The nation was apprised of the purported inappropriate attitudes of college presidents through brief and misleading primetime soundbites from the meeting of the House Committee on Education and the Workplace. Here’s the backstory.
This is the third time I have started this article. For some reason I was unable to bring all the elements together to make a concise and coherent story. Then it hit me. THAT was my theme: There was nothing concise nor coherent about this congressional hearing. In fact it was painfully tortuous and off the point most of the time. So I will bring my point by listing some of the most noxious statements from the meeting.
The most glaring of all were the numerous factual errors of the committee members. Time after time disinformation was disgorged to predicate
an opinion or a pompous declaration.
NUMBER ONE Rep Joe Wilson of South Carolina insisted that Hamas’ terror was reaching the US, citing that a pro-Hamas professor murdered a peaceful protester in California. Here is Wilson’s story:
A JOE WILSON: Thank you, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx. And Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, I believe appropriately began this hearing about how serious this hearing is. That the Iran puppets of Hamas have victimized the world including here in the United States. And shocking, as we include people who have been affected, it should be Paul Kessler of California, who was murdered by a professor, a professor supporting Hamas as he was demonstrating peacefully on behalf of the people of Israel. And so we have victims right in our own country of murder in California…
My hypothetical question: Congressman Wilson, do you believe the country needs a well-informed public so it can make well-informed choices at the polls? Do you believe that the avalanche of disinformation, including that about the 2020 election, has hindered the ability of the public to be well-informed? Here is the real truth in the Paul Kessler story:
Undisputed documented facts: The ”murderer” of Paul Kessler, Loay Alnaji, 50, is a professor of computer science at the local Morehead College. He attended what was advertised as a peaceful demonstration in support of Palestinians. Paul Kessler came as a pro-Israeli counterprotester to confront the demonstration. Kessler, 69, after some scuffle, stumbled or was pushed backward and fell, striking the back of his head, and was observably injured. Loay Alnaji called 911, and waited until the police came. Police said Alnaji was completely cooperative. Alnaji later said he did not support Hamas. When Kessler died, Alnaji was arrested on ”suspicion of involuntary (accidental) homicide” and released on bail. Coroners reports said Kessler’s injuries were consistent with a blow to the back of the head from falling.
Hypothetical question to congressman Wilson: Do you think that when the transcript of this meeting is published, your disinformation will cause an increase in hatred and prejudice between pro-Palistinian and pro-Israeli people?
NUMBER TWO Another case of a committee member pouring the gasoline of disinformation on the conflict was Texas Rep Nathaniel Moran. Claiming wrongly that the BDS movement seeks to destroy Israel, he vilified president Gay because they are still on Harvard’s campus.
NATHANIEL MORAN: In 2022, after the editors of The Harvard Crimson endorsed the antisemitic BDS movement, which seeks the destruction of Israel, a group of 49 faculty penned a letter defending the Crimson editors. Did you ever speak out against BDS during that time?
CLAUDINE GAY: The university, and I am clear in our positions about BDS, we do not support that position. It’s counter to academic freedom and at odds with the openness that is part of our strength as an institution.
NATHANIEL MORAN: Well, when you say — you said it earlier, and you reaffirmed to me the statement, there’s no place at Harvard for anti-Semitism. Well, those words really ring meaningless, if those folks remain at Harvard that promote antisemitism. Would you agree?
CLAUDINE GAY: We do not sanction individuals for their political views or their speech. When that speech crosses into conduct. that violates our behavior based policies — bullying, harassment and intimidation — we take action.
Moran is wrong. BDS movement DOES NOT seek the destruction of Israel, either in their political views or their speech, and the Harvard Crimson would never have endorsed it if it had. The Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement seeks the enforcement of international law, legally , encouraging boycotting, divesting and sanctioning- and an end to the illegal occupation of the West Bank. They insist they are not anti-semitic and in fact work together with Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish group which supports ending the occupation of the West Bank… Again a Republican congressman who, caring little about the accuracy of his statements, causes more division among Israelis and Palestinians -and admonishes the Harvard president for not speaking out against a group that was wrongly characterized as advocating the destruction of Israel.
NUMBER THREE Chairman Virginia Foxx convened the meeting with a shockingly incoherent and rambling screed and concluded with some strange generalizations. Reminiscent of Florida public school district banning of popular library books, Foxx declared that a prime cause of racism at Harvard was the teaching of certain courses.
Foxx: “It’s clear that rabid anti-Semitism in the university are two ideas that cannot be cleaved from one another. [ I have no idea what she means here unless she means “have not been” instead of “cannot be”] A prime example of this ideology at work is at Harvard, where classes are taught, such as [here she nominates courses at Harvard which just by their teaching exacerbates racism on campus] DP 385, race and racism in the making of the United States as a global power. The Harvard Global Health Institute hosts seminars such as, quote, ‘Scientific Racism and Anti Racism History and recent perspectives.’ Even the Harvard Divinity School has a page devoted to, quote, ‘social and racial justice.’ Harvard also, not coincidentally, but causally, was ground zero for anti-Semitism following October 7th.”
So her thesis is that because such courses and “pages”were taught at Harvard, somehow they were racism instigating, and they were ‘causal’ in Harvard’s becoming ”ground zero” for racism after Oct 7. Of course, all the courses mentioned had the goal of studying racism as a perjorative feature of culture in the historical context. ’Scientific racism’ was the non-scientific claim that some races were physically and mentally inferior and thus not entitled to equal treatment under the law.
NUMBER FOUR Next Foxx divulges a bit from her own personal intuition. The concept underpinning the rift between the Israeli/Jewish campus conflict, she says, was the issue of whether Israel had the right to exist. (!!) Simple as that. So, unbelievably, she goes down the line asking the presidents if they believed that Israel had the right to exist!!! Noteworthy here is that the Palestinian State Authority, which was admitted to the UN in 2012 as an observer state, far from the terrorist Hamas, agreed to the right of Israel to exist in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo accord. I have found no groups that stand for the destruction of Israel on any US college campus.- only some loud mouthed individuals that often contaminate the venue of 2 sided demonstrations.
Foxx: It seems — as I’ve said and — and Ms. Magill. I appreciate the fact that you feel concerned about the — my feeling about the fundamental culture on the campuses that’s foundational to this issue, denial of the right of Israel to exist.[!!!] So I want to ask each one of you, President Gay, do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?
CLAUDINE GAY: I agree that the State of Israel has the right to exist.
VIRGINIA FOXX: Ms. Magill same question.
LIZ MAGILL: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx, the State of Israel has the right to exist VIRGINIA FOXX: Dr. Kornbluth?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: Absolutely, Israel has the right to exist.
The three presidents must have felt they were in a fourth grade class. Relevant is the fact that all the presidents, in their opening statements, expressed their personal abhorrence with the October 7th attack and explained the programs they have developed to combat anti-semitism at their campuses. Was chairman Foxx asleep at the time?
NUMBER FIVE
Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina has it all figured out. He states that the source of racism is most certainly that there are not enough conservatives hired by universities and too many liberals. This, he says is the cause of racism. He asks each of the presidents how many conservatives have been hired and when they say that they don’t keep that kind of data, he springs – aha! None.
WILSON: …With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism.[!] And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.
Had the presidents been aware that such unususal questions were going to be dropped on them, the best response would have been: ‘What is a conservative, Mr Wilson and how do you measure it? Some people consider themselves, for example, conservative in fiscal matters and liberal in social matters. Many people would say they are somewhere in the middle. Some people would say they change often. And how would you propose we change our hiring practices? What questions would you ask in order to hire more conservatives? If it can be shown that professors and staff are not discriminated against in hiring according to political/social proclivities, perhaps you would support an affirmative action program to hire more conservatives, if it can be agreed upon what exactly they are. Perhaps in the insular world of Congress conservative means Republican and liberal means Democratic, but there are many more configurations in the real world.’ But Wilson concludes that because the schools don’t collect information on how many “conservatives” are teaching at their schools, this is “shamefully revealing there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought” !!!!!! ” And the result of that is anti-semitism” !!!!!!
NUMBER SIX: This brings us to what turned out to be the star of the show, Elise
Stefanik. Her discourse was in keeping with the new politics of shouting and accusations, but did little to make progress toward the actualization of goals.
. Her most egregious mistake is her equating “Intifada” with the calling for the genocide of jews. Her second is her lack of definition of “calling for the genocide of jews”. Where is it said? To whom? Did the wording constitute calling for genocide This is where context comes in. Lastly is her lack of definition of what code she is suggesting that is being transgressed. Sometimes she mentions ”code of conduct or rules?”, once she say ”Rules regarding bullying and harrassment”
ELISE STEFANIK: Dr. Kornbluth, does — at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MITs code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?SALLY KORNBLUTH: If targeted at individuals, not making public statements.
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? Of course context is essential when judging if someone is ‘calling for genocide.” Points of contention might be the phrasing : ” I think they should get rid of the jews” Is this calling for genocide? Or context of mood ” Yes, I said it but I was just in an angry mood and I didn’t really mean it.
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
ELISE STEFANIK: But you’ve heard chants for intifada? There it is. genocide and intifada are equated. And Stefaniik equates calling for intifada with calling for genocide
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I’ve heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people. Here it seems plausible to assume that Kornbluth herself doesn’t exactly know the meaning of intifada.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, those would not be according to the — MITs code of conduct or rules?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: That would be investigated as — as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE 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 LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is — if the —
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? No, conduct meaning directing the speech to Jews, and in an offensive way, just as she had responded in the previous question. The speech is not harassment? No speech is intrinsically harrassment, ae if no one hears it.This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I’m going to 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?
LIZ MAGILL: It can be harassment.
ELISE 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?CLAUDINE GAY: It can be. Depending on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: What’s the context?
CLAUDINE GAY: Targeted as an individual, targeted as — at an individual, severe, pervasive.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. This is quite amazing. Now Stefanik is adding conditions to her hypothetical. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? 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?
CLAUDINE GAY: Anti-Semiidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: Again, it depends on the context.
ELISE 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.
If Claudine Gay had answered in the following way, she would have been able to apprise Stefanik of nuance, context, and judgement in cases involving students:
Claudine Gay: Miss Stefanik, let’s suppose you were dean of student affairs at Harvard. A female student comes into your office, upset, and says, “My roomate said last night that they should get rid of all the Jews” You give pause and say, “Are you Jewish?”… Now Miss Stefanik. Is this against the rules of conduct at Harvard, did she violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? And what should be the punishment?
Elise Stefanik: Well, was the complainant Jewish?
Claudine Gay: Yes or no Miss Stefanik, Did this woman violate the Harvard code of conduct? Did she violate, as you asked previously, Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?
What far fewer people heard on Dec 13 was in the 3 presidents’ opening statements. This was Liz McGill’s opening statement in part:
November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism. This builds on our anti-hate efforts to date, and it is anchored firmly in the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The plan centers on three, key areas and has many elements. Those areas are safety and security, engagement, and education. As part of this plan, I have convened and charged a task force to identify concrete, actionable recommendations, directing them to provide me with their recommendations, both in real time and then a final report in a couple of months.
Summary
To summarize there seems to be 3 sources or reasons for the hostilities on the campuses, in the country, and in the congressional hearing.
I. Careless and inaccurate statements that constitute disinformation or propaganda. This in turn creates distrust, fear, and hatred and helps to continue the cycle of violence.
A Paul Kessler was not murdered by a Hamas-supporting professor at a demonstration in California, as Rep Joe Wilson declares.
B The BDE movement does not support the destruction of Israel as Rep Nathanial Moran states but supports peaceful means of resistence to the occupation of the West Bank. Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish residents of Israel partners with them for the Boycott of settlements in the West Bank. They are hated by the Netenyahoo regime. (No wonder. The blacks who boycotted the Montgomery bus system in 1955 for being relegated to the rear of the buses were hated also – they disrupted the city budget, but broke no laws.) And recently the gov passed a law that says anyone who condones the boycotts are not to be allowed in Israel, moving the Netanyahoo govt a bit away from democracy.
C When “intifada” is chanted in demonstrations it is not a call for the destruction of Israel. If Rep Kevin Kiley had understood this he would not have demanded of the presidents: “Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?” and Rep Elis Stepannik would not have equated the “calls for intifada” with ” the calling for the genocide of jews. (See
II. A very common mistake of people fighting for a cause is this: Consider the affects of your behavior on your cause. Do your actions really help to move your cause forward, to help achieve noble and just goals? Or do your actions serve only to create the self-gratification which comes with aggression?
A The most egregious offense of this principle was done Oct 10, in the wake of the Hamas attack, when 31 campus groups at Harvard signed a letter saying they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for the unfolding violence.“ What? 3 days after 1500 Israeli men women and children were hunted down and slaughtered in their back yards?
After mass violence, the corona of human emotions of sadness, fear, hate must be respected. These emotions often subordinate rational thinking.
At the funeral of a teacher, a student who comments that s/he was a terrible teacher is not going to get much confirmation. Upon the attack of 9/11/01 no cause could have been helped by maurauding around NYC proclaiming the the US policies were responsible. Emotion ruled. Did the signatories really believe that the Jewish community would respond, ”Oh, I guess you are right. It’s the Israelis fault that Hamas murdered my cousins while they were eating in their back yard.” Regardless of who was right or wrong, the timing of the letter was unconscionable. It only elicited an avalanche of bad feeling from the Jewish community as well as others who took offense at the insensitivity.
Mercifully, 5 student groups have retracted their support for the letter, coming close to an apology. The Harvard Islamic Society stated, “Our initial signature was never intended as an endorsement of violence”
B Signs were seen posted at various places on all three of these campuses. At Harvard one sign read. ’Jews are Nazis’. Whether the creators had some point in mind regarding how some Palestinians are being treated in the West Bank, these placards only increased the political and social stresses between the factions.
III Groups or individuals that do not care if their actions advance any cause, but whose goal is gratification under the guise of a popular struggle. A videotape surfaced several months after 9/11 of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts smirking and congratulating themselves on the attack. This was their olympics. It mattered not at all if it brought hatred from millions of muslims as well as non-muslims, and affected no advancement of any noble cause.This was like winning the superbowl. Yahya Sinewar and Mohammed Deif, apparent architechs of the Oct 7 attack, cared little that one of the murdered was a Jewish Israeli that took his daughter to an integrated school with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim students.
Aftermath: . Opinions were formed by the public about the efficacy of the 3 presidents based on soundbites from the Stefanik interogation seen on the evening news programs. Included in those influenced by the soundbites , with only a superficial understanding , were doners such as businessman Ross Stevens, who said he would rescind his $100 million gift to the college, ”absent a change in leadership” at Penn and several other doners.
Then came the resignation of McGill, insisted on by the Board of trustees.
Then came a letter composed by the Faculty Senate complaining about the undue influence of donors and the Board of Directors:
“Unelected billionaires without scholarly qualifications are now seeking to control academic decisions that must remain within the purview of faculty in order for research and teaching to have legitimacy and autonomy from private and partisan interests,”
It was signed by 900 educators – professors and staff – at the university.
End (for now)
c
Wilson… murder in California. With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism. And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.
NUMBER THREE
“Again the triumph of demagoguery. Elise Stefanik brought out her calculated weapon, the question: Does calling for the genocide of jews constitute harrassment or violate the by-laws of the institution? What was not questioned was what exactly means “calling for the genocide” If Alice, in her dorm room, says to her friend Betty, ”I think all the (Jews/Palestinians/Blacks/Rohingas) should be eliminated” And Carrie overhears and/or reports the conversation to the Dean, is this ‘harassment’ or against by-laws? This is nuance that the presidents, as academicians were trying to address, navigating between free speech and hate speech, expressing thoughts privately and public harassment, but were struggling to express it as Stefanic sought to increase her populist appeal by giving them the third degree. And emotional populist demagoguery beats measured rational thinking any day. At least currently in the US politics. “
MIT’s Sally Kornbluth did the best at defusing Stefanik’s accusations.
Stefanik: Does calling for…Yes or no.
Kornbluff: At targeted individuals. Not making public statements.
Stefanik: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying or
……………. harassment?
Kornbluff: I have not heard the calling for genocide of Jews on our campus.
Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for antifada? Now, it seems, Stefanik is equating ”chants for antifada” to ”calls for the genocide of jews”
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be anti-semetic. depending on context, when ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,calling for the elimination of the Jewish people
Stefanic: So those would not be according to the MIT code of conduct or rules?
Kornbluff: Those would be investigated when pervasive or severe. (Kornbluff is, herself, Jewish.)
So Stefanik fails to nail a gotcha with MIT, and immediately goes to Liz McGill of Penn.
Stefanic: Does calling for… Yes or no?
McGill: If the speech turns into conduct, yes, it can be harassment.
Here McGill’s use of the word ‘conduct’ without qualifying it with more detail was a mistake. She should have developed the idea further. She probably means raising the profile from words spoken in private meant to remain private to publicly asserting and intrusively repeating the views. Stefanic jumps on it.
KEVIN KILEY: If — would you say that a person who is an avowed neo-Nazi is someone that you would want to be part of the Harvard community?
CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard’s values, but at the same time we allow a wide berth for free expression on a variety of views.
7&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
KEVIN KILEY: The question was, would you want such a person, who was an avowed neo-Nazi, to be part of the Harvard community, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: So you would not want such a person to be part of the community?CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?
Here Stefanik question
explanation of why becareful
EEEEENNNNNNDDDDDDDD OOOOOFFFFFF BBBBBLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGG
Magil 5 minutes opening
x, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this committee, for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Elizabeth Magill, and I am the president of the University of Pennsylvania. Let me begin by saying that I and the University of Pennsylvania are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s abhorrent and brutal terror attack on Israel on October 7th. There is no justification, none, for those heinous attacks.
The loss of life and suffering that are occurring in Israel and Gaza during the ensuing war are heartbreaking. This pain, sorrow, and fear extends to our campus and to our city of Philadelphia. This hearing this morning takes place just two days after the Philadelphia community witnessed, in horror, the hateful words and actions of protesters who marched through the city and then near our campus.
These protesters directly targeted a center city business that is Jewish and Israeli owned, a troubling and shameful act of antisemitism. Philadelphia Police and Penn Public Safety were present, and thankfully, no one was injured. But these events have understandably left many in our community upset and afraid.
Anti-Semitism, an old, viral and pernicious evil, has been steadily rising in our society and these world events have dramatically accelerated that surge. Few places have proven immune, including Philadelphia and campuses like ours. This is unacceptable. We are combating this hate on our campus with both immediate and comprehensive action.
I have condemned antisemitism publicly, regularly, and in the strongest possible terms. And today, let me reiterate my and Penn’s unyielding commitment to combating it. We immediately investigate any hateful act, cooperating with both law enforcement and the FBI, where we have identified individuals who have committed these acts in violation of either policy or law.
We initiate disciplinary proceedings and engage law enforcement. We have acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near our campus, expanding the presence of public safety officers at our religious life centers and all across campus. On November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism.
