[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                      CALLING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY:
                   STOPPING ANTISEMITIC COLLEGE CHAOS

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               Before The

                     COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE
                               WORKFORCE
                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________


              HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MAY 23, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-52
                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and the Workforce
  
  
  
  
  
  
                [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]






        Available via: edworkforce.house.gov or www.govinfo.gov
        
        




                                ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 

57-137 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2024


























        
                COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

JOE WILSON, South Carolina           ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT, Virginia, 
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania           Ranking Member  
TIM WALBERG, Michigan                RAUL M. GRIJALVA, Arizona  
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York          GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia                 Northern Mariana Islands
JIM BANKS, Indiana                   FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania          MARK TAKANO, California
BURGESS OWENS, Utah                  ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
BOB GOOD, Virginia                   MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LISA McCLAIN, Michigan               DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey
MARY MILLER, Illinois                PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
MICHELLE STEEL, California           SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
RON ESTES, Kansas                    LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana              JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
KEVIN KILEY, California              ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
AARON BEAN, Florida                  HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              TERESA LEGER FERNANDEZ, New Mexico
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               KATHY MANNING, North Carolina
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon          FRANK J. MRVAN, Indiana
BRANDON WILLIAMS, New York           JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana                

                       Cyrus Artz, Staff Director
              Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director
              
                                ------
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                
                                                    
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on May 23, 2024.....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, Chairwoman, Committee on Education and 
      the Workforce..............................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     4
    Scott, Hon. Robert C. ``Bobby'', Ranking Member, Committee on 
      Education and the Workforce................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     8

                               WITNESSES

    Schill, Michael, President, Northwestern University..........    13
        Prepared statement of....................................    16
    Holloway, Dr. Jonathan, President, Rutgers University........    23
        Prepared statement of....................................    26
    Lawrence, Frederick M., Secretary and CEO, Phi Beta Kappa 
      Society....................................................    32
        Prepared statement of....................................    34
    Block, Dr. Gene David, Chancellor, University of California 
      (UCLA).....................................................    36
        Prepared statement of....................................    38

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Chairwoman Foxx:
        Statement dated May 23, 2024, from Thomas Kean, Jr.......   266
    Ranking Member Scott:
        Letter dated May 22, 2024, from John Farmer..............   143
        Signed letter from over 500 law school professors........   146
        Article dated May 2, 2024, from The Daily Northwestern...   212
        Article dated May 15, 2024, from the Chicago Sun-Times...   232
        Letter dated May 22, 2024, from the American Association 
          of University Professors (AAUP)........................   234
        Article dated April 30, 2024, from the Los Angelos Times.   237
        Joint Union Statement....................................   253
        Letter dated May 17, 2024, from the National Coalition 
          Against Censorship.....................................   255
        Facts about Martin Luther King, Jr., dated January 15, 
          2024, from studentlife@boisestate.edu..................   258
        Letter dated May 22, 2024, from U.S. civil society 
          organizations..........................................   268
    Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Indiana:
        Quotes and gestures of support from professors...........    61
    Burlison, Hon. Eric, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Missouri:
        Article dated May 8, 2024, from Fortune..................   128
    Chavez-DeRemer, Hon. Lori, a Representative in Congress from 
      the State of Oregon:
        University of California (UCLA) Report Card..............   135
    Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of Connecticut:
        Article dated May 22, 2024, from Politico Pro............    45
    Leger Fernandez, Hon. Teresa, a Representative in Congress 
      from the State of New Mexico:
        Article dated Jun 2023, from The Times of Israel.........   114
        Article dated May 2024, from The Times of Israel.........   121
    Omar, Hon. Ilhan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
      of Minnesota:
        Article dated May 16, 2024, from CNN.....................    85
        Encampment photos........................................   104
        Open Letter to the UCLA Community from UCLA Jewish 
          Faculty and Staff......................................   106

                        QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Responses to questions submitted for the record by:
        Dr. Gene Block...........................................   275
        Dr. Jonathan Holloway....................................   279
        Mr. Michael Schill.......................................   284

 
                      CALLING FOR ACCOUNTABILITY:
                   STOPPING ANTISEMITIC COLLEGE CHAOS

                              ----------                              

                         Thursday, May 23, 2024

                               House of Representatives,
                  Committee on Education and The Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:48, a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Virginia Foxx, 
[Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Foxx, Walberg, Grothman, Stefanik, 
Allen, Banks, Owens, Good, Steel, Kiley, Bean, Burlison, 
Chavez-DeRemer, Williams, Houchin, Scott, Courtney, Bonamici, 
Takano, Adams, DeSaulnier, Norcross, Jayapal, Wild, Omar, 
Stevens, Leger Fernandez, and Manning.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Nick Barley, 
Deputy Communications Director; Mindy Barry, General Counsel; 
Isabel Foster, Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff 
Assistant; Sheila Havenner, Director of Information Technology; 
Amy Raaf Jones, Director of Education and Human Services 
Policy; Julianne Jones, Intern; Isaiah Knox, Legislative 
Assistant; Georgie Littlefair, Clerk; Hannah Matesic, Deputy 
Staff Director; Audra McGeorge, Communications Director; 
Rebecca Powell, Staff Assistant; David Samberg, Associate 
Investigative Counsel; Maura Williams, Director of Operations; 
Ari Wisch, Senior Counselor to the Chairwoman; Brittany Alston, 
Minority Operations Assistant; Ni'Aisha Banks, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Ilana Brunner, Minority General Counsel; Ellie 
Berenson, Minority Press Assistant; Amaris Benavidez, Minority 
Professional Staff; Nekea Brown, Minority Director of 
Operations; Hailee Clack, Minority Intern; Scott Estrada, 
Minority Professional Staff; Rashage Green, Minority Director 
of Education Policy & Counsel; Christian Haines, Minority 
General Counsel; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; 
Marie McGrew, Minority Press Assistant; Paola Milbank, Minority 
Staff Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; 
Samantha Wilkerson, Minority CBCF Fellow; and Banyon Vassar, 
Minority Director of IT.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Good morning. The Committee on Education 
and the Workforce will come to order. I note that a quorum is 
present. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to call a 
recess at any time. I want the door shut, it is too noisy. 
Okay.
    In Ernest Hemingway's novel, The Sun Also Rises, two 
characters are discussing bankruptcy. ``How did you go 
bankrupt,'' asked Bill. ``Two ways,'' Mike responds. 
``Gradually then suddenly.'' No three words better apply to the 
decline in postsecondary education that has transpired 
gradually, then suddenly.
    These three little words paved the road that led to today's 
hearing. Over the course of years, decades even, universities 
gradually nurtured a campus culture of radicalism, in which 
antisemitism grew and became tolerated by administrators. The 
Committee's been steadfast in its dedication to attacking the 
roots of antisemitic hatred, including anti Israel DEI 
bureaucracies, and questionable foreign funding.
    Then suddenly, over the course of weeks, days even, 
universities burst into antisemitic chaos. October 7th ignited 
a powder keg of pro-terror campus fervor, a shocking spectacle 
for the American public. Suddenly, the radicalized zealots 
found a cause and group that they could graft their hate onto. 
Somehow Jews fit neatly into DEI's oppression matrix, thereby 
justifying antisemitism.
    In the morning following October 7th, radicalized students 
have harassed, assaulted, and intimidated their Jewish peers. 
These antisemitic protests have led to hijacking buildings, 
erecting unlawful encampments, disrupting classrooms, and 
canceling commencements. They have been the principal agents of 
anti-Jewish harassment and violence, and have made an absolute 
mockery of so-called university leaders.
    That is why the Committee is yet again calling for 
accountability from those in charge of universities. Today, 
with Mr. Michael Schill of Northwestern University, Dr. Gene 
Block of UCLA, and Dr. Jonathan Holloway of Rutgers University.
    Each of you should be ashamed of your decisions that 
allowed antisemitic encampments to endanger Jewish students. 
Mr. Schill and Dr. Holloway, you should be doubly ashamed for 
capitulating to the antisemitic rulebreakers. Our job today is 
first and foremost, to hold those who are supposed to be in 
charge to account.
    Dr. Gene Block, you will testify to the horrific violent 
events that unfolded at UCLA, leading to 243 arrests. You 
cleared the encampment only after a violent riot erupted. For 
days you stood by as Jews were assaulted, and illegal 
checkpoints blocked access to campus in broad daylight. Your 
actions were too little too late.
    Second, the Committee will highlight the concessions 
universities doled out to rulebreakers. Dr. Holloway, you 
accepted 8 of the 10 encampment demands, including an egregious 
amnesty deal to Rutgers students and faculty involved in the 
encampment. I would like to know what sort of message you think 
that sends to your Jewish students.
    Mr. Schill, you cut a disgraceful deal with the encampment 
that prompted 7 Jewish members of your own antisemitism 
advisory committee to resign in protest. You and President 
Holloway struck deals that guaranteed jobs and admissions to 
Palestinians, an apparent violation of Federal 
antidiscrimination laws. I would like to know how you think 
your quotas comply with the Civil Rights Act.
    Those who are in charge of universities who negotiate with 
pro-terror protestors are not doing their jobs. Taxpayer 
dollars have no business funding universities without 
principles that align with the principles of this country. Each 
of you refused to enforce your own rules, preserve campus 
safety, and protect Jewish students.
    Finally, I want to make one thing clear. The purpose of 
these hearings is not to enact right wing cancel culture, as 
purported by the left. The purpose is to end antisemitic 
violence and harassment on campus, full stop. Hearing with 
college Presidents are meant to help guide postsecondary 
education policies going forward that meet the needs and 
respect the rights of all students.
    We will certainly keep your answers to our questions in 
mind as the Committee conducts further business. With that, I 
yield to the Ranking Member.
    [The statement of Chairwoman Foxx follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    

    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank our witnesses 
for appearing today. There is no question that we can do more 
to combat antisemitism, not just on college campuses, but 
everywhere. No one should be threatened, harassed or attacked 
because of who they are, or who they worship.
    Moreover, students cannot learn if they feel unsafe, yet 
here we are for the fifth time in 6 months holding another 
hearing to complain about the problem of antisemitism, but no 
work is being done to find a meaningful solution to address the 
animus on college campuses.
    Complaining about a problem is not a solution. Certainly, 
it certainly riles people up, generates a lot of media 
coverage, but it does not solve anything. To the best of my 
knowledge, the only change that has resulted from these 
hearings is that a handful of individuals have lost their jobs, 
schools have had to dedicate hours that they could have spent 
working to combat discrimination on campus, instead of 
responding to majority's legal requests and law firms advising 
college Presidents have made a lot of money preparing their 
clients to testify in these hearings.
    In 2017, after white supremacists marched through the 
grounds of the University of Virginia, chanting slogans such 
as, ``Jews will not replace us.'' I wrote a letter to my 
republican colleagues asking for a hearing to discuss rising 
tensions and discrimination on college campuses. Regrettably, 
the Committee did not hold any such hearings, and we did not 
address the issue at the time.
    Jewish students, in fact all students, have a right to 
attend college free from hostility, and in compliance with 
Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is no excuse for 
antisemitism on campus, and everyone is entitled to a safe 
harbor, and this is why we should ensure that the Department of 
Education's Office of Civil Rights has the resource it needs to 
investigate where campuses are failing to protect against 
antisemitic acts, or otherwise not protecting against civil 
rights violations.
    I believe we should increase funding for that office, in 
light of the increased number of complaints. Last year my 
republican colleagues called for a 25 percent cut in funding 
for that office. This would have been a significant impediment 
for the Department of Education's efforts to investigate these 
issues. Meanwhile, DEI programs, which try to bring people 
together are being disparaged and eliminated.
    As I said before, hateful incidents of antisemitism do not 
happen in isolation, they are a byproduct of this country' 
century-long history of white supremacy and antisemitism. We 
cannot feign surprise at hate speech on our college campuses. I 
will note again, the campuses are polarized, as is our society. 
We have unfortunately seen a disturbing rise in incidents, not 
only of antisemitism, but also Islamophobia, racism, 
homophobia, and all other forms of hate, and all of which need 
to be addressed.
    As Mr. Lawrence notes in his testimony today, colleges and 
universities exist to examine complex issues, challenges and 
ideas to provide a forum in which issues and opinions can be 
explored and can be debated. Freedom of inquiry and expression 
must include the right to protest.
    He also notes that the limits of this expression are 
reached when actual threats, or undue disruption of the 
university's operations are involved. No one in this panel is 
advocating for violence, harassment, or disruption of 
university's operations, but students have the right to 
peacefully protest and express their opinions regardless of 
whether or not those opinions are politically unpopular, or 
morally abhorrent.
    In public colleges and universities, two of which are with 
us today, the First Amendment protects both popular and 
agreeable speech, and speech that people can reasonably 
disagree with, including sometimes hateful words, but again, in 
painting with a broad brush the majority has attempted to 
remove any distinction between hate speech and genuine 
political protests.
    I would like to remind everyone that the civil rights 
movement of U.S. past, has always moved public opinion, rather 
than just waiting it for change. Today, 81 percent of Americans 
report a favorable opinion of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. In 
1966, a Gallop survey found that nearly two thirds of Americans 
had an unfavorable opinion of Dr. King. Two years later, in the 
immediate aftermath of his assassination, another survey found 
that roughly one third of Americans felt that he brought it on 
himself.
    In closing, as Members of Congress, we have the 
responsibility to hold ourselves to a higher standard and be 
role models for our communities. By fueling culture wars, as I 
believe these hearings have done, we are setting an example of 
others to feed into, and continue to escalate the tensions on 
college campuses.
    To that end, our students deserve more from us. They 
deserve a thoughtful, deliberate conversation about the 
Constitutional questions before us that can lead to a 
meaningful change, and I hope my colleagues will rise to that 
challenge. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Scott follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. Pursuant to 
Committee Rule 8-C, all members who wish to insert written 
statements into the record may do so by submitting them to the 
Committee Clerk electronically, in Microsoft Word format by 5 
p.m., 14 days after the date of this hearing, which is June 6, 
2024.
    Without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 
14 days to allow such statements and other extraneous material 
referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official 
hearing record. I now turn to the introduction of our 
witnesses, and I recognize Ms. Bonamici to introduce our first 
witness.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair. Michael Schill is 
Northwestern University's 17th President. He also serves as a 
Professor of Law at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, 
and a Professor of Finance and Real EState in the Kellogg 
School of Management.
    He previously spent 7 years as President of my alma mater, 
the University of Oregon. He has also served as Dean and 
Professor at the Law Schools of the University of Chicago and 
UCLA and has also held tenured faculty positions at New York 
University, and the University of Pennsylvania.
    President Schill founded NYU's Furman Center for Real 
EState and Urban Policy, which has become one of the Nation's 
leading research centers on housing. Welcome to the Committee, 
President Schill.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. Our 
second witness is Dr. Jonathan Holloway, who is the President 
of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey.
    Our next witness is Mr. Frederick Lawrence, who is the 
Secretary and CEO of the Phi Beta Kappa Society located in 
Washington, DC. Our final witness is Dr. Gene Block, who is the 
Chancellor of UCLA in Los Angeles, California.
    We thank you for being here today and look forward to your 
testimony. I will remind the witnesses that we have read your 
written statements, which will appear in full in the hearing 
record. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-D, and Committee practice, 
I ask that you each limit your oral presentation to a 5-minute 
summary of your written statement. I also remind the witnesses 
to be aware of their responsibility to provide accurate 
information to the Committee. I will first recognize President 
Schill for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF MR. MICHAEL SCHILL, PRESIDENT,
       NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY, EVANSTON, ILLINOIS

    Mr. Schill. Thank you, Chairman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, 
and members of the Committee, and also thank you Representative 
Bonamici for that kind introduction. I agree with the Committee 
that antisemitism is rising on college campuses, including our 
own.
    This Committee is also right to be shining a light on the 
subject for the American people. In that spirit, let me address 
four issues as they relate to Northwestern. Antisemitism on 
campus, our guiding principles of community safety and academic 
freedom, the encampment itself in our plans moving forward.
    First, our universities are on the frontlines of the 
disturbing spike in antisemitism that accelerated following 
Hamas's horrific terrorist attacks on October 7th. Across the 
country the open harassment and intimidation of Jewish people 
on the streets and social media, has also infected our 
classrooms and our campuses.
    As the descendent of Holocaust victims and survivors, 
rising antisemitism in the world affects and alarms me, 
personally. I lost relatives in the Holocaust, so it is not 
abstract to me that the world's Jewish population has not 
recovered to where it was before World War II. The fact that 
Israel is a cherished homeland, is not theoretical to me. It is 
where family members who survived the war found refuge.
    My family's history is a constant reminder to me of what 
can happen when antisemitism is allowed to take root. Where 
there is conduct that threatens the Northwestern community, we 
must impose discipline, and we have done so. I will be the 
first to admit our existing rules and policies are falling 
short. We must improve our processes to meet the current 
challenge.
    At my direction, we will be working over the summer to 
update our student conduct code. These new policies will be in 
place before students return to campus. We are confident we can 
continue to promote two principles at the core of our mission. 
Free expression, and academic freedom, while disciplining 
harassment and intimidation.
    I want to take a moment to address the encampment at 
Northwestern, and the choices we made. On the morning of April 
25th, an encampment was erected on Deering Meadow, an iconic 
gathering space at the center of our campus. As I watched what 
was unfolding and at encampments across the country, I believed 
that the danger it posed grew every day it stayed up.
    Every day brought new reports of intimidation and 
harassment, and then on April 28th, the day before the tents 
came down, the threat of confrontation escalated with the 
addition of outsiders to the university. For the safety of our 
entire community, I knew I had to act. We had three options to 
do so. The first option was letting the tents stay up 
indefinitely.
    We never seriously considered this option. They were a 
threat to our community. The encampment was breaking our rules. 
There was antisemitic behavior that was making our Jewish 
students feel unsafe. I knew we had to take down the encampment 
and get it down quickly and permanently.
    Second, sending in our Student Affairs Officers and the 
Northwestern Police Department to make arrests, that was the 
second option. This option ended up posing too high a risk to 
our students, staff, and police officers. There were limited 
law enforcement resources available to the university, and it 
also created, as we saw around the country, escalation, renewed 
encampments.
    Finally, talking with the students about leaving 
voluntarily. This was the path we took, and the encampment came 
down in just 5 days. We did not give in to any of the 
protestor's demands, and the commitments we made are consistent 
with our values. Importantly, I rejected the main student 
demand for divestment, and will not ever recommend that 
Northwestern use its resources for political purposes.
    By engaging students with dialog instead of force, we 
modeled the behavior we want to apply going forward. Now going 
forward I want to make you, every one of you, know I am 
personally committed to fighting antisemitism. We are going to 
reconstitute a task force that will benefit from the 
information from other task forces.
    We will revise our student code. We will enhance 
enforcement. We will increase our security, and we will do what 
we do best, teaching our students about the dangers of 
antisemitism. I would like to thank you all for listening, and 
I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Schill follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
       STATEMENT OF DR. JONATHAN HOLLOWAY, PRESIDENT,
       RUTGERS UNIVERSITY, NEW BRUNSWICK, NEW JERSEY

    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. I now recognize President 
Holloway for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Holloway. Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and 
members of the Committee. Thank you for this opportunity. My 
name is Jonathan Holloway, and I am the President of Rutgers 
University, the State University of New Jersey. To help you 
understand me better I offer the following.
    My maternal great-grandfather, Willian Johnson Trent, was 
an early organizer of the colored YMCA in Atlanta, and served 
as President of Livingston College in Salisbury, North 
Carolina. His son, Bill Trent, Jr., my grandfather, was Dean of 
Education at Bennett College in Greensboro, North Carolina 
before becoming the founding Executive Director of the United 
Negro College Fund.
    Sure. May I start the paragraph at the beginning? Okay. 
Where I left off. Even closer. Okay. His son Bill Trent, my 
grandfather was Dean of Education at Bennett College in 
Greensboro, North Carolina before becoming the founding 
Executive Director of the United Negro College Fund.
    My father, a career officer in the Air Force, was the first 
black person to teach at the Air War College in Montgomery, 
Alabama. I share this to make clear that a commitment to 
education, and providing access is in my DNA. Though I fully 
recognize the myriad ways in which my experience and that of 
our Jewish community are different, I know something about the 
awful impact of discrimination too.
    When I served as an intern for the House Ethics Committee, 
my father brought me to Capitol Hill on my first day. As we 
approached the Committee offices he said when I was your age, 
the only way someone who looked like us could cross the 
threshold, is if you were pushing a food cart. This is part of 
the reason this discussion matters so much to me.
    I tell you with pride that Rutgers boasts one of the 
largest Jewish student populations in America, and I tell you 
with conviction that we condemn antisemitism in the strongest 
terms possible. We do so today, we did so long before October 
7th, and we will always do so.
    Rutgers, home to nearly 100,000 students, faculty and 
staff, takes pride in being a public university. We conduct 
lifechanging research in clinical care, and we educate 
tomorrow's leaders, many of them first generation college 
students, and many of them from low-income families.
    What is more, Rutgers is world renown for its Jewish 
scholarly community. We are one of only a few dozen 
universities in America with the Department of Jewish Studies. 
Our Bildner Center for the Study of Jewish Life holds public 
lectures, trains teachers on Holocaust education, and hosts the 
Rutgers Jewish Film Festival.
    Rutgers is also home to the Miller Center on the Policing 
and Community Resilience, which is dedicated to protecting 
valuable communities that are facing antisemitism, or other 
forms of intolerance. The Rudgers Hillel and Chabad Houses, 
both among the largest in higher education, sit in the heart of 
our big ten campus in New Brunswick.
    During my Presidency we have developed a formal partnership 
with Tel Aviv University focused on faculty collaborations. As 
part of that relationship, TAU researchers will have a presence 
in the Health and Life Sciences Center being built in New 
Brunswick. We find ourselves here today because of the 
devastation that the Hamas terrorist attacks have wrought.
    It is heartbreaking to think about the senseless and 
horrific violence of October 7th, about the hostages still held 
captive by Hamas, 230 days later, about the thousands of 
Palestinian children killed in the war, about the humanitarian 
crisis in Gaza that gets worse every day.
    At Rutgers, this war has been a tragedy for our Jewish and 
Palestinian communities. Many in our community, searching for a 
way to curtail this tragedy, have turned to activism and 
protest. During this period of heightened fear, anxiety and 
polarization, Rutgers has focused on three essential 
priorities, to ensure the safety of our community, to affirm 
and uphold our policies, and to promote dialog and education.
    I would like to emphasize this last point, dialog and 
education. Disciplining a person for breaking a rule is easy. 
It is much harder to build the trust to question, and to 
understand across difference. The battle against antisemitism, 
against bigotry in all of its forms, must be waged with 
education. We began this semester with lectures and films 
centered on meeting discrimination with humanity.
    In New Brunswick, we established an advisory council on 
antisemitism and Jewish life, whose work continues to be 
pivotal. Jewish studies and Middle Eastern studies faculty have 
brought Israeli and Palestinian students together in a 
classroom, not to convince or to change minds, but simply to 
listen to each other.
    We have planned training and discussion around 
antisemitism, and we have partnered with the Anti Defamation 
League in these efforts. Like so many other universities this 
spring we saw a protest encampment take shape on our New 
Brunswick Campus.
    It lasted for a little more than 72 hours. When on the 
third morning, some student protestors called for a rally to 
disrupt exams, we moved quickly to shut the encampment down. We 
made a choice. That choice was to engage our students through 
dialog, as a first option, instead of police action.
    We had seen what transpired at other universities and 
sought a different way. Without compromising on my fundamental 
stance against divestment and boycotts, we agreed to talk and 
to listen. If ever there was a time for dialog and a focus on 
civil discourse, it is now.
    We are in a highly polarized time where we are confronted 
by objectionable and offense ideas. Part of what universities 
do is to help the members of our community navigate that 
reality, so that they become better, stronger, and more 
resilient citizens. We do that by teaching people to be 
curious, to listen, and to engage in civil discourse.
    Finally, let me speak briefly to the Rutgers community. I 
have heard you over the last several months. I have heard your 
frustration, at injustice in our world. Your pain since the 
suffering, and your desire to make Rutgers a stronger 
community. For that I want to say publicly, thank you.
    We cannot give into the easy path of letting our 
differences become our divisions. The healing will take time, 
and through our efforts, through these efforts I mentioned 
earlier I am committed to it, we are committed to it. Thank 
you, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Holloway follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
     
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, President Holloway. Mr. 
Lawrence, I recognize you for 5 minutes, and I ask you in 
advance to pull the mic close to you. Again, we have a very 
inadequate sound system right now.

    STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK M. LAWRENCE,  SECRETARY
      AND CEO, THE PHI BETA KAPPA SOCIETY, WASHINGTON,
      DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Mr. Lawrence. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would like to 
thank the Committee for inviting me today to speak with you. My 
name is Frederick M. Lawrence, and I am here in my personal 
capacity to share my experience and thoughts as a former Law 
School Dean, a former University President, and a Professor of 
American Higher Education Law.
    The past academic year has deeply challenged all 
stakeholders of our college and university communities, and our 
society at large. Images of campus protests and unrest will 
long stay in our minds. It is precisely at times like these 
that we must hold fast to the first principles that underlie 
the mission of American higher education, and that form the 
bedrock of the flourishing democratic society, and a vibrant 
culture.
    Let me first emphasize that the safety of students on 
campus is critical, and it is essential. Students cannot learn 
if they fear for their safety. No one is permitted to threaten 
another. A university--it is both entitled to and required to 
respond to violence or threats of violence. Similarly, students 
do not have a right to disrupt the operations of a university 
unduly. For example, defacing, occupying, or blocking entry to 
campus buildings is not protected expression, whereas protests 
outside a building would be.
    What should our universities do in these challenging times? 
When looking at any issues on campus, we always need to keep in 
mind that the fundamental goal of our colleges is the creation, 
discovery and sharing of knowledge. The intellectual challenges 
of campus life may come from many sources, including protest.
    That is why colleges should begin by presuming expression, 
including protest, to be protected forms of academic freedom 
and a free inquiry. Again, the limits of this expression are 
reached when actual threats or undue disruption of the 
university operations are involved.
    Universities must treat all members of a campus community 
as part of ``we'', not ``they.'' There is no they where our 
students are concerned. We must encourage listening to each 
other, robust debate, and learning. Schools do best when they 
seek dialog across ideological and political differences 
between and among the members of the campus community, and when 
they share a commitment to transparent decisionmaking.
    This approach is most successful when it draws on months, 
if not years of conversation, and engagement. I not only 
believe this to be true, I have seen it. I have had the 
opportunity to participate in the application of these 
principles on campus firsthand, including the recent free 
expression residency that was part of an ongoing campus wide 
engagement on issues of expression of community and dialog.
    During this time, I met with Jewish and Muslim student 
leaders to discuss their views on the Israel Palestine 
conflict, and how it affected their lives. I shared personal 
stories of a former colleague who suffered the tragic loss of 
his daughter and son-in-law, when they were murdered on October 
7th, and a former student, born in Gaza, whose families 
confronts the humanitarian crisis there.
    The ensuing discussion was not easy, but I believe that the 
students both spoke to, and listened to each other. Campus 
officials have told me that these meetings continue in a spirit 
of cooperation, not antagonism, with the goal of advancing 
difficult conversations, even where there are strong feelings 
and disagreements about key fundamentals.
    Colleges and universities exist to examine complex issues, 
challenges and ideas, and to provide a forum in which issues 
and opinions can be explored and can be debated. Freedom of 
inquiry and expression must include the right to protest. As we 
seek productive paths forward, it is worth recognizing that 
this is not just a campus issue.
    We have seen increased polarization throughout the world, 
so we should not be surprised when this happens as well on our 
college campuses. When it does, we have the opportunity to 
build on the critically important work of role modeling, and of 
teaching how to practice free speech, not just with people who 
share our views, but also those with whom we disagree 
passionately, and yet with whom we share a community.
    I thank the Committee, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Lawrence follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Chancellor Block, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DR. GENE BLOCK, CHANCELLOR, UCLA, LOS
                    ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Block. Good morning, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member 
Scott, Members of the Committee. My name is Gene Block. I am 
the Chancellor at UCLA. Thank you for inviting me here today. 
Let me start by affirming that all forms of discrimination, 
including antisemitism and Islamophobia, are antithetical to 
UCLA's values and corrosive to our culture.
    I wish I could say that our campus has been immune to the 
disturbing rise of antisemitism across our country since 
October 7th. Sadly, that is not the case. What I can say, and 
what I will address today is how we have been confronting and 
will continue to confront this challenge.
    Last summer I announced my intent to retire this July, 
after leading UCLA for 17 years. These are my final months of 
Chancellor of this distinguished institution. While I am 
saddened by the recent turmoil on our campus, I am also proud 
of our legacy as a university deeply committed to the peaceful 
expression of differing viewpoints.
    To have a functioning democracy, we must be able to speak 
freely about the most consequential events of the day. As a 
public university, UCLA is subject to a dual legal mandate. The 
First Amendment obligation to protect free speech on campus, 
and the obligation under Federal laws to protect students from 
discrimination and harassment.
    This balance is often difficult to achieve and has been 
especially difficult since October 7th. I am fully aware that 
many of our Jewish students have had to confront rhetoric and 
images on campus that any reasonable person would find 
repugnant. Trust me, I understand their pain. I have lived it 
myself.
    As a Jewish kid growing up in the Catskill Region of New 
York with relatives who were Holocaust survivors and victims. 
As the former Provost of the University of Virginia, watching 
news coverage of neo-Nazis rioting outside the synagogue in 
Charlottesville, where my children were called to the Torah.
    As the Chancellor of UCLA where an art show depicted me 
with exaggerated facial features that were reminiscent of 
caricatures of Jews during the Nazi era. As we all know, being 
an American means sometimes being asked to tolerate offensive, 
and even hateful speech protected by our Constitution, but 
there are limits.
    At UCLA we draw the line when speech crosses into 
intimidation, threats and harassment of our community. UCLA has 
a proud history of peaceful protest. Before October 7th, we 
successfully navigated campus protests using strategies 
recommended by the University of California. On April 25th, as 
a result of a conflict that spread across universities across 
the country, a protest sprang up at the center of our campus 
testing the limits of our approach.
    We are part of the University of California system. We 
followed University of California policy guidelines that 
directs its 10 campuses to only use law enforcement to remove 
protestors when absolutely necessary to protect the physical 
safety of our community. Accordingly, the encampment remained.
    As the encampment grew to more than 500 protestors, some of 
whom were not even affiliated with UCLA, it disrupted normal 
access to some classes. On April 28th I decided to remove the 
encampment after violence broke out between opposing 
demonstrators, and I asked for a security plan to do so.
    We gave the protestors written notice that the encampment 
was unlawful on April 30th and instructed them to disperse. 
Before the necessary police resources could be assembled, 
assailants attacked the encampment that evening. Tragically, it 
took several hours before law enforcement could quell the 
violence.
    On May 1st, with the support of the University of 
California's President Michael Drake, we provided protestors a 
final opportunity to leave. When more than 200 protestors 
refused police orders, law enforcement removed the encampment 
that night.
    With the benefit of hindsight, we should have been prepared 
to immediately move the encampment, if and when the safety of 
our community was put at risk. We have since taken decisive 
action. I created a new Office of Campus Safety that reports 
directly to me. UCLA is conducting a thorough examination of 
our security processes.
    The University of California has also engaged independent 
law enforcement experts to initiate a review of the 
confrontation, including our planning and security protocols. 
Finally, we will hold accountable all those engaged in 
violence, or violated our policies. No student should be 
threatened or excluded, based on their beliefs or identity.
    While we will always have to strive hard to meet this 
obligation, we must also maintain our commitment to academic 
freedom and free speech, the balance is central to UCLA's 
educational mission. It is not always easy to strike a perfect 
balance, but that must be our goal. Thank you again, and I am 
looking forward to answering your questions.
    [The Statement of Mr. Block follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Chancellor Block. Under 
Committee Rule 9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-
minute rule. I ask members to keep your questions succinct, so 
the witnesses will have time to answer, and not ask a question 
with a few seconds left.
    I now recognize myself for 5 minutes of questioning. This 
question is for all three of the Presidents. All of your 
universities have been hot beds of pervasive antisemitism. 
Please tell me how many students have your universities 
suspended, how many students have been expelled for antisemitic 
conduct since October 7th.
    President Schull.
    Mr. Schill. To my knowledge, no student has been expelled, 
or suspended. We have ongoing investigations, and there have 
been terminations of staff.
    Chairwoman Foxx. President Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. We have ongoing investigations as well, but I 
can report that we have suspended four people, and then 19 
others have experienced other levels of disciplinary 
consequence.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. Yes. We have, I believe, over 100 active 
investigations right now, evaluating 100 cases since October 
7th, both antisemitism and Islamophobia.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Very few students have received any kind 
of disciplinary action from your campuses. Now, President 
Shull, you said some staff have received disciplinary actions, 
so I will ask all three of you the same question. How many 
faculty and staff have you fired or suspended for antisemitic 
conduct, or conduct related to the pro-terror encampments since 
April 17th?
    Mr. Schill. Dr. Foxx, if I might just correct the premise 
of your question. The fact that we did not--have not yet 
suspended or expelled students does not mean that students have 
not received discipline. There is a wide range of discipline, 
and discipline has been meted out to many of those students, 
but they have not yet--we have not yet suspended or expelled 
anyone. I am sorry.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Staff? Staff? How many staff?
    Mr. Schill. I do not have the precise number, but we have 
had staff terminations.
    Chairwoman Foxx. President Holloway, staff?
    Mr. Holloway. This question was since April 17th, ma'am? Is 
that correct?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Yes.
    Mr. Holloway. I do not know that we suspended anybody from 
the staff at that time, but we do have ongoing disciplinary 
proceedings.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Yes.
    Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. Ongoing disciplinary proceedings.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Mr. Schill, in your deal with the 
self-proclaimed ``Northwestern liberated zone,'' you promised 
to reestablish an advisory committee on investment 
responsibility this fall. Northwestern Students for Justice in 
Palastine call this, ``An important step toward our ultimate 
goal divestment from Israel.'' Will you make clear here and now 
that Northwestern will categorically reject any divestment, or 
academic boycott of Israel?
    Mr. Schill. I will make clear that I would never recommend 
to the Board of Trustees divestment of anything or any academic 
boycott of Israel.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay. Why did you agree to create the 
perception that you would do so, which encouraged other 
universities to cave on this?
    Mr. Schill. That committee is a committee that preexisted. 
We had that committee for several years. We had already told 
the investment committee of the board of trustees that we would 
be beginning that committee, starting that committee up again 
in September. That was done months before the encampment. We 
were going to do that anyway, and there was no intent.
    That is not a board committee, that is an advisory 
committee.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Okay.
    Mr. Schill. It has faculty, and two students, and they are 
not necessarily from this group.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Chancellor Block, numerous 
videos showed Jewish and other UCLA students being denied 
access to central parts of campus by encampment members who had 
set up unauthorized checkpoints. In some cases, the students 
were questioned on whether they were Zionists. Why did you fail 
to immediately clear these checkpoints?
    Mr. Block. Thank you, Chairwoman. I heard accounts of 
students being blocked, and we issued instructions to our staff 
to make sure that all walkways were free, and the students 
could freely pass without obstruction, and that was I believe I 
then sent a memo out to the entire community on I believe, 
April 30th, instructing that that was intolerable, and we would 
not tolerate the blocking of access to parts of campus.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Did it stop as a result of what you said?
    Mr. Block. I believe it did, but we kept vigilant.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Courtney.
    Mr. Courtney. All right. Thank you, Madam, Chairwoman, and 
thank you to all the witnesses for being here today. As Mr. 
Scott pointed out, this is our fifth hearing on this topic, 
which is perfectly legitimate and appropriate, but I think it 
is also important to remember we are an Article 1 branch of 
government whose job it is to authorize and appropriate the 
U.S. Department of Education.
    The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Education 
just reported in 2023, they had a record number of complaints 
for the Department. If you go back to 2009, it is tripled in 
terms of the number of complaints, and a lot of those 
complaints involve antisemitism.
    The staffing level at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Education back in 2009 is larger than it is 
today. As Mr. Scott pointed out, the budget that the majority 
reported out last year from the Appropriations Committee for 
the Civil Rights Division would have cut their budget by 25 
percent, which I would characterize as the equivalent of 
defunding the antisemitism police.
    Again, I think it is our job at some point to focus on the 
fact that we need to beef up the ranks of that Department, 
whose mission it is to investigate and to curtail this type of 
activity. Madam Chairwoman, I would now like to yield the 
balance of my time to Mr. Norcross from New Jersey.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    Mr. Courtney. Could I have an article admitted to the 
record on that report?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Mr. Courtney follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Mr. Courtney. Thank you. Appreciate that.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Mr. Courtney, for yielding. 
President Holloway, great to see you again. For those of you 
who do not know Rutgers, the flagship university in New Jersey, 
home to nearly 100,000 diverse students, faculty, plus second 
highest Jewish population, close to 7,000 students, and almost 
7,000 Muslim and Arabic students.
    Since October 7th, there is no question that the 
antisemitic has increased at Rutgers. In fact, we had the 
conversation year over year, it could be as high as ten times 
what it was the year before. You and I have talked about this. 
In fact, I called you at 6:30 in the morning when I first heard 
about Rutgers ``negotiating'' to end the encampment, and you 
picked up the phone. We have had that continuing conversation.
    You know, I have spent my life representing workers 
protesting. I know it quite well. I am a firm believer in First 
Amendment. That being said, as I know, and many others, there 
are rules. In all types of protests on college campuses, no 
matter what the reason is.
    I participated in protests over my lifetime, and when I 
crossed the line, I paid the consequences. What I want to dig 
in today is what are those lines? When were they crossed? How 
you reacted--how Rutgers reacted. Specifically, the encampment 
at the New Brunswick Campus, concerned, it was called Vorhees 
Mall.
    When did you first find out that there was a protest at the 
mall there?
    Mr. Holloway. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
There was a protest that had been approved in our free speech 
zone on campus. I think that was a Monday, sir. Then the 
protestors--and that is a legitimate area. The protestors then 
moved down to Vorhees Mall, it is about a three block walk as 
you might recall and started setting up an encampment.
    I was learning of it as it was happening on that Monday.
    Mr. Norcross. Was there any communication with the 
participants as they created, or started the encampment?
    Mr. Holloway. Communication from me, sir?
    Mr. Norcross. From you, Rutgers, Rutgers Police, any 
communication or did they just allow it?
    Mr. Holloway. I see. No, no, no. We--for any approved 
protest there is a whole process people go through in order to 
register their space, and how they want to proceed. We have 
student affairs professionals, and university police, the 
Rutgers University Police Department, RUPD, and security.
    They were engaged with those activists from the very 
beginning in an ongoing way.
    Mr. Norcross. Setting the stage. This was a time of year 
that most students do not look forward to, it is called finals. 
Obviously, some of the most difficult times. Were the 
participants advised that the disruptions of finals in this 
case, or other activities would not be permitted?
    Mr. Holloway. The participants, it was made clear that we 
were going to allow the encampment and consider it a speech act 
in the spirit of First Amendment free expression, but that that 
encampment could not disrupt university processes, could not 
bar people from entering buildings, could not be disruptive in 
terms of excessive noise.
    Mr. Norcross. I only have 10 seconds, and I will be able to 
finish the line of questioning, but certainly we are going to 
continue on this timeframe so we can get a better 
understanding. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Norcross. Mr. Walberg, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank you Madam Chairman. President Schill, 
your President's Advisory Committee on Preventing Antisemitism 
and Hate recently disbanded after 7 Jewish members of the 
Committee, including its Co-Chair and a University Trustee 
resigned in protest of your caving to the encampment's demands. 
You and your administration have cited the creation of this 
Committee as proof you are working to counter antisemitism.
    The three faculty members you had appointed, two had 
objected to the Committee's very creation in a letter that 
downplayed antisemitism, and defended the phrase, ``From the 
River to the Sea.'' At least two of them have supported BDS's 
efforts against Israel.
    Question, why did you believe it was appropriate to appoint 
faculty members who have defended and made excuses for 
antisemitism, and oppress and oppose the Committee's purported 
mission of combating antisemitism?
    Mr. Schill. Thank you for your question, Congressman 
Walberg. No. 1, I would like to just address the premise of 
your question. The 7 members who resigned from the Committee 
resigned for two reasons. They were unable to reach consensus 
about what antisemitism was.
    Mr. Walberg. How could they reach consensus if you have 
people already having made clear statements that were 
antisemitic, that spoke for BDS and said that from the river to 
the sea is a good statement?
    Mr. Schill. They resigned because they were not consulted 
with respect to the negotiations.
    Mr. Walberg. Surprise, surprise.
    Mr. Schill. They did not resign. I am sorry. Go ahead.
    Mr. Walberg. Let me ask you, will you commit to keeping off 
those type of members of a committee if you reconstitute this 
Committee as you say you are going to do?
    Mr. Schill. I will be appointing to the task force that we 
are going to create faculty, staff, administrators, who I 
believe are committed to fighting antisemitism, and as 
committed to fighting antisemitism as I am.
    Mr. Walberg. We will be watching. President Schill, one of 
the Advisory Committee members, Jessica Winegar, has been a 
leader of academic boycott efforts against Israel. She is also 
referred to and I quote, ``Zionist media,'' and condemned, 
``White liberal dialog politics.'' She signed a petition 
defending a Palestinian terrorist who murdered two Israel 
college students in a bombing.
    Do you knowledge Professor Winegar as grossly unfit for a 
Committee meant to combat antisemitism?
    Mr. Schill. I do not believe in the BDS movement. I am in 
print against it at my previous university, and I will not be 
discussing individual faculty members, or the writing----
    Mr. Walberg. You will not say that a person like her--let 
us not--forget her name, but a person with her principles will 
not be on this Commission?
    Mr. Schill. I will be appointing people to the Committee 
who are committed to fighting antisemitism.
    Mr. Walberg. Your record is not that way. You also 
appointed the leader of Northwestern's Middle Eastern and North 
African Student Association to the Advisory Committee, despite 
the fact that in the days after October 7th, the MINA student 
association released the statement explicitly supporting the 
terrorist attack saying this, and I quote, ``We resounded 
support Palestinian resistance to over 75 years of Israeli 
State sanctioned violence, and calling the terrorists killed in 
the attack martyrs.''
    Do you agree these comments are shocking and beyond the 
pale?
    Mr. Schill. I will not be commenting, certainly not 
commenting on any student at that, in what students say.
    Mr. Walberg. I think we are hearing that there is no change 
going to take place at Northwestern University, relative to 
antisemitism. How could you possibly appoint a student who 
supported the October 7th terrorist attack to a committee meant 
to combat antisemitism?
    Mr. Schill. I am not going to comment on the speech of our 
students or our faculty, or our staff. What I will say is that 
committee was a committee that was not just antisemitism. We 
tried to do something which actually turned out to be 
impossible.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, we saw that. We saw that very clearly. 
Let me just finish this. I think we have heard your response. 
In March, the Advisory Committee hosted the University of 
Michigan Professor Juan Cole to speak on Islamophobia, and 
``anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian'' biases. Fine. Cole has made 
numerous antisemitic statements, including claiming that Israel 
``was founded on a formal racial supremacist principle that 
Jews must rule the State.
    That quote, the only thing that Palestinians and their 
sympathizers can do to make Zionists happy is to bend over and 
allow themselves to be royally screwed. What kind of Committee 
on antisemitism invites an antisemite like this to speak? With 
that, sadly, I end my questioning. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Bonamici, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 
witnesses. Once again, I reiterate that we must stand together 
against antisemitism, and do more to combat the harassment of 
Jewish students. There has been an undeniable rise in hate 
speech, including antisemitism, and Islamophobia on college 
campuses across the country.
    Although I realize that institutions must be held 
accountable, continuing to schedule repetitive politicized 
hearings to attack college Presidents will not solve this 
scourge of antisemitism. We need to work with experts on 
antisemitism, legal scholars with expertise in the area, people 
knowledgeable in the field who could help us determine what the 
government response can and should be to the increase of 
antisemitism and racial hostility on campuses.
    Mr. Lawrence, thank you for so clearly articulating the 
value of higher education, and why it is important to promote 
discussion in ways that respect free speech while keeping 
students safe. As I have mentioned in this Committee before, 
the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Federations, the Anti-
Defamation League and others, have expertise we can draw on.
    Because this is also a Title 6 issue, let us focus as 
Ranking Member Scott and Representative Courtney said, on 
equipping the Office of Civil Rights with the resources that it 
needs, rather than cutting their budget, as my colleagues 
across the aisle have proposed.
    I also want to note, as I did recently in the Subcommittee, 
that my colleagues across the aisle express concern about 
antisemitism on college campuses, but we do not see the same 
concern when antisemitic comments and tropes come from their 
side of the aisle.
    For example, just a few days ago the Truth Social account 
of Donald Trump included an outrageous video with Nazi-like 
language about a unified Reich. Did any of my colleagues on 
this Committee call that out, and ask the candidate that most 
of them have endorsed, for its removal?
    It baffles me that some people are opposed to antisemitism, 
when it is politically convenient, instead of whenever it rears 
its ugly head. I am also concerned about any suggestion that 
the first step to address a protest should be to call police. 
It does not work in some cases, and as both Presidents Schill 
and Holloway and Chancellor Block noted, oftentimes many of the 
people protesting are not students, further complicating the 
issue.
    Northwestern and Rutgers both reached agreements with 
student protestors to address campus safety concerns, while 
recognizing free speech rights. These agreements involved a 
shared learning environment that fostered the exchange of ideas 
between schools and school administration, actions that are 
directly in line with the university's academic message and 
mission.
    President Schill, in your testimony you discussed how you 
identified three options to address the encampment on 
Northwestern's campus. You talked a little bit about why you 
made the decision you did, and that talking with the students 
was the best option.
    Will you explain how the final agreement you reached with 
student protestors de-escalated activities on campus, and how 
that worked? Did the agreement address rights or protections 
for Jewish or Israeli students?
    Mr. Schill. Thank you, Congresswoman Bonamici. We looked at 
this. What we were experiencing with the encampment was a huge 
increase in antisemitic activity. We had things that we had not 
seen before like complaints of antisemitism jumped up. There 
was a sign of a Mogen David with a slash on it put on Deering 
Gate.
    There was a picture of me with horns and blood as all of 
you know, that is an antisemitic trope. We made a decision, and 
it was making our Jewish students feel unsafe. We made a 
decision, those tents had to come down. Those tents had to come 
down. We thought about bringing in the police as an option, 
that option turned out to be not possible to ensure safety.
    My No. 1 objective and mandate, when parents give me their 
children, or lend me their children, I need to keep them safe, 
and I am going to do everything I can to keep them safe and 
bringing in police because of the size of our police force, and 
the resources would have endangered our police. They would have 
endangered our students, and they would have endangered our 
student affairs staff.
    Then we made the decision to talk to our students, to model 
the behavior that we want to be engaged in, the dialog rather 
than force. We had a de-escalation. The tents came down right 
after the agreement was struck. The entire protest is now in 
conformity with university rules.
    We also did not--there was nothing in that agreement that, 
just to be responsive to your full question, that specifically 
addressed the interests of Jewish students other than getting 
rid of that encampment, which was making our Jewish students 
feel unsafe. They could not walk through Deering Meadow. They 
could not pass Deering Meadow.
    They were worried about the outsiders on our campus, and we 
were worried about the insiders and the threat that they 
entailed for our students.
    Ms. Bonamici. I see my time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Schill. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Stefanik, you 
are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stefanik. President Schill, the ADL released its report 
card for university's responses to antisemitism, and you are 
aware that Northwestern was the only university whose grade was 
downgraded; correct?
    Mr. Schill. Yes. I am aware of that.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it also true that Northwestern earned an F 
for your failure to respond and combat antisemitism, and they 
called for your resignation. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schill. I have great respect for the ADL.
    Ms. Stefanik. I am not asking your respect for the ADL, I 
am asking is it a fact that you earned an F, and they called 
for your resignation?
    Mr. Schill. I have great respect for the ADL. I am sad that 
they gave Northwestern an F.
    Ms. Stefanik. It is true, you got an F. Yes. Moving on. Let 
me tell you why you earned an F. I want to discuss what has 
been referred to as the Deering Meadows agreement, your 
unilateral capitulation to the pro-Hamas anti-Israel, 
antisemitic encampment. Let us talk about what has occurred on 
this encampment.
    Is it true that Jewish Northwest--a Jewish Northwestern 
student was assaulted?
    Mr. Schill. I want to question the premise of your 
question.
    Ms. Stefanik. No, no, no, no. I am asking the questions. 
You are answering.
    Mr. Schill. Well, my answer is not a capitulation.
    Ms. Stefanik. I am asking questions, you are required to 
answer. Is it true that a Jewish Northwestern student was 
assaulted?
    Mr. Schill. There are allegations that a Jewish student was 
assaulted. We are investigating those allegations.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it true that a Jewish student was verbally 
harassed and stalked to Hillel?
    Mr. Schill. There are allegations of that sort, and we are 
investigating them.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it true that a Jewish student wearing a 
Yarmulke was spat on?
    Mr. Schill. All of these are allegations that are being 
investigated.
    Ms. Stefanik. How long are these investigations going to 
occur?
    Mr. Schill. Well, if you remember the encampment was up 
just a few weeks ago, so we believe at Northwestern in due 
process. We believe in investigations. We believe----
    Ms. Stefanik. When are the investigations going to be 
finalized?
    Mr. Schill. I am not going to be able to tell you that. 
They will be finalized when the conduct office and the Title 6 
office, which are well on this issue come up with----
    Ms. Stefanik. This is why you have earned an F. Is it true 
that a Jewish student was told to, ``Go back to Germany and get 
gassed?''
    Mr. Schill. I have heard that alleged. Again, it is being 
investigated. We will investigate any claim of discrimination 
or harassment.
    Ms. Stefanik. A zero, but it is a fact you said that there 
have been zero suspensions, zero expulsions.
    Mr. Schill. Thus far, with lots of investigations on their 
way.
    Ms. Stefanik. You said something that was very important. 
You said we did not give into demands, but the commitments we 
made as part of the Deering Meadows agreement, you said the 
word ``commitments.'' Let me talk about those commitments. One 
of those commitments was funding two visiting Palestinian 
faculty for 2 years. Is that true?
    Mr. Schill. This is part of a program that we have had. We 
have used it with Afghanistan, Ukraine, it is for war torn 
countries.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it true? I am asking you. Okay. The other 
one is you will fund the full cost for five Palestinian 
undergrads?
    Mr. Schill. That is also part of the program sponsored by 
our Buffett Institute. It is not a new program. It exists for 
people whose education and research has been interrupted.
    Ms. Stefanik. It was announced as part of the Deering 
Meadows agreement, is that correct?
    Mr. Schill. It was part of it was a goal set, our fourth in 
the Deering Meadow agreement. It will also include people from 
Israel.
    Ms. Stefanik. Who was consulted? Who was consulted when you 
embarked on the Deering Meadows agreement? Was the President's 
Advisory Committee on Preventing Antisemitism and Hate 
consulted?
    Mr. Schill. That was not within the purview of the 
antisemitism and other forms of hate committee.
    Ms. Stefanik. Was Northwestern's Board of Trustees 
consulted?
    Mr. Schill. The Chair of our Board was consulted.
    Ms. Stefanik. Not the entire Board of Trustees?
    Mr. Schill. Our Board of Trustees has over 120 members.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it a fact that members of the Board of 
Trustees expressed dissatisfaction with your failure to consult 
them?
    Mr. Schill. There has been some members of our Board of 
Trustees who have expressed dissatisfaction that they were not 
part of the decisionmaking.
    Ms. Stefanik. Did you consult with the General Counsel of 
Northwestern, or an outside counsel on the Deering Meadows 
agreement before it was agreed to?
    Mr. Schill. Yes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Are you aware that Board members asked you 
this question, and you said that you had not consulted?
    Mr. Schill. Not the outside counsel, the General Counsel of 
the University was part of my team managing this problem.
    Ms. Stefanik. Did you consult with two members of the 
Advisory Committee that I referenced previously, the anti-
Israel Professor Jessica Winegar, and the Kellogg Professor 
Nora Catelli? Were they consulted on the Deering Meadows 
agreement?
    Mr. Schill. I consulted with several members, including 
them, but also including the Hillel Director, and also 
including the Chair of the Committee.
    Ms. Stefanik. Talk about the Hillel Director consultation. 
Is it true that you asked the Hillel Director whether it was 
possible to hire an anti-Zionist Hillel, head of Hillel, Rabbi?
    Mr. Schill. I did not. I absolutely did not. I would never 
hire anyone based upon their views of being Zionist or anti-
Zionist, that is not what I do. That is not what a great 
university does.
    Ms. Stefanik. That is not according to the whistleblowers 
that have come forward to this Committee.
    Mr. Schill. I cannot say who has talked to you or not 
talked to you, but I can tell you the truth.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Stefanik, your time has expired.
    Ms. Stefanik. I can assure you many people have spoken to 
this Committee.
    Mr. Schill. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Takano, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. I will begin with a few 
questions for the current Presidents. If you would please just 
answer with a yes or no if possible. My first question is 
should colleges and universities be places where the right to 
free speech and free exchange of ideas is protected, President 
Schill?
    Mr. Schill. Yes.
    Mr. Takano. Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. At the same time do colleges and universities 
have an obligation to keep students safe from harm, and ensure 
that they are able to study and attend class without 
impediment, President Schill?
    Mr. Schill. Absolutely.
    Mr. Takano. President Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Have your schools taken substantive steps to 
eliminate discrimination, including antisemitism as defined by 
Title 6, President Schill?
    Mr. Schill. Yes, but we need to do more.
    Mr. Takano. Got it. President Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. I agree with Mr. Schill in the same way, yes. 
We are always a work in progress, and we are committed to it.
    Mr. Takano. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. I would say the same. We have made progress. We 
have programs, and we need to do more.
    Mr. Takano. Great. The University of California Riverside, 
which is in my District, was the first school in the UC system 
to reach a peaceful resolution with student protestors. 
Students had set up an encampment on Monday, April 29th, and 
following negotiations between college administration and the 
leadership of the protest, the encampment was dissolved 
peacefully within a week without a single arrest.
    Chancellor Wilcox, Kim Wilcox, announced the terms of the 
agreement in a letter to the UCR community. Classes and final 
exams continued, and the commencement ceremony will be in just 
a couple days. My university is leading by example, but my 
republican colleagues are characterizing any agreement made 
between university administrators, and student protestors as 
``conceding to the mob.''
    Mr. Lawrence, in your experience as the former President of 
Brandeis University, what are the hazards of immediately 
punishing campus protestors, rather than opening a dialog 
between administrators and students?
    Mr. Lawrence. Thank you for the question, Congressman. 
There are two main concerns here. One, we always have to 
remember that even in these tense moments on campuses, we are 
an educative institution. We are educators, so the goal is to 
engage with students to the extent possible, as part of the 
education process of all of the issues that are involved.
    Second, and regarding safety, we are always looking to try 
to find ways to de-escalate conflict to the extent possible. 
Understand that sometimes that is not going to be possible, and 
sometimes there are consequences that have to be pursued down 
the road, but you do not start that way. You start trying to 
de-escalate the conflict.
    In my experience reaching out to the students, to all of 
the stakeholders, and trying to build dialog first with the 
administration and the students, and then among and between the 
students is the best way to reduce conflict.
    Mr. Takano. Dr. Schill, was the encampment at Northwestern 
dismantled peacefully?
    Mr. Schill. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Takano. Were there any arrests?
    Mr. Schill. There were no arrests needed.
    Mr. Takano. Dr. Holloway, the same question. Was Rutgers 
encampment dismantled peacefully?
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, it was, sir.
    Mr. Takano. Were there any arrests?
    Mr. Holloway. No. There were not.
    Mr. Takano. Dr. Schill, did the agreement Northwestern came 
to with the encamped students--did that agreement remove any 
rights or protections for Jewish or Israeli students?
    Mr. Schill. No. It actually gave them the ability to feel 
safe on campus because it was no longer there.
    Mr. Takano. Dr. Holloway, did Rutgers agreement remove any 
rights or protections for those students?
    Mr. Holloway. No, sir. There is no diminution of rights and 
protections for Jewish students.
    Mr. Takano. I will say looking at the UCR agreement, I do 
not see that any rights were abridged or removed for Jewish or 
Israeli students either. Chancellor Block, UCLA's unfortunate 
contrast to what happened at Rutgers and Northwestern. Tensions 
exploded into an incident that lasted several days, led to 
arrests of many, maybe hundreds of arrests, and put students in 
the hospital.
    In hindsight, do you--or could you or your administration 
have done anything differently to prevent things? As Mr. 
Lawrence said, sometimes it is not possible, but in hindsight 
might there have been another approach?
    Mr. Block. Thank you to your question. You know always, we 
will review. We are going to review all of our incidents, and 
to see whether there was another pathway. We tried very hard to 
find an offramp for a student protester, so they could leave 
the encampment. It was not to be. Safety became an issue for 
the whole community, and we had to ask all the encampment 
members to leave the encampment.
    Mr. Takano. Can you tell me just how much time was actually 
spent negotiating with the students, or dialoguing? I mean was 
that possible.
    Mr. Block. Attempt was made first through intermediaries, 
through faculty, and then eventually our Executive Vice 
Chancellor and Provost actually sat in the encampment and 
discussed potential solutions, and was unsuccessful, so there 
was a real attempt for discussion, but unfortunately was not 
successful.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you. I yield back Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Takano. Mr. Allen, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and first I would 
like to ask each one of you the answer of the day is under 
investigation. What are these students doing while they are 
being investigated? Are they still attending classes? Are they 
still demonstrating? Are they still involved in this 
intolerable behavior on campus? Real quickly, what are you--are 
they dismissed from the university until the investigation is 
complete? Tell me what is going on there, Dr. Schill?
    Mr. Schill. I cannot say for specific students what they 
are doing, but we are still in session. We began----
    Mr. Allen. Okay. They are still attending classes, and we 
do not know if they are still involved in protests and 
everything else. Dr. Holloway, what about your university?
    Mr. Holloway. We had a very successful and quiet 
commencements 2 weeks ago, and students who are under 
disciplinary review are not on our campus. There is no protest 
at this time.
    Mr. Allen. Dr. Holloway, what are you doing to those 
students who are under investigation?
    Mr. Holloway. Was that to me, sir?
    Mr. Allen. No. I cannot see the camera, Dr. Block, 
Chancellor Block?
    Mr. Block. During this period of time students are still 
attending classes. I should emphasize there is no encampment, 
and there have been no demonstrations that are problematic.
    Mr. Allen. Dr. Block, Section 185 of the California Penal 
Code outlaws wearing a mask to evade identification in 
committing a public offense. Why have you not banned the 
wearing of masks on your campus in accordance with California 
law?
    Mr. Block. Well, we are still apparently allowed to wear 
masks for COVID protection, and students continue to wear them.
    Mr. Allen. Those are medical masks.
    Mr. Block. Medical masks.
    Mr. Allen. Right. These are not medical masks. You are 
allowing this behavior?
    Mr. Blocks. We have allowed masks on campus, although we 
have a policy they should be unmasked, but during the time of 
COVID we allowed medical masking, and we've continued to allow 
that.
    Mr. Allen. I will yield to Ms. Stefanik the remainder of my 
time.
    Ms. Stefanik. President Schill, you talked about you said 
there is been a wide range of discipline after testifying there 
have been zero suspensions, zero expulsions. You said 
discipline has been meted out. How has discipline been meted 
out?
    Mr. Schill. Discipline has run the gamut that is the 
discipline that is already completed, run the gamut from 
meetings with Student Affairs staff at the very lowest level of 
severity, up to disciplinary probation, which means if there is 
another offense, students will be expelled or suspended.
    Ms. Stefanik. You testified when I asked about the Deering 
Meadows agreement with the visiting Palestinian faculty 
members, is it true that the university committed to fundraise 
above and beyond its current commitment as part of the Deering 
Meadows agreement?
    Mr. Schill. I did not commit. I do not know who told you 
that.
    Ms. Stefanik. Well, I am reading it from the statement put 
out by the university that says, ``The university commits to 
fundraise to sustain its program beyond this current 
commitment.'' I am reading your words put out by your office.
    Mr. Schill. That is a program that is not just about the 
Middle East. That is a program that is about war torn areas, 
all across this world. Ukraine for example would be one.
    Ms. Stefanik. Is it a fact that that was part of the 
agreement to increase the commitment to that?
    Mr. Schill. I do not think the agreement increased the 
commitment .
    Ms. Stefanik. It did. I am reading it for you. You put this 
out from your office, ``The university commits to fundraise to 
sustain its program beyond this current commitment.'' Is that 
no longer part of the Deering Meadows agreement?
    Mr. Schill. When I hear, ``beyond this commitment.''
    Ms. Stefanik. I am reading what your office put out.
    Mr. Schill. Are you asking me to interpret what my office 
put out, or are you just reading it?
    Ms. Stefanik. Well, I am asking you--is that the fact? What 
does beyond this current commitment mean?
    Mr. Schill. What I read that to be is beyond this current 
commitment, the rest of the world and over time.
    Ms. Stefanik. That is not--it is specifically focused on 
the Palestinian faculty members. Let me ask you this.
    Mr. Schill. We are also going to be including Israeli 
faculty members.
    Ms. Stefanik. It does not say that in the commitment. Why 
did you not include Israeli faculty members when you put out 
the Deering Meadows agreement?
    Mr. Schill. Because, the Deering Meadows agreement, which 
actually I never called it that, but the Deering Meadows 
agreement was just a framework of an agreement that was reached 
with students at four o'clock in the morning.
    Ms. Stefanik. At the pro-Hamas encampment.
    Mr. Schill. If you would like to see the entire program, go 
on our website and that will explain it to you, and you will 
see it does not violate Title 6.
    Ms. Stefanik. No. I am asking you about what the university 
put out. There is no mention of Israeli students, or Israeli 
faculty. Is that the case?
    Mr. Schill. In the agreement that we reached that there 
were not Israeli students there or Jewish students there.
    Ms. Stefanik. Because they were not consulted. Is that the 
fact? Jewish and Israeli students were not consulted?
    Mr. Schill. Jewish and Israeli students were not consulted 
with respect to the agreement, and it would have been 
impractical to do that, Representative Stefanik, with all 
respect.
    Ms. Stefanik. Exactly, yield back. Exactly. Yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The time has expired. Dr. Adams, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes. I am sorry. Mr. Norcross, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Norcross. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. To pick up where 
we left off, and the premise behind this is we were talking 
about the encampments, or the beginning protests. You know, 
what were those lines?
    When were they crossed, and how you reacted, so just to 
bring back context, and certainly understanding that, you know, 
since that time you have , and I certainly had met with 
students, instructional staff quite frankly the union of the 
professors.
    One of the issues that comes up, and they are bringing to 
my attention is when the students, Rutgers Students for Justice 
in Palestine became--they began to issue ``Fuck Finals call'' 
which right in the middle of finals for an emergency protest at 
7 a.m. on the second.
    Obviously this is a heightened, from what you suggested was 
peaceful protest, to something that is going to interfere with 
the ability of students to either attend their finals, feel 
threatened. Why did you not order an immediate removal of the 
encampments, once you learned that the participants were going 
to try to disrupt the finals?
    Mr. Holloway. Thank you for the question. On the day of, I 
woke up probably around 6:15, and that is when I discovered the 
Instagram post that you are referencing, sent out by SJP. 
Within minutes I was in touch with my leadership team, and I 
would say roughly by 6:30 we were all on a Zoom talking about 
the situation. At that time that I said that the encampment had 
to go down, this is a wild violation of--across the line, to 
use your language sir.
    A wild violation. We decided then to take the encampment 
down. In order to do so, in talking with the Chief of Police at 
Rutgers he said that the process would take a few hours to make 
sure that a sufficient number of police there--that it could be 
done safely.
    Mr. Norcross. I assume you were in consultation, this is 
the Rutgers Chief of Police. Did you consult with your Board of 
Governors, or with lawyers that you have on staff or others?
    Mr. Holloway. Our General Counsel was in that group that I 
was referencing. The Chief of Police was dialed in at all 
times. We were engaged with him directly. The Board of 
Governors, I was in touch with the Chair and Vice Chair, not at 
6:30 in the morning, but at a reasonable hour for them to give 
them a head's up as to what was happening.
    Mr. Norcross. Is this when the negotiation started with the 
protestors?
    Mr. Holloway. The protestors--I discovered that they had 
sent in a list I think on Tuesday, sir. This is Thursday that I 
am talking about, sent in the list on Tuesday. Then the 
Chancellor of New Brunswick, who runs that campus on a daily 
basis, she and my Chief of Staff talked with four 
representative students on Wednesday, and then this is the day 
before finals began, and the agreement was made then that we 
will be happy to talk with you, but this encampment cannot be 
disruptive----
    They cannot block access. It cannot be raising noise. It 
needs to be silent because we have final exams tomorrow. They 
agreed to that. Then the next morning we discovered that they 
had broken that agreement.
    Mr. Norcross. The negotiations then were taking place while 
the encampment was still there? I am just--is that correct?
    Mr. Holloway. Yes. I mean yes.
    Mr. Norcross. Knowing that, and the--I will call it the 
agreement that was reached with the protestors, after that why 
did it take so long to remove the encampment, even after the 
deal was done?
    Mr. Holloway. The students asked for another meeting on 
Thursday morning. That is when they learned that I had already 
given the order to take the encampment down. They had hoped 
that we could have some further conversation on different 
points. I am like well, if you want to talk anything, you have 
got to agree to have this encampment down.
    We extended the timeline to four o'clock, and that was a 
matter of public safety, sir. In talking with regular 
engagement with the Attorney General of the State of New 
Jersey, when we sent out a request for mutual aid, they needed 
more time to make sure there were proper police there, proper 
mounted police.
    We had 125 police mustered ready to go by early afternoon.
    Mr. Norcross. I think I heard you say you spoke with the 
Attorney General.
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Norcross. Why was he brought into this?
    Mr. Holloway. As I discovered sir, that when--I did not 
know it at the time. When police asked for mutual aid in the 
State of New Jersey, and they ask for more assistance, that 
request ultimately lands with the Attorney General's Office, 
sir.
    Mr. Norcross. What was his reaction, or suggestion that you 
do? Take it down immediately? Wait? Go?
    Mr. Holloway. He wanted to make sure that we had given, 
since we had allowed them to be there as a speech act, he 
wanted to make sure we would give them proper notice to tres--
that they were now in trespass , and then allow time to 
disperse.
    Mr. Norcross. The Attorney General said wait until we tell 
them they are trespassing? Okay. I yield back the balance of my 
time. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. I am going to say to the members when I 
start hitting the gavel, I want to be respectful to the 
witnesses answering questions, but if I hit the gavel, no more 
questions. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Banks, you are recognized.
    Mr. Banks. President Schill, have you had any conversations 
over the last year about leaving the Big 10 Conference?
    Mr. Schill. No. No conversations.
    Mr. Banks. The Big 10 Conference? No consideration, no 
conversations?
    Mr. Schill. No. We are proud to be in the big 10 
Conference. We are proud of our football team, and we are proud 
of being the charter member of the Big 10.
    Mr. Banks. Are you fully committed to remaining in the Big 
10 Conference?
    Mr. Schill. We are fully committed to remaining in the Big 
10 Conference.
    Mr. Banks. Last year you fired the popular football coach, 
coach Fitzgerald, after allegations of hazing in the locker 
room. You hired a law firm. You spent hundreds of thousands of 
dollars to do that.
    That law firm came back with a recommendation to give a 2-
week suspension of the football coach because there was no 
credible evidence that he was aware at all of the harassment, 
or the hazing allegations in the locker room. You issued that 
2-week suspension, correct.
    Mr. Schill. I feel like this is a matter, as you know, the 
former coach Fitz is suing us, and you are asking for facts, 
and your premise is inaccurate, but I do not think----
    Mr. Banks. Do not accuse me of that. That is outrageous.
    Mr. Schill. Well, it is wrong what you just said.
    Mr. Banks. Let me get to my point.
    Mr. Schill. Okay.
    Mr. Banks. I think your performance here has been very 
embarrassing to your school. After 72 hours, you gave him a 2-
week suspension, and then you received a lot of backlash from 
the left wing mob, including a letter from six professors who 
attacked you and said that was not good enough. By the way, 
three of those professors were also--they also attacked you 
later for creating the Committee on Antisemitism and Hate. You 
responded to that left wing backlash, as well.
    Then you fired the popular football coach 72 hours later 
after you originally gave him a 2-week suspension. Here is what 
is relevant, Mr. President. You said that the decision to 
originally suspend Coach Fitzpatrick was mine and mine alone, 
as is the decision to part ways with him. It is your decision, 
your decision alone.
    Let me ask you about Stephen Thrasher. He is one of the 
goons in the photo behind me. He is a Professor of Journalism 
at Northwestern. He and several of your faculty members locked 
arms, they scuffled with police officers, blocked the police 
officers on your campus from doing their job. Do they continue 
to teach students at Northwestern University after this 
embarrassing incident?
    Mr. Schill. I will not comment on individual faculty 
members, nor on matters----
    Mr. Banks. Is it your decision, and your decision alone to 
allow those professors to continue to teach students on your 
campus?
    Mr. Schill. We believe in due process at Northwestern 
University.
    Mr. Banks. You believe in due process except for the 
decision that you made about Coach Fitzgerald.
    Mr. Schill. We followed the contract, that was the process.
    Mr. Banks. Have your cake and eat it too.
    Mr. Schill. We had an investigation, but I do not--I am not 
going to go on and on about that.
    Mr. Banks. Is it okay for faculty members at Northwestern 
University to scuffle with police officers to lock arms, and 
prevent police officers from doing their job? You said in your 
opening statements that this encampment was responsible for 
antisemitic behavior that made Jewish students feel unsafe to 
go to class. Is it okay for faculty members? Is it okay? Do 
they get away with that at Northwestern University?
    Mr. Schill. I am not going to comment in ongoing 
investigations and faculty personal matters.
    Mr. Banks. Unbelievable, unbelievable, President Schill.
    Mr. Schill. At the university and that is confidential.
    Mr. Banks. That those faculty members would continue to 
have a job. Thrasher, by the way, is something of a 
professional prognosticator. In fact, he went to Columbia 
University to participate in their encampment, and you pay his 
bills. You are responsible for Stephen Thrasher's activities, 
which is really crazy.
    Let me ask you this. Are the Houthis, and is Hamas a 
terrorist organization?
    Mr. Schill. Everything I know suggested that Hamas is a 
terrorist organization.
    Mr. Banks. Is it okay for professors or faculty members at 
Northwestern University to praise Hamas or the Houthi's? Hamas, 
by the way, responsible for the attacks on October 7th that 
killed over 1,000 Jews and Israels on the very terrible dark 
day in Israel. Is it okay for your faculty members to praise 
Hamas and the Houthi's?
    Mr. Schill. Are you saying okay meaning is it something 
that I would do, or are you saying, okay?
    Mr. Banks. No. Do you allow your professors here, and 
faculty members to do that?
    Mr. Schill. Our professors and our faculty members have all 
of the rights of free speech that----
    Mr. Banks. I would like to submit these statements for the 
record, Madam Chair, of faculty members at Northwestern who 
have praised Hamas and the Houthi's, and by the way is it okay 
for faculty members, teachers to tell their students to go to 
these the encampments, or coerce them, push them, toward that 
type of political behavior to go participate and lock arms with 
the encampments, and maybe tie their grades to that, or make 
them feel like that that's something that they should 
participate with?
    Mr. Schill. May I answer, Chair?
    Chairwoman Foxx. You may answer.
    Mr. Schill. Thank you. Our faculty members, no one at our 
school may engage in discriminatory, harassing, or intimidating 
behavior.
    Mr. Banks. Madam Chair, I want to submit this for the 
record as well, these comments, 4 billion dollars have gone to 
your university. We should not give you another taxpayer dollar 
for the joke your university has become.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Banks, your time has expired. Without 
objection, your material will be submitted for the record.
    [The Information of Mr. Banks follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
  
    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Ms. Jayapal, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Madam Chair. Free speech and the 
right to protest are foundational to our democracy, and 
upholding these rights without allowing them to be twisted into 
weapons of hate is no easy task. Nowhere perhaps is it more 
difficult than on college campuses, places that help students 
to think, to engage, to broaden their mindsets, and to express 
their ideas without violence or intimidation.
    Antisemitism, Islamophobia, anti-AAPI hate, LGBTQIA hate, 
and indeed all forms of hatred have no place in our society, 
including on college campuses. The history of protests on 
college campuses is mirrored in today's history in today's 
protests. As college administrators, protecting all of your 
students, and allowing your campuses to remain as communities 
of free debate is your responsibility.
    Instead of using these hearings for political bullying 
purposes, which is what the majority seems to do. If you want 
to be embarrassed about something, perhaps be embarrassed about 
the fact that this majority has not been able to govern in this 
cycle without being saved by democrats.
    I for one, am interested in hearing and learning about what 
successful negotiation and de-escalation looks like in the 
context of protecting students and free speech. Mr. Schill, I 
am a proud MBA graduate from the Kellogg School at Northwestern 
University. In fact, many of my courses were about negotiation 
and mediation.
    You have described college Presidents as being between a 
rock and a hard place in a recent op-ed, and certainly we see 
that. I agree completely with your eloquent comments on the 
need to fight the scourge of antisemitism on our campuses, and 
everywhere, and I appreciate your own lived experience, and 
your work to do that.
    You did not mention other forms of hate that have also 
risen against Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students on your 
campus. Do you have the same level of commitment to fight that 
kind of hate against those students, and can you tell me what 
efforts you are taking to address safety concerns for those 
communities?
    Mr. Schill. Absolutely. Any form of hate, any form of 
discrimination or harassment based upon Title 6, or other rules 
at the university, we will investigate any complaints, and we 
have gotten complaints that sound in Islamophobia. We will 
investigate them. We will also protect all of our students, 
whether on campus or off campus.
    We will connect and communicate. I had a dinner for 45 
Jewish kids, and I asked them about what they needed. I had a 
dinner for Islamic students and asked them what they needed. We 
are a university--these are all of our students. These--
everyone is part of our community, and I owe an obligation.
    My No. 1 obligation is public safety and is their safety 
because if you do not feel safe, you cannot learn. That is what 
Northwestern does better than any other university, as you 
know, because you are an alumna, it teaches, and it does 
research, and it creates an environment for learning.
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. You commented some on this, but I 
wanted to know if you had more to say about the options and the 
outcomes that you considered before choosing negotiation. You 
were actually successful in ending your college's encampment by 
peacefully negotiating with the protestors. Did you have 
anything you wanted to add about what you were considering as 
you decided to take that course of negotiation?
    Mr. Schill. As I said, we had to get the encampment down. 
We needed to--the police solution was not, No. 1, not going to 
be available to us to keep people safe, but also may not be the 
wise solution as we have seen at some other universities around 
the country.
    We found, and we were fortunate to have students who were 
willing to negotiate, and were willing to give up their demands 
that they came into us for. Their No. 1 demand was divestment. 
We said no. We said absolutely not. We said nothing that 
singles out Israel.
    Then we said let us think about what will make the 
university stronger. What will be important for your community, 
and then we came to this agreement over time hearing what their 
needs are. I would do that, I would listen to the needs of any 
community, and I have to say most of these things we had 
already been in communication with our Muslim students. For 
example, the House for Muslim students and MINA students, that 
was already in conversation. For a year they had no place to 
pray, they had no place to eat and celebrate Ramadan.
    That was something that we accord to our Jewish students, 
to our Catholic students, to our Lutheran students. We want to 
meet the needs of our students where they are, and that is what 
the agreement ended up being.
    Ms. Jayapal. I really appreciate your focus on negotiation, 
and a peaceful resolution, and protecting all students. Thank 
you, President Schill.
    Mr. Schill. Thank you.
    Ms. Jayapal. I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. Mr. Owens, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, thank you very much. I am going to 
start off by saying that courage and leadership finds itself in 
the moment, and I must say as a nation we are seeing that it 
was not available. We did not see that in these college 
campuses. What I think we are looking for was strength, 
fairness to all, including our Jewish students, wisdom, and the 
recognition that hate cannot be negotiated with.
    I am really curious, I am trying to understand how you have 
negotiations. By the way, President Schill, would you have the 
same patience, the same strategy if these were KKK white 
supremacists that we try to negotiate that was actually 
attacking and intimidating black people? Would you have the 
same patience with that?
    Mr. Schill. Representative Owens, thank you for the 
question. I am not going to engage in hypotheticals like that. 
That has not happened.
    Mr. Owens. No, no, this is how you deal with hatred. I am 
trying to give you a kind of understanding that with college 
Jewish students. If it was black students against the KKK, 
instead of pro-Hamas, would you deal with them the same exact 
way as you dealt with these students?
    Mr. Schill. I am not going to engage in----
    Mr. Owens. All right. The answer is no. Okay. Let us move 
on. I will just say this, it is striking that you decided to 
negotiate a sweetheart deal with pro-Hamas students, and 
profess to deny October 7th, either they died, they celebrated, 
or they simply do not care. I look at that as pure evil.
    Mr. Schill, now how much money has Northwestern University, 
recieved from Qatar sources, including Qatar connected entities 
at the Qatar Foundation?
    Mr. Schill. The amount that we have received from the Qatar 
Foundation to fund our campus in Qatar, all of the resources 
that we have gotten, there has been a lot----
    Mr. Owens. I am not--I am looking for short answers. I only 
have about 3 minutes left so please, okay, so how much?
    Mr. Schill. I do not have the dollar numbers. You have the 
check that says----
    Mr. Owens. Oh yes, let us say between 500 and 700 million 
you have got, okay?
    Mr. Schill. You have the check that says that amount. Every 
dollar has gone to the operation of the campus, or the 
management of the campus.
    Mr. Owens. Would you mind, I would like to have a complete, 
transparent accounting to just how much exactly is coming from 
this. Now, are you aware that this is the same Qatar government 
that is partnered, that currently harbors the leaders of Hamas 
and estimated to have given the terrorist organization of Hamas 
about 1.8 billion dollars. Are you aware of that, Qatar?
    Mr. Schill. They are harboring those leaders at the--with 
the knowledge the U.S. Government supports that and has 
supported that.
    Mr. Owens. I am just asking a question, yes, or no, yes, or 
no? Are you aware that 1.8 billion has been given to Hamas from 
Qatar?
    Mr. Schill. Pardon me?
    Mr. Owens. Are you aware that terrorists have given--that 
Qatar has given to terrorism 1.8 billion dollars to Hamas?
    Mr. Schill. I--this is not my area of expertise.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. All right. You are not aware. Okay. Are 
you aware that the Iranian officials traveled in and out of 
Behar to meet with Hamas?
    Mr. Schill. This is not in my area of expertise.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Do you think if this was true, do you 
think it would be a good idea for the university, Northwestern, 
to partner with a government that harbors terrorist Hamas, and 
Iranian hostages, who help fund terrorism. Yes, or no?
    Mr. Schill. I am not going to engage in yes or no answers.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Obviously, you do not have a problem with 
that. Northwestern's School of Journalism is a form of----
    Mr. Schill. I really am offended by you telling me what my 
views are.
    Mr. Owens. I am sorry. My time. My time. A former 
partnership with a Qatar media outlet, Al Jazeera, did you know 
that?
    Mr. Schill. I am sorry?
    Mr. Owens. Did you know that Northwestern School of 
Journalism has a former partnership with Al Jazeera?
    Mr. Schill. I in fact just found out about that last week.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Well, let me tell you, let me make you 
aware of then because Al Jazeera, because of their pro-Hamas 
reporting, the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, asked the 
Qatar Prime Minister to tone down, as there was anti-Israel 
incitement. It was Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt that 
have blocked Al Jazeera because of their pro-Hamas mouthpiece.
    My understanding is that you have a contract with the Qatar 
allegation that expires at the end of 2027-2028 academic year, 
which now that you know about Qatar, would you be willing to--
are you going to still renew that contract?
    Mr. Schill. The review of that contract is being done by 
the Provost Office, and it will be----
    Mr. Owens. I am sorry, I am sorry.
    Mr. Schill. May I just finish the answer?
    Mr. Owens. I am sorry. These are really sort of quick 
questions. Knowing that Al Jazeera is a mouthpiece for Hamas, 
are you willing to end that partnership?
    Mr. Schill. The decision, with respect to the Qatar campus, 
is ultimately the Board of Trustees, and I actually am 
concerned by the agreement that you are talking about with Al 
Jazeera.
    Mr. Owens. Well, you should be.
    Mr. Schill. We are going to look into it.
    Mr. Owens. Yes, okay. This is an issue that I am thankful 
were pulling, it goes back because this is not just beginning 
now. Obviously, it has been going on a long, long time. We are 
going to make sure we keep up on this thinking, and I yield 
back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Owens, your time is expired. Mrs. 
Manning, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to our 
witnesses for being here today. Clearly, none of you were 
prepared for what happened on your campuses after October 7th. 
I have spoken with Jewish students, faculty members, alumni, 
who have described countless, horrifying and relentless 
incidents of harassment, intimidation, the use of Jewish 
tropes, the putting up of leaflets, and the tearing down of 
hostage posters.
    The isolation of Jewish student groups, of Jewish students 
rather, forcing them to leave official student groups from 
student government to dance troops. Students were unable to get 
to class, they were afraid to go to the dining rooms, they 
could not study, they had classes and exams canceled. What has 
been described to me has been nothing short of the 
normalization of antisemitism on your campuses.
    This normalization of antisemitism did not start on October 
7th. It predated that date by many years. It reflects a failure 
to take antisemitism seriously. A failure to treat antisemitism 
the same way you would treat any other kind of discrimination. 
It has been fostered by years of teaching a one-sided, anti-
Israel view by many of your professors, and by a demonization 
of Zionism, which is the century's old quest by the Jewish 
people to return to their ancestral homeland and control their 
own destiny.
    President Schill, why has not Northwestern taken serious 
steps to address the normalization of antisemitism and anti-
Zionist teachings on your campus long before October 7th?
    Mr. Schill. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman 
Manning. I believe we are taking steps. I believe you are 
absolutely right. None of us were prepared for what we saw 
after October 7th, and you have my commitment that we will do 
what is necessary to combat antisemitism, but we will also do 
what is necessary to educate our students in the evils of 
antisemitism, as well as the roots of antisemitism.
    Mrs. Manning. It is a shame that this disaster finally 
brought a recognition that that kind of education is necessary. 
I know you had an antisemitism task force. It had no experts on 
antisemitism on the task force. Will you commit to putting 
together a task force that has experts on antisemitism?
    Mr. Schill. It actually did. We did have a faculty member 
who was a consultant to the Holocaust Museum, so we did have 
someone on the Committee there, but we will definitely have 
people who are knowledgeable, and who are aware of 
antisemitism.
    Mrs. Manning. Will you commit to training not just 
students, but also your faculty members on what antisemitism 
is, and the dangers that it presents, not just to Jewish 
students, but to the foundations of our democracy?
    Mr. Schill. I believe that is a good idea.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you. Chancellor Block, same question 
for you?
    Mr. Block. Yes. We admit that this is a challenge.
    Mrs. Manning. It has been a challenge. I have emails dating 
back to 2014 from dedicated alumni who tried to alert you of 
the growing problem with antisemitism that was growing on your 
campus.
    Mr. Block. We responded. We tried to respond with 
education, and obviously with enforcement where there are 
complaints about specific antisemitic events, developed an 
online training module on anti-discrimination. We bolstered the 
part on antisemitism at orientation.
    Mrs. Manning. Are all your students required to take 
antisemitism training?
    Mr. Block. They are not required to take antisemitism. The 
anti-discrimination module is recommended for all incoming. 
Approximately, 90 percent of our students take online training 
for it. It is talked about at orientation.
    Mrs. Manning. Does that include antisemitism training?
    Mr. Block. It has Antisemitism discussion.
    Mrs. Manning. Do you think it needs more?
    Mr. Block. I think we need to do more. I would agree.
    Mrs. Manning. Does your faculty also need to take that 
antisemitism training?
    Mr. Block. I think faculty can benefit also from 
understanding the challenges of our students today, and I 
agree.
    Mrs. Manning. Okay. President Holloway, same question to 
you? By the way, I have Bennett College in my District, so I 
understand your roots.
    Mr. Holloway. Thank you, ma'am. There is--I want to say 
from the beginning that we are living in an age of heightened 
discrimination and antisemitism, absolutely. The campuses are 
no different from the rest of the country. Any expression of it 
I think is absolutely horrible.
    What I also want to say is that we address every instance 
that's brought to our attention of discriminatory behavior, 
including antisemitism.
    Mrs. Manning. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Manning. Mr. Good, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Good. Thank you, Madam Chairman. President Holloway, 
the Rutgers Newark Campus hosts a think tank called the Center 
for Security Race and Rights, or CSRR. In just the past week 
CSRR, which astonishingly is 50 percent funded by your 
Chancellor's discretionary budget, and the Director's 
$232,000.00 salary of course is paid for by the university.
    In just the past week CSRR, again a so-called think tank 
called the Center for Security, Race and Rights has exposed its 
antisemitic agenda. In a post on X, CSRR called Israel's 
government, ``genocidal.'' Do you think Israel's government is 
genocidal?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, I do not have an opinion on Israel's, in 
terms of that phrase sir.
    Mr. Good. You do not have an opinion as to whether or not 
Israel's government is genocidal?
    Mr. Holloway. No, sir. I think Israel has the right to 
exist, and to protect itself.
    Mr. Good. You think Israel's government is genocidal?
    Mr. Holloway. I think Israel has a right to exist and to 
protect itself, sir.
    Mr. Good. You will not say that Israel's government is not 
genocidal? You cannot say that?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, I believe in the government's right to--
the country's right to exist.
    Mr. Good. You can be that surprised by the topic of 
discussion today, and you cannot say that Israel's government 
is not genocidal. That is interesting. Another CSRR post said 
the Biden's administration shift on Israel is a gain that can 
and must be built on, meaning the Biden's administration's 
portrayal of Israel.
    Another post from the Center said the real threat to 
American Jews comes not from students, but from MAGA 
republicans who are shouting about antisemitism the loudest. Do 
you agree with this again, Rutgers funded think tank, half 
funded by your Chancellor's discretionary budget, Director has 
a $232,000.00 salary funded by Rutgers.
    Do you agree that MAGA republicans are a threat to American 
Jews?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, my--these statements that you are 
reading I find all deeply troubling and unsettling, sir.
    Mr. Good. Just start with a yes or no. Do you think that 
MAGA republicans are a threat to American Jews?
    Mr. Holloway. I am not in a position to answer that 
question, sir.
    Mr. Good. Are you in a position to answer any questions?
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Good. Do you have an opinion on anything on this 
subject that is at hand today? I mean what does that mean? Do 
you think that anti-Israel political advocacy is an appropriate 
use of taxpayer dollars by a public university like Rutgers?
    Mr. Holloway. I think that a public university we have to 
abide by the First Amendment, and be a place for----
    Mr. Good. Should Rutgers fund anti-Israel political 
advocacy?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, we should not be funding anti-Israel 
advocacy. No.
    Mr. Good. That is good to hear. On the 20th anniversary of 
September 11th, CSRR sponsored an event featuring a speaker who 
was convicted in 2006 for material support of a terrorist 
group, the Palestinian Islam Jihad. His name is Sami Al-Arian, 
and he pleaded guilty to several charges.
    The event was designed to so-called challenge the narrative 
surrounding 911, and how 911 supposedly legitimized a war on 
terror, and other imperialist wars and interventions. I should 
note that 750 New Jerseyans died on 911. They were murdered on 
911. Do you think it is acceptable for a New Jersey State 
university to sponsor an event about 911 with a speech by a 
convicted terrorist conspirator?
    Mr. Holloway. I learned about that person's involvement. I 
do not support that person's ideas in the least. I think they 
are wildly offensive. I also--well that is all. I will just 
stop there, sir.
    Mr. Good. I am sorry?
    Mr. Holloway. I was ending my question.
    Mr. Good. Yes. Well, you were present at that time. Did you 
do anything about this event taking place on your campus, or to 
prevent future events like this from taking place?
    Mr. Holloway. Did you ask me if I would prevent that from 
happening, sir? Is that what you said?
    Mr. Good. Yes. Again, do you think it is okay for the New 
Jersey State University Rutgers, to sponsor an event about 911 
with a speech by a convicted terrorist conspirator? You said 
no. You did not think so.
    Mr. Holloway. That is correct, sir.
    Mr. Good. Did you do anything about it when you learned 
about it? You were present at the time?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, we are a community of 100,000 people. 
There are events happening on every day of the campus that I am 
not aware of at any given moment.
    Mr. Good. Okay. As noted before, the Director of CSRR, 
Sahar Aziz, has made numerous antisemitic statements, again 
with her $232,000.00 Rutgers funded salary. She signed a 
statement--signed a statement condemning ``The racial supremacy 
of Jewish Zionist Nationals,'' saying that Jews are more 
privileged than Muslims, and de-legitimizing both Israel and 
the U.S. as ``racist settler colonial states.''
    Given that statement, and her Center's antisemitic pro-
terrorist activities, do you think it is appropriate for 
Rutgers to continue to fund this office and pay her salary of 
$232,000.00? Is that okay? Is that cool with you and Rutgers?
    Mr. Holloway. There is very little that I find easy about 
this Center, sir. I personally disagree deeply with a lot of 
the ideas that are--come from that Center.
    Mr. Good. Are you going to close the Center, or just keep 
on funding it, keep on paying that salary?
    Mr. Holloway. I have no plans to close the Center, sir.
    Mr. Good. Yes. I am not surprised. Thank you, Madam Chair, 
and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Good. Ms. Wild, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Wild. Thank you, Madam Chair. President Holloway, just 
as an incidental matter. As Ranking Member of the House Ethics 
Committee I want to thank you for your early service to that 
Committee. I hope it was a valuable experience for you. While I 
understand that free speech is a critical tenant of our 
democracy. I think we all agree on that.
    I do worry about whether the campus protests we have seen 
this year veer into hate speech. Thankfully, the protests on 
the campuses in my District, Pennsylvania 7, which hosts a 
number of wonderful schools like Lehigh University, Muhlenberg 
College, Lafayette College, and so forth, the protests have 
been peaceful and respectful, and I am deeply appreciative of 
our students for that.
    Let me also say that I commend the restraint shown by some 
of you in not creating a police State on your campuses. There 
is a fine line between law and order, and oppression of the 
right to protest, and that is a really fine line, and I respect 
the very difficult job you have had all had this year.
    As a Jewish mother of two young adults, I have to say that 
I am deeply saddened and dismayed by the increased evidence of 
antisemitism across our country, and around the world, and much 
as I truly believe that college is a place where young people 
learn to think critically, I also have some concerns about 
whether students are getting enough guidance on this issue from 
administrations.
    I want to start, President Schill, seven members of your 
Advisory Committee on Preventing Antisemitism and Hate, 
including the Co-Chair resigned after the university brokered 
an agreement with encampment organizers. In a followup 
statement the university claimed that the Committee's charge 
and its work remain incredibly important to our community.
    Our commitment to protecting Jewish students, faculty and 
staff is unwavering. My question is why did Northwestern fail 
to consult with that Committee before yielding to the demands 
of the protestors?
    Mr. Schill. That was never in the purview of that 
Committee. That Committee was designed to assess the extent of 
antisemitism on campus, and then to propose educational and 
other ways to deal with it. It was not to deal with an existing 
encampment. Quite honestly, there were I believe 16 members, 17 
members, most of whom did not have expertise in this area.
    There is a limit to how many people one can consult when 
one is talking to students around the clock.
    Ms. Wild. Well, I understand that there is a limitation on 
time, and that kind of thing, but it seems to me that you had a 
ready-made committee that could have been asked to weigh in on 
this, and obviously 7 of the members of that committee felt the 
same because they stepped down.
    Have you taken steps to replace those faculty and staff 
members?
    Mr. Schill. We are going to constitute a task force, and 
that task force is going to be designed to come up with new 
strategies to combat antisemitism. What we are going to do is 
ask that committee to look at the wisdom of other antisemitism 
committees around the country.
    Indeed, this committee wrote a report last--two weeks ago 
in which it summarized the Harvard antisemitism committee, and 
I will be asking them to look at the recommendations.
    Ms. Wild. Okay. Well, I hope that you will consult with 
that task force or committee in the future when you have got 
this kind of situation. I have got limited time, and I do want 
to ask, and this can be to any of you, hopefully all of you, 
with short answers. As we are looking forward to the fall 
semester, obviously we have the potential for ongoing 
challenges in this regard with respect to campus protests and 
encampments, and potential violence.
    What are your administrations doing now, or planning to do 
over the summer to prepare for the next school year? Why not 
start with you, Chancellor Block?
    Mr. Block. Yes. I will not be there this fall, but I would 
seriously recommend that during our orientation this coming 
summer, we spend extra time discussing these issues about 
respectful protests, time, place and manner, and we make sure 
that our students are prepared for what the rules are with 
regard to the protests.
    Ms. Wild. Mr. Lawrence.
    Mr. Lawrence. I think these are always learning 
opportunities on our campuses, and we should not be surprised 
in a polarized time, in a challenging time to the Nation that 
we see that exhibited on campus, so I think this is an 
opportunity to talk about protests, but also about a 
conversation over differences, and all of us on campus and 
throughout the society can play a role of role modeling for 
students how we have conversations between and among people who 
have very strong differences of opinion on fundamental issues.
    Ms. Wild. Exactly. That is exactly my point. I know my time 
has run out, so what I would ask of all of you is that you give 
very careful consideration to how you are going to approach 
this in the upcoming school year, and perhaps submit to the 
Committee your ideas, which I hope will be some sort of 
template for other schools. Thank you very much. I yield back, 
Madam Chair, and thank you for the accommodation.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Wild. I think you have 
asked a very good question. Ms. Steel, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Steel. Thank you, Dr. Foxx, and thank you all the 
witnesses coming out today. Chancellor Block, you have been 
talking about this was really peaceful protest, and UC system, 
under UC's system on this absolutely needed that you cannot 
really use law enforcements.
    You know what? If you watch the video that person 
physically slapped a Jewish student, and removed the Jewish 
student's head covering, and pull out a taser and followed that 
person. I hope that you found out who that person is, belong to 
your university or students, and whoever that was, and I hope 
that you found out, and you did certain, you know, you dealt 
with him, I hope.
    You know what? That should not happen for the Jewish 
students. Your school that had the, you know, I am going to 
just move on to that. Hamas leaning faculty members offered 
extra credit and better grades for those who took part in chaos 
and disruption caused by campus--the terrorists. This is just 
really not heard of, and what did you do?
    Did you do discipline this professor, or did you really do 
something, or you are investigating and then what is going on? 
You know what? This should not happen on a university's 
campuses, such as UCLA. It is a prominent university in 
California. Not just California, but in the Nation, so what did 
you do about it?
    Mr. Block. Congresswoman, thank you for your question. I am 
unaware of the incident of offering extra credit. I am just not 
clear of that incident. I am happy to look into it, but that 
particular incident----
    Mrs. Steel. I really cannot hear you. Could you pull your 
microphone?
    Mr. Block. I am sorry. That particular incident I am not 
fully aware of the one you are talking about. We do know there 
have been cases where a faculty member has offered extra credit 
to go to a tutorial on Gaza but offered the same credit to go 
to other events on campus, including an event at our Nazarian 
study for Jewish studies.
    The incident you are talking about, I am sorry I am not 
familiar with. I will make sure I am aware of it and see how it 
was disposed of. It may have been handled by Student Affairs, I 
am not certain.
    Mrs. Steel. Well, Chancellor Block, I am aware of that, and 
you do not--that is really, really odd because you are a head 
of your university. Then you know what? Antisemitism class is 
not mandatory, but I have a little problem with your syllabus, 
your school's syllabus here that on March 27th an activist gave 
a mandatory lecture to your first year UCLA medical student.
    It is part of the mandatory structure, racism and health 
equity class. During this lecture, the medical students, the 
lecturer led the students in a free, free Palestine chant, and 
demanded the students kneel down and kept repeating for mama 
Earth to pray. When you do mandatory, why medical students are 
required to stand up and chant, ``Free, free Palestine,'' in a 
mandatory lecture?
    Some faculty have called for a course to be suspended and 
investigated. Have you opened an investigation and committed to 
an investigation today?
    Mr. Block. We have undertaken factfinding to find out 
exactly what happened at that class. I am not familiar with the 
exact details, it is through our Office of Compliance, and I do 
believe that the School of Medicine is relooking over its first 
year program generally, to look at faculty committee is looking 
at the course content of the first-year program, of which this 
was a part of.
    As a review of the first-year program that I understand, 
and we are actually now trying to confirm the facts of what has 
been claimed during that course.
    Mrs. Steel. How are you going to fix that--it is never 
going to happen again though?
    Mr. Block. I think this is when we are again, let us find 
the facts out first, of exactly what happened, and then we will 
figure out what the remedy should be to make sure that 
appropriate behavior occurs in classrooms.
    Mrs. Steel. UCLA receives a lot of Federal funding. In 
fact, over 1 billion dollars per year just for research. It is 
a good use of taxpayer funds taken by--to the October 7th 
massacre as justice. Do you condemn the facts that someone at 
your university before the October 7th attack on Israel that 
killed 1,200 people and hundreds of people were kidnapped as 
justice?
    Mr. Block. Well again, I am not familiar with exactly the 
individual you are talking about. I think that would be a 
personnel issue. I am deeply offended by statements like that. 
That is personally offensive to me, particularly hurtful, and I 
just would like to learn more about it.
    Mrs. Steel. Chancellor Block, it seems like I am not really 
getting any answers from you, but you know what, I hope these 
public universities, especially getting Federal fundings, and 
you know what, you really have to teach our kids how to think, 
not just brainwashing these kids, so thank you very much, Dr. 
Foxx.
    Mr. Block. I appreciate that. I am--thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Dr. Adams, you are recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I want to thank 
the Presidents and Chancellors for being here today. Thank you 
for what you do at your institutions. I served 40 years at 
Bennett College in Greensboro, and so Dr. Holloway, I want you 
to know I did have the opportunity to know Dr. Trent, your 
grandfather, and to work with him during my 40 years there at 
the college.
    Let me just say for the record that I am certainly opposed 
to any unsafe conditions on campuses, antisemitism, hatred and 
bigotry, all of those things in my opinion are inappropriate. I 
was a professor. I worked with faculty and students, so I 
certainly understand what all of you do.
    Today we are talking about antisemitism, I am as I said 
before, opposed to that, and to any unsafe conditions. Every 
student who comes to campus and spends their time there, their 
money, need to feel safe, and need to have the kind of academic 
enrichment that is appropriate.
    I do have a couple of questions. I think some of you--I am 
going between Committees, so I apologize that I have had to 
step out but let me ask, we have been talking about the summer 
now coming. I think most of you have probably had commencement, 
if not, you are having it. To what extent have you had 
conversations with students about protests, before they left 
the campus, or during the upsets that we have seen on the 
campus.
    You can be real brief in your answers because I have 
another question. We will start, Dr. Holloway, we will start 
with you.
    Mr. Holloway. Thank you, Congresswoman. I speak with 
students, faculty and staff, particularly in the Jewish 
community in this case quite often. It has been ongoing. We 
have talked a lot about different elements on campus, and what 
we are going to be doing going forward in the summer is 
implementing new training by partnering with the Anti-
Defamation League, in particular.
    They have already been a good partner. We will dive in 
deeper to that to make sure that we are doing everything we can 
to ensure a safe environment for our students.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Yes. Anyone else want to speak to that?
    Mr. Schill. I am happy to jump in. What we are doing, we 
are always talking with our students, and trying to help them 
both our Jewish students, as well as some of the students who 
are advocates for the current conflict in Gaza. The important 
thing that we are going to be doing over the summer, 
Congressman Adams, is we are going to be revising our conduct 
code, which was just not appropriate for this moment.
    We are going to be working on that, both our Office of 
Student Affairs in conjunction with our Board Committee on 
Student Affairs.
    Ms. Adams. Let me interrupt. That is going to apply to all 
students?
    Mr. Schill. That would apply to all students, right.
    Ms. Adams. Let me--I have a question. I really want to get 
this one in. As university Presidents, Chancellors, how have 
you supported the freedom of speech, and the right to 
peacefully protest of your students, as well as your faculty? 
Because of the views, or political positions that we know, have 
been expressed may differ from that of your Trustees, or even 
your own personal views.
    How have you ensured that the institutional mission of the 
university remains intact, and each of you can respond very 
quickly if you would.
    Mr. Schill. I believe that free speech and free expression 
and academic freedom are the core values of our university. We 
will protect them. At the same time, academic freedom and free 
expression do not allow discrimination, harassment, or 
intimidation of students, other faculty, or community members.
    Ms. Adams. Right. Okay. Let us move on down the line, Dr. 
Holloway?
    Mr. Holloway. Academic freedom and free speech are at the 
very core of what we do. I think that the core of what we do in 
the work of serving the common good and protecting democracy. I 
absolutely agree with President Schill, any language that 
threatens violence, harassment and intimidation goes beyond the 
pale, and we work very hard to make sure that we hold people 
accountable.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you.
    Mr. Lawrence.
    Mr. Lawrence. As I said in my opening statement that we 
have to have strong protections of free expression, academic 
freedom, free inquiry as the foundation of the open dialog 
discussion debate that takes place on a university campus, 
where does that run out? Where does that reach its limit?
    Whether threats of violence, harassment, intimidation, and 
interruptions.
    Ms. Adams. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. I would say the same thing. What we have to do 
is, we want to encourage free speech. We want to make sure 
time, place, manner , the students understand how to do it 
within the context of the university environment.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, gentlemen. Madam Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Dr. Adams. Mr. Kiley, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Kiley. President Holloway, is physically blocking 
students from entering your campus based on their race, 
religion, or ethnicity an expellable offense?
    Mr. Holloway. I am sorry. The very beginning of the 
question?
    Mr. Kiley. Is physically blocking students from entering 
your campus based on their race, religion or ethnicity an 
expellable offense?
    Mr. Holloway. That is certainly a violation of our 
university standards, sir.
    Mr. Kiley. Is it an expellable offense?
    Mr. Holloway. Potentially it would be, sir. It would depend 
on the circumstance of that specific instance.
    Mr. Kiley. President Schill, is excluding students, 
blocking students from entering campus based on their race, 
religion or ethnicity an expellable offense at your university?
    Mr. Schill. I would imagine it is a violation of our 
conduct code.
    Mr. Kiley. Is it an expellable offense?
    Mr. Schill. I am sorry.
    Mr. Kiley. Is it an expellable offense to physically 
obstruct students from their campus?
    Mr. Schill. There is a range of disciplines up to and 
including being expelled for violations.
    Mr. Kiley. Chancellor Block, is physically stopping 
students from entering your campus based on their race, 
religion, or ethnicity, an expellable offense?
    Mr. Block. Again, there is a disciplinary process for 
students. It could be.
    Mr. Kiley. Can we please play a video?
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Kiley. Students who formed the blockade, do you know?
    Mr. Block. Excuse me? I am sorry.
    Mr. Kiley. Were those students who formed that blockade?
    Mr. Block. I do not know whether they are students or non-
affiliates. I do not know.
    Mr. Kiley. You do not know.
    Mr. Block. I do not know.
    Mr. Kiley. Have any of them been disciplined?
    Mr. Block. Have any been disciplined yet?
    Mr. Kiley. Those people on the video who formed the 
blockade. Have they been disciplined?
    Mr. Block. After the response, after we learned about that, 
I sent a message to all of our student affairs people to make 
sure that the pathways were opened for everyone. I sent a 
message out to our community.
    Mr. Kiley. I am going to take that as a no. We have the 
evidence right here on video. A student being blocked from 
entering your campus based on his Jewish identity, and there 
has been no consequence whatsoever. Is that what you are 
telling us?
    Mr. Block. No. I did not say that. I said this is being 
investigated, and we will see what happens with the 
disciplinary process. I did not say that.
    Mr. Kiley. President Schill, if the Deering Meadows 
agreement, if the university does not live up to its end of the 
bargain, do the protestors have a right to re-establish the 
encampment?
    Mr. Schill. The protest on Deering Meadow, any encampment 
on Deering Meadow is a violation of the university's conduct 
code.
    Mr. Kiley. Yes, but you reached an agreement where you said 
that you are going to--that the encampment will disband if, and 
you agreed, to certain conditions. If you do not follow those 
conditions can the encampment re-establish itself?
    Mr. Schill. We are planning on following those conditions.
    Mr. Kiley. If you do not, would they be within their rights 
to re-establish the encampment?
    Mr. Schill. That is a hypothetical issue. If I commit to 
something, I do it.
    Mr. Kiley. You said you have great respect for the Anti-
Defamation League. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schill. I do.
    Mr. Kiley. And as I am sure you are aware, the Anti-
Defamation League has called for your resignation. They said 
President Schill capitulated to hatred and bigotry, and 
empowered and emboldened those who have used intimidation, 
harassment, and violence to achieve their ends, rather than 
hold them accountable as you pledged you would.
    President Schill gave them a seat at the table and 
normalized their hatred against Jewish students. Why is the ADL 
wrong?
    Mr. Schill. I believe that at this moment leaders need to 
make hard decisions. I believe that we got a good result. We 
were able to get rid of the major antisemitic event on our 
campus with no violence.
    Mr. Kiley. By institutionalizing antisemitism and agreeing 
to the demands of antisemites. Mr.--President Schill, in my 
view you are the easiest case that we have dealt with. You 
agreed to the demands of those who are trying to change 
university policy in an antisemitic way, and you rewarded their 
tactics of using force.
    This is what the ADL has said. It is not what I have said, 
excuse me sir, that was not a question. Excuse me, sir.
    Mr. Schill. We agreed to none of the demands that were 
presented to us.
    Mr. Kiley. Here today you announced that the Deering 
Meadows agreement, here today you have made preposterous 
statements like it was not practical to consult with the Jewish 
students prior to acceding to those demands. I would associate 
myself with the comments of the ADL, and I think that if the 
university does not move to change its leadership, then it will 
be endorsing that institutionalization, that normalization of 
antisemitism on campus.
    President Holloway, are you currently under consideration 
to be the President of Yale University?
    Mr. Holloway. No. I am not.
    Mr. Kiley. You are not. You are planning to stay at 
Rutgers?
    Mr. Holloway. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Kiley. Okay. Thank you, sir. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Kiley. Ms. Stevens, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stevens. As some of you might be aware last term in 
Congress, in 2022, when the democrats were in the majority we 
moved to pass a variety of mental health bills. Many that 
passed, some that languished in the Senate, and I just wanted 
to ask you in terms of your purview, and the pressures and the 
stresses on students, what you believe is contributing to the 
mental health crisis among young people?
    Would you surmise that a gun violence epidemic that is the 
No. 1 killer of young people in America is contributing to 
rising mental health issues, President Schill?
    Mr. Schill. I am not an expert in mental health. I agree 
with you that it is growing these problems.
    Ms. Stevens. You surmise that it is yes. That it is a yes?
    Mr. Schill. I would imagine gun violence along with--there 
has been a recent book by a psychologist that says cellphones 
are a major aspect because the kids are getting social media 
all the time and are not interacting with each other. There is 
probably a myriad of reasons why we have a mental health crisis 
on campus, and your assumption is probably one element of that.
    Ms. Stevens. We have a gun violence crisis. We have cuts to 
higher education. We have unregulated social media, so to 
speak, and don't know how to take a break. I am sure you might 
be aware that this Committee as we were playing a role in 
marking up legislation to address mental health issues on 
college campuses, had an amendment from the other side of the 
aisle that was introduced by a Congresswoman from Illinois that 
would strip LGBTQ students from receiving mental health 
resources.
    I am curious if that amendment had not failed because the 
democratic majority voted it down, would that have violated any 
equity, code of conduct, violations, that we are talking about 
here today? Would you have issues implementing mental health 
resources that excluded a segment of students on your campuses, 
Mr. Holloway?
    Mr. Holloway. I want our mental health resources to be 
available to everybody.
    Ms. Stevens. Yes. It needs to be available to everybody, 
and so we are here for the third time talking about--and I know 
this hearing is important to many stakeholders, and many 
individuals. I come from Michigan. We are in the heart of this 
rising challenge of an ongoing and brutal and terrible war.
    As a democrat on this Committee who is focused on 
increasing and expanding Pell, lowering the cost of higher 
education, and trying to build equity, it is deeply frustrating 
and concerning that this is the third hearing that we have had 
complaining about protecting students equally, when every 
single one of my colleagues last term in Congress, voted to 
exclude a group of students from receiving mental health 
resources.
    I sincerely hope that you would not vote to exclude Muslim 
students from mental health resources, Jewish students from 
mental health resources, students of color, non-binary 
students, and the like. We have tons of issues before us in 
this country, and frankly, those who pretend to care about 
equity as we have seen time and time again in this Committee is 
an outrage.
    It is an absolute outrage. Go ahead and cut the Civil 
Rights Office out of the Department of Ed, so you cannot get 
yelled at by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle about 
how you can stand up and not stand up for students, litigating 
all these matters of free speech.
    When we do not put our money where our mouth is, and our 
policies, we are failing this Nation. We are failing Muslim 
students, we are failing Jewish students, we are failing 
Christian students, and frankly, we are failing the future of 
this country. We know what it costs to go to your schools. It 
is unbelievable how much it costs.
    That is what we should be focusing on, not this pretend 
argument about equity when really, they are just pretending 
here. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Stevens. Mr. Bean, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bean. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. A good morning 
to you, and good morning to the Committee. Gentlemen, thank you 
so much for being here. I know it is a big deal to run a 
university, and I was just making a list of all the things you 
have to do running a university, including recruiting 
applicants to go to your school, hiring professors and staff, 
running the plant, raising money, and promoting your school.
    You would think on that list, which is a very long list, 
you would think at the very, very top is keeping students, 
staff and faculty safe on your university. Why we are 
questioning where you put that on your list is because we see a 
lack of consequences. We see the answer is always it is under 
investigation, or we put that group on double secret probation, 
which really is not holding anybody accountable.
    Chancellor Block, on November 15, 2023, a Jewish UCLA 
professor and her husband went to a counter protest at a UCLA 
Students for Justice in Palestine rally, wearing pro-Israel t-
shirts. They heard students chant, ``Slaughter the Jews,'' in 
Arabic, and were threatened by students who said we will find 
you. We will take care of you.
    The next day a UCLA graduate student from the rally stalked 
her husband at his office. Two weeks later more and more hatred 
and antisemitism, including garbage topped with a Swastika and 
the words ``Loudmouth Jew,'' were left outside the door stop. 
All this was reported to you, and other UCLA officials, 
including the identity of who is doing it.
    What disciplinary actions did UCLA take in response?
    Mr. Block. Thank you for the question. We immediately 
alerted the police, and the police did an investigation, and I 
do not know if that is ongoing or not, but police were involved 
immediately in this incident.
    Mr. Bean. Did anybody get kicked off campus? Did anybody 
get kicked out of school?
    Mr. Block. I do not know what the outcome was, but they 
were immediately--police were immediately notified of this 
issue, and interviewed individuals, and attempted to identify 
who was responsible----
    Mr. Bean. On November 28th, mass protestors cutting down 
hostage posters threatened and chased a Jewish student while 
brandishing knives. They chased him on campus. The incident was 
reported to police, and to UCLA officials. Can you tell us what 
disciplinary action, including--anybody get kicked off campus? 
Anybody get expelled?
    Mr. Block. I do not know in that particular case, but the 
police were notified, and they attempted to identify the 
individuals holding the knives.
    Mr. Bean. You can see gentleman, this is why we question 
where it is on the list because we see the videos, we see 
everything, and we just--we meet with students who say that it 
is--and we see the video just now. It breaks my heart. You 
cannot even go to class. It is hard enough going to one of your 
schools, but to have to worry about it.
    President Schill, I know that you are rewriting the code of 
conduct at Northwestern. It sounds like you are going to start. 
You probably already started on it. Is calling for the death of 
Jews. Is that going to be against your code of conduct?
    Mr. Schill. It already is.
    Mr. Bean. It already is. You cannot yell words that we all 
know Intifada and others that are hateful to the Jewish, and 
calling for the death and destruction, that is going to be----
    Mr. Schill. Anything that calls for the death and 
destruction of Jewish people, whether here or abroad, is a code 
of conduct violation, and the code of conduct will be 
investigated, and there is a variety of disciplinary 
possibilities that will follow from that.
    Mr. Bean. Very good. It is an open question. Here is your 
chance, Presidents, to prove to this Committee, to the American 
people, the Congress, your teams back home that you rank the 
safety of students and faculty, have you expelled anybody? Have 
you fired people, these hate groups on your campus?
    I know there is free speech, but this is clearly, as 
President Schill has already commented on, it is a clear 
crossing of the line. President Holloway, what say you?
    Mr. Holloway. Any exploitation of violence threatening 
students, or community, or harassment is a violation of our 
code of conduct.
    Mr. Bean. You have expelled students, and you have banned 
groups from your campus to say this will not be tolerated at 
Rutgers?
    Mr. Holloway. That is correct.
    Mr. Bean. I know my time is about up, but I was in Israel 
this past--a few months ago and eating dinner with a family. We 
were talking about how scary it is to live in Israel. The 
family says what we are really worried about is our daughter, 
and ironically, our daughter is starting Rutgers in the fall.
    We were really fearful of her safety coming to America. 
Should she have anything to fear at Rutgers?
    Mr. Holloway. I am very sorry to hear that the family feels 
this way.
    Mr. Bean. Well, they are scared. They are scared. See, they 
see the video that we see of students, which is what happened 
at UCLA and others across America, and they see very little 
consequences of breaking the laws and the policy because no one 
seems to be held accountable. Are you going to hold people 
accountable, Mr. President?
    Mr. Holloway. May I answer? Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir. 
Absolutely. One thing I want to make clear is that in any 
instance of the kind of language and behavior we have been 
talking about, we have responded immediately with whether it is 
Students Affairs, police, sometimes campus police, sometimes 
State Police, even the FBI to help us bring to conclusion.
    Mr. Bean. Thank you, President. Madam Chair, I yield back. 
Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. DeSaulnier, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the 
panelists for being here. Thank you for your life's work. We 
are all at an age where I am sure I am guessing, I know myself, 
but I am looking at you, where you sort of reflect on where 
life took you. Welcome to an institution that has an 11 percent 
approval rating.
    Chancellor Block, UCLA has a history of supporting Jewish 
students, and taking proactive measures against antisemitism. 
Your school established a research hub on antisemitism in 
October 2023. October 6th, I am told in fact. Could you speak 
to that a little bit?
    Mr. Block. That is correct. We have established a number of 
new programs, and that is part of a new program. Actually, we 
have a study of group hate better to understand overall with 
many groups, group hate, but specifically we have a program, a 
hub to look at antisemitism, because we do see it as a real 
challenge throughout the world and on our campuses, so that is 
one of our initiatives.
    We have a number of initiatives going on basically to 
educate our students better about people's history and 
understanding the dangers of discrimination. One of them that I 
am involved it, as I take students to Washington each year, a 
group of our student leaders, and we visit Congress, but we 
visit museums, and of course we visit the Holocaust Museum.
    For many of our students it is an eye opener, and they 
begin to understand something about the history of their fellow 
Jewish students, and why those students, why it is so important 
to be sensitive to their needs, and make sure that you are not 
discriminatory toward those students.
    We visit other museums as well, the African American 
Museum. Education is critical here, and we are trying to 
develop more and more programs to educate students, so that at 
least we do not see discrimination that's based on ignorance. 
It is always going to be, unfortunately, people with bad 
behavior. We recognize that, but we want to make certain that 
students are well educated in these areas, and that we can 
minimize the amount of discrimination that occurs on campus.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. That is one of the issues I find 
representing a District surrounding the University of 
California--the mothership, I am sorry, we think of you as the 
younger sibling--is these are areas with a lot of diversity. 
Rutgers, so there is some tension there, because there is more 
diversity. Our openness in this instance sometimes creates more 
friction, in my view, as an urban California representative.
    Do you feel--I am not bringing it as a prerogative, but 
there is a reality to that openness that sometimes contributes 
more to the challenges that maybe less diverse parts of the 
country do not experience.
    Mr. Block. That is exactly right. We are very proud. UCLA 
is a very diverse campus, and I worked hard over 17 years to 
make sure it is representative, that we really work hard to 
make sure that students from all backgrounds, all socioeconomic 
backgrounds can attend this university, so we are very proud of 
that.
    People come with different, you know, different life 
experiences, with different prejudices, but we work hard, 
actually to bring students together to better understand their 
common humanity. I think this is something I think the UC 
system does very well. I think it brings students together with 
different backgrounds, and we try to form a bond of what we all 
have in common, and that is where are programs are designed to 
really do.
    We have got some very effective--and we also have very 
effective-organizations like our Hillel organization, which is 
actually nationally recognized, outstanding place for Jewish 
students to find a home, and other students have other 
organizations they can go to.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. They have been part of this program, 
Hillel. They have been very involved in it.
    Mr. Block. Yes. Hillel has been really a great partner, 
actually with Jewish students.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. How do we keep building on that? That 
started October 6th. How do we continue to build on that given 
the reality that we are experiencing right now? This is a 
teaching moment, maybe more of a learning moment.
    Mr. Block. I think we have to build more programs because 
as was mentioned, you know, faculty programs--they can be held 
for faculty to recognize what their students are going through 
in terms of the challenges of students in this very divided 
world.
    Also, faculty, this new student program, that really can 
help address issues of discrimination, and I think those are 
really important.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Just a personal note. I became friends some 
years ago with Nathan Chappell, who is now deceased, the 405 is 
named after him, a survivor of Auschwitz. Last night I was 
thinking about what he would think about these hearings, and he 
was a very frank human being. He came here with nothing and 
ended up being one of the wealthiest people in the United 
States.
    Mr. Lawrence, I was criticized a little bit last hearing 
because I quoted Justice Brandeis in the opinion with Justice 
Holmes that defined the First Amendment. Could you talk about 
that a little bit? It is sort of odd to have people get mad at 
me for talking, using a quote from Justice Brandeis, and 
talking about the First Amendment.
    Mr. Lawrence. Well, I would not think one could get hurt 
for quoting Justice Brandeis.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. I did not think so either.
    Mr. Lawrence. Justice Brandeis is a personal hero of mine, 
and probably many in the room. Justice Brandeis famously said 
that in the absence of incitement of imminent lawless activity, 
the answer to bad speech is not enforced silence, it is more 
speech, and I think that he was right then, and I think he is 
right today.
    Mr. DeSaulnier. Thank you all. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. DeSaulnier. Mr. Smucker, 
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx. I would like to 
start my comments by addressing comments made during the 
Ranking Member's opening statements where he criticized the 
majority for holding this hearing, and then talked about the 
Civil Rights movement, and invoked Martin Luther King, Jr.
    Talked about how he was once unpopular, but then moved 
public opinion. I would just like to say that his life was 
defined by peaceful protests, and I think drawing any 
comparison between him and these un-American, antisemitic 
protestors is totally inappropriate, totally unacceptable, and 
I think the purpose of holding this hearing is to ensure that 
this antisemitism never becomes accepted by Americans.
    The antisemitic behavior that we have seen on your college 
campuses is reprehensible. It is un-American, it is against 
your own policies, and in many cases it is criminal. I am 
deeply concerned by the fact that President Schill, and 
President Holloway, you gave in to the protestor's demands at 
the expense of the rest of your student bodies.
    Mr. Holloway, you promised, as part of giving in to explore 
expanding Rutgers relationship with the Palestinian University, 
Birzeit, at least that is alleged, and which included 
considering student exchange and study abroad programs. Is that 
true?
    Mr. Holloway. For Birzeit University, we already have a 
relationship with that university.
    Mr. Smucker. Birzeit has buildings named after convicted 
terrorists. It has glorified terrorism in official social media 
posts. Hamas won a majority of the school's student government. 
Eight of its students were arrested for planning terror attacks 
just weeks before October 7th. As of 2014, Birzeit had an 
official policy of barring Jews from its campus. Is this really 
an institution Rutgers should be partnering with?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, we partner with institutions all around 
the world, the information----
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to ending the relationship 
with Birzeit University?
    Mr. Holloway. The information you just shared with me is 
new to me, sir, and I will commit to reviewing it.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you. Earlier this month you, as I said, 
gave into the demands of the mob on your campus. You agreed to 
eight of their ten demands in a matter of days. However, you 
have refused to act on the requests of Rutgers Jewish faculty 
administrators and staff group called JFAS from this past 
December.
    They asked that you provide a full public accounting of 
antisemitic incidents on campus, suspend students and student 
organizations that repeatedly violate the code of conduct, 
prohibit academic departments from institutionally taking 
controversial political stances, and convene a standing 
university-wide committee on antisemitism and the Jewish 
experience.
    Why have you ignored JFAS, but acted immediately to appease 
pro-Hamas and anti-American protestors?
    Mr. Holloway. Thank you for the question. The first thing I 
will say, I was not negotiating with the mob but talking with 
students. To your question specifically, the Jewish faculty 
administration and staff, JFAS organization, the requests that 
they sent to us are being acted on post haste .
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit today to fulfilling all the 
requests?
    Mr. Holloway. I will, in fact, part of the plan for the 
summer we have already shared, drafted out our action plans, 
addresses most of those concerns, sir. Most of their concerns.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to providing a full public 
accounting of antisemitic incidents on campus to them?
    Mr. Holloway. We are--we have been scrubbing our own 
information to make sure that we can get that information 
elevated.
    Mr. Smucker. You will commit to doing that?
    Mr. Holloway. We are doing that work, sir.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to suspending students and 
student organizations that repeatedly violate the code of 
conduct?
    Mr. Holloway. When students violate the code of conduct, 
they go into disciplinary process. The results could look like 
many different things.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to suspending them if that 
happens?
    Mr. Holloway. If the review committee deems that it merits 
suspension, yes. They will be suspended.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to prohibiting academic 
departments from institutionally taking controversial political 
stances?
    Mr. Holloway. This is something that we are reviewing this 
summer, sir. I recognize that when departments make these kinds 
of blankets, I will call them blanket statements, on any topic, 
it is an assertion of speech, but also has a chance to make it 
harder for members of the Department who don't agree with it.
    Mr. Smucker. Will you commit to convening a standing 
university-wide committee on antisemitism, and the Jewish 
experience?
    Mr. Holloway. We immediately convened in response to the 
JFAS request, we created such a committee in our New Brunswick 
campus. We have several campuses. This summer one of the things 
that we are looking at is trying to figure out how to pull 
together representatives from each of our campuses.
    Mr. Smucker. You are still--it is taking a long time to 
respond to them. You responded to the other immediately. Will 
JFAS need to threaten to disrupt exams for you to listen to 
them?
    Mr. Holloway. No, sir. That would not be the case. We were 
acting in the State of emergency in the case of the in the 
encampment. With JFAS I will absolutely say that we could 
respond more quickly and more robustly, and we always will be 
trying to do better, so.
    Mr. Smucker. Thank you, President Holloway.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Ms. Omar, you are recognized 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Omar. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you all for being 
here. Chancellor Block, just for clarification, the video that 
we just watched, we saw people going--moving around. Was it 
possible, do you think, for that student to be able to get into 
campus? Was that student actually being blocked from entering 
campus?
    Mr. Block. Well, that was in the middle of, excuse me, that 
was in the middle of campus, so not being blocked from being on 
campus, maybe being blocked from a pathway on campus, which you 
should not be allowed, you know, he should be allowed to pass. 
I mean any part of campus is open to students, so blocking him 
was really inappropriate
    Ms. Omar. I appreciate that. The recent images from UCLA 
are appalling. What is more appalling is that there was 
complete--it was completely preventable. You could have 
prevented this by protecting the diverse groups of pro-
Palestinian students that were peacefully gathered on campus to 
share meals, stand in solidarity against a brutal genocide. You 
could have prevented this by protecting these students' First 
Amendment right to assemble.
    You could have prevented this when you learned about rats 
being released into the encampment. You could have prevented 
this when there was an anonymous group funded and constructed a 
giant video with loudspeakers to play vile and disturbing 
footage, you could have prevented this when you saw an angry 
mob on campus on the night of April 30th, but you did not.
    Instead, you, the UCLA leadership, and law enforcement 
stood by for hours as the mob of agitators gathered near the 
encampment, with the clear intention to cause violence. Because 
of your inaction, they acted on the intention and brutally 
attacked students you were responsible for.
    This happened in front of your eyes, on your campus, and it 
was livestreamed for the whole world to see. I would like to 
know if you are truly committed to keeping your students safe, 
how did you fail these students at many critical points where 
you could have intervened?
    Mr. Block. Thank you for the question, but I am sorry, but 
I reject the premises. These students----
    Ms. Omar. How do you reject the premise? Are these pictures 
lying? Are these pictures lying? Any of these people in jail?
    Mr. Block. Can I finish my statement?
    Ms. Omar. No. Are any of these people in jail? Are any of 
these people arrested?
    Mr. Block. LAPD is working on trying to identify the people 
who were assailants that evening. We were committed to finding 
out the people that were involved.
    Ms. Omar. It has been over a month. I submit for the record 
an article that starts -- that CNN has produced.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Ms. Omar follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Ms. Omar. Why did you not immediately send the police that 
were standing by, your campus police, law enforcement, to 
intervene?
    Mr. Block. We tried. We notified as soon as we saw the 
violence, we notified all of our mutual aid partners. We tried 
to get the police there as quickly as possible. Going back to 
my original point, so this encampment was against policy. This 
violated time, place and manner----
    Ms. Omar. Chancellor, if I may, the footage from that night 
reveals that some of the most dramatic attacks were carried out 
by individuals not affiliated with UCLA. Not the university 
students, faculty, that were arrested.
    Why have the violent agitators, who you know have been 
identified, not been held accountable for assaulting over 150 
of your students? You should be ashamed in the fact that you 
failed your students, you should be ashamed for letting a 
peaceful protest gathering get hijacked by an angry mob.
    You should be ashamed for allowing such violence to take 
place on your campus, which will now be weaponized by 
republicans in this Committee.
    You played right into the hands in laying the ground for 
attacking institutions of public education, stripping students 
of their rights, and broader repression of movements. I know 
that my time is up. I would like to submit these images into 
the record.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Ms. Omar follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    
    

    Ms. Omar. An open letter to the UCLA community from the 
UCLA Jewish faculty and staff.
    [The Information of Ms. Omar follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you. Mr. Williams, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. A question for 
each of the university leaders here. When students return to 
campus in just a few months, will there be new rules, policies, 
procedures and enforcement mechanisms in place to keep Jewish 
students safe and welcomed?
    Mr. Schill. All of our students, yes.
    Mr. Holloway. All of our students, yes.
    Mr. Block. Same answer.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you. President Schill, I assume that 
these new rules, policies, procedures and enforcement 
mechanisms will be informed and guided by the events of the law 
few months on your campus. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schill. Absolutely.
    Mr. Williams. Thank you. That would mean that your 
investigations are complete. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schill. Our investigations are ongoing.
    Mr. Williams. You did not commit to that earlier, but you 
just committed to having policies, procedures, et cetera, ready 
in time for the new school year. I assume that is based on your 
investigations. That makes sense to me. Is that true?
    Mr. Schill. It is based on what we have learned about what 
has happened over the past year, and it is based on best 
practices, and it is based I am sure on some investigation that 
is investigations that have already taken place, but it is that 
our investigations are an ongoing process. We will be getting 
violations presumably over time, and we are not going to hold 
up.
    Mr. Williams. If I may, just to keep this line of 
questioning. When Jewish students return this fall, will 
students and faculty who have been found to have made violent 
threats to Jewish students, will they be barred from campus 
this fall? This is your commitment to have these policies and 
procedures in place.
    Can Jewish students returning to your campus anticipate 
that the violators who have been found by your investigations 
be barred from campus? Is that a fair assumption?
    Mr. Schill. There is a disciplinary process.
    Mr. Williams. This is a straightforward question.
    Mr. Schill. No, it is not actually. There is a disciplinary 
process. In the disciplinary process we will grant hearings and 
due process to the students and will mete out what the 
appropriate penalty is. I cannot say.
    Mr. Williams. Should they be suspended from campus then, 
perhaps while this due process is under, you know, being 
undertaken, perhaps to protect the Jewish students, the parents 
that are sending them to their schools, perhaps then you would 
commit that they are barred from campus, that they are 
suspended until the outcome of these investigations?
    Mr. Schill. That is not how due process works.
    Mr. Williams. Okay. How about for you, Mr. Holloway, the 
same question, sir?
    Mr. Holloway. Yes.
    Mr. Williams. Okay. Thank you.
    Mr. Holloway. We are--now we have graduated our class, and 
so we are now in the process of shifting gears, some are 
planning to do the work of exploring our policies and building 
plans.
    Mr. Williams. I am talking about the specific violators 
that are being investigated for these heinous crimes, will they 
be at your campus when new students, Jewish students return in 
the fall, yes or no? Okay. This is a question for each of you 
again. Would you say that the emergence of encampments on your 
campus, was this a spontaneous event, or was it orchestrated 
and planned? President Schill? Did it surprise you?
    Mr. Schill. It surprised me.
    Mr. Williams. Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Schill. With about an hour's notice, it surprised me as 
well.
    Mr. Williams. Mr. Block.
    Mr. Block. I would say planned or copycat, but certainly a 
number of encampments went up very quickly, which was 
surprising.
    Mr. Williams. If I may, then who is behind these 
encampments? What are the groups, faculty, faculty groups, 
maybe which departments, student organizations, who are behind 
these encampments in your opinion, specifically groups on your 
campus, Mr. Schill?
    Mr. Schill. I do not know.
    Mr. Williams. Wow.
    Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. I have had a public university with a lot of 
outside organizations involved. I know some we are funding. I 
cannot--I am unable to tell you which organizations.
    Mr. Williams. Mr. Block.
    Mr. Block. I am uncertain because there were quite a----
    Mr. Williams. Absolutely shocking. You allowed these 
encampments to persist on your campus, but you do not know who 
was behind them. You do not know what was there, but they are 
occupying and causing violence and chaos on your campus. That 
is an astonishing admission to me, and I think probably 
disingenuous.
    Again, for each of you, do you acknowledge that giving 
guidance to campus police to refuse to take police reports of 
crimes could be a violation of the Clery Act? President Schill, 
are you aware of that?
    Mr. Schill. I am not aware of anyone----
    Mr. Williams. Are you aware that this is a violation of 
Clery Act?
    Mr. Schill. I have not looked at the Clery act recently, 
but it could be. I do not know.
    Mr. Williams. Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. If you are suggesting something like that 
happened at Rutgers, that is news to me.
    Mr. Williams. Mr. Block, are you aware?
    Mr. Block. I am not a lawyer. I assume that is a violation.
    Mr. Williams. Okay. I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Ms. Leger 
Fernandez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Thank you, Madam Chair and Ranking 
Member, and thank you witnesses for joining us today. In the 
past 7 months since antisemitic incidents have spiked across 
the country, this Committee has held five hearings, roundtables 
similar to this, but sadly--sadly, we have not had a single 
hearing to actually consider the legislation to address this 
epidemic of hate.
    We have bills that we could hear, like Congresswoman Kathy 
Manning's bipartisan, Countering Antisemitism Act, which I am a 
proud cosponsor, along with 45 of my colleagues. I will point 
out that that bill has an equal number of democrat and 
republican cosponsors. There is a bipartisan effort to actually 
adopt legislation to cover these issues.
    Unfortunately, antisemitism as we know, is a form of hate 
also rampant in our politics. For example, the current 
republican nominee for Governor of North Carolina has 
repeatedly made antisemitic statements, including downplaying 
the atrocities of the Holocaust.
    Madam Chair, I would like unanimous consent to enter into 
the record the article from the Times of Israel titled, ``Trump 
backs GOP Candidate for North Carolina Governor Accused of 
Antisemitic Remarks.''
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. Also, just last week the Minnesota 
Republican party endorsed a candidate for the U.S. Senate who 
once self-identified as an antisemite. Madam Chair, I would 
like unanimous consent to enter into the record the article 
from the Times of Israel titled, ``Royce White, Podcaster who 
Railed Against Jews Wins Republican Nod in Minnesota.''
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The information of Ms. Leger Fernandez follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    
    Ms. Leger Fernandez. These are not isolated incidences, 
they follow a disturbing trend of the far right that embraces 
antisemitic conspiracies like the Great Replacement Theory. 
Just Monday afternoon, there was a video posted on former 
President Donald Trump's site that features images of 
hypothetical newspaper articles celebrating a 2024 victory for 
him, and referring to ``The creation of a unified Reich,'' 
under the headline, ``What's Next for America?''
    This Committee has the authority over something that is 
really important and key for combatting hate across America, 
and that is education. We know that education is one of the 
great methods of bringing people together, of having students, 
Americans, all people, start to understand religions, people, 
viewpoints that are different from their own, to start to 
understand the history of antisemitism that has plagued not 
only this country, but our world for centuries upon centuries.
    To understand that history, to understand that it must be 
treated with the care and attention that it deserves. 
Unfortunately, I do not think that hearing after hearing where 
we are simply addressing sad, and disturbing incidents, but not 
addressing legislation to combat them, is what our Nation needs 
at this time.
    Once again, I call on the Committee to hold a hearing on 
the legislation to actually address antisemitism, like the 
Combating Antisemitism Act, and with that I yield back. Thank 
you very much, Madam Chair.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Ms. Leger Fernandez. Mr. 
Grothman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes. First of all, just a little bit of a 
comment on some of these agreements that have been entered 
into. When we do these hearings, we are given something called 
a prehearing memorandum. In the prehearing memorandum it 
mentions in one sentence John Hopkins University, Harvard 
University, and the University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.
    I think if you told the University of Milwaukee a year ago 
that they would appear in the same sentence as Harvard and 
Johns Hopkins, they would have been quite elated. I will point 
out that it was not such a great honor to be put in with those 
two institutions. In any event, I will talk to Mr. Holloway.
    In your agreement with the Rutgers encampment, you promised 
to, ``Implement support for ten displaced Palestinian students 
to finish their education at Rutgers.'' Do you acknowledge, or 
will you admit that setting aside ten spaces at Rutgers for 
Palestinians that you have agreed to, apparently in return for 
them stopping causing trouble, and you know just being awful 
would be a violation of Federal antidiscrimination law? Did you 
consider that?
    Mr. Holloway. Supporting refugee students is a violation of 
antidiscrimination law?
    Mr. Grothman. Well, you set aside ten spaces for 
Palestine----
    Mr. Holloway. Oh. I understand. I understand. We have 
existing programs to support refugee students and scholars, and 
we would lean on those programs. We absolutely do not believe 
in quotas sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Do you see a problem here? I mean first of 
all on this whole Gaza situation, the Palestinians could not 
have taken a more outlandish position. Second, it appears in 
response for the trouble they are causing, and the hate that 
they are encouraging, their little ethnic group here is 
rewarded with ten spaces, and I am sure there are all sorts of 
other foreigners around the world who would be happy to grab 
those ten spaces.
    Do you think that was a wise thing to do, or do you think 
it is something you ought to maybe revoke or rethink?
    Mr. Holloway. Are you speaking specifically about the No. 
10, sir? Is that what you are asking?
    Mr. Grothman. Well yes, it could be fifteen, it could be 
five, whatever, but it appears as though you are giving the 
Palestinian students support that perhaps you are not giving 
other students, and it appears like you are doing it as a 
reward, or whatever for participating in this demonstration in 
support of Hamas?
    Mr. Holloway. I understand your question. I think it is a 
mischaracterization, but to your specific point about the ten 
students. We have, as I said before, existing programs already 
that allow students, refugee students. Getting to those 
threshold numbers, in this case ten, is a tremendous amount of 
work, and may not happen, sir.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, you understand there are only so many 
slots in a university. I mean I do not know what is going on in 
New Jersey. You could have given the slides to people in New 
Jersey if you wanted to increase the diversity of your program. 
I am sure there are many legitimate countries around the world 
in which students would be happy to come here.
    I guess the thing that bothers me is first of all you are 
violating Federal antidiscrimination law, and second, you feel 
compelled to reward the Palestinians who were causing a 
disruption, and not to mention appear to be siding with an 
ideology that is completely offensive, but they get a reward.
    Mr. Holloway. To the various points you put in there, sir, 
Rutgers is one of the most diverse campuses, universities in 
the country, and we reflect----
    Mr. Grothman. There is a good question. I hate to cut you 
off, but I only have 5 minutes. You said it is a diverse 
campus. I think part of the problem with this whole thing is a 
lack of diversity on campuses. Right now, this country is about 
50/50 republican, democratic, conservative, liberal or 
whatever. Do you think your campus is about 50/50, or 60/40 if 
I look at the faculty, republican, democrat, liberal, 
conservative? Is it diverse like that?
    Mr. Holloway. Sir, I do not know. We do not have a 
political litmus test when we hire people.
    Mr. Grothman. You have no clue. I mean when I talked to my 
local professors, they can give me scary stories about the 
infinitesimal number of conservative students. Well, okay, I 
will go on here to the gentleman from Northwestern. It appears 
to me as though you have also entered into some sort of 
agreement in response to the troublemakers, giving them--saying 
you are going to support visiting Palestinian faculty and 
students at risk.
    In other words, you also have responded to these protests, 
obviously antisemitic protests, or anti-Israel protests by 
giving, by rewarding a subgroup here with special treatment. Do 
you regret that, or do you think that is inappropriate?
    Mr. Schill. This is an existing program. It is not 
something new. We have an existing program, and it has served 
Ukraine, Afghanistan and other countries.
    Mr. Grothman. The university will support visiting 
Palestinian faculty, that is what it says here.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, thanks for cutting me off.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Mr. Scott. Mr. Burlison, you are 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a video that I 
want to start with.
    [Video played.]
    Mr. Burlison. After seeing that, and I do not want to say 
it is comical, but it is really not comical, the outcome of 
that. That ignorance is not comical. I am concerned for young 
people, and it concerns me what they are not learning, and 
their willingness to participate in hate. There is an article 
that came out from Fortune. Madam Chair, I would like to submit 
that for the record.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Mr. Burlison follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    
    Mr. Burlison. That talks about a survey of H.R. experts, 
and there is definitely a culture within the hiring within 
small businesses who are choosing not to hire from universities 
that have protests on them, which is unfortunate for students 
who do not participate in the protests. Are you--you each can 
answer this. Are you concerned about the business communities, 
the private sector's community, the employers that are hiring 
your students?
    Are you concerned? Do you have any communications with 
those businesses?
    Mr. Schill. I have not had any communications from 
businesses that have said they are not going to hire 
Northwestern students, but I will say, and it is not directly 
on point. You are absolutely right. We need to educate 
students. The ignorance that you saw in that video, and that 
you displayed is part of the problem, and it is something that 
we, and I am sure all of us agree we need to be better at.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. The video is shocking and depressing. I 
absolutely believe that we all need to do a better job in pre-K 
through 12 education and higher education to make sure we have 
more better informed students, and frankly better informed 
citizens. The--I am sorry, oh, as far as----
    Mr. Burlison. You can see why employers would--everyone has 
seen these videos.
    Mr. Holloway. Yes.
    Mr. Burlison. You can see why, and the protests, you can 
see why employers would say I am not hiring from that school, 
right?
    Mr. Holloway. I do understand that. You asked a question 
specifically on that issue. We have a very large career 
services program, and I know they worked diligently to prepare 
our students to be ready to be hired, and not look like the 
students on the video, sir.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Mr. Block, or Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. Thank you. More education. I mean I am 
surprised. We need to better educate our students in some of 
these areas, and we do have a task force actually that is 
looking directly at this issue.
    Mr. Burlison. It was asked earlier, and I want to give a 
second chance to answer this. The question was do you believe 
that Israel is a genocidal State, because that is the 
propaganda, and so I will ask you, begin with you Mr. Schill, 
do you believe that Israel is a geocidal state?
    Mr. Schill. No, I do not.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay.
    Mr. Holloway
    Mr. Holloway. I do not.
    Mr. Burlison. Okay.
    Mr. Block, Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. I do not.
    Mr. Burlison. It is not. Okay. Thank you. Would you 
acknowledge that, ``From the river to the sea, and intifada 
Revolution,'' that these phrases are antisemitic calls for the 
destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews, Mr. Schill?
    Mr. Schill. I believe that over time those statements have 
become dog whistles for antisemitism.
    Mr. Burlison. Mr. Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. I think any time those phrases such like that 
is used to incite violence and threaten harass, is a violation 
of conduct, and is antisemitic.
    Mr. Burlison. Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. I also think they are antisemitic, although 
surveys show interesting, many people do not.
    Mr. Burlison. Real quick, yes or no? It is not just 
antisemitic, it is dangerous. Yes? No?
    Mr. Schill. Potentially, yes.
    Mr. Holloway. I agree.
    Mr. Block. I would say the same, potentially.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Burlison. Ms. Chavez-
DeRemer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Thank you, Madam Chair. This has to be 
a record for racist protests thriving at universities in the 
post Jim Crow America. I mean seriously, a lot of these schools 
now feel like they are being riled up by George Wallace. The 
target this time not being black Americans, but Jewish 
Americans.
    Before us today, yet again, are leaders of universities 
with rampant antisemitism. Madam Chair, these witnesses have 
countless academic accolades, and yet I am sorry, pure 
ignorance of their actions is on the same level as other 
schools. Do you three think you operate in a vacuum?
    Every Jew, at home and abroad is raised with stories of the 
Holocaust, and how it could happen again. Now we find ourselves 
drowning in the same cultural rot, which led up to the most 
horrific genocide in human history. The world knew what was 
happening to Jews in Nazi occupied Europe, but why did they not 
care?
    Because there was a culture of indifference and hatred 
toward Jews. Culture drives everything, and the world is now 
being directly influenced by the culture of hatred on American 
campuses, your campuses. Mr. Schill, Dr. Holloway, Dr. Block, 
evil does not rear its cowardly head unless given permission.
    Through an unwillingness to successfully end these 
protests, you have given permission to the evil we are 
witnessing. According to the Anti-Defamation League, this past 
year was the worst year for antisemitic incidences since ADL 
began recording more than four decades ago.
    There was a total of 8,873 incidents reported across the 
United States in 2023, an increase of 140 percent compared to 
2022, which was also a record setting year. This is an average 
of 24 incidents per day, one per hour. 922 of these incidents 
took place on college and university campuses, a 321 percent 
increase. Through your incompetence, this evil is growing 
stronger throughout the world.
    As university students around the world are copying what 
they see so easily thrives on American campuses. In no 
uncertain terms, you and your counterparts across the Nation 
are directly responsible for the dangers Jews across the world 
now face.
    Chancellor Block, the encampment at UCLA, including 
messaging and Arabic reading, ``Oh Kusham, burn Tel Aviv.'' 
These protests are protected by the First Amendment, and our 
vital expressions in democracy.
    However, this is an explicit glorification and endorsement 
of a U.S. designated terrorist group, which massacred 1,200 
innocent Israel civilians on October 7th. Is this language 
acceptable at UCLA?
    Mr. Block. Language was unacceptable. I am unaware of that, 
and the encampment of course has been removed.
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. What will be the consequences for 
racists calling for genocide?
    Mr. Block. Student disciplinary processes if there is 
complaints, and they can identify they go through a 
disciplinary process.
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Anything less than a suspension in my 
opinion is insufficient. Madam Chair, I would like to submit 
ADL's report card of UCLA into the record?
    Chairwoman Foxx. Without objection.
    [The Information of Ms. Chavez-DeRemer follows:]
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
    
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. UCLA received a D. I hope you will 
review their metrics carefully and do a better job moving 
forward. President Schill, you updated Northwestern's codes of 
conducts in anticipation of the encampments that were being 
erected on various other college and university campuses across 
the country.
    When the encampment went up on April 25th, and throughout 
its lifetime, you failed to enforce those codes of conduct, 
providing a false legitimacy to the encampment and its actions. 
It is also true that you said explicitly on the day the 
encampment started that any violation of the code of conduct, 
or university policies could lead to disciplinary actions, such 
as suspension or expulsion, and possibly criminal sanctions.
    The encampment has clearly violated both your code of 
conduct and your policies. What is the point of having rules if 
they do not matter? Let me ask, and I know you have given Dr. 
Foxx an answer but let us run it back. Exactly how many 
citations have Northwestern University issued to both student 
and non-student participants?
    Mr. Schill. I do not have the exact figure.
    Ms. Chavez-DeRemer. Got it. These encampments may fizzle 
out over the summer, but they will like return, and the lessons 
your students are taking away is that this is an acceptable 
form of protest, even if they are in violation of university 
policies. That may even lead to concessions by their 
universities. This is a failure, and yours alone.
    To everyone who will see this, I ask that you visit the 
Holocaust Museum here in D.C. I want you to kneel down and 
touch the stone which paved the grounds of Auschwitz. I want 
you to peer over the countless shoes of murdered Jews. Allow 
the silence of that room to remind you that this is the silence 
of death.
    Death enabled by global culture indifference and hatred, a 
culture which each of us has a role in either enabling or 
ending. I would remind you, Mr. Schill, Dr. Block, and Dr. 
Holloway, of who you are. You are leaders of culture. At this 
present moment you have abandoned that role. I hope you reclaim 
it because we will certainly be watching, and with that, Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. The gentlewoman's time has expired. Mr. 
Scott, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to ask the 
university Presidents the first question that you were asked 
had the premise that something along the lines of in so far as 
your campuses are hot beds of antisemitism, how many people 
have you disciplined? You went on to just answer how many 
people you disciplined, without questioning whether or not your 
campuses whether or not your campuses were in fact hot beds of 
antisemitism?
    Are your campuses also hot beds of racism, homophobia and 
Islamophobia, Dr. Schill?
    Mr. Schill. I would not say that we are hot beds of any of 
those things. I do believe that we have a problem, like all 
universities, and it is becoming more and more apparent that 
antisemitism is a problem on campus, and it is one that we need 
to deal with. The vast majority----
    Mr. Scott. I do not have--I have a lot of different 
questions, so let me just get an answer from President 
Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. I certainly disagree with the 
characterization of Rutgers being a hot bed of antisemitism. We 
do everything we can to promote the security and safety of all 
of our students, and to have a community of character.
    Mr. Scott. Okay.
    Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. I believe the same. I do not believe we are a 
hot bed of antisemitism. I think we have had incidents of it 
that are disturbing, that we are trying to address, but I think 
overall----
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, I mean you let the premise go by, 
and did not address it, so I did not want that to be the record 
of the hearing. Does your code of conduct--is your code of 
student conduct based on whether or not the conduct involves 
antisemitism, or Islamophobia, racism, homophobia, or other 
gender-based hatred?
    Mr. Schill. We treat each of those equally.
    Mr. Scott. President Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. We are in the same space, sir.
    Mr. Block. Same here.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Can you develop a campus free of 
antisemitism that does not address other forms of hate?
    Mr. Schill. Hate is hate, and we need to address all of it.
    Mr. Scott. President Holloway.
    Mr. Holloway. The kind of work you are talking about is the 
ongoing work of the university. We must address hate in all of 
its forms.
    Mr. Scott. Okay, Chancellor Block.
    Mr. Block. The same here, and we have an initiative 
specifically to look at group hate, looking at different types 
of group hate.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. I say that because this, as I indicated in 
my opening remarks, this is multiple hearings just on 
antisemitism, but under Title 6, there are other forms of 
hatred. If you are going to have a campus free of hate, it 
seems to me difficult to do that just looking at one form.
    President Schill, a question was raised about Qatar. I am 
aware of another university that I used to represent before 
redistricting, that has a campus in Qatar. What is the value of 
having a university located in Qatar?
    Mr. Schill. It provides benefits to faculty and students 
who want to go back and forth. It also--I believe this was 
decided 17 years ago, and I am only there for 2 years. I 
believe part of the point was to introduce American concepts of 
journalism, free speech, and to provide in journalism, and to 
provide avenues for women to be more successful in those 
societies. I think those were the reasons.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Lawrence, can you remind us how 
you can balance free speech and protests?
    Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Ranking Member, you begin with a 
presumption that speech, including protests, is protected 
because that is the core of the First Amendment with respect to 
public universities, but the principles of academic freedom and 
free expression, free inquiry on our private university 
campuses as well.
    Where that runs out is where that activity turns into 
threats of violence, harassment, or in undue disruptions of the 
operations of the university. Those are the kinds of decisions 
that university Presidents around the country are making on a 
daily basis, taking all of the factors into account that they 
have to deal with.
    Mr. Scott. T0hank you. I just have a few seconds left. Are 
there any additional steps that this Committee can actually do 
to help promote enforcement of Title 6?
    Mr. Lawrence.
    Mr. Lawrence. I think the Committee could play a major role 
in working with and funding the efforts of the Department of 
Education in that regard, and in all the ways in which the 
Department of Education facilitates the work of universities 
around the country on all of the issues we've been talking 
about, and a range of other issues, including mental health 
issues that are major challenges for our colleges and 
universities today.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Thank you, my time is gone.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott, for being right on 
time.
    Mr. Scott. I try.
    Chairwoman Foxx. You and I were trying to be good role 
models. Mr. Scott, I recognize you now for a closing statement.
    Mr. Scott. First, Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous 
consent to enter the following items into the record. A letter 
from Professor John Farmer, former Attorney General of New 
Jersey, who states that he finds accusations of pervasive 
climate of antisemitism at Rutgers to be both inaccurate and 
offensive.
    A letter from over 500 law school professors condemning the 
Committee's accusations against the Rutgers Law Center for 
security, race and rights; a letter published in the Daily 
Northwestern on May 2d of 186 faculty members from Northwestern 
commending the President and students from Northwestern for 
coming to a peaceful resolution involving the encampment.
    An article from May 15th, the Chicago Times entitled 
``Northwestern Ended its Encampment Without Cops or Violence. 
Why is Congress Upset; a letter from Northwestern American 
Association of University Professors, Executive Committee, 
letter to Representative Foxx and members of the Committee in 
support of President Schill.
    An article from LA Times written entitled, ``After Violent 
Night at UCLA, Class is Cancelled. UC President Launches 
Investigation and a Response, documenting the organized attack 
on the UCLA encampment the night of April 30th; a joint 
statement from unions representing educators at Rutgers, 
Northwestern and UCLA.
    A letter from the National Coalition against censorship 
decrying the May 14th letter from the Chair and Chair Comer of 
the Oversight Committee to Treasury Secretary Yellen, and an 
article from Boise State University's Office of Student Life, 5 
and a half Things you Might Not Know About Martin Luther King, 
which includes the fact that the King Center that Dr. King went 
to jail 29 times.
    It was pointed out that his protests were non-violent, but 
they were usually against the law, and part of the non-violent 
strategy is that you not only break the law, but you accept the 
consequences. Unanimous consent for those?
    Chairwoman Foxx. That is the end of it. Without objection.
    [The Information of Mr. Scott follows:]
   
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
   

    
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. I want to thank our witnesses for 
participating. Without a doubt, there is more that we can do to 
combat antisemitism, not only on college campuses, but 
everywhere. No one should be intimidated, harassed or assaulted 
just simply for who they are, or who they worship.
    It has been noted the students cannot learn if they feel 
threatened. Today, for the fifth time in 6 months, the majority 
is holding another hearing just to complain about antisemitism, 
without providing a meaningful solution to address animus on 
college campuses, or any of the other forms of hatred.
    It was great to have an opportunity to hear from our campus 
leaders on what they are doing to proactively prevent 
incidences of violence and harassment. However, in Congress as 
leaders, students deserve more. We have the responsibility to 
criticize discrimination whenever we see it, even if it comes 
from one's own party.
    Our students deserve solutions, they deserve thoughtful, 
deliberate conversations about the Constitutional questions 
before us, and that would mean the difference between free 
speech and violating the criminal code, Title 6, or the campus 
policies. We have the responsibility to condemn discrimination 
when we see it. We should be doing it every time we have an 
opportunity.
    Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back.
    Chairwoman Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Scott. We certainly do 
agree that students cannot learn when they feel threatened, and 
it is part of our responsibility, I think, to see that the 
students who do feel threatened are relieved of that fear. One 
of Congress's Constitutional powers is to conduct 
investigations. These are an important mechanism for 
transparency, bringing bad things to light, informing new 
legislation to address the problems they uncover, and yielding 
accountability.
    Today's testimony certainly brought bad things to light 
beyond the craven deals and shocking inaction we already knew 
about. President Schill, we have heard accounts of horrific 
violence and harassment of Jewish students on your campus. You 
admitted that you have not suspended a single student since 
October 7th for antisemitic conduct.
    Moreover, I am appalled by the condescension and contempt 
you have shown for the Committee, and toward your own Jewish 
students today. You have refused to answer basic questions on 
topics. This includes your decision to appoint antisemites, 
including one who supported the October 7 attack through your 
antisemitism advisory committee, and whether you will terminate 
faculty and staff who fought with police in the encampment.
    You have given misleading answers that contradict the words 
of the agreement that you signed. President Holloway, over a 
month ago the Committee sent you a document, a document 
request, detailing pages of horrifying antisemitic incidents. 
That was before the antisemitic pro-terror encampment, yet you 
have only suspended four students since October 7th.
    The Center for Security, Race and Rights uses taxpayer 
dollars to engage in political advocacy, promote terrorism, and 
delegitimize Israel. Just this week it was revealed that one of 
the advisory board members in the Center was posting videos of 
Hamas murdering Israeli soldiers to Instagram, with words of 
praise.
    If you are unwilling to close and defund the cesspool of 
hate, the State of New Jersey should. Chancellor Block, we saw 
horrifying footage of encampment members setting up illegal 
checkpoints denying Jewish students access to central parts of 
campus, and accounts of assault, harassment, threats and 
intimidation.
    You stood by and let this happen. Today's hearing is the 
beginning, not the end of the Committee's investigation of your 
institutions. You will be held accountable for your records. 
Congress will not stand by while you violate your obligations 
to uphold Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act, fail to protect 
Jewish students, cut deals advancing divestment, and promote 
terrorism and radical, antisemitic ideologies.
    There being no further business to come before the 
Committee, the Committee stands adjourned.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



    [Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]