Transcripts For CSPAN3 Anti-Semitism On College Campuses 20171113

Consistent with that commitment, we have several related concerns with the act. This hearing takes place at a moment of pressing threats to free speech on campus, including efforts to disinvite and shout down speakers, hateful speech that intimidates members of historically vulnerable groups and to punish speech. Amid these encroachments, its imperative to avoid allowing even wellintended measures to restrict parameters for expression. Its not difficult to conceive of scenarios, a model uu. N. Debate targeting israel, speeches by lefties or break the silence of soldiers who oppose their governments policies where the speech could meet antisemitism contained enact without being antisemitic at all. While such speech alone may not amounts to a civil rights violation, it could form part of a claim of harassment, thus subjecting the speaker to investigation and potential disciplinary action. Many College Students are finding their political voice for the first time, exploring modes of activism and feeling their way to causes that they Will Champion throughout their lives. Students are supposed to experiment and should not live in peril that an errant political chant, speaker invitation or remark could trigger a civil rights claim. One might argue the rule of reason read into the action would ensure that it would only be implied when the speech in question bore signifiers of antisemitic intent or sentiment, but the campus environment today is highly charged. Weve seen in the context of title 9 and other controversies that expression that may seem satirical, artistic or academic could trigger intense conflicts on campus. The israeli conflict is one most of the contentious subjects of campus debate. Any new weapon to counter speech is vulnerable to misuse. We have seen even claims of harassment that are ultimately meritness can pose a strain on witnesses, administrators and the campus as a whole. Alongside rising antisemitism, other forms of hateful speech are also surging. Many groups identified slurs and insults they believe are not fully recognized for their derogatory character. These include cartoon images of religious figures, depictions of members of historically marginalized groups by those outside of the group and the invocation of lesserknown stereotypes or slurs. If this act is passed, we should not be surprised if other historically vulnerable groups ask for similarly expanded protections. The campus is already a minefield when it comes to speech. New viewpointspecific restrictions will render it even more dangerous for those who dare express controversial ideas. Finally, having reviewed the very thoughtful testimony of my fellow witnesses, we submit that we do not see evidence that the problem of rising antisemitism derives from the current definitional confusion, nor that an expanded definition will address the concerns we all share. While many witnesses cite similar practical measures they believe can be effective, im not sure any of us can be confident that this definitional change will actually help solve the problem we are confronting. Finally, the u. S. s approach to Free Expression is the most protective in the world, a proud distinction, whereas Holocaust Denial is banned in much of europe, its considered protected speech here, best answered not by investigations or prohibitionsxcounter speech. If the antisemitism awareness act passed, the u. S. Claim is a standardbearer against viewpointbased restrictions on speech would be blunted. Pen america is eager to work with the committee to advance constructive steps to fight antisemitism and bigotry while upholding free speech. We have included a copy of wrong answer how good faith attempts to address free speech and antisemitism on campus could backfire, a pen America White paper that looks at the act as well as a spate of campus free speech laws in the states. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. Thank you. Mr. Stern, welcome. Thank you chairman goodlatte, Ranking Member conyers and the honorable members of the committee. Its my onor on behalf of the justice and Karin Rosenberg foundation that focuses on antisemitism campus. I was the jewish expert on antisemitism and over those years ive worked with many College President s on a variety of initiatives about bigotry, antisemitism, and antiisrael animus. One project was to train over 200 College President s on a manual of how to manage campus bigotry. Every one of these projects stressed that approaches which promote Academic Freedom are more likely to work on campus than those that explain it away or harm it will actually make the problem worse. Let me give you one quick example. In 2007 when the British University and college union, the ucu, adopted a resolution advancing an academic boycott of isra israel, some in the American Jewish community said americans should boycott british academics in return. That approach, of course, would violate Academic Freedom, because ideas should be evaluated on their merit, not on the nationality of their proponents. Ive worked with over 400 University President s who signed the New York Times ad that essentially said, if the ucu was intent on violating fundamental academic principles and dividing the academic world into two, israelis who should be shunned, and everyone else, then count their universities as israelis, too. That approach worked because it underscored the importance of Academic Freedom and free speech, and i dare say, not one president would have signed an ad that said lets do a counterboycott. And thats one of my main concerns about the antisemitism awareness act. By undercutting Academic Freedom and free speech, it, too, would do great harm to the academy and to jewish students and to faculty teaching jewish and israel studies. I was the lead drafter working with my colleague, andy baker, who did the great politicking of the working definition of antisemitism in which the state Department Definition is based. It was drafted, as mr. Baker said, with European Data collectors up most in mind and not to chill or regulate speech on american campuses. In recent years when jewish groups and individuals began filing title six complaints based in part on assertions that antiisrael discretions transversed the discretion and when they lost, they tried to get the university of california system to adopt the definition and when that failed, they turned to lawmakers. As a jewish official acknowledged, this would open the door for other groups to seek legislative decisions too. Imagine africanamerican groups asking for definition of racism under title six targeting political expression deemed racist. Would it include opposition to termtive action . Would it include opposition to removing statues of confederate leaders . Imagine a definition designed for palestinians, if denying the jewish people right is antisemitism, shouldnt they classify for antipalestinianism . There is a debate in the Jewish Community as to who is included in the family and who is not based on whether they are zionist. We know for sure and weve heard today of jewish students who are zionist who have sometimes suffered and suffered severely, but jewish students who are antizionists have been taucall traitors and told theyre not really jewish at all. Now, whether you can be an 18yearold antizionist and inside the Jewish Community is not a debate that congress should decide, but by adopting this definition, congress would do so by labelling antizionists jews antisemites. In the last few months, we have seen students with a hecklers veto over speakers considered conservative or racist. Support for israel is seen on some campuses in a similar vain. Congress should not be creating something akin to a presumption that if a pro israel event is targeted, its because of antisemitism, rather than political disagreement. The focus on israel also ignores other challenges to jewish students today, such as altright campus organizing, and the mistaken views that because jews are largely white, they cannot be victims of hatred. Heres what concerns me most some groups empowered by a congressional endorsement of the definition for campus advocacy will hunt speech they believe transgresses it and then press administrators to either suppress it or condemn it, threatening title six cases. We want administrators and other campus officials to conduct surveys on campus climate, to offer fullsemester classes on antisemitism, find new ways, use education to break down the binary thinking around the Israeli Palestinian conflict. We want universities to cultivate an environment where all students, jews included, feel comfortable saying what they think, even if their ideas are not fully formed and they might be wrong, but in effect, an astror will be told that they will be evaluated on how well they police and react to antiisrael political speech. That will likely be their only focus. As weve heard today, the working definition was recently applied to campus in the united kingd kingdom. See how that worked out. An israel apartheid event was canceled. A holocaust survivor had to change the title of a talk after an israeli diplomat complained, and an offcampus group got a university to investigate a professor for violating the definition and articles written years ago, the university ultimately found no basis to discipline her, but the exercise itself was chilling and mccarthylike. My fear is that we similarly enshrine this definition to law, outside groups will try to suppress, rather than answer political speech they dont like. The academy, jewish students, and faculty teaching about jewish issues will all suffer. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Stern. Well now begin with the questioning of the witnesses. And i recognize myself. Rabbi baker, you write in your written testimony that if we are to be successful in combating antisemiti antisemitism, we must first understand it, we must define it. It is a complex phenomenon. It has changed over time. It presents itself in both new and traditional forms. To some, however, that the phenomenon of antisemitism changes over time presents itself in different forms over time would counsel against codifying any particular definition of antisemitism. How is a definitional codeification approach compatible with a concept of discrimination that changes over time . Thank you, mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to expand on this. The fact is that there is i think a core understanding of what antisemitism is about, but the way its manifested, the way people encounter it will vary from time and place. It does not mean that one day to the next it has changed or would change dramatically. I think the idea of a definition, and in fact, this working definition that was developed first with great difficulty to achieve consensus among jewish experts and organizations around the world, and then to find its use in the eumc and in other bodies in europe, really began with acknowledging those traditional aspects of antisemitism. They may, as dr. Nadell said, wax and wane over time. We understand them, but we should explain and define them for people to be clear on this. The idea of conspiracy theories against jews, what other elements motivate this hatred, but also to recognize, as weve seen in more recent times, for example, Holocaust Denial is itself a form of antisemitism, wouldnt have been part of the definition a century ago, but its critical now. And finally when we speak about antisemitism as it relates to israel, and i think that is something more and more people have come to recognize, not just jews who have experienced it in europe or now here in the u. S. And on College Campuses. Let me interrupt since i only have five minutes, but thank you for that. Youre welcome. I get your dr. Nadell, i was pleased to see kenneth marcus, an advocate for the use of the state departments definition of antisemitism in addressing antisemitism under title six was nominated by the president to head the Civil Rights Division of the department of justice, which would enforce title six. I expect, and i guess ill ask if you expect, that mr. Marcus, if hes confirmed to that position, would use the state departments definition of antisemitism in addressing antisemitism under title six, and if so, might it be best to wait and see the results of using such a definition before congress were to codify it in a statutory law . Thank you, mr. Chairman. I very much agree that i think it would be very useful to find out how this is going to be applied in different situations, rather than passing legislation to decide something that we dont know how it will play out. So, i agree with you, i think your suggestion is a good one. Mr. Greenblatt, would you care to comment on that . I think we have to keep in mind that the attempt to ensure that mr. Walker or mr. Marcus, excuse me, or other officials simply can consult the definition would make it easier for them to do their job effectively. So rather than having congress wait, i would encourage you to proceed expeditiously with this process so that mr. Marcus can be an effective advocate and Public Servant at the department of education. Dr. Trachtenberg, rabbi baker wrote in his written testimony that unlike antisemitism, other forms of prejudice and group hatreds are easy to recognize. Do you or any of the other panelists, for that matter, disagree with that . That is, cant and dont all forms of hatred change with the circumstances and the times . Thank you for your question. I think we always have to Pay Attention to context when were looking at any particular one incident, and we need to investigate it carefully. When we think about the state Department Definition, which seeks to codify what antisemitism is, its such a flawed definition that it can virtually encompass any particular act without real regard to context, although it pretends that it does. For example, the state Department Definition claims that stating that a particular jewish person has more loyalty to the state of israel than they do to their own country is necessarily an example of antisemitism, or the truth is, thats one of the fundamental premises of zionism. And if you go back and look at the statements, say of theodore hertzel, whos wrote really whats considered the founding text of zionism, he argued very clearly that jews are one people, and therefore, its useless for them to be patriots to the countries in which they reside. So theres times when a Statement Like that is contained in the definition of the state department would actually undermine the founding premises of zionism itself. Thank you. My time has expired, but mr. Stern, i was intrigued by a portion of your testimony that i dont think you talked about in your oral testimony, and that is, would you elaborate on the points that you make with regard to something you call pandoras box . Thank you. Thank you, chairman goodlatte. And the issue is that once you open up the capacity for having an official definition, then i suspect any organization that represents other groups that are concerned with things on campus would want a definition, too. I mean, again, to look at affirmative action, as i mentioned before, if somebody on campus says there should be no affirmative action, you could understand how an africanamerican student might hear that as i dont really belong here, and thats something that the university should take responsibility for in looking at the campus culture. But youd have groups, i would think at that point, saying wait a minute, this is in addition to something that makes students uncomfortable, we want to codify that, too. Under title six, ocr should look at that as an indisha, specifically. And i think you could find other examples with other types of groups down the road. My times expired, so i dont think well do it at this point, but i get your point. Mr. Chairman yes, mr. Cooper. If i may. I just want to bring back to focus as to why were here this morning. The United States through its agencies has failed many jewish students who went through extreme situations of antisemitism. Were here because we need your help to address that. And i think that needs to be a focus. Secondly, just with permission, the idea that a dual loyalty or being more loyal to a state other than the nation weve been born into is inherent in zionism, which was just stated by another speaker, cannot go unchallenged. It is simply its not true. Its not accurate. And it is cannon fodder for antisemit antisemites. Thank you. Chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, for his questions. Thank you, sir. This has been a very unusual situation. As an africanamerican, i keep thinking about what if we were looking at the question of race from this perspective. And i have four questions here, but i think instead i will just ask each one of you who chooses to take just a few sentences to sum up any last considerations that you would leave the House Judiciary Committee with. And ill start with you, rabbi baker. I think the antisemitism awareness act would provide guidance that would explain what antisemitism is about to people who need to know. It would go beyond what you mentioned, mr. Conyers, in the 2010 guidance that potentially can be changed in a new administration, and that would underscore the fact that title six should be used to address antisemitism on College Campuses. Dr. Nadell . Thank you. I think the antisemitism awareness act is problematic. If there is a way to see it referred to with kenneth marcus, then perhaps that is the way to go. But for now, it will label antiisrael actions on campus as antisemitic, and it will squash free speech, and thats a mistake. Thank you. Rabbi cooper. Congressman conyers, we know each other for a few decades. And just to summarize, the American Jewish Community Wall to wall it here this morning because we need your help. And as a leader in the civil rights movement, and along with the chairman, were here because we have a defined problem. Youve heard the statistics from the Antidefamation League. Theyre quite shocking. Whats happening here is happening in realtime, and those who refuse to recognize the problem of antisemitism, well, its kind of like inviting people from the flat Earths Society to a hearing about nasa. Thank you. Dr. Trachtenberg. Thank you. What i would say as a a comment that i hope you leave here with today is listen seriously, please, to what the faculty who work in jewish studies are asserting. What youve heard from the president of the association for jewish studies, sits to my right, as well faraz well as fr myself and from many, many other faculty members who have studied this issue very carefully using rigorous methods, the question of antisemitism is a highly contested one, and it is a topic we do not believe should be addressed with the antisemitism awareness act. And i think you should trust professors and universities to contend with these issues as they arise on their campus and allow us to teach our students unimpe unimpeded. Thank you. Thank you. Attorney clement. Mr. Conyers, i would just like to follow up on your analogy to the race context. And i would think if we had a dynamic on our College Campuses where we felt like the existing title six prohibitions against harassment on the basis of race were being underenforced because people kept on saying when they were accused of harassment on the basis of race that they had some White Supremacy symbol and that this wasnt antiafricanamerican, but it was all in service of this symbol, that if we had a consensus that that was wrong, that we could amend the definition and restore an adequate prohibition on harassment on the basis of race, and it wouldnt raise First Amendment problems because it would only be triggered by harassment. Thank you. Chairwoman parker. Thank you, Ranking Member conyers. I would just like to underscore that while i understand and i appreciate that academic study the problem, its our students who are living the problem. Theyre the ones that are having the rocks thrown at them. Theyre the ones that are having the vitriol spoken to them. And the academics of stanford did an extensive study that said, for the most part, jews felt safe. The students of stanford took it upon themselves to pass a resolution doing large in part of what were ad voeblgting for here today. Thank you. Attorney green brat. Greenblatt. Im not an attorney, mr. Conyers, so let me dispel that. What i would simply say is the antisemitism awareness act from a First Amendment perspective will not squash free speech, it will not chill freedom of expression. But i would also encourage you, as you reflect upon the views of academics who live with the privilege of tenure in the ivory tower and listen to those of us who work on main street, the adl, the American Jewish committee, apac, Jewish Federations of north america, all the major Jewish Communal organizations support this legislation. Thank you. Director nossel. Thank you. That we agree that theres a serious problem doesnt mean that the solution right in front of us is the correct one. I think here we have to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. We risk fueling the fire of contentious debates and opening the door to other restrictive measures that would chill speech, even if they dont violate the First Amendment. We have practical measures we all agree on that can be reinforced, and thats where i would suggest that we focus. Thank you. Director stern . Thank you. Five quick points. One is i agree with mr. Trachtenberg that or dr. Trachtenberg that you should listen closely to the people that are teaching on the campus, especially on these issues. Theyre the ones that i think have the closest feel of the pulse. Secondly, this type of legislation i think will be a black hole. It will suck away all the other things that we really want campuses to do to deal with their environment, to deal with their teaching. This would be the preferred answer and the focus, rather than all those other things. Third, i think jewish students are suffering in many places around the israel palestine conflict because theres a great binary. Theyre seen all on one side or all on the other side. Legislation like this will add to the detriment of jewish students. Fourth, i disagree with something in rabbi coopers written statement, where he talked about protecting vulnerable jewish students. I teach on the campus, too. Ive taught a class on antisemitism at bart college. I dont think the jewish students that ive come into contact with feel themselves as vulnerable and want to be protected. They want to be engaged and have their thinking shaken up by having the full capacity to look at these issues from every possible way. And fifth, i really worry about the instinct to monitor speech. Weve seen outside groups creating dossiers online. Weve seen whats happened in the uk. If im a jewish studies professor and im going to have to be monitored for whether i teach something that transgresses this definition, im going to say, why should i bother . Id rather teach about 18thcentury judaism than jews today, and thats going to be harmful thank you all. Im going to examine this conversation weve had this morning very carefully. Thank you, mr. Conyers. The chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. Ice issa, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Rabbi cooper in your experience, have you i guess have you had, but im assuming you have, experience discussing with College Administrators a response to these antisemitic incidents . And what have you learned . Well, weve had our museum of tolerance in los angeles a lot of interaction with primarily californiabased uc and cal state administrators, people up and down the line, including some of the campus police. Theres been a lot of exchange. There have been, you know, seminars and discussions. What has been lacking and what we hear back from people who have, lets say have been burned once or twice by incidents that they didnt anticipate, is they lack a context. Theyre looking for a basic definition to give them a context on campus to guide them. In my written and verbal testimony, ive spoken some length about president udaf when he was head of the uc system, spent an enormous amount of time on this, not because it was theoretical, but because the students at the bottom of all of this were not being protected by the system. And he tried i think mightily to come up with ways to begin to correct that situation. But the fact that were here today before this Important Group of legislators here in the house indicates that we do need help. That context, as mr. Clement so brilliantly, you know, presented it, simply is that is a definition that will help trained College Administrators, chancellors and the rest, to apply the existing context and rules to a situation in which jewish kids are subjected to the kinds of behaviors that brought us here today. So you wouldnt say that theres an unwillingness to protect, but a lack of training . Is that a Fair Assessment . Because i take it most of the administrators are not taking measures to protect. I think a lot of administrators in their own training never heard the introduction of the term antisemitism along all the other areas of protected groups, minority groups, gender groups that have to be protected. It simply never entered the lexicon until these incidents came forward, and it was clear from our interaction with the people, and lets give them the benefit of the doubt that they were well meaning and want to address it, didnt really know where to begin. In addition, there are many individuals on campuses, on various levels, who actually, you know, believe that israel is an exceptional state, an apartheid state, a racist state, guilty of all sorts of crimes, in which their own personal biases do enter in to the way in which they respond to situations on campuses. But overwhelmingly, i dont think its ideologically driven. I think its something thats relatively new. Theyre not quite sure how to provide. You know, rabbi, its been a long time since i went to college, but in those days, it was a simpler time. This would have been very yeah, dont look at me like how much simpler but it was a simpler time. We would have looked at it. We would have had the 67 war the 73 war actually occurred during my college period. Today it seems like were involved with lots and lots of issues, every sort of politically correct speech and so on. How do we in congress initiate a process that prioritizes the unique characteristics of antisemitic behavior, lest we begin a process and end up caught up in the dozens of other politically correct things that we sometimes talk about, how people refer to people . You know, somebody can refer to a woman in an incorrect way. Another race or religion in an incorrect way. And theyre often categorized as though all of them are equals. And none of them are good, but how do we in congress initiate a process to put a priority on this type of hate speech based on its history and its pervasiveness . I would just make two points, and perhaps also mr. Clement would want to. The two points i would make is, number one, were not looking to put the jewish student at the head of the line. Were looking to include jewish students within the context of the commitment on every campus against intimidation, creating a place where you can exchange ideas, and there isnt a Single Organization represented here that ever handed the state of israel a moral blank check for specific actions or policies that its taken. So i think thats simply a false issue. The other point here also is for us to understand, it is more complex time, and a lot of these controversies are part of global campaigns against the state of israel, against the jewish people. Theyre sort of parachuted into campuses, which is one of the reasons why so Many University administrators seem so clueless about how to deal with it. But when you have, god forbid, the next outbreak, and we pray it wont come, in the middle east, especially now with social media, but even before, the same mantras that youll hear on the streets of gaza you will hear on the campuses, and those attacks wont be about israel. Theyll be talking about hitler was right and death to the jews. Thank you. The chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, for five minutes. Its clear to me and ive been following this for some time, that theres a real problem on campuses, and i think most would agree with that, but the antisemitism awareness act would require only that the department of education would consider it says the department of education shall take into consideration the definition of antisemitism as part of the departments assessment of whether whatever was going on was motivated by antisemitic intent. Supporters note that the definition is not despositive as to whether title six has been violated and that should eliminate any concerns about a Chilling Effect on free speech. What is your response to that . My response is that inherently, its disingenuous. When you prioritize a certain definition, it has the weight of having congress behind it compared to any other definition they can consult. And you know, im really not as concerned, although i am, about the two, three, four or five cases that may come up under this, im more concerned about the daytoday impact on the campus by the fact that administrators will be told to look at this and monitor speech, and people from outside, as they have with these early title six cases and with these websites focusing on dossiers of professors and students will say, you know, hunt this speech, and if you cant suppress it, like the israel apartheid type of thing, you ought it at least condemn it, so you will be given incentive tease chill speech, when i think on campus what you really need is to cultivate an environment that does exactly the opposite, that brings out all the different sides of the conflict and counterspeech. Counterspeech, and to use education to do it. So, would it ever be appropriate for the federal government to define antisemitism for the purposes of title six . I dont think so, or for any other type of bigotry because its not that this definition is too broad, you thunk i think there are problems with the definition using it for campus, because again, denying israel the right to exist is something you dont want to have in the venue of the u. N. For the president of iran to say and that should be objected to. An 18yearold on a College Campus whos trying to figure out a jewish student, whether im zionist, antizionist, whether im tribal, whether im universal, they have to have the right to explore those ideas. Now, without referencing a definition of the law, how should the department of education identify and investigate antisemitism and enforce title six . I actually brought a case when i was at ajc for High School Students in binghamton, new york, vestel school district, where the kids were being harassed, and it had nothing to do with israel, but i can tell you, nobody asked me to look at the motivation of what these people really thought about jews. Nobody looked at the definition. What they looked at was whether these kids were being identified as jews and harassed as jews, and they were. Wisconsin v. Mitchell basically says the same thing, that its not the motive thats the problem, its the selection of somebody to be a victim of a particular circumstance, and i think thats how you approach it. In the last seven years since the d. O. E. Issued its guidance, how would you evaluate the departments enforcement efforts regarding antisemitism . You know, youre talking about specific cases. I think the cases that at least i was aware of had problems. They certainly had some inditia of actions that were preempt yicti yicti problematic, but also relied heavily on protected speech. So i have no capacity to say at a particular case they should have done something differently on those cases, and those cases that were brought, again, contained complaints about classes, about text, about campus speakers, about other programs, and i think they were right about finding title six violations. Mr. Clement, if enacted, what protections would the antisemitism awareness act provide for students on campus that are not already provided for under current law . I think, mr. Nadler, they would provide the protection of having the Enforcement Agency empowered with a definition. So i dont know that this is the Enforcement Agency could do whatever it could already do, but they would be guided by the definition . Thats right, thats right. And i think it would facilitate the whole process. Thank you. Let me move on. Critics of the antisemitism awareness act argue that even if youre correct, that antisemitism awareness act does not violate the First Amendment, it could still have a Chilling Effect on political speech on campus. How would you respond to that . I would respond to that by saying the key to ensure that title six, not just for antisemitism, but for all of the things that it prohibits, the key to making sure that it doesnt have a Chilling Effect on speech is to make sure that the test for harassment is sufficiently robust and consistent with our First Amendment values. But the rest of it i think is mistaken. When you say that this is going to stop, when someone suggests that this is going to stop a professor from lecturing on a topic in class, that just mistakes what the standard is for finding harassment under title six. Lastly, mr. Stern, mr. Clement argues that the antisemitism awareness act does not raise constitutional concerns because it contains a saving clause, more importantly, because it addresses conduct like harassment, rather than protected speech, and simply adds the defense to an existing prohibition of the law. How would you respond to that . I would say two things. First, i disagree because in the application of it, in particular, it will be problematic, as mr. Clement has also said the saving clause are pretty much useless, as Suzanne Nossel said as well. I would encourage, i know the foundation for individual rights and education has also done a very through analysis on this. In my view, theyre the experts on this and they have concluded that it is unconstitutional. My time has expired. The chair recognize the gentleman from florida, mr mr. Gaetz, for five minutes. Thank the chairman and i want to begin by bragging about my state of florida. Because of some of the student organizations endorsing, the state of florida divests our states of any participation in the bds movement, that legislation built on the landmark work of my colleague, mr. Deutch, during his service in the state legislature when he insured that our state divest from Companies Engaging with iran and their nuclear program. Rabbi cooper, i want to drill down specifically with you, since you mentioned Student Government associations. Are there any commonalities, methods, tactics, practices, that groups are using to influence Student Government associations to pass bds resolutions . And to what extent would those methods or tactics be impacted by the antisemitism awareness act . Well, im not an expert on the student associations, but when you read about whats going on, by the way, not only in the United States, but also whats going on in canada, in which you have activists who are exercising their First Amendment rights, lets say, who are antiisrael, have a pro palestinian agenda, they get involved with Student Government, they stay involved, and in many times they have leadership roles. Where this act would help is when jewish students are called out at meetings of the government, of the Student Government, including at ucla, not small colleges, up in canada as well, when jewish students are called out and theyre basically told you dont belong in Student Government, because in effect, its dual loyalty, you dont really have a loyalty to the United States, your loyalty is to a foreign entity, israel, and therefore, you should be booted off the board. And there are other, obviously, kinds of actions that could be taken in terms of funding certain kinds of speakers will get it, certain activities will get it. But i would say, overall, that if it was just a matter of student activism, then the most Important Message we can send through hillel and ae pie and all of the other groups, make sure jewish kids stay involved in Student Government. But when you have, as we have now, have numerous examples where jewish kids are called out and say you dont belong here because youre a jew, thats exactly why we would, that student would be able to go to an administrator, and if necessary, to the department of education, to get redress. Mr. Greenblatt, from the Antidefamation League standpoint, how do you parse that distinction between legitimate advocacy that we can combat with other legitimate advocacy and speech that would run afoul of this act . Thank you. I think its really important to keep in mind that all this legislation does is require in the plain language of the definition be consulted by administrators when a case is brought. This doesnt mandate that they do anything. This doesnt handcuff them. This doesnt limit free speech. It simply says when an issue is brought to their attention that they consult the definition. Now, again, as i think is stated by another one of the witnesses, they would need to determine that there is indeed harassment taking place, but having a definition that codifies what is indeed a very complex problem wouldnt in any way, shape or form prohibit or, again, handcuff an administrator to prevent free speech. I found the data that youve provided in your written testimony regarding the frequency of antisemitic events rising particularly troubling on College Campuses. To what extent do we tie that solely to the activity on a College Campus, versus perhaps some nefarious sources influencing students as early as high school . Because im starting to see more and more folks advocating for bdstype advocacy, which in my mind is modernday antisemitism, at the high school level. Are you able to draw a nexus there . So, mr. Congressman, i think thats a very good and important question. There are two parts to it. To the first part, if we try to understand whats the causality in the increase in antisemitism, i think extremists from both sides feel emboldened for different reasons, visavis the political climate, so thats creating the conditions in which were seeing an uptick in activity. And that isnt something thats a function of some academic treatus. Thats the reality in what were seeing all around the country. But to your point,er i would agree that antibias, antihate content in schools, particularly at the high school level, can be an antidote to intolerance, and that is another area that i think we should explore. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I yield back. Thanks. I recognize the gentle woman from texas, ms. Jackson lee, for five minutes. Thank you to the chairman. To the Ranking Member, this is a very, very important hearing, and i clearly, rabbi, i think its cooper, important that students are young people, and that any language that particularly suggests they dont belong here, i believe were obligated to protect them and to protect their space of learning. So you have me committed on the idea that our young people must be protected. So as i query, im trying to find the comfort level, mr. Stern, on the idea of the protected speech. And i am graduated from the university of virginia law school. [ chanting ] you can imagine my horror as i talked to the president of the University Just a week ago to reinforce the horror that occurred if they came uninvited to the campus and walked along a very sacred area for students. While those students who had arrived early were looking out of their dorms or windows or standing on the front lawn. Anybody who knows the structure of the university of virginia, in complete horror and fear. I imagine amongst those students might have been jewish students, africanamerican students, hispanic students and others. And how tragic it is that rather than words of comfort, of course, there were words that came from the highest Ranking Office in the land that there were good people on both sides or both sides had violence. So i think it is important that we use our approach to also be teachers, because at the same time, a young student at american university, became the first africanamerican student, happened to be a woman, president of Student Government. Then there was a series of hanging nooses and bananas to intimidate. And so, i think the question in this day in time is how do we educate and protect our students and provide free space and free speech, free space and free speech for our academics. So, let me go to mr. Clement, who is raising the legal arguments here. Mr. Stern made a valid point of the hunt. So i would not want to have a professor feeling that they were hunted if they had several viewpoints that i dont agree with, but several viewpoints of the issues dealing with israel, i. E. , denying the jewish people the right to selfdetermination and saying they should not have their own land, and as well, other criticisms that would be waged against israel but could be waged against others. So how would i protect that professor who wants to engage in a deliberative and maybe provocative lecture, and who may be either overtly or hidden have some negative views, conspicuous or nonconspicuous views about israel, and theyre in an academic setting . Well, representative jackson lee, i think that there is no fundamental incompatibility between free speech and free space, and i think the critical question in determining where to strike that balance is what do we think constitutes harassment and what do we think constitutes just free speech. And under existing law, as i understand it, theres a pretty demanding standard before we treat something under title six as harassment. But under title six, theres two questions. A, is there harassment that rises to that level . And then second, even if there is, was it motivated by one of the forbidden bases under title six race, sex, National Origin . And the departments taken the position that antisemitism is a forbidden motive. And really, all this legislation tied to criticism of a country. You dont have a right to exist. You dont have the right to your own land. Israel shouldnt exist. And theres a variety of ways to try to define that term. This is the same definition, obviously, that the state department has already approved. And i think i dont mean to dodge the question, but i think the way to protect free speech is in part to make sure we have the right definition for harassment. But once we have that, boy, it seems hard, at least from a First Amendment standpoint, to think that its better to not have any definition of antisemitism, especially when its obviously a contested term, and especially when at least some people seem to be taking cover and say i can do anything i want, and i dont have to worry about being labeled antisemitic because i would be able to say no, im just antizionist. Mr. Greenblatt, could you quickly i have participated in your antihate outreach with the Antidefamation League. I think they are some of the best in the country. And i also believe, very quickly, very keenly, and im going to ask mr. Stern a question, so im going to end quickly. I thank the chairman for his indulgence. But i truly believe the investment in k12 is crucial and that the crisis of america is that were not teaching antihate in early years, as told to me by an africanamerican family who went to mcdonalds and another child who happened to be white, little child, looked at them in horror and was afraid of them as they came into the mcdonalds. How can we deal with that . And then finally, mr. Stern, if you could finish by your answer to the hunt question and how do we protect these students dealing with legislation like this, which i hope to consider . Mr. Greenblatt, would you quickly answer that . Thank you for the question. Quickly, number one, lets be clear, this definition does not prevent students or this definition it simply defines when it becomes antisemitism. With respect to training and education, i couldnt agree more. We need to, as a government, ensure at all levels our kids are immunized from intolerance at an early age. It is an ounce of prevention really can go a long way to dealing with this disease of bigotry. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate gentlemen, mr. Stern could answer the question. I abhor antisemitism, so i want to stop it. In my written testimony, i work with various College President s over the years. The first manual we put out, there was a situation that came up, hypothetical put out a window, soandso, you fill in the blanks, youre not welcome there. What do you do . The president said i would put out a larger banner that says Everyone Welcome here. We want classes so everyone can understand what were talking about as opposed to definitions sitting on high. We want programs for the pass to discuss issues when senses of identity wrapped up in perceived social justice. We want to use it as much as possible. The hunting, chill speech, think about students. When i was working at a National Jewish organization, pro israel policy, im a zionist, i was mostly concerned with those students who were supporters of israel. As as college professor, im also concerned about jews that are antizionists. They are left out in the cold and made targets. Theres websites that hunt them and put dossiers on there. I think this will om encourage that activity. The time is expired. I recognize you for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I appreciate the panelists here today. This has been an interesting topic. Dr. Transact tractenberg talked this talked about broadly. Mr. Greenberg talked about insultive definition. I would like to talk specifically about the definition or inquire specifically about the definition. Ill go to you mr. Clement. Providing a definition may be good idea and consistent with First Amendment as youve argued and testified to today. My question is, is this the right definition . Is it potentially a seome indicated earlier in their testimony, is it potentially vague or interpreted overly broad broadly. Is it clear and concise enough. Kite be worded better . If so, how. Please opine on that, please. Thank you for the question, representative biggs. I would say there are probably other people on the panel who are better able to sort of have a debate about whether its exactly the right definition. Im not sure that its necessarily the platonic definition. I do think, though, it has the virtue of being a definition that the government is already using. As one of my sort of copanelist said its a bit ironic were essentially willing to use this definition with every country on the planet except ours. I guess the one thing i really have perhaps to contribute from a First Amendment perspective is especially given that its just a consultive definition and doesnt proport to be the definitive definition. Sometimes you have definitions that say the following term includes. This is more in the softer second version. Particularly that character, sure beats alternative from First Amendment perspective, which is no definition at all. I appreciate that. And i guess thats my question. Does it does anybody think they va better definition than this definition . Im inquiring the entire panel. By your silence dr. Transact trachtenberg. Its not clear to me as mr. Stern said that a definition is required in this way. I teach entire courses on antisemitism, and they go on for 15 weeks. We talk about this shifting definition of antisemitism. In the past it was based on religious assumptions about jews as christ killers. And in the middle ages jews were accused of seeking to recrucify christ through different methods. It led to antisemitic characters of jews. Questions about jews sexuality. Whether jews were even human beings or not. In the modern period, we saw it as racial distinction of jews. Our jews fundamentally and biological different. The notions of race. There are questions as capitalist schemers and revolutionary subversive. This is what we teach to our students. Settling on one definition thats going to apply so all circumstances is too broad and too vague. And shouldnt be the basis of legislation. I mean i dont want to get into a debate with you. Sure. One of the things youve said previously is this is a broad definition. If youre going to make a definition it would seem thats consultative in nature, it would by nature become a broader definition that would allow for the movement of society as it as we see the impact of that definition using it as consultative idea, as opposed to a strict binding concise definition which is why i was asking if theres any better definition that maybe out there. Time goes by fast in five minutes. But i was going to come back and ask mr. Clement and anyone else as well. Do you know of any judicial opinion that provides the definition of antisemitism even if not in the holding in the dicta . I have not come across such a definition. All right. And so i guess im going to go ahead and yield back the balance of my time sips im down to ten seconds. I thank the gentlemen and recognize the gentlemen from florida. Thank you, mr. Chairman. First of all, i introduced this bill because i met with the assistant secretary of education for civil rights. And asked how many ongoing investigations in the cases of antisemitism were they pursuing. The answer was zero. Number two, i appreciate all of the academic discussion. And the references to the definition. Let me read it for the record. Antisemitism is a certain perception of jews which maybe expressed as hatred toward jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed towards jewish and nonjewish individuals, property, institutions and religious facilities. Thats the working definition. Then goes on to include contemporary examples and a fact sheet. Let me address what we heard today. One, criticism of israel any criticism would be antisemitic under this. Its not true. Everyone understands thats not the case. Thats number one. Number two, that jews because once they were victims are immune from criticism. While im offended by that, that has nothing to do with the legislation. Three, that somehow we should this is really some effort to go after jewish antizionists is the reddest of red herrings. And four, the suggestion was made that we have to look at all different sides. There arent all different sides to antisemitism. There arent. And the comment that was made that i find the most compelling is that a College Campus is where a student students are trying to find their voice. I could not agree more. Heres the question. In all of this talk about free speech which we hold dear and which we have to be careful this legislation, any legislation would not violate or curtail. In all of that discussion, whats been missing is the discussion of the free speech of jewish students who do not feel free to speak out. They dont feel free to support israel openly. They dont feel free to join Student Government and talk about their judaism and their involvement in their Jewish Community. And there are examples time and time again. One last thing about this. I understand that if you look only in terms of numbers across all campuses, that while some of the academics here say its not a problem, i dont see it in my classroom, i dont see i h it on my campus, i dont hear about it and 118 antisemitic acts relative to the number of students on College Campuses may not seem that great, why shouldnt we be concerned about every one of those individuals and their ability to sustain and fight back and have a department of education thats willing to investigate those kinds of attacks . This one is really hard sometimes for me to understand. We know whats happening on College Campuses. Yes, im concerned about professors being able to teach. I am. But i also know that College Students, like my own and their friends, who are on campuses, who actually see whats happening, who will avoid parts of campus, i have heard from their friends, will avoid parts of campus because they are afraid if they are wearing a jewish star they will be shouted down. Thats not students finding their voice. Thats one student using his or her voice to stifle the free speech ot other student. Yes, rabbi cooper . Congressman, i want to come back to this visual, because its in realtime. This was posted by a professor at Rutgers University on his facebook. We have a young girl 19 years old, who went to rutgers, where she wants to get her degree in food science. This is the guy shes going to have to go and sign up for because right now there is absolutely no price to pay. Theres no red line. Nothing. About someone in the position of responsibility who openly expresses such vile hate. And theres nothing to protect that freshman from pursuing her course. Mr. Greenblatt, am i so off base here . Have we been going down the wrong path worrying about the 18 cases so far this year . Youre dead on. I know some people teach courses over the course of 15 weeks, the adl has been tracking this for 100 years and data doesnt lie. What you pointed out about the definition is correct. This doesnt inhibit ability of an individual, student, faculty or otherwise to criticizes israel policy. It does acknowledge that definition by the way that was done in consultation with leading experts. And its used by our embassies around the world to track antisemitic incidences. So some might not like it. The practicality it has been vital to our state department doing work to protect jewish communities around the world. Mr. Chairman, i appreciate it. Before i yield back, i would finally make a last point. Again, criticism of israel is israels government, policies are more than fair. Theyre welcomed here just as they are in israel. But when you take the position its one thing to criticizes those policies but when you take a position that israel as a nation does not have a right to exist, and you then try to impose that to shut down others, that is not a student finding his or her voice. That is students or others on a College Campus using their voices to silence others in a way that is wholly unacceptable, which this definition is trying to address. I yield back, thank you. I thank the gentleman and i now recognize myself for five minutes. It was my turn, for the record. This has obviously been a very compelling hearing here today for me. As it happens a very good friend of mine is in the audience. Dr. Gary bower, who is the head of christians united for israel, which ive been involved in that for a long time. And i think he is perhaps the greatest friend of israel in the western world. So the opinion is pretty high there. Certainly identify with so many of the comments today. Some of us are deeply committed to the state of israel and the jewish people. And consequently, when were dealing with the area of antisemitism which is obvious to any observer has grown in a profround way in recent days. I would suggest whether its from the hard right or the militant left, there are things that have come forward in recent days that are very disturbing and cry out for a response. And rabbi cooper comments related to the necessity to that theres some that just need help here. I embrace that. The great challenge for those of of us that deeply care about israel of course is the more deeply we care, the more desperate we are to get the policy right. I want to try to refer to the old medical term, first do no harm. The challenge before policy makers is to come up with the right policy. And so with that my first question would be to miss nossel. Traditionally our federal civil rights laws have not codified definitions or lists of discriminatory motivations. That is our federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on race, sex, for example. Without specifying exactly what a discriminatory motivation would be considered to be. Leaving that question to the courts and case by case determination of the unique factual situations in context by judges and jury. You see that we have struggled with this for sometime. If any particular definition of antisemitic motivation were codified in the u. S. Code, what kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration as constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to other protected classes . I hope the question came across clearly. What definitions might other protected classes invoke let me say it one more time. If a particular definition of antisemitic motivation were codified in the u. S. Code, what kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration as constituting a potential civil right violation. In relation to other protected classes . Its a good question. I think its hard to say. I certainly think this will give rise to efforts by other groups to think about defining discrimination against them as broadly as possible so that manifestation of that discrimination are not ignored. One example that i have worked on is with respect to muslims around the world. And effort they made to try to secure an International Legal ban on the so called defamation of religion. ,which related to cartoons depicting the prophet mohammed, which they regard as a particular hurtful offense. When those cartoons were published, they went to the u. N. And sought an International Treaty banning socalled defamation of religion, which they view as virulent antimuslim sentiment. They were concerned the rest of the world debate see it that way. Thats one area. Its offensive. Its not universally recognized as it being offensive. I think thats one manifestation. And ken brought up others. What about the palestinian americans and calling into question the validity of a palestinian state. As against them. Would they seek to define that and that could be construed as calling into question the validity of students on a campus. Might that be defined as a form of discrimination. So i think its hard to know where it would end. Opening it up does give rise to serious concerns. Thank you. Sometimes one of the challenges here is when there is a complete lack of common decency st. Petersburg when it comes to these situations, its hard to know how to respond to those best legislatively. Mr. Stern ill direct my final question to you. I understand, according to your testimony, you wrote the guidelines for the state department, essentially you were the lead writer on it. I worked very closely with my colleague who did the politicking and negotiating. I was the lead drafter and probably wrote 75 to 80 . And got the other experts negotiated which part to put in. Given that, given that, do you think that that guideline should be something we should consider to codify and statute. Im asking a pretty hard question here. But do you think that Something Like that would be appropriate in statute given the discussion today . For a campus, absolutely not. That was not the purpose it was designed for. I encourage the state department to use it in its reports and bilateral relations. I work with rabbi baker on a hate crime training program. A campus is a different venue. Its about ideas and given giving students and faculty the opportunity to think outside the box, to be wrong, and not to measure what theyre saying against some definition thats constitutionally enshrined. Particularly for this venue it would be an atrocity. Thank you all. Can i comment . Ill have to go to the next guy. I want to thank you and god bless israel. I recognize you, sir, for five minutes. Thank you to all the witnesses for this really thoughtful discussion. I think its important to say at the out set, that it is my view that this spike in antisemitism should be of grave concern to all of us. We should determine the best and most effective way to respond to it to eliminate in this country and around the world. I think it is important to consider the context of this. And that is that we have an administration that i think in many ways has stoked this environment by refusing to speak out against antisemitism, White Supremacy and xenophobia. Trump unapologetically came to the defense of white nationalists in charlottesville. Who chanted antisemitic slogans. From steve bannon made a career out of racist and antiimmigrant ideas. Seb good morning Sebastian Gorka had ties to a group. Through which the u. S. Encouraging foreign governments to protect jewish communities around the world. So i think we would be ignoring this sort of elephant in the room to not understand the context of this spike and the gravity of it. I also find it kind of ironic in a lot of ways where in our tradition, it is by the way a free and unhindered exchange of ideas that humanity seeks truth. You only need to go to the talm talmed. So i guess my simple question is, i think rabbi cooper said you dont belong here theres something that says you dont belong here because you are a jew, that seems like sort of an obvious antisemitic declaration. I think everyone would agree policies of israel and disagreement is not antisemitic. So if we could have a definition which attempted to at least identify antisemitic activity. In the way rabbi cooper described it. But protected the legitimate policy criticism. Is that something we can do successfully . I recognize that it would open the same kind of discussion with other categories. Assuming we were prepared to accept the risk, the notion where all due respect, the fact we just consulted. It makes. We ought to get the definition right if were going to direct people tolls su consult it. Am i oversimplifying this . Could we craft a declaration that attempts to identify antisemitism free from criticism or disagreement on policy. Or is that impossible to achieve . Ill start with you. I think its impossible task. If we asked all nine of us for the definition of antisemitism we would have nine variances on a theme certainly. I think we could all agree the core of antisemitism is hating jews for being jewish. If you go much beyond that youll enter into contested territory. Contested territory within the Jewish Community itself, among scholars of antisemitism. Were going to enter that territory. So if you want to have the most narrow definition,i think its a baseline. Once you go beyond that,well enter into contested waters. And the fact its contested means we should allow people who study this issue to have the opportunity to have all the debates and conversations they need. In order to keep flushing this out. Turning it over and turning it over again to discover the truths and everything we can identify within it. I would submit, mr. Congressman, it is not impossible, that my professionals do it every day. And to clarify, the adl was involved in writing that definition that the state department uses and we think it works. Ultimately, who are the arbiters of this . Let me introduce you to the families whose children have been bullied. Let me introduce you to the parents who children had their lockers defaced with swastikas. Let me introduce you to the families themselves who have been harassed because of their religious garb out of a synagogue. You can have them whether indeed there are nine different definitions or theres one. If you look at the definition, that our Public Servants use every day, mr. Congressman, it doesnt say criticism israel is antisemitism. Thats not what it says. Period. I was going say the examples that mr. Greenblatt gives are okay. You dont need a definition to get there. What you need in the situations is a clear understanding that jews are selected to be victims of harassment because they are jewish. It doesnt matter whether that person is thinking this definition or that definition, or just wants to do it because they think its fun. If a jewish person in a campus is being harassed because they are selected because they are jewish,this is sufficient. And you dont need to open up a can of worms. Could that be the definition . In the case that i brought in the vessel district nobody talked about a definition. Clear these kids were picked upon because they were jewish. I would add that we again we talk about pro zionist, pro israel students, i have seen examples that break my heart on campus, too, where a kid is trying to figure out where they think about israel and should it exist and whats happening with the palestinians and being called traitors and some wearing yamakas being called traitors and saying take that thing off, that offends me just as much. Thank you. I yield back. I am left wondering how being the first president to stand in front of the western wall and pray projects antisemitic sentiment. Would you like me to answer that . No. Call on mr. Gomer. I can help you out. Any time a conservative jewish person cares to speak on a College Campus, they stand a much greater chance of being banned or being labeled as a hater. But the haters. And its just amazes me that my friend she believes what the bible indicates was the promise land to the children of israel. And because that, she cancelled at university of texas. My home state. It wasnt because she was jewish, it was because shes a conservative jewish person. Say george soros came and do as he often does and beat up on israel. Were talking about particularly conservative jewish people. Now. When it comes to school children, when it comes to people that get swastikas put on their lockers and things like that, or vile things said about them, that seems to be just because they are jewish. I have to tell you, i majored in history in college, i never dreamed we would get back to the level of antisemitism that were seeing in europe today. In germany today. And i brought up to some german ministers back in august when some of us were visiting over there, how ironic it seemed to me to be that you had germany that wanted today show and im speaking to ministers of the country, so im being respectful, how germany since world war ii, since the holocaust, has gone out of their way to show how open and loving they are to all peoples, so they bend over backwards to bring in what they think are muslim refugees. Some of which who are not. Theyre there to bring down europe as the battle of vienna prevented previously. So youre bringing in people who are raised to hate israelis, to hate jewish people. And by virtue of your act to show how loving and open you are, youre bringing in people that make you appear to be antisemitic again. And of course that raised some hackles and got some people upset. Its certainly the way it appears. There are College Campuses that are going out of their way to try to appear so embracive of islam that they become antisemitic. My friends condemn friends, i mean true friends, bannon and gorka they were called, these guys are not antisemitic and they are not antimuslim, but they certainly recognize that there is a portion of muslims who believe the United States in the western civilization must be brought down. And theres nothing wrong with saying that and believing that, and nobody should have rules pulled out to prevent them from speaking for saying that. For heavens sake, Brandeis University withdraws their offer of a doctor ate, an atheist, as i understand it, but a courageous person. What happened to brandeis . Did they forget why they were founded . I know harvard and yale forgot how they were founded. They dont want conservative christians or conservative jews coming in and speaking, but they will welcome anybody that will come in and bash israel. So i welcome all the comments i have been hearing from people across the aisle condemning antisemitism. But i would hope my friends will be just as upset when its a conservative jew. And as far as the boycott that seems to be growing across the world and particularly in europe of anything made in israel, its another effort to slam israel. But i have stood there at the tomb of king davids father. In hebron where sarah and isaac and jacob are buried right there. Im supposed to say thats absolutely not israel territory . And we should ban anything coming from that area . That is ridiculous. With need to be more realistic in our assessment of what truly is antisemitism. It applies when its a conservative jew. Thank you. I yield back. I see my time is up. I thank the gentleman. Ty recognize mr. Raskin for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The very first thing i did as a newly elected member of the house of representatives was organize a tour of the freshman class, democrats and republicans both, to the holocaust museum. We spent two hours there. I believe strongly that the touchstone of our politics has to be an opposition to antisemitism and racism and other hatreds that made the last century such a nightmare for so many people. Im a professor of constitutional law. Im very sensitive to the free speech concerns that have been raised by many of the Witnesses Today. I want to try to look for Common Ground coming out of the panel. I want to start with this. Title six prohibits discrimination based on race, color and National Origin. Not only religion. Does everyone on the panel agree that religion generally should be covered under title 6 . Forgive i have so few minutes and so many of you. If you dont mind going down the aisle, does everybody agree religion should be covered . Yes, no or no comment will suffice. Starting with rabbi baker, if you would. My focus is europe and not here. I think that you open an entirely new avenue of debate when you say it should cover religion. Yeah. Okay. I was hoping for yes or no. I have so little time. Yes. Yeah. Im not sure it would address the issues were here on today. It would expand properly so. It would be a whole another discussion to come back at another time. Okay. Actually agree with the rabbi cooper here. This has opened up a larger set of issues that we need to address. Not a simple yes or no. I would agree its complicated. You have the free exercise clause and religious freedom restoration act. There is a lot of things that make it complicated. Okay. Likewise, its outside the scope of our organization and its mission. Its complicated. I think its complicated as well but religion should certainly be protected. I think religion should be protected but in ways that are careful to be compliant with other constitutional and legal provisions. I would agree with that. Its particularly about harassment with religion. It seems like theres a category of speech thats heavily contested here. Which is relating to the Israel Government or state in terms of antisemitic content. Would everybody agree that for example what took place in charlottesville is antisemitic . Does anybody believe that for example Richard Spencer who is on a nationwide speaking tour, does everybody agree that he does have a First Amendment right to appear at least on public campus sns . Does anybody think he does not enjoy the First Amendment right to speak on Public University campus . Everybody seems to agree he does. Okay. Mr. Congressman, unless he incites violence against people. In terms of his content of speech, he should not be banned for that reason. So i want to go to the question that has tormented the country for a while now about statues of confederate soldiers, robert e. Lee and Jefferson Davis and so on. I have no doubt that the vast majority, or i would dare say all racists support continuing keeping those there. But a will the of people who support keeping those statues up are not racist, right . Would it not be a problem to use as indicia of racism whether or not someone supports having the statues present there . I would agree with that. My view is not germane to this exactly. If you remove all the statues people dont see the history. I would rather put them in context and let them be used as a way to explain why they were put up in the first place to support segregation and so forth. That wouldnt be a hateful view. Okay. Let me come to this now. So my Dear Colleague read the operative definition that he had. I might even broaden it a little bit to say antisemitism is racial hostility against jews. It seems like whats getting of everybody into this searing controversy is the illustration examples that were offered in the state policy. Does anybody know of a antidiscrimination passed by congress that includes illustration or example . To my knowledge theres not one. Does anybody think the illustrations or examples are necessary to the definition . Can you explain . The whole idea of the examples was to show how it plays out in a practical way. So people who have a responsibility to address the problem will understand it. Right. Let me just cut you off for a second because i have so few seconds left. When we wrote the title seven statute. And talk about race discrimination or sex discrimination. We leave it broad and let the courts work it out, whether or not theres a discriminatory animus or motive. Im thinking in terms of trying to keep civilization together here and keep our unity together, why would we get into a series of controverted examples that are going to divide people as opposed to stating what the principles are and allowing those to be work outdoor. Let me come to dr. Trachtenberg. Because in 2004, in the global antisemitism review act Congress Said that antisemitism has at times, i quote, taken the form ofvillification of zionism. The gentlemans time has expired. Dr. Trachtenberg, can you answer. Examples in particular are, the examples are particularly problematic. Against the idea of having a definition which is going to box us in in terms of what antisemitism is is really at the root of our discussion here. Thank you very much. I yield back, mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, gentlemen. Now the gentleman from texas. Mr. Radcliffe. Recognized for five minutes. I appreciate all the witnesses being here. Your nations College Campuses are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas where students from all kinds of different backgrounds can learn new perspectives based on everything i have heard, sure seems like a lot of our College Campuses have become bastions are selfproclaimed Political Correctness. That, in turn, has led to the outright harassment of some students based on their beliefs. I think thats readily apparent in the treatment of jewish students acrokrocross the count. I refer to the report i think it was in mr. Clement, your testimony, about just this year 1299 antisemitic incidents from january to september. I think, again, its troubling that Political Correctness seems to have allowed antisemitism to flourish. But again, i appreciate the thoughtful discussion here from all the witnesses. And as we try to get back to have having our institutions of Higher Education be that marketplace for ideas while also stemming the rising tide of antisemitism. I appreciate all of your perspectives today. Mr. Clement, i know one of the things that you focused on in this antisemitism awareness act, and i read your anticipated perspective today. Let me i know one thing you focus on in this antisemitism awareness act and i read your anticipated responses to the First Amendment concerns and regulations of speech. Is it over simplification saying that having a definition as proposed within the act is trying to find the line between speech that is antizionist versus speech thats antisemitic . I think thats what the definition is trying to get at. I think it is theres a particular concern in the context of antisemitism that im not sure present in some of the other discrimination prohibited by title six which is you have the ability for people to essentially cloak it. And say its not antisemitic its antizionist chlts i think the definition is trying to get at that. The other thing and i know a couple of questions have sort of kind of gotten to the question of do we really need a definition here . And what i would say is, in the abstract it might be fine to have antisemitism defined on a casebycase basis over time. To have a case by case definition, you need cases. And one of the things i think everybody is seeing here is that its not there arent antisemitic incidents on campus, and yet there are no enforcement actions. And so i dont think we have sort of the luxury of just letting the Education Department sort of develop the definition over the course of a number of enforcement actions. I think in a sense we need to jumpstart the process. And i think the definition is designed in part to do that, and in part to guide the discretion of the Education Department officials. I think i agree with you. There needs to be a specific point where we can point and have a determination of where criticisms of israel cross over into antisemitism. And i go back to the report thats referenced in your testimony about the 1299 incidents, and i also go to rabbi coopers written testimony that the department of educations office of civil rights has never found a civil rights violation in any claim filed on behalf of jewish students. So put on your solicitor generals hat. If you were making this argument to a court is the fact that you have all these reported incidents yet no violations found would seem like that is a violation of equal protection under the law for jewish students based on that type of evidence. I think it would be a difficult thing for any slitter general to try to explain. Its the kind of thing that would give rise to an inference that something other than just looking for the exact right case and prosecutorial discretion is going on. Rabbi, i want to let you weigh in on that as well. Congressman, let me make two points very quickly. This definition had an evolution starting with osce, 56 out of 57 countries, of course, minus russia eventually agreeing on, the evolution down to our discussion this morning. Its probably the best definition that were going to get. Its the most relevant one. To really summarize and im pleased both mr. Franks and the chairman is here. You have the wall to wall leadership of the American Jewish community here. We came i would say hat in hand. We have a problem we need your help. And i think what we would respectfully ask for is after the appropriate deliberations, that with all of congressman raskin, former professor, all of these important questions that have been raised, we need to move the ball forward. We hope youll send this to the floor of the house for further deliberation. I have no doubt that if its passed, there will be many challenges, just by virtue of the testimony you heard today. But you have the entire jewish leadership of the American Jewish Community Coming together united. Something that apparently nothing less than this Great Committee has been able to achieve. And we really hope that after the appropriate deliberation, it will be moved forward for a debate on the floor. My time expired. I will tell you i agree with the sentiment. If i was sitting on the top row, i might have more influence making that happen. Appreciate you being here. Recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. Thank you for calling this important hearing. I thank the Witnesses Today for sharing your perspective. I want to take a prerogative and welcome in the gallery lisa sugar, who represents Jewish Federation of chicago where i represent. As i have listened to the testimony today, the questions, i cant help but listen as a jew. As the parent of jewish College Students, i represent a state in which at least six of the universities have recently experienced antisemitic incidents. I am personally gravely concerned about the recent significant rise in antisemitism on campuses and communities and, in fact, around the world. Mr. Greenblatt, you said we must count each and every one of these incidents and leave none of them to go unanswered. What were seeing is i fear an increaseingly organized concerted and well funded effort to create a hostile environment for jewish students to publicly express their judaism as well as support for the jewish state. It doesnt take a lot of events or a lot of incidents to make it difficult for jews to feel comfortable in the academic environment where they are, as i think we have all agreed, seeking the opportunity as every student should have to explore new ideas, to find their voice and reach their own conclusion. Thats what the university is for. I do worry about this difference. Maybe ill start with you, mr. Greenblatt. Is there a difference between free speech and a concerted effort to create a hostile environment . As a former resident of the chicagoland area, its nice to see you here today. It is safe to say there are challenges again as i stated in my oral testimony from both what the congressman franks called the hard right, and sort of elements of the militant left. We have it on neither side of the ideological spectrum is exempt from intolerance. Whether they are organized campaigns or spontaneous actions, we need to be clear about the fact that again title 6 doesnt explicitly protect these jewish students. And considering the number of cases we are dealing with on campus, the stat is correct. Investigations led by the office of civil rights, department of education, cases of anticommitment, zero. The number is zero. Having a definition is easier for whoever is administering the office to do their job. And ensure jewish students have the same protect other students have. It doesnt preclude political speech. It doesnt limit freedom of expression. It ensures a definition that we also worked on is utilized by policymakers and campus administrators. I just want to share a short anecdote. I was doing training on antisemitism. We started at 7 00, we were still talking at 11 00. They said this is the first time they felt open speaking about israel. Thats interesting. Is this the only issue you have trouble speaking about openly . No. Your friends at other campuses have a problem, too . Yes. Ofbody is worried about stepping into a land mine in the context today. What i worry about this legislation is it feeds into that rather than breaks it down. The answers are not with legislation thats going to create an additional sense of these are folks here and those are folks there, but initiatives that campuses are lack on to how do we have these difficult discussions. There are very few classes on antisemitism. I think if you have mosh classes on antisemitism, students are going to understand the issues that combine us and divide us here today. Much more deeply and will affect the campus environment. Those need to be done. Not this type of legislation. I appreciate that. I agree we need more classes. On antisemitism. That would be a beneficial step forward. That doesnt change the fact that there are efforts on these campuses to make these jewish students feel profoundly uncomfortable, unwelcome. As you said, putting out a sign whoever you are saying you are not welcome here. I have been to campuses where the signs say hate is not welcome here. I think thats a much better sign. The question is how do you help administrators mr. Greenblatt said that in his testimony. How do you help them cultivating that environment in which you have the capacity for students to be wrong to say what they think but others identify whats hateful and teach about it. There should be no question that israel and palestine, as contentious as it is, should be an ideal subject for getting students to think about how do you deal with competing narratives and competing histories. How do you look at identity and equities and so forth, rather than feed them into something said about israel thats antizionist and antisemitism. It shouldnt matter. It should be the beginning of the questions, not the end of it. Very quickly. Classes alone and dialogue as welcome as they are, will not protect your kids. On campus. When there is an incident and we have now heard over the last few hours there are many, we need the help of our government to ensure that jewish students are afforded the same protection as everyone else on campus. Will the gentleman yield for a second . I would yield. I want to make clear for the record, that a mistake in statement was made a few moments ago. Not every Group Supports this bill. I have a lady opposing it. And there are groups that do not support the group and groups that are. I want to clear that up for the record. I wish i had more time. I yield back. Gentleman from colorado, mr. Buck, for five minutes. Thank you. Dr. Trachtenberg, a quick question. In 2013 did you sign a petition to boycott a conference at the Hebrew University . Yes. And did you also vote for modern association to boycott israel . Im not a member of the association. Did you vote for a boycott . I wouldnt have had the capacity. Im not a member. Thats a no. No. And mr. Clement, i want to respectfully point out something my colleague, mr. Raskin said. He said that all racists are in favor of keeping the civil war monuments, to parafundraiphrasa. No such thing as a black racist that may want to take down the monuments. When we look at the issue we look at it through our own lens. Through our own bias. Thats what were struggling with here. How do we respect the constitution, samt deal what deeply troubling issue on College Campuses, and that is the issue of antisemitism and bigotry and hatred. My understanding is that there is a Supreme Court case in 1999 that gave us a definition. The davis case. I just want to quote that and ask you a question. It found that peer on peer harassment in the educational context is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive and so undermines and did he tracts from the victims educational experience that the victim students are effectively denied equal access to an institutions resources and opportunities. If that is the Supreme Court definition, why dont we use that in this bill and instruct the department of education to proceed in that way . Well, so representative buck, i think its a very fair question. I think that what i would say is that right now i assume that administering slightly different context, title 6 versus title 9. I would assume that that is, in fact, the standard that the Education Department is using right now in administering title 6. It sound like it isnt using any standard. Because it hasnt done any work in the area. A needed area. Theres two issues to keep separate. What is the level of conduct that rises to the level of harassment . And the second question is if there is harassment, then title six still doesnt prohibit it if its not on the basis of race, National Origin and the like. And so what were really struggling with in this particular context is to try to get a definition of antisemitism. That will work for the motive part of the inquiry. I dont think this bill is designed to really move the needle on what level of harassment is necessary to sort of bring a title vi action. I think as i have tried to suggest that that question probably has much more to do with the First Amendment than the question of how we define antisemitism. I would say from a First Amendment perspective, we are much better off having government officials with a definition than without a definition. Just to refer to just for a second the statistics we have heard a lot about. Zero cases currently being brought. Now, in the event that the reason zero cases have been brought is because not one of the cases that they investigated rose to the level of harassment under the davis case, then that would be an acceptable result from a First Amendment standpoint. That would be the reason these cases arent being brought is they dont rise to the level of harassment. I strongly doubt thats whats going on. If the question is if some subset of these hundreds of cases rose to the level of harassment and they werent being brought because of some confusion about what conchs tuts antisemitism, that is the problem im going to interrupt you just for a second because i want to get mr. Greenblatts view on that. Which is it . He just gave you two options . I cant say definitively because im not familiar with every case. Sure you can. I dont know all the cases they are looking at. But i can say, indeed, it would be reasonable to look at those cases and determine whether or not the lack of a definition prevented the office from doing their job effectively with respect to these specific incidents where jewish students were affected. My time is up and i yield back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia, mr. Collins, for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I think this has been an issue in discussion putting nine people on a panel and all going out at it, its like throwing a ball and having a scrum and seeing who wins at the end of the day. It is good to discuss this. One thing antisemitism and other forms of discrimination are abhorrent everywhere, doesnt matter where they are located. This is an issue particularly troubling when bigoted harassment prevent students from basically accessing education. Looks like im the last one here. Going back to one of the arguments ive heard about against this in many ways is a First Amendment issue. This is a First Amendment issue. I wanted for there clement, youve been in front of the Supreme Court more than any of us here. Also, by the way, my legislative director who took constitutional law for undergrads she says hello but shes also glad shes not here. She didnt want to be tested on this. We appreciate that. Mr. Clement, youve argued these cases and i think you might need to discuss this. I want to discuss from this level. Title iv prohibits discriminatory conduct not speech, correct . Title vi thats right. Its directed at harassment as we were discussing. What role does the evidence of discriminatory speech play in analyzing allegations of violation of the civil rights act. Thats where wisconsin versus Mitchell Case makes it quite clear that evidence, including speech, can be used for an evidentiary purpose. So even though i think in wisconsin against mitchell you had nine Supreme Court justices that are very protective of the First Amendment, they unanimously held you can use speech in that kind of evidentiary way. To show the intent were talking about here . Exactly. Continue on in this process. Consideration of potential violations of title vi from discriminatory mot vaulted harassment, how does one discriminate against protected speech and nonprotected conduct . I think thats where its really the harassment test that has to do the work. Because the Supreme Court has basically said that, you know, we can that theres a different level of protection for conduct as opposed to speech. When you have conduct that rises to the level of harassment, i think its Common Ground that its perfectly permissible to say we are going to prohibit harassment if its motivated by race, National Origin, or antisemitism and its just a matter of trying to figure out whether thats, in fact, what motivated the harasser. In that inquiry, you can take into account speech, doesnt raise First Amendment problem by virtue of unanimous Supreme Court and just seems in figuring out whether the speech, the conduct, sometimes it could be a combination of both, you know, if somebody spray paints a swastika on somebodys dorm room, thats probably more conduct than speech but all of that can be used in order to make a determination whether the harassing conduct was antisemitic and therefore violates title vi. Many times looking at this, theres a concern in many circles, in crossing over this area, hate crimes and other things, are you criminalizing the thought, are you criminalizing that thought. Im not sure if a definition in the sense that were talking about here with this act actually goes that far. What youre saying with this definition impinge on this First Amendment rights or some of the list of horribles that and i think maybe one way to think about the difference is this would be a very different situation if this was a proposal to, say that the following antisemitic speech will be prohibited and heres the definition. But thats not what this law does. It takes an existing framework that only reaches conduct that rises to the level of harassment based on a certain level of motivation and uses this as a way of figuring out what motivation counts. Since were not seeing this brought forward. Although were seeing it in the world very evidently were not seeing it in these cases. And i think what youre seeing here is there are no cases that are allowing us to develop a definition through the judicial process, so it makes sense why congress would want to step in here even if it wouldnt necessarily feel like it needed to step in in some other contexts. I have one last question. It was brought up earlier concerning your testimony concerning this. What was put into this. The antisemitism awareness act includes a savings clause. And hypothetically without the savings clause in your opinion would this violate the First Amendment and if so why . I think this would be perfectly constitutional without the savings clause for the two principal reasons that ive given. One is that it essentially is not a direct regulation speech but only essentially an evidentiary test for the motivation for harassment and second because the definition actually serves First Amendment values. I just think the savings clause to the extent that somebody with any statute someone may come in and say even though its not constitutional on its face maybe it will be applied in the wrong way and i think the savings clause gives some additional sort of comfort that thats not the way that the statute would be applied. I thank the panel today and all nine opinions have served well. To know you can apply it pretty much any way from any angle that you want. But i think its been a good discussion. I agree with my friend from texas just a few minutes ago, this is something i think we can move forward on without infringing on the First Amendment rights, which was the overall issue, and bring some clarity that may be lacking today. But that is the reason we move forward. It is not simply because we have questions that we should not move forward. It is the very fact that we have questions that i believe should move this forward. With that mr. Chairman i yield back. I want to thank all the witnesses. This has been an excellent hearing. I think we have helped to shed a lot of light on a very important issue. I am deeply concerned about what is happening to jewish students on College Campuses. And i think that we need to Work Together to find the right approach to make sure that the forces are brought to bear including the u. S. Department of education to solve this problem, and im sure this dialogue will continue. But all of you have made a great contribution today and i think youve helped to educate the members of the committee. This concludes todays hearing, and i again thank all of you for your participation. And without objection all members will have five ledge legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. And with that this hearing is adjourned. [ room noise ] [ room noise ] President Trump announced hes nominating alex azar for health and Human Services secretary to replace tom price. He was former hhs secretary under george bush and was head of the Pharmaceutical Company lily until january. Hes now a consultant. Watch cspan this week as Congress Debates tax reform. The finance committee begins a review of the bill tomorrow. The house debates its bill on thursday. Live coverage on cspan. Get details about both bills after the cspan. Org congress. Now tsa administrator testifies before the han