Jewish students from antisemitic harassment on College Campuses. Good morning. The District Committee will come to order. Wouldnt we welcome everyone to the hearing on examining antisemitism on College Campuses. Before i give my opening statement, and before mr. Connors gives his, im going to yield to him to say a word about the tragedy that occurred in texas over the weekend. Good morning. I thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome all nine witnesses. The distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. Simpson. Let me just say briefly, that before discussing the important topic of todays hearing, i want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency. On sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 churchgoers sutherland springs, texas. We now know that information concerning his courtmartial for Domestic Abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the National Instant criminal background check system. He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the brady background check system. Yesterday, before this information came to light, i wrote to you, mr. Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our members tomorrow afternoon by atf on the issue of bump stocks be expanded to include the fbi to discuss the background check issues related to sutherland springs. And that the briefing be conducted as a formal hearing open to the public. Now that we have even more information that theres been a breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, i ask respectfully that we include relevant officials from the department of defense and the air force. And i believe as i think you do too, that we should proceed quickly to learn what happened and the public deserves to hear answers directly. Therefore, sir, i renew my request and expand it concerning tomorrows briefing. And i thank you for this opportunity. I hope the gentleman will yield. With pleasure. I thank you for your comments and i share his concern about having an effective nics system. And that data about the Domestic Violence go into that system, including data that may be developed as part of our military tribunal system. Therefore, we will look into a briefing on that subject. Whether it can be accommodated quickly enough to be done tomorrow or not, well have to see. But my plan is to proceed with the briefing by the atf. If we cant incorporate the other into that briefing, we will do it another time and certainly take under advisement your request there be a public hearing. I think its important we get as much information to be informed as possible. Thats where we stand right now. I thank you for that. I thank the gentleman from michigan for yielding. I was the one who was insistent in putting the instant check system in the brady bill, passed and signed by president clinton in 1993. And at the time the legislation was drafted, i made the point that the National Instant check system would only be as good as the data that was put into it. And it took about five years to appropriately automate and input records, not only for felony convictions, mental incompetency adjudications, as well as Domestic Violence legal action, and we found that one state kept all of these records a s in boxn 3 x 5 cards located in every county courthouse. That took a while to automate that. So i dont think we can blame the law for the failure of these transaction of the shooter to be identified and sale being denied. I dont think we can blame the system, which we set up almost 25 years ago, because the system has worked in hundreds of you tos of cases. I think we have to blame the air force for not doing what was necessary to let the system be able to identify this gentleman when he came and purchased the firearm, that he ended up using a truly horrific killing, as people were in church trying to express their freedom of religion and worship god by their own consciousness. So we have to identify why this failure was. And its not just the air force. It could be any clerk of court anywhere in the country that could have done that. And i think this has got to be a lesson that when youve got something that is disqualifying that has been adjudicated by a court, get it into the system and get it into the system right away. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank you. I want to return to focus on the important matter thats before us today, but we will proceed with the briefing tomorrow. And we will add Additional Information or a separate briefing depending on what time allows. Thank you. I now recognize myself for the purposes of an opening statement. Racism and antisemitism are abhornet whenever they clear. While our civil rights laws have long addressed discrimination based on race, sex, ande et ethnicity, a debate is ongoing there is widespread bipartisan condemnation of antisemitism, which is abhornrentabhorrent. Im also concerned about the socalled bds movement, an effort that, through boycott, divestment and sanctions, seeks to End International support for israel. It took just 11 minutes for the United States to recognize israel after it declared independence in 1948. Ever since then, the United States and israel have had a strong relationship based on shared Democratic Values and Common Security interests. I will do everything i can to ensure that relationship remains strong. There are those who disagree in various ways, of course, including student, faculty and administrators on College Campuses. I will do everything i can to ensure their right to speak is protected under the First Amendment of the United States constitution, and free speech generally. Its in that spirit in welcoming all perspectives ive convened this hearing today. When do speakers or student protesters that are harshly critical of israel constitute antisemitism . What is the nature of antisemitism on College Campuses today . Has the department of education in the past or today adequately examined it on College Campuses . How does existing law address harassment based on anty semitism . And what precedence would they set, good or bad . Those are just some of the questions i like forward to discussing with todays witnesses. Its now my pleasure to recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from michigan, mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I welcome the witnesses. I wanted to mention that todays hearing on examining antisemitism on College Campuses is a part of a continuing discuss that our Judiciary Committee has had on the confluence on our twin interest. Protecting equality of opportunity and freedom of speech, and institutions of higher education. Our particular focus today is on antisemitism, one of the most ancient forms of prejudice that, unfortuna unfortunately, not only continues to exist, but in some places, has even seen resurgence in recent years. As we hear from our distinguished pam of witnesses, i would like for us to keep several points in context. To begin with, antisemitism on college and university campuses, like other forms of discrimination against students, remains a very real concern. According to the antidefamation league, as of september 30th, antisemitic incidents increased by 67 in 2017, compared to the same period last year. And there was a significant surge in these incidents after White Supremacists marched in charlottesville last august, which some of them shouted jews will not replace us. Additionally, the league reported a disturbingly high number of antisemitic, bullying, and vandalism incidents in k12 schools and College Campuses across the United States. In recent years, other reported incidents included the vandalism of Campus Property with swastikas and the passing out or posting of leaflets with white supremacist and antisemitic content on campuses. In light of the foregoing, i whole heartedly support the department of educations 2010 guidance interpreting title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, so as to protect jewish students and other religious students from discrimination. This guidance rightly clarified that while titles six, which prohibits discrimination on the base else of race, color, or National Origin in programs that receive federal funding, does not include religion as a protected characteristic. It does prohibit discrimination against members of religious minorities if it is based on an actual or perceived, shared ancestry or ethnicity. Although this guidance dates from the obama administration, the Trump Administration so far seems inclined not to change this interpretation. And i would encourage the Current Administration to continue to keep it in effect. Finally, while we must ensure a campus learning environment free from discrimination, we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate and even offensive political debate on controversial topics. The vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a fundamental hallmark of a democracy and academic freedom. Indeed, other than in the context of speech that amounts to objectively severe or pervasive harassment, and a few other limited circumstances, the remedy for bad speech is more speech. Equality and free speech are not and must not be pitted against each other as if they were opposing values. Both values are central to our democracy, and to ensuring a free society. In closing, i thank the chairman for holding this important hearing, and i look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Conyers. We welcome our distinguished witnesses. If you would all please rise, ill begin by swearing all of you in. [ oath given ] let the record show the witnesses answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. This a wonderfully distinguished panel. All of you have excellent professional and academic credentials. You might not be surprised to learn, im not going to give all of those details about you. So these introductions are on the brief side. Our first witness is rabbi andrew baker, director of International Jewish affairs. Our second witness is pamela nedal, director of Jewish Studies Program at american university. Our third witness is rabbi abraham cooper, associate dean and director of the Global Social action. Our fourth witness is barry tractenberg, the michael r. Of chair of jew wish history at wake forest. Our fifth witness is paul clement, a. Sandra hagee parker. Our seventh witness is jonathan greenblatt, National Director of the antidefamation league. Our eighth witness is suzanne nossell, executive director of pen america. And our ninth witness is ken stern, the executive director of the justice and Karen Rosenberg foundation. Welcome to all of you. Your written statements will be entered into the record. And we ask that you summarize your testimony in five minutes to help you stay within that time, theres a timing light on your table. When the light turns red, time is up. And it signals your five minutes have expired. Rabbi baker, you can begin. Thank you, mr. Chairman, Ranking Member conyers. In my work at ajc and the osce, i have focused on europe and the problem of antisemitism there. While the number of incidents and their severity are much greater than here in america, there are important parallels that have bearing on addressing antisemitism in this country, in particular with the situation on our College Campuses. This has much to do with the essential first step of understanding the nature of antisemitism, and the importance of defining it. 15 years ago, we saw a surge in incidents. We also saw a new form of antisemitism, whereby the state of israel was demonized, where its basic existence was being challenged. This affected the lives of European Jews themselves. They were conflated with israel, and subjected to attacks as a result. Merely given voice to their own pro israel views could subject them to social intimidation and personal harassment. In 2004, the European Monitoring Center conducted its own survey on antisemitism, collecting and evaluating data and conducting personal interviews with jewish leaders. At the time, few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone specify those submitted. A majority of the own monitors did not have a definition of antisemitism to guide them. The personal interviews in the study reveal the level of anxiety and uncertainty that had not been seen in decades. They acknowledged the need for to help governments in understanding and responding to the problem and to make sense of the predictions of the jewish leaders survey. In the fall of 2004, the eumc director invited me to present her with a definition of antisemitism. We began with the contributions of academic experts in the field. They were shared with other scholars and practitioners around the world, until a final draft document achieved consensus. So in march 2005, it issued what has come to be known as a working definition of antisemitism. A core paragraph with examples. Let us also be clear, the purpose of this definition and of the eumc itself was not just to assist monitors in filing reports, but to make a difference in the daytoday safety and security of jews and of all europeans. To increase understanding to raise awareness, yes, to be used by Civil Society and government monitors, but also by law enforcement, by justice officials, and educators. References to antisemitism with regard to the state of israel were both the most important and the most controversial in this definition. Antiisrael animus was behind many of the attacks on jewish targets, even as government authorities dismissed them as political acts. The extreme verbal attacks had their own corrosive impact on Jewish Community security. The examples were designed to bring charity to this new form of antisemitism. For those who feared it could inhib it critical debate, the definition stated one should take into account the overall context, and also that criticism of israel, similar to that level against other countries, cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Over a decade has passed since this definition was issued, and we can see why using it has become valuable. Then administrati demonstrations in europe started as antiisrael and become antisemitic. So the definition is part of Police Training in the uk and included in a newly published guideline on Jewish Community security. In a synagogue in germany, it was determined not to be antisemitic because of the religious affiliation of the attacker. In austria, a call to kill jews was deemed not antisemitic for the same reason. Thus, the austrian and german ministers of justice include the definition in Training Police and prosecutors and judges. In may 2016, i adopted the definition. Its since been adopted by the governments of the uk, germany, bulgaria. Earlier it was recommended for use by the European Parliament and the osce parliamentary assembly. The u. S. Government has its own record of use. The global antisemitism review act of 2004 called on the state department to appoint a special envoy and stated that antisemitism has, at times, taken the form of vilify case of zionism, the Jewish National movement. And incitement against israel. It called on state to report on acts of antisemitism around the world. And that report and subsequent one, the working definition was employed. Im an advocate for using it, if were to be successful and combatting antisemitism, we must first understand it, and define it. Some said it would be used to stifle criticism of israel. But theres ample evidence in europe that public criticism of israel is even more vocal than a decade ago. But theres also a recognition of the very real problem of antisemitism as it relates to israel and the dangers it poses to the Jewish Community. This ought to be instructive when addressing antisemitism as it appears on College Campuses. Finally, in the osce, im often joined by colleagues. Some people said adopting a definition of antisemitism would lead to demands of other definitions. But that has not happened. Those problems are no less serious than antisemitism, and the need for governments to address them is every bit as critical. Rabbi baker, your time has expir expired. If you could sum up. My last sentence, even though representatives of vulnerable groups are not saying they need a definition, unlike antisemitism, those other forms of prejudice are easy to recognize. Its sadder still that they are so prevalent. Dr. Nedal, am i pronouncing that correctly . Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member and distinguished members of this committee for inviting me today. As a scholar of American Jewish history, and also its president of the association for jewish studies for scholars in my field, i know our countrys encounters with antisemitism began in 1654 when 23 jews landed in New Amsterdam and the governor tried to expel what he called this deceitful race of hateful enemies and blasphemers. If he succeeded, p