president answers backlash over response to calls for ‘genocide of Jews’[16]
Students
College senior Albena Ruseva: “I think [Magill’s resignation] made Jewish people feel more secure because they and others saw that actions really do lead to consequences,” Ruseva wrote.
Engineering graduate student Malvik Balyan: “When calls for Jewish genocide are chanted on campus, I think that crosses a boundary”.
College junior and Vice President of Penn’s Jewish Heritage Programs Joe Hochberg: “We were really excited to see that there was some accountability being taken,” he said. “Time and time again, [Magill] was just letting us down and not doing enough or doing completely the wrong thing.”
Hochberg called Magill’s comments during her testimony “really disgusting,” and pushed for “a lot of consideration” to go into appointing Magill’s successor “and that they will be more effective in handling antisemitism on campus.”
Magill’s resignation prompts shock, relief, and free speech concerns among Penn students[17]
It should be noted that while I have selected examples of condemnation, in reality, reactions have been mixed among the various campus communities. But, as a reminder, in this post I’m focusing on the outrage.
Damage Control
Gay attempted to clarify her testimony with a tweet the next day (December 6, 2023): “Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account”.[4]
Magill issued a video message, also on December 6. She stated, “I want to be clear. A call for genocide of Jewish people is threatening, deeply so. It is intentionally meant to terrify a people who have been subjected to pogroms and hatred for centuries, and were the victims of mass genocide in the Holocaust. In my view, it would be harassment or … intimidation”.[5]
(Kornbluth, to my knowledge, did not issue any sort of clarification).
It seems that, in the heat of the moment, the three presidents chose to use language such as “it depends on the context” to respond to Stefanik’s question. Outrage ensued because people wanted moral clarity on a topic that seemed obvious. In other words, they wanted December 6 but got December 5 instead.
But, as the saying goes, it was a day late and a dollar short.
Resignation
Four days after the hearing, Magill resigned her presidency.[6] Gay and Kornbluth also received calls for their resignations. But they currently retain their positions having received strong support from their governing boards.[7][8] (However this could change).
It Turns Out It’s Complicated
As I dug into the question of why they chose not to use more straightforward answers, I realized that while a straightforward answer to that particular question might have been “easy”, overall they were grappling with several complex issues:
- The Rise of Antisemitism and Islamophobia on College Campuses
- Student Fears for Their Safety
- Free Speech vs Hate Speech on Campuses
- Republican Anger Over “Liberal” Universities
- Academic Freedom vs Donor Influence
A single post covering all of that would be rather lengthy. Instead, I’ll send out several more posts over the next few weeks.
A Word About the Use of Chatbots: Much of the research for this post was done using Perplexity.
References
- How the Presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT Testified to Congress on Antisemitism, Associated Press, December 12, 2023
- Backlash to House testimony shines spotlight on new generation of Ivy League presidents, AP, December 11, 2023
- College Presidents Under Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism, The New York Times, Dec 6, 2023
- House panel opening investigation into Harvard, MIT and UPenn after antisemitism hearing, CBS News, December 7, 2023
- Magill video on Twitter after hearing, Official Twitter account of the University of Pennsylvania, December 6, 2023
- University of Pennsylvania president resigns after antisemitism testimony, Reuters, December 10, 2023
- Harvard President Claudine Gay to stay in office with unanimous support from university board, WBZ (CBS News, Boston), December 12, 2023
- Our support for our President, Mark Gorenberg, Chair of the [MIT] Corporation, December 7, 2023
- After controversial testimony, Harvard University president remains, NPR, December 12, 2023
- 2022-2023 Best Global Universities Rankings, U.S. News & World Report
- Claudine Gay CV, Harvard University, October 2022
- A Law Firm Said Plagiarism Allegations Against Harvard President Gay Were ‘Demonstrably False.’ Then She Submitted Corrections, The Harvard Crimson, December 24, 2024
- Elizabeth Magill CV, University of Pennsylvania, July 2022
- Sally Kornbluth, President of MIT; Professor of Biology, MIT
- Democrats slam Harvard, MIT, UPenn presidents after Stefanik grilling
- Harvard’s president answers backlash over response to calls for ‘genocide of Jews’
- Magill’s resignation prompts shock, relief, and free speech concerns among Penn students, The Daily Pennsylvanian, December 12, 2023
