Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Supported by
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The leaders of Harvard, M.I.T. and Penn appeared to evade questions about whether students should be disciplined if they call for the genocide of Jews.
1824
By Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis
Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and M.I.T. eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews?
Their lawyerly replies to that question and others during a four-hour hearing drew incredulous responses.
“It’s unbelievable that this needs to be said: Calls for genocide are monstrous and antithetical to everything we represent as a country,” said a White House spokesman, Andrew Bates.
Josh Shapiro, the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said he found the responses by Elizabeth Magill, Penn’s president, “unacceptable.”
Even the liberal academic Laurence Tribe found himself agreeing with Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, who sharply questioned Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay.
“I’m no fan of @RepStefanik but I’m with her here,” the Harvard law professor wrote on the social media site X. “Claudine Gay’s hesitant, formulaic, and bizarrely evasive answers were deeply troubling to me and many of my colleagues, students, and friends.”
In their opening remarks, and throughout the hearing, Dr. Gay, Ms. Magill and Sally Kornbluth of M.I.T. all said they were appalled by antisemitism and taking action against it on campus. When asked whether they supported the right of Israel to exist, they answered yes, without equivocation.
But on the question of disciplining students for statements about genocide, they tried to give lawyerly responses to a tricky question involving free speech, which supporters of academic freedom said were legally correct.
But to many Jewish students, alumni and donors, who had watched campus pro-Palestinian protests with trepidation and fear, the statements by the university presidents failed to meet the political moment by not speaking clearly and forcefully against antisemitism.
“It should not be hard to condemn genocide, genocide against Jews, genocide against anyone else,” Governor Shapiro said on Wednesday in a meeting with reporters. “I’ve said many times, leaders have a responsibility to speak and act with moral clarity, and Liz Magill failed to meet that simple test.”
“There should be no nuance to that — she needed to give a one-word answer,” he added.
By Wednesday afternoon, a petition calling for Ms. Magill’s resignation had grown to more than 3,000 signatures. Marc Rowan, the chief of Apollo Global Management and the board chair at the Wharton School of Business at Penn, asked the board of trustees to rescind their support for Ms. Magill.
“How much damage to our reputation are we willing to accept?” he wrote in a letter to the trustees.
Governor Shapiro, who is a nonvoting member of Penn’s board, urged the trustees to meet soon. University sources, speaking on background, said that efforts were underway to hold a board meeting by phone this week. The university did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
Much of the criticism landed heavily on Ms. Magill because of an extended back-and-forth with Representative Stefanik.
Ms. Stefanik said that in campus protests, students had chanted support for intifada, an Arabic word that means uprising and that many Jews hear as a call for violence against them.
Ms. Stefanik asked Ms. Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik pressed the issue: “I am asking, specifically: Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”
Ms. Magill, a lawyer who joined Penn last year with a pledge to promote campus free speech, replied, “If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik responded: “So the answer is yes.”
Ms. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?”
In response on Wednesday, Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, did not mince words. “President Magill’s comments yesterday were offensive, but equally offensive was what she didn’t say,” he said in a statement. “The right to free speech is fundamental, but calling for the genocide of Jews is antisemitic and harassment, full stop.”
Senator John Fetterman, a Pennsylvania Democrat, described the testimony as “a significant fail.”
“There is no ‘both sides-ism’ and it isn’t ‘free speech,’ it’s simply hate speech,” he said in a statement. “It was embarrassing for a venerable Pennsylvania university, and it should be reflexive for leaders to condemn antisemitism and stand up for the Jewish community or any community facing this kind of invective.”
On Wednesday evening, Ms. Magill apologized for her testimony.
“In that moment, I was focused on our university’s longstanding policies aligned with the U.S. Constitution, which say that speech alone is not punishable,” she said in a video. “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for some of the most terrible violence human beings can perpetrate. It’s evil — plain and simple.”
She added, “In my view, it would be harassment or intimidation.”
She also said that Penn would “initiate a serious and careful look at our policies.”
Both Dr. Gay and Dr. Kornbluth were asked the same series of questions about genocide.
Dr. Gay echoed the idea that it “depends on the context” whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated Harvard’s conduct rules.
Dr. Kornbluth at first replied, “I have not heard calling for the genocide of Jews on our campus.”
Representative Stefanik interjected: “But you’ve heard chants for intifada.”
Dr. Kornbluth said: “I’ve heard chants which can be antisemitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people.”
Will Creeley, legal director at FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said that the three presidents were “legally correct.”
“It does depend on context,” Mr. Creeley said. But he added that it was frustrating “to see them discover free speech scruples while under fire at a congressional hearing,” rather than in a more principled way.
It was the invocation of context that angered many Jewish groups.
“We are appalled by the need to state the obvious: Calls for genocide against Jews do not depend on the context,” Penn Hillel said in a statement.
Jacob Miller, the student president of Harvard Hillel, said that “the testimony yesterday was a slap in the face, because there was a very easy clear right answer and she opted not to say that.”
Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge fund manager and Harvard alumnus, called on all three presidents to resign, citing the exchanges over genocide.
“It ‘depends on the context’ and ‘whether the speech turns into conduct,’ that is, actually killing Jews,” he wrote on X. “This could be the most extraordinary testimony ever elicited in the Congress.”
“They must all resign in disgrace,” he continued. “If a CEO of one of our companies gave a similar answer, he or she would be toast within the hour.”
M.I.T. did not respond to requests for a comment. But on Wednesday, Dr. Gay tried again in a new statement.
“There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students,” Dr. Gay said. “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.”
Her statement did not say what would constitute a threat, or whether chants of “There is only one solution: intifada, revolution” would meet the definition, as Ms. Stefanik argued during the hearing.
Campbell Robertson contributed reporting.
Stephanie Saul reports on colleges and universities, with a recent focus on the dramatic changes in college admissions and the debate around diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education. More about Stephanie Saul
Anemona Hartocollis is a national reporter for The Times, covering higher education. More about Anemona Hartocollis
A version of this article appears in print on , Section
A
, Page
18
of the New York edition
with the headline:
3 University Presidents Criticized for Remarks on Antisemitism. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe
1824
1824
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
As an AI language model, I have access to a wide range of information and can provide insights on various topics. However, I don't have personal experiences or opinions. I can provide information based on the search results I have access to. Here's what I found related to the concepts mentioned in the article:
Antisemitism on U.S. Campuses
Antisemitism on U.S. campuses refers to incidents and expressions of hatred, discrimination, or prejudice against Jewish individuals or groups within the university or college setting. It can manifest in various forms, including verbal harassment, hate speech, vandalism, or physical violence. The article highlights a contentious congressional hearing where the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T., and the University of Pennsylvania were questioned about their response to students calling for the genocide of Jews .
Harvard President to Stay
The article mentions that during the congressional hearing, Representative Elise Stefanik sharply questioned Harvard's president, Claudine Gay, about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment. The president's response was perceived by some as evasive and hesitant, leading to criticism and calls for her resignation. However, the article does not provide information about the president's decision to stay or resign .
Timeline of Campus Tensions
The article does not provide a specific timeline of campus tensions. It focuses on the congressional hearing and the responses of university presidents to questions about antisemitism on campuses. The hearing raised concerns about the universities' handling of incidents related to antisemitism and their response to students calling for the genocide of Jews .
Inside Penn's Power Struggle
The article briefly mentions a power struggle at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) in relation to the responses of Penn's president, Elizabeth Magill, during the congressional hearing. The president's replies to questions about calling for the genocide of Jews were criticized, and there were calls for her resignation. The article does not provide further details about the power struggle at Penn.
Congressional Inquiry
The article describes a congressional hearing where representatives questioned the presidents of Harvard, M.I.T., and the University of Pennsylvania about their response to antisemitism on campuses. The focus of the inquiry was on whether students calling for the genocide of Jews should be disciplined. The presidents' responses were criticized for being evasive and not condemning such calls unequivocally .
Please note that the information provided is based on the snippets from the search results and the context provided in the article.