How the presidents of Harvard, Penn and MIT testified to Congress on antisemitism

By ANNIE MA
AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON, D.C. (AP) — Over five hours at a congressional hearing, lawmakers pressed the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and MIT on the topic of antisemitism. In some instances, they were unable to say whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their schools’ conduct policies.

The backlash started almost immediately. Penn’s leader stepped down within days. Harvard’s president was on the hot seat for nearly a week before a university governing board announced Tuesday she would stay on the job.

Republicans and Democrats alike criticized responses the presidents gave at the Dec. 5 hearing of a U.S. House committee on antisemitism on college campuses. In particular, the uproar centered on a line of questioning from Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., who repeatedly asked how each university’s code of conduct would handle calls for the genocide of Jews.

Early in the questioning, Stefanik asked the presidents about chants for “intifada,” an Arabic word for “uprising” or “resistance.” Stefanik equated calls for an intifada as a call for a global Jewish genocide.

Here is a look at the testimony given by Claudine Gay, of Harvard, Liz Magill of Penn, and Sally Kornbluth of MIT.

LIZ MAGILL OF PENN

During the hearing, Stefanik asked Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct? Yes or no?”

Magill repeatedly declined to give a yes or no answer. She emphasized the university’s policies considered whether “speech turns into conduct,” in which case it would be considered harassment. Stefanik continued to demand a definitive answer.

Magill responded that if speech were “directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment,” and that whether a student would be punished is “a context-dependent decision.”

That answer became a flashpoint of the criticism of Magill.

The day after the hearing, Magill said in a video statement released by the university that a call for the genocide of Jewish people would be considered harassment or intimidation.

Still, Penn alumni and donors increased pressure on the board for Magill to resign, a campaign that dated to earlier in the fall, when the university allowed a Palestinian literary festival to take place on campus despite allegations that some speakers had shown antisemitism in other comments.

Over the weekend, amid growing pressure from donors who said they would pull money from the university, Magill and board chairman Scott Bok resigned.

CLAUDINE GAY OF HARVARD

Gay was also asked by Stefanik whether similar speech would violate Harvard’s policies. She gave a similar response to Magill, emphasizing that context and whether the speech turned into conduct would factor into any disciplinary decisions.

“Antisemitic rhetoric, when it crosses into conduct, that amounts to bullying, harassment, intimidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action,” Gay said.

“So the answer is yes. That calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard’s Code of Conduct. Correct?” Stefanik asked.

Gay reiterated that it depended on the context.

“It does not does not depend on the context,” Stefanik responded. “The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign.”

A day after the hearing, Gay condemned calls for violence against Jewish students in a statement posted by the university to X, formerly Twitter.

At Harvard, Gay faced similar backlash to Magill, with prominent donors and alumni calling for her resignation. But hundreds of faculty members rallied to support her, asking the board to keep her in leadership, saying Harvard’s governance should not be influenced by political pressure. On Tuesday, the board announced that it would stand behind Gay and retain her as the university’s president.

SALLY KORNBLUTH OF MIT

Kornbluth was also questioned by Stefanik about policies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She responded by saying speech targeted at individuals, not public statements, would be considered a violation of bullying and harassment policies.

Stefanik then asked, “Yes or no: Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment?”

Kornbluth responded that she had not “heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.”

Stefanik then asked Kornbluth whether she had heard demonstrators calling for an intifada.

Palestinians have launched two intifadas against Israel — one in the late 1980s and one in the early 2000s. Both were to protest Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and both involved violence. But since Hamas’ massacre in Israel in October, some Jews have interpreted calls for globalizing the intifada as a call for broader attacks against Jews.

“I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic, depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people,” Kornbluth said. Speech would be investigated as harassment if it were “pervasive and severe,” she said.

Stefanik then moved on to questioning Gay and Magill.

In a written note to the MIT community two days after the hearing, the chair of the MIT Corporation signaled the executive committee’s support for Kornbluth, who is Jewish. “She has done excellent work in leading our community, including in addressing antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate, all of which we reject utterly at MIT,” the statement said.

_____

The Associated Press education team receives support from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The AP is solely responsible for all content.