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


                  COMBATING WORKPLACE ANTISEMITISM IN
                  POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: PROTECTING
                     EMPLOYEES FROM DISCRIMINATION

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

                                HEARING

                               Before The

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                                 OF THE

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

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________


             HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 26, 2024

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-55

                               __________

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


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

                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
57-403 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------          
              
              COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE

               VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina, Chairwoman

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

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON WORKFORCE PROTECTIONS

                   KEVIN KILEY, California, Chairman

GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin            ALMA ADAMS, North Carolina,
ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York            Ranking Member
JAMES COMER, Kentucky                ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota
MARY MILLER, Illinois                HALEY M. STEVENS, Michigan
ERIC BURLISON, Missouri              MARK TAKANO, California
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

Hearing held on June 26, 2024....................................     1

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

    Kiley, Hon. Kevin, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
      Protections................................................     1
        Prepared statement of....................................     3
    Adams, Hon. Alma, Ranking Member, Subcommittee Workforce 
      Protections................................................     4
        Prepared statement of....................................     5

                               WITNESSES

    Rienzi, Mark, President and CEO, the Becket Fund for 
      Religious Liberty..........................................     6
        Prepared statement of....................................     9
    Keating, Brian, Member, Chancellor's Distinguished Professor 
      of Physics, University of California.......................    18
        Prepared statement of....................................    20
    Emrey-Arras, Melissa, Director, Education, Workforce, and 
      Income Security, U.S. Government Accountability Office.....    47
        Prepared statement of....................................    49
    Golden, Dafna, Geography Professor, Mt. San Antonio College..    67
        Prepared statement of....................................    69

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

    Ranking Member Adams:
        Letter dated June 7, 2024, from the Jewish Insider.......    78
        Letter dated February 14, 2024, signed by 91 
          organizations..........................................    81
    Foxx, Hon. Virginia, a Representative in Congress from the 
      State of North Carolina:
        Article dated June 16, 2024, from Medium.................   105
        Statement dated June 26, 2024, from Pratt Institute......   115
        Article dated May 24, 2024, from Medium..................   121
        Testimony dated July 8, 2024, from Anna Keiserman........   134

 
                  COMBATING WORKPLACE ANTISEMITISM IN
                  POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION: PROTECTING
                     EMPLOYEES FROM DISCRIMINATION

                              ----------                              


                        Wednesday, June 26, 2024

                  House of Representatives,
             Subcommittee on Workforce Protections,
                  Committee on Education and the Workforce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
Room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Hon. 
Kevin Kiley (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Representatives Kiley, Grothman, Stefanik, Miller, 
Burlison, Foxx, Adams, Takano, and Scott.
    Also present: Walberg, Manning.
    Staff present: Cyrus Artz, Staff Director; Mindy Barry, 
General Counsel; Jackson Berryman, Speechwriter; Isabel Foster, 
Press Assistant; Daniel Fuenzalida, Staff Assistant; Eli 
Galiano, Press and Digital Coordinator; AnnMarie Barnes-Graham, 
Deputy Communications Director; Ben Gruber, Intern; Sheila 
Havenner, Director of Information Technology; Amy Raaf Jones, 
Director of Education and Human Services Policy; Alex Knorr, 
Legislative Assistant; Andrew Kuzy, Press Assistant; John 
Martin, Deputy Director of Workforce Policy/Counsel; Hannah 
Matesic, Deputy Staff Director; Carson Middleton, Kevin 
O'Keefe, Professional Staff Member; Rebecca Powell, Staff 
Assistant; Sophia Rees, Intern; Seth Waugh, Director of 
Workforce Policy; Maura Williams, Director of Operations; Ellie 
Berenson, Minority Press Assistant; Ilana Brunner, Minority 
General Counsel; Arana Blake, Minority CBCF Intern; Phoebe 
Ball, Minority Senior Counsel; Carrie Hughes, Minority Director 
of Health & Human Services Policy; Jessica Schieder, Minority 
Economic Policy Advisor; Sherman Dhrtvan, Minority Research 
Assistant; Raiyana Malone, Minority Press Secretary; Paola 
Milbank, Minority Intern; Will Nelson, Minority Intern; Meghan 
O'Neil, Minority Intern; Eleazar Padilla, Minority Staff 
Assistant; Veronique Pluviose, Minority Staff Director; Rachel 
Tao, Minority Intern; Theresa Tilling-Thompson, Minority 
Professional Staff; Banyon Vassar, Minority Director of IT.
    Chairman Kiley. The Subcommittee on Workforce Protections 
will come to order. I note that a quorum is present. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to call a recess at any 
time. Since the evil, horrifying October 7th attack by Hamas 
terrorists on Israeli men, women and children, America has 
witnessed a deeply disturbing rise in antisemitism.
    Following the attacks, the Anti-Defamation League reported 
a 380 percent increase in antisemitic incidents. This has 
continued in the weeks and months since, across different 
regions of the country, and different facets of society as the 
heinous events outside the Los Angeles synagogue this last week 
made painfully clear.
    It is in one particular setting at colleges and 
universities where the problem has been most troubling. We have 
seen institutions of higher learning gripped by one of the 
world's most ancient and retrograde prejudices. We have seen 
scenes that shock the conscious. We have heard from students 
who have lived through an absolute nightmare, who have been 
targeted, attacked, denied access to campus or buildings all 
because of their heritage.
    We have seen university leaders stand by as this horror 
played out on their campuses, even in some cases catering to 
those who promote antisemitism and celebrate terrorism. In 
response, the House Education and the Workforce Committee, 
under the leadership of Chairwoman Foxx, has worked to expose 
and combat this disgraceful reality.
    We are using every available tool to protect the safety and 
civil rights of students who compel our universities to take 
immediate action and to undertake systematic reform. Today, the 
Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will examine another 
dimension of this crisis, employment-based discrimination in 
higher education.
    We will hear about the experience of Jewish faculty and 
staff at universities that have allowed illegal harassment and 
discrimination to go unchecked. Universities are often a 
state's largest employer. In my home State, the University of 
California system has nearly 200,000 employees, making it the 
single, largest state-based employer in the United States.
    I take great pride in the University of California system 
and its world class schools. While many services in our 
government are substandard, and while our universities have had 
their challenges, the UC CSU, and community college systems 
have remained tremendous assets to our city and State.
    However, the events that we have witnessed on certain 
campuses in California and across the United States could not 
be more antithetical to the values of our State and our 
country. The University of California Los Angeles UCLA is a 
particularly troubling case.
    Three students have now filed a lawsuit against UCLA for 
violating their rights by allowing, ``The Jew Exclusion Zone 
Encampment,'' and related antisemitic harassment. Chancellor 
Gene Block testified before this Committee last month regarding 
the encampment, which was eventually broken up, but the 
university showed an inability to take decisive action, and 
protect the rights of Jewish students and employees.
    The Chancellor at our hearing refused to even answer 
questions about whether students had been suspended, or faculty 
disciplined. On May 6th, the University of California, San 
Diego, an illegal encampment eventually led to the arrest of 64 
individuals, including 40 students.
    Professor Brian Keating will testify today about how this 
encampment was anything but peaceful, and how it aimed to 
foment hate against the Jewish people. He will share 
testimonials from other university employees, one who said she 
does not know, ``How much longer I can do this. I can't work at 
UCSD. I can barely live here, and I have learned brutally and 
painfully where my live ranks for the people I'm surrounded by 
every day.''
    At Mt. San Antonio in Walnut, California, Geography 
Professor Dafna Golden endured a vile harassment from a fellow 
professor, including students, including being called a 
``violent Zionist'', and being called a former soldier in the 
Israel Defense Forces, even though this was not even true.
    She will testify today as to her experiences as a professor 
under such hostile conditions. I applaud Professor Golden for 
coming forward with her story, and I look forward to the 
testimony of all of our esteemed witnesses. Universities' 
inadequate responses to this harassment only underscore the 
urgent need for stronger protections and accountability, and 
your insight today on how we can achieve this goal will be 
invaluable.
    Specifically, Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act protects 
employees from antisemitic discrimination. Therefore, an 
important purpose of today's hearing is to examine the extent 
to which universities are failing to fulfill their legal 
obligations to faculty and staff, and what corrective measures 
may be needed to uphold the law.
    College may be out for the summer for the most part, but 
the rise of antisemitism remains a grave risk to students, 
faculty, and American higher education. It is simply put an 
alarming State of affairs. It cannot be tolerated. One way we 
can assure the rights of Jewish Americans are protected is by 
upholding Title 7 and remaining resolute in our commitment to 
fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.
    With that, I yield to the Ranking Member for an opening 
statement.
    [The Statement of Chairman Kiley follows:]

  Statement of Hon. Kevin Kiley, Chairman, Subcommittee on Workforce 
                              Protections

    Since the evil, horrifying October 7 attack by Hamas terrorists on 
Israeli men, women, and children, America has witnessed a deeply 
disturbing rise in antisemitism. Following the attacks, the Anti-
Defamation League reported a 388 percent rise in antisemitic incidents.
    This has continued in the weeks and months since, across different 
regions of the country and different facets of society--as the heinous 
events outside a Los Angeles synagogue this last week made painfully 
clear. It is in one particular setting--at colleges and universities--
where the problem has been most troubling.
    We have seen institutions of higher learning gripped by one of the 
world's most ancient and retrograde prejudices. We have seen scenes 
that shock the conscience. We have heard from students who have lived 
through an absolute nightmare,who have been targeted, attacked, denied 
access to campus or buildings--all because of their heritage. We have 
seen university leaders stand by as this horror played out on their 
campuses, even in some cases catering to those who promote antisemitism 
and celebrate terrorism.
    In response, the House Education and the Workforce Committee, under 
the leadership of Chairwoman Foxx, has worked to expose and combat this 
disgraceful reality. We are using every available tool to protect the 
safety and civil rights of students--to compel our universities to take 
immediate action, and undertake systematic reform.
    Today, the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will examine 
another dimension of this crisis: employment-based discrimination in 
higher education. We will hear about the experience of Jewish faculty 
and staff at universities that have allowed illegal harassment and 
discrimination to go unchecked.
    Universities are often a state's largest employer. In my home 
state, the University of California system has nearly 200,000 
employees, making it the single largest state-based employer in the 
United States.
    I take great pride in the University of California system and its 
world-class schools. While many services in our government are 
substandard, and while our universities have had their challenges, the 
UC, CSU, and community college systems have remained tremendous assets 
to our state.
    However, the events that we have witnessed on certain campuses, in 
California and across the United States, could not be more antithetical 
to the values of our state and country.
    The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) is a particularly 
troubling case. Three students have filed a lawsuit against UCLA for 
violating their rights by allowing the ``Jew Exclusion Zone'' 
encampment and related antisemitic harassment. Chancellor Gene Block 
testified before this Committee last month regarding the encampment, 
which was eventually broken up, but the university showed an inability 
to take decisive action and protect the rights of Jewish students or 
employees. The Chancellor refused to answer questions about whether 
students had been suspended or faculty disciplined.
    On May 6, at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), an 
illegal encampment eventually led to the arrest of 64 individuals, 
including 40 students. Professor Brian Keating will testify about how 
this encampment was anything but peaceful and aimed to foment hate 
against the Jewish people. He will share testimonials from other 
university employees, one who said she does not ``know how much longer 
I can do this. I can't work at UCSD, I can barely live here--and I have 
learned, brutally and painfully, where my life ranks for the people I'm 
surrounded by every day.''
    At Mount San Antonio College in Walnut, California, Geography 
Professor Dafna Golden endured vile harassment from a fellow professor 
and students, including being called a ``violent Zionist'' and being 
called a former soldier in the Israeli Defense Forces, even though this 
was not even true. She will testify today to her experience as a 
professor under such hostile conditions.
    I applaud Professor Golden for coming forward with her story, and I 
look forward to the testimony of all our esteemed witnesses. 
Universities' inadequate responses to this harassment only underscore 
the urgent need for stronger protections and accountability, and your 
insight today on how we can achieve this goal will be invaluable.
    Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects employees 
from antisemitic discrimination. Therefore, an important purpose of 
today's hearing is to examine the extent to which universities are 
failing to fulfill their legal obligations to faculty and staff, and 
what corrective measures may be needed to uphold the law.
    College may be out for the summer for the most part, but the rise 
of antisemitism remains a grave risk to students, faculty, and American 
higher education. It is, simply put, an alarming state of affairs. It 
cannot be tolerated.
    One way we can assure the rights of Jewish Americans are protected 
is by upholding Title VII and remaining resolute in our commitment to 
fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.
                                 ______
                                 
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to first of 
all express my gratitude to the witnesses for testifying before 
the Subcommittee today. Welcome. Today we are here to address 
crucial issues affecting our educational institutions and 
workplaces. It is my hope that we can come together to confront 
these challenges with a commitment to inclusive and effective 
solutions.
    It is imperative to recognize that everyone, everyone 
deserves to work in a place free from discrimination. The 
Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, and the 
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, have processes 
in place to respond to employment discrimination complaints. 
However, more work needs to be done to improve interagency 
coordination.
    The recent Government Accountability Office, GAO, findings 
underscore the need for enhanced coordination and resource 
allocation to better serve those facing discrimination. 
Effective oversight of agencies responding to discrimination 
claims requires understanding the law that prohibits 
discrimination.
    Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
discrimination by recipients of Federal funds and Title 7 
prohibits discrimination in the workplace. Our discussions must 
be informed by an understanding of both the law, and the facts, 
so that we can take meaningful steps to ensure agencies, such 
as EEOC and EDOCR can provide appropriate redress to 
individuals facing discrimination.
    At the heart of today's discussion, is the intersection of 
discrimination, including antisemitism, and the capacity of our 
Federal agencies response mechanisms. The Biden 
administration's national strategy for combatting antisemitism 
provides a roadmap for the Federal agencies in our Nation to 
comprehensively address these issues.
    Additionally, the recently updated guidance on workplace 
harassment issued by the EEOC provides clear guidance for 
employers regarding their responsibility to maintain safe, 
supportive, work environments, including for their workers who 
are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
    Unfortunately, the majority's focus on antisemitism, while 
simultaneously attempting to hamstring Federal civil rights 
enforcement is both counter-intuitive, and counter-productive. 
Furthermore, this approach risks undermining the progress that 
we have already made.
    Instead, it is my wish that today's hearing will provide us 
with an opportunity for bipartisan collaboration on policy 
solutions that safeguard the civil rights and dignity of all 
individuals. By fully funding our enforcement agencies, 
addressing faculty diversity, enhancing agency responsiveness, 
and ensuring equitable treatment for all, we can truly foster 
inclusive environments that promote student success, and 
workplace fairness.
    With that, I look forward to productive discussions today, 
and look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back.
    [The Statement of Ranking Member Adams follows:]

Statement of Hon. Alma Adams, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Workforce 
                              Protections

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to express my gratitude to the 
witnesses for testifying before the subcommittee today. Welcome.
    Today, we are here to address crucial issues affecting our 
educational institutions and workplaces. It is my hope we can come 
together to confront these challenges with a commitment to inclusive 
and effective solutions.
    It is imperative to recognize that everyone deserves to work in a 
place free from discrimination. The Department of Education's Office 
for Civil Rights (ED OCR) and the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission (EEOC) have processes in place to respond to employment 
discrimination complaints. However, more work needs to be done to 
improve interagency coordination. The recent Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) findings underscore the need for enhanced coordination and 
resource allocation to better serve those facing discrimination.
    Effective oversight of agencies responding to discrimination claims 
requires understanding the laws that prohibit discrimination. Title VI 
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by recipients 
of Federal funds, and Title VII prohibits discrimination in the 
workplace. Our discussions must be informed by an understanding of both 
the law and the facts so that we can take meaningful steps to ensure 
agencies, such as the EEOC and ED OCR, can provide appropriate redress 
to individuals facing discrimination.
    At the heart of today's discussion is the intersection of 
discrimination, including antisemitism, and the capacity of our federal 
agencies' response mechanisms. The Biden Administration's National 
Strategy for Combatting Antisemitism provides a roadmap for the Federal 
agencies and our nation to comprehensively address these issues. 
Additionally, the recently updated guidance on workplace harassment 
issued by the EEOC provides clear guidance for employers regarding 
their responsibility to maintain safe, supportive work environments, 
including for their workers who are part of the LGBTQ+ community.
    Unfortunately, the Majority's focus on antisemitism while 
simultaneously attempting to hamstring Federal civil rights enforcement 
is both counterintuitive and counterproductive. Furthermore, this 
approach risks undermining the progress we have made.
    Instead, it is my wish that today's hearing will provide us an 
opportunity for bipartisan collaboration on policy solutions that 
safeguard the civil rights and dignity of all individuals. By fully 
funding our enforcement agencies, addressing faculty diversity, 
enhancing agency responsiveness, and ensuring equitable treatment for 
all, we can truly foster inclusive environments that promote student 
success and workplace fairness.
    With that I look forward to productive discussions ahead.
    Thank you, and I yield back.
                                 ______
                                 
    Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to Committee Rule 8-C, all 
Committee 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. after 14 days 
from the date of this hearing, which is July 10, 2024. Without 
objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days 
after the date of this hearing to allow such statements, and 
other extraneous material referenced during the hearing to be 
submitted for the official hearing record.
    I note for the Subcommittee that some of my colleagues who 
are not permanent members of this Subcommittee may be waiving 
on for the purpose of today's hearing. I will now turn to the 
introduction of our distinguished witnesses.
    Our first witness today is Mr. Mark Rienzi, who is the 
President and CEO of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, 
located in Washington, DC.
    Our second witness is Professor Brian Keating, who is the 
Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics, for the 
University of California, San Diego, which is located in La 
Jolla, California.
    Our third witness is Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras, who is the 
Director in the U.S. Government Accountability Office's 
Education, Workforce and Income Security team in Washington, 
DC.
    Our final witness is Professor Dafna Golden, who is a 
Geography Professor at Mt. San Antonio College in Walnut, 
California. We thank the witnesses for being here today and 
look forward to your testimony.
    Pursuant to Committee Rules, I would ask you each limit 
your oral presentation to a 5-minute summary of your written 
statement. I would also like to remind the witnesses to be 
aware of their responsibility to provide accurate information 
to the Subcommittee. I will first recognize Mr. Rienzi.

  STATEMENT OF MR. MARK RIENZI, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE BECKET 
          FUND FOR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Mr. Rienzi. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member 
Adams, distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am honored 
to appear before you today to offer testimony as part of your 
important efforts to combat antisemitism in higher education. 
Imagine if you will the following scenes, a group of 
individuals holds a demonstration at a main thoroughfare in a 
public university.
    They carry antisemitic signs, and they chant, ``Slaughter 
the Jews.'' Police officers are present, but they stand idly by 
as demonstrators intimidate Jewish faculty and Jewish students. 
A few weeks later a professor finds a pile of trash at her 
front door with a piece of paper that says, ``Loudmouth Jew'', 
and a book cover that prominently features a swastika.
    Then imagine hundreds of agitators swarming a law school, 
holding signs and chanting slogans like, ``There's only one 
solution, and death to Jews.'' A short time later unknown 
individuals put up a statute on campus that traffics an 
antisemitic tropes with a large pig holding a bag of money 
alongside a bucket painted with the Star of David.
    Finally, students and outside activists erect an 
unauthorized encampment at the heart of campus, outside of 
important academic buildings, and the main undergraduate campus 
library. Those inside the encampment should antisemitic slurs 
like, ``This is the final solution,'' and ``Death to Jews.'' 
They draw a Star of David, and then they cross it out, and then 
they draw the Nazi hate symbol, the swastika, they set up 
checkpoints to block access.
    They interrogate students attempting to pass. They issue 
wristbands to people with approved ideas and views. They deny 
entry to visibly Jewish students, such as those wearing a Star 
of David or wearing a kippah.
    Police officers are present and aware of the situation, but 
university officials instruct them not to intervene. The 
university hires outside security staff, not to help the Jewish 
students through the center of campus, but to send them 
elsewhere, unless they can get the approval of the mob 
chanting, ``Death to Jews.''
    University officials fail to discipline students engaged in 
the unlawful conduct and refuse to enforce campus policies 
against the illegal encampment. Their actions embolden the 
protestors, violence predictably ensues. Now, those episodes 
may sound like they come from Germany in the 1930's, but they 
do not. They describe real life events that occurred and have 
continued to occur at the University of California Los Angeles 
over the past 9 months.
    It could very well describe events at any number of 
American universities where similar illegal conduct has 
happened following Hamas' terrorist attack on October 7th. What 
can the Federal Government, and what can Federal law do? I will 
give you just a brief overview.
    The Federal Government can enforce Title 6, as can private 
litigants. Title 6 prohibits keeping people out of 
participation in Federal programs which encompass virtually all 
universities on the basis of race or ethnic, or ethnic 
heritage. The Supreme Court has already found that 
discrimination against Jews qualifies as racial and ethnic 
discrimination.
    As Chairman Kiley said, the Federal Government and private 
litigants can enforce Title 7, which makes it illegal to 
discriminate on the basis of religion or race, or national 
origin, and also makes it illegal to discriminate in the terms 
and conditions of employment for those employees, including 
creating what surely is going on at any of these universities, 
which is a very, very hostile work environment.
    There are other laws too, such as the Ku Klux Clan Act, 
which was enacted 150 years ago to stop masked clan's members 
from depriving people of their civil rights. That law also 
makes it illegal for people who have the ability to stop the 
conspiracy, like these universities, from failing to do so.
    Last, where these universities are public institutions, 
they are, of course, also obliged to abide by the Constitution, 
and that means providing the equal protection of the laws, and 
many situations this is a clear failure to provide Jewish 
students and faculty with equal protection, and protecting the 
right to freely exercise religion, which unfortunately, is the 
basis on which many people have been excluded.
    I thank the Committee for its time and welcome the 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mark Rienzi follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I now recognize 
Professor Keating.

      STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR BRIAN KEATING, CHANCELLOR'S 
 DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, 
                SAN DIEGO, LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA

    Mr. Keating. Chairman Kiley, and esteemed members of the 
Committee, my name is Brian Keating, and I stand before you as 
a Jew and an astrophysicist. My childhood dream was to study 
the universe and all of its wonders. This dream led me to the 
University of California where our motto is taken from the 
Hebrew Bible, ``Let there be light.''
    I was dedicated to the luminous thrill of scholarship, and 
I always wondered who would pay me to do this job? In fact, I 
would do it for free, but please do not tell Gavin Newsom or 
the Regents. My concern is not for me. I am fully tenured and 
working on well-funded research with a brilliant team of 
scientists around the world.
    No, today I speak for scholars, like a young, untenured 
professor from Israel, her homeland demonized since October 
7th, and even long before. I speak for an undergraduate 
teaching assistant who studies, and whose employment requires 
him to navigate the complex thoroughfare of campus that 
sometimes includes encampments, which are no go zones for him.
    All educators are familiar with Maslow's hierarchy of 
needs. It provides a framework for creating an educational 
environment conducive for learning. At the base of the pyramid 
is safety, physical safety and emotional safety.
    Safety means more than just meeting your needs, your basic 
needs. It also has to involve an environment free of 
discrimination, harassment and intimidation. As an educator, I 
know you cannot learn in a place of hatred.
    You cannot teach from a place of hatred. However, for 
decades UC has not been a safe space for Jewish and Israel 
students, staff and employees, faculty members, they call their 
colleagues F'ing colonizers.
    During a tour of a lab and workspace environment Israelis 
and Jews are working and pursuing their studies. They are 
confronted by calls for the elimination of the one Jewish 
homeland.
    These faculty call themselves scholars, and yet engage in 
the dishonest and anti-intellectual boycott of the one Jewish 
State, forbidding members to come to our campus to learn, work 
and study, based on their religion and national origin.
    An Israeli undergraduate student, dedicated pre-med who 
wants to save lives faces very challenging classes, but also, 
he is ostracized from the very union that is meant to protect 
him, the United Auto Workers Union, who seems more interested 
in demonizing his homeland, and calling for strikes against the 
campus.
    When he attempts to have his voice heard at an academic 
Senate meeting, he sees the ISIS flag waved proudly outside by 
protestors. A young woman pursuing her doctoral degree receives 
a letter from her professor, her employer, filled with hateful 
anti-Israel rhetoric.
    This letter intimidates her and makes her question her 
safety within her department. When she seeks refuge over a 
coffee at the campus student union, she is blocked by an 
illegal encampment, which is a no go zone for her as a Jew.
    Following one of the daily five--five daily prayer services 
in the camp, she is confronted by chants for the elimination of 
Israel as a sovereign Jewish State. She hears calls for 
intifada, reminding her of the awful times decades ago, which 
she thought were over.
    These flyers also include calls for death to America. A 
professor tries to bypass the encampment. He hears the familiar 
chants, long condoned on our campus. There is only one 
solution, intifada revolution, which is a veiled reference to 
the holocaust. Protestors at the encampment scream at him, 
``May Allah humiliate and crush all the Zionists, enter them in 
fire.''
    A graduate student employee sees students passing out 
pamphlets with the Star of David compared to the Nazi swastika, 
and she decides the life of the mind may not be for her, and we 
would be all the more poorer for it.
    In an environment where academic freedom should flourish, 
professors try to hire scholars from Middle Eastern studies, 
and find them banned because of their national origin.
    Let me quickly relay the story of the reprehensible, anti-
black racist Compton cookout, which took place on our campus in 
2010. There were immediate steps of remediation, many of them 
sponsored by the Black Student Union.
    However, in May 2023, over a year ago a swastika made of 
human feces was found in a dorm and learning facility on our 
campus, no such activity to combat antisemitism has taken place 
in our campus.
    When swords were found, and flammable materials were found 
at an illegal encampment, nothing of the sort is tolerable. Our 
encampment only lasted 5 days thanks to the quick action of our 
Chancellor Pradeep Khosla.
    Other campuses were not so lucky, and there was tremendous 
violence in our sister campus as you heard, at the University 
of California and LA.
    I have very many recommendations in my written testimony, 
but I think the most important one is to develop a 
comprehensive conversation between Students for Justice in 
Palestine, which unfortunately explicitly forbids conversation 
with Zionists.
    I hope that we can return our campus, with your leadership 
help, back to being a beacon of light, ``Let there be light.''
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Keating follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I now recognize Ms. 
Emrey-Arras.

  STATEMENT OF MS. MELISSA EMREY-ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, 
WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY 
                    OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Chairman Kiley, Ranking Member Adams, 
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and members of the 
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 
discuss GAO's work on employment discrimination at colleges and 
universities.
    Our findings focus on the government's process for handling 
employment discrimination complaints, including those related 
to religious discrimination. My statement today will address 
the roles of Education's Office for Civil Rights, and the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission, and how they process 
complaints of employment discrimination.
    I will also highlight two recommendations from our March 
report that would help ensure timely and complete processing of 
all higher education employment discrimination complaints. 
Several Federal statutes protect faculty and other employees of 
colleges and universities from employment discrimination.
    I would like to specifically highlight, as others have 
already, that Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits 
employment discrimination based on race, color, sex, national 
origin, or religion. Both EEOC and Education receive individual 
complaints of employment discrimination in higher education.
    EEOC promotes equal opportunity in the workplace and is the 
primary Federal agency responsible for enforcing employment 
discrimination statutes. Once EEOC receives complaints, the 
complaints are assigned to its investigative staff. EEOC also 
files litigation in select cases against employers.
    OCR's mission is to promote educational excellence through 
vigorous enforcement of civil rights. OCR assigns complaints it 
receives to its investigative staff. If OCR investigative staff 
determine that Education does not have jurisdiction over an 
employment case, they will often refer it to EEOC.
    In our work, we found that OCR and EEOC handled about 
20,000 employment discrimination complaints in higher education 
from 2011 to 2021. However, we identified concerns with both 
the tracking and the timing of referrals from OCR to EEOC. OCR 
refers the majority of employment discrimination complaints it 
receives to EEOC.
    EEOC processed close to 19,000 higher education employment 
discrimination complaints from 2011 to 2021. I would like to 
point out that during this time-period there were over 1,000 
charges related to religious discrimination involving faculty 
and staff at colleges and universities.
    Although OCR refers the majority of the employment 
discrimination complaints it receives to EEOC, given EEOC's 
jurisdiction, OCR's referrals recently were usually passed the 
30-day referral deadline set out in its own agency policy. We 
found that in 1922, OCR referred 72 of 99 such complaints after 
the 30-day deadline.
    The percentage of late OCR referrals increased from 40 
percent being late in 2011, to 73 percent being late in 1922. 
In 1922, we would that OCR took an average of 71 days to refer 
complaints to EEOC. OCR and EEOC officials have acknowledged 
that late referrals could delay complaint investigations, and 
negatively affect individuals.
    We recommended that Education track the number of days it 
takes to refer complaints to EEOC and use that information to 
develop a plan to reduce delays. Education agreed. Turning to 
EEOC, we found that EEOC could not confirm that it had received 
100 percent of OCR's referrals.
    We recommended that EEOC develop and finalize a protocol to 
ensure it receives and processes all complaint referrals from 
Education.
    EEOC noted it is taking related action. Until Education and 
EEOC implement our recommendations, some faculty and staff, who 
have experienced discrimination may continue to experience 
delays in getting relief from the government. Thank you. This 
completes my statement.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Emery-Arras follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you. I now recognize Professor 
Golden.

 STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR DAFNA GOLDEN, GEOGRAPHY PROFESSOR, MT. 
             SAN ANTONIO COLLEGE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Golden. I am here today to share the distressing 
experiences I have endured at Mt. San Antonio College, also 
known as Mount SAC, as a Jewish professor in the wake of the 
October 7th terrorist attacks in Israel.
    I have experienced an antisemitic, hostile environment at 
Mt. SAC. An antisemitic discrimination specifically directed at 
me, which Mt. SAC, my employer, has failed to properly remedy, 
or protect me from. The discrimination began when I expressed 
concerns to the administration regarding a professor's planned 
screening of an offensive and antisemitic film, the Occupation 
of the American Mind.
    The film's central thesis is that leaders of major Jewish 
organizations use their power to control Americans into 
supporting Israel and is basically a screen version of the 
protocols of the elders of Zion. The film serves no academic 
purpose. It is propaganda, pure and simple, better suited for 
class as an example of hate speech, or antisemitism.
    In response to my objections, and to their credit, the 
equity center withdrew its support for the film. Nonetheless, 
the professor continues to show this film in his unrelated 
American history classes. In retaliation for voicing my 
objections to the film, the professor instigated a campaign of 
harassment against me by email, and by making statements to 
their classes, falsely labeling me a violent Zionist, and 
former soldier in the IDF, both of which are false.
    Inciting his students to stand up to me. A Jewish student 
in the professor's Mexican American history class documented 
these actions, including a disturbing incident where the 
professor mimicked a Nazi salute. Individuals associated with 
the notorious antisemitic organization on campus vandalized the 
bulletin board outside my office, by removing my Israeli flag, 
and pro-Israel articles, and replacing them with anti-Israel 
propaganda, including a flyer with demands to renounce the pro-
Zionist, remove the pro-Zionist library displace, and declare 
support for Palestine.
    As a geography professor, I have installed a perfectly 
normal, non-ideological academic display at the school library 
about Israel's changing borders. The library reported that due 
to student complaints and division in the community, they 
removed the display.
    My profile on Rate my Professor.com was bombarded with 
fake, negative reviews. Students making public comments to the 
Board of Trustees demanded that I be fired and declared a 
boycott of my classes. My spring semester on campus class was 
then canceled, due to low enrollment, limiting me to online 
teaching.
    My lack of on-campus presence has deteriorated crucial, 
collaborative relationships. My attempts to engage with key 
faculty and administration have been ignored, leaving the 
pervasive antisemitism on campus unaddressed. Like so many of 
my Jewish colleagues at colleges across the country, the 
general antisemitic hostile environment turned to focus on me 
directly because I am a Jew, because I will not hide or reject 
my connection as a Jew to the Jewish State, and the Jewish 
people.
    I reported these incidents to the Deans and to the human 
resources office. H.R. found the complaint to be 
unsubstantiated, in part because the student who documented the 
professor's actions did not want to submit a statement out of 
fear of retaliation and harassment.
    Therefore, the H.R. office took no disciplinary actions. 
The professor continues leading protests with students, 
demanding reinstatement of the screening of the antisemitic 
film, and the professor continues to show the film in their 
classes. This hostile environment has significantly impacted my 
professional duties and relationships.
    As a result of the toxic atmosphere, and severe impact on 
my mental health, and my professional standing, and the refusal 
of my employer to protect me and my workplace, I have decided 
to transition out of academia as soon as possible. I urge this 
body to take immediate and decisive actions to address this 
rampant antisemitism, and restore a safe, respectful, and 
inclusive environment for faculty and staff on college 
campuses, no less than what is expected in any workplace. Thank 
you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Golden follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Under Committee Rule 
9, we will now question witnesses under the 5-minute Rule. They 
have just called votes, so we are going to do one round of 
questions, and then we will have a brief recess for votes. I 
now recognize the Chairwoman of the full Education and the 
Workforce Committee, Dr. Virginia Foxx.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, and thanks to our 
witnesses for being here today. Mr. Rienzi, UCLA has been a 
hotbed of pervasive antisemitism. When UCLA Chancellor Gene 
Block testified before this Committee on May 23, I asked him 
how many students have been expelled or suspended for 
antisemitic conduct, and how many staff have been disciplined.
    He responded that there are more than 100 active 
investigations, but he did not say that any student has been 
expelled or suspended, or that any staff has been disciplined. 
Could you discuss the lawsuit Becket has filed on behalf of 
Jewish UCLA students against the university, and whether UCLA 
failed to take appropriate action to protect these students' 
rights.
    Mr. Rienzi. Certainly, Chairwoman Foxx. The lawsuit we 
filed was on behalf of three students at the University of 
California Los Angeles, two law students, and one undergraduate 
student. Each of them endured vile, antisemitism while at UCLA, 
and each was excluded from passing through central parts of 
campus due to the encampment that was there.
    These are students who are tuition paying students. They 
have every right to be on the campus, as much as anybody of any 
other religion, or any other national origin, but they were not 
able to do it because UCLA allowed the encampment to be set up.
    I should point out that the encampment was a violation of 
UCLA's own policies that they allowed. UCLA is a public 
institution, and does allow First Amendment speech and protest, 
but it does not allow the taking over of parts of campus. It 
does not allow blocking other people from going about their 
business. UCLA knew that was going on.
    It ordered its police not to intervene. It hired extra 
security to send the Jewish kids around, and so our students 
have been deprived of their ability to access the campus. I 
should say, I wish it stopped a month ago, but it has not. As 
recently as June 10th, UCLA acknowledged that they had another 
encampment that stopped students from accessing campus, and 
getting to exams.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you. Professor Keating, your written 
testimony notes that every May at UCSD for many years, Students 
for Justice in Palestine have led a week of anti-Israel 
activities called Justice in Palestine week, which is 
informally known as Israel Apartheid Week.
    How many years has this annual event taken place, and what 
kinds of activities does it entail?
    Mr. Keating. Thank you, Dr. Foxx. The annual event, which 
informally by students at least, is called Israel Hate Week, 
takes place between Israel Independence Day and the Holocaust 
Remembrance Day, it is time to do that.
    Typically, what is found there are huge billboards taking 
over the entire common area, leading up to the student library. 
Sometimes they include checkpoints where there will be mock 
Israeli defense uniforms being worn by some of the Students for 
Justice in Palestine, and other folks, people wearing full head 
coverings, masks, et cetera, chanting slogans, depicting the 
State of Israel completely eliminated from the map of the 
Middle East, replaced by a Palestinian flag.
    There are oftentimes events co-held on campus at the exact 
same time, bringing in outside speakers that are then the time 
to act as sort of a bullwork against students or faculty 
members that wish to counter the examples that are presented, 
extremely biased narrative of the events of the Middle East.
    It becomes a very intimidating, intolerable location at the 
center of our campus student union for most students to talk by 
for an entire week on campus.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you very much. Professor Golden, you have 
talked about your experiences at Mt. San Antonio College, and 
you have told us that you are planning to leave academia when 
you can. Can you discuss whether you prefer to remain at your 
college, and continue teaching if you are not subject to 
antisemitic environment?
    Ms. Golden. Of course I would prefer for the administration 
to address the antisemitism. I love my job, but this toxic 
environment feels like a deliberate attempt to force me out, 
pushing me to consider moving to Israel, where I can live and 
work as a Jew without persecution. Teaching geography has been 
my life's work, but the situation harms not only me, but my 
students.
    My classes are being politicized and boycotted, making it 
impossible for me to teach effectively.
    Mrs. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks to 
our witnesses. I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. Pursuant to the previous order, the Chair 
declares the Subcommittee in recess, subject to the call of the 
Chair for votes on the House floor. We will reconvene 
immediately following the last vote of the series. It looks 
like it is a short vote series, so we should be back pretty 
soon. Thank you. The Committee--Subcommittee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Kiley. The Subcommittee will reconvene and come to 
order. I now recognize the Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you to 
the witnesses. I certainly am interested in what we are talking 
about today. I am a retired 40-year college professor and 
administrator, so I certainly appreciate what you do, and I 
have been a part of that.
    Ms. Emrey-Arras, if an employee believes that their 
employer has engaged in discrimination, or other unlawful acts 
against them in violation of Title 7, there are several 
potential legal claims that they must pursue. What are the most 
common types of alleged discriminatory practices that GAO found 
when it analyzed employment discrimination complaints against 
colleges and universities under Act 7 of the Civil Rights Act?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Thank you so much for that question. In 
our analysis of EEOC discrimination complaint data, this is for 
all types of cases, we found that losing one's job was a 
significant issue in many of the complaints, as was the terms 
and conditions of employment, which could involve being in a 
discriminatory work environment.
    We also found issues of harassment, discipline, and wages 
were common complaints as part of the EEOC complaint data.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you. Based on GAO's analysis of EEOC data, 
how does the frequency of religious discrimination charges 
against higher education institutions compare to other types of 
discrimination charges?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Well, there were quite a few complaints 
regarding religious issues. In fact, as I mentioned, over 1,000 
charges related to religious discrimination. Those were a 
smaller portion of the complaints compared to other categories. 
For example, there were close to 7,000 charges related to 
racial discrimination, and similarly, close to 7,000 related to 
discrimination based on sex.
    Ms. Adams. Okay, thank you. Even if an academic institution 
hires from a diverse applicant pool, retention is just as 
important in maintaining a diverse workforce. Discrimination 
may continue to contribute to a professor's decision to leave a 
position, and you've heard some of that.
    Based on your review of the issue of faculty diversity and 
employment discrimination in higher ed, can you talk a little 
bit about how discrimination and other factors may contribute 
to a faculty member's decision to leave their position?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. I think there are certain issues that we 
found based on our work that could contribute. You sort of see 
this on the flip side of what colleges are trying to do to stem 
the tide on that front, and to maintain retention of diverse 
faculty. Mentoring has been key, according to the colleges that 
we have interviewed.
    They think it is important that faculty have early 
mentoring, that they get mentoring later on for key career 
stages. It is also helpful for faculty to have a strong work 
life balance, and to feel supported at their colleges.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Are there metrics on record that speak to 
how something--like a person's given name--can play a part on 
whether they are discriminated against, or not, during when 
they are seeking employment?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
    Ms. Adams. Well, would a person's name, given name, or any 
other factors play a part whether they are discriminated 
against?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. In terms of our work, we found that it is 
important to have a diverse hiring pool as part of the search 
committee, to help address any potential bias in a selection 
process, which could relate to bias based on someone's name and 
ethnicity.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. GAO's report highlighted untimely 
referrals of complaints alleging employment discrimination at 
institutions and so forth, so how might the delays in referrals 
to EEOC impact individual complaints and EEOC's work to address 
employment discrimination at institutions of higher ed?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. The delays would affect things on several 
levels. On one level, complaints are being investigated just 
frankly later, so the case would be less fresh for EEOC to 
investigate. In addition, individuals who are experiencing 
discrimination could continue to experience discrimination 
during those delays. That could mean that they can continue to 
be working in a hostile work environment.
    They could continue to go without pay from promotions or 
from positions and suffer financially during that period.
    Ms. Adams. Yes. The information that I have indicates that 
the delays have only increased in the last 10 years, with 73 
percent of referrals from OCR to EEOC. I just want to add that 
we know that you have taken a 25 percent cut, and those things 
impact, and Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into the record 
two articles, one from the Jewish Insider, and a letter from 91 
Civil Rights Groups.
    Chairman Kiley. Without objection.
    [The information of Ms. Adams follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]    

    Ms. Adams. With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. The Representative from New York, Ms. 
Stefanik, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you, Chairman Kiley. Professor Golden, 
thank you for being here today. You describe in your written 
testimony the antisemitic harassment that a professor and 
students have directed toward you, and how it has caused you to 
want to leave academia.
    Could you describe the overall atmosphere that Jewish 
faculty and Jewish students are facing at your college, and 
specifically, what was the college administration's response to 
those antisemitic incidents directed specifically to you?
    Ms. Golden. Thank you. The administration has chosen the 
path of least resistance, doing the bare minimum to appear to 
take antisemitism seriously. They have refused to adopt the 
widely accepted IRA definition of antisemitism, which could 
help them better identify and address these incidents.
    While I commend them for not capitulating to divestment 
demands, their overall response has been mostly lip service.
    Ms. Stefanik. Professor Keating, I understand that UCSC had 
its own antisemitic encampment on campus for 5 days before it 
was dispersed by the police. It is reported that 64 individuals 
were arrested, 40 of whom were students. Could you describe 
this encampment and the antisemitic statements made by 
protestors there?
    Mr. Keating. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman. The encampment 
sprung up over a course over a period of 5 days. It tripled in 
size in just a few days. The protestors were allowed to have 
their freedom of speech, the First Amendment rights recognized. 
In fact, there have been 2,500 attendees to Pro-Palestinian/
anti-Israel protests on our campus alone, which have been the 
majority peaceful.
    This one was different. This one resulted in continued 
refusal to allow inspections by campus fire marshals. There 
were weapons found there, including a three-foot-long ninja 
sword, that I displayed during my testimony. There were 
flammable materials found there.
    They would not let in the inspectors. They would also not 
let in Jews, or anybody identifying as a Jew wearing, for 
example, a Star of David, or a high symbol, anything of that 
nature, and it was incredibly intimidating. There were chants 
there globalizing the intifada.
    There were leaflets passed out by the Revolutionary 
Socialist of America that said that freedom for Palestine means 
death to America, as I displayed in my oral testimony, as well. 
This was an incredibly hostile environment, not just for Jews, 
but for Americans, and students who wanted to just have a 
peaceful day to go about their lives on campus, and study for 
their employment.
    Ms. Stefanik. I also want to ask you about policy changes 
that would address the rise of antisemitism on campuses across 
the country. Would banning the wearing of masks, so that 
individuals at encampments can be identified help in this 
regard, and what other policy changes would help protect Jewish 
faculty and students?
    Mr. Keating. I think so. I think banning masks is one step 
to doing so, and I think there are--it is appropriate to wear 
religious garb, of course, but to completely cover your face, 
there is absolutely no need to do that unless you are involved 
in some activity that you are either ashamed of, or do not want 
to participate in.
    Wearing masks and wearing full headgear and covering up 
your entire human, you know, personhood is demeaning, and it 
creates a barrier. Also, I should note that in the Students for 
Justice in Palestine Constitution, they adopt a strict policy 
of not negotiating with anyone who supports the State of Israel 
as a sovereign nation.
    They refuse to negotiate or dialog with, ``Zionists.'' This 
organization currently is operating under a cease and desist 
order on campus. It did not prevent them from organizing a 
complicity walking tour where they targeted individual 
professors by name, and due to their national origin, or the 
fact that they were Jewish, and doing research on studying say 
the biblical flood story.
    That had nothing to do with politics. Just because they 
happen to be Jewish, and or conducting research in Israel. The 
most reprehensible thing to me as a faculty member, is it is 
fine for students to exercise their rights. We all should do 
that, it is part of our Constitutional granted rights, but for 
faculty to take a paycheck from a university that they claim is 
committing acts of genocide is complicit in genocide, and to 
continue working there, and encourage students to get arrested, 
and call students themselves complicit in the genocide 
themselves.
    When students express their fear to the Academic Senate 
Chair, John Hildebrand, he ignored them, the Jewish students. 
Other people on an open call compare Jewish students fearing 
for their safety, they compare them to students during the 
segregation period who supported the KKK. This is unacceptable 
in a place of learning in my opinion.
    Ms. Stefanik. Thank you for your bravery being here today. 
Thank you for standing up what is morally right, standing up 
for Jewish students, Jewish faculty, Jews around the world, and 
with that, I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. The Representative from California, Mr. 
Takano, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 
witnesses for being here today. Antisemitism on college 
campuses is a serious issue, and I denounce and deplore 
antisemitism. Racism is also an issue, and I deplore it, as 
well as Islamophobia, sex discrimination, homophobia, and all 
forms of bigotry that create barriers to faculty being able to 
work, and students being able to learn.
    I fully support providing all resources necessary to the 
institutions that our government tasked with enforcing 
antidiscrimination law, namely the Equal Employment Opportunity 
Commission, or EEOC, and the Department of Education Office for 
Civil Rights, otherwise known as OCR.
    These entities seek to ensure a crucial balance between 
academic freedom and safety, and security for all who work, 
study and live on college campuses. My first question to Ms. 
Emrey-Arras, can you describe how EEOC handles a complaint once 
it is filed?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Once it is filed, it is provided to 
investigators who then examine the complaint to see if it has 
all of the necessary pieces to it, and then they often work 
toward some kind of settlement with the college, to see if that 
is possible to obtain. If they are unable to do a settlement, 
they could potentially pursue litigation, or a referral for 
litigation.
    Mr. Takano. Is there a general amount of time it takes for 
a claim to get resolved, and disposed of?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. I would not be able to speak to that for 
this particular issue. We have not looked at the number of days 
for these claims.
    Mr. Takano. Okay. In GAO's full March 2024 report, OCR 
indicated that reduced staffing, staffing levels, and rising 
complaints have had a significant impact on making timely 
referrals of discrimination complaints to EEOC. What 
relationship does funding and staffing of the OCR, of OCR have, 
to their expediency, or efficiency in processing complaints?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Thank you for that. We did hear that OCR 
has resource constraints, which limits their ability to focus 
on this issue. They specifically mentioned the rise in the 
number of complaints, significant rise in number of complaints 
over time, while also experiencing declines in the number of 
investigators available to look at those complaints.
    We do recognize that in our work. At the same time, we 
would very much like to make sure that referrals are timely, so 
that people who have experienced discrimination can obtain 
relief, and we believe that the Department of Education can do 
more to help ensure timely referrals.
    Mr. Takano. That is fair enough, but there is the resource 
constraint has had an impact on the timely referral of 
complaints. Does the March 2024 report take into account the 
recent surge of complaints to OCR after the October 7th attack?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. It does not. It covers an earlier time 
period, sir.
    Mr. Takano. In fact, October 7th attack impact, and the 
surge of complaints could have worsened the ability for 
referrals to be done in a timely way?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is correct.
    Mr. Takano. I fail to see how we continue to--if we 
continue to flat fund OCR and make progress in addressing these 
discrimination issues, how is it that the recommendations that 
the GAO laid out in your 2024 report be aided by Congress?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. We think it is important for Congress to 
highlight these issues. We are grateful that you are having 
this hearing today to focus on this important issue, and we 
think anything that the Congress can do to hold education and 
EEOC's feet to the fire to implement our recommendations would 
be greatly appreciated.
    Mr. Takano. Well, the EEOC report year after year increases 
of discrimination complaints across several sectors, while 
facing flat funding. The latest republican crafted 
Appropriation's Bill released earlier this week slashes the 
EEOC's budget by 8 percent, which is over 68 million dollars 
less than what was put forth in the administration 2025 
proposal.
    It also flat funded OCR for Fiscal Year 1925, which would 
result in flat funding for the agency for the third Fiscal Year 
in a row. Mr. Rienzi, your testimony suggests that EEOC could 
or should single out claims of antisemitism for enforcement. At 
the same time, republicans are proposing to cut funding for 
EEOC by 35 million dollars, and flat fund OCR for the third 
year.
    How do you reconcile your goals, and also the ability to 
advance the agency's work to combat discrimination?
    Mr. Rienzi. I am not familiar with EEOC's funding levels 
either before or after, or the impact of those funding levels, 
but I certainly support EEOC doing its job of pursuing these 
claims.
    Mr. Takano. Well, I wish I had more time, but I need to 
yield back, and thank you for your testimony.
    Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Missouri, Mr. 
Burlison, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Professor Keating, I 
understand that the Local United Autoworkers Chapter of the UAW 
4811 voted to strike in protest that your university and the 
police removed the antisemitic, anti-Israel protestors and 
their encampment.
    The UAW alleged that workers' rights were violated in their 
handling of the anti-Israel protests. The individuals were--
even though these individuals were violating policies, the 
union is demanding amnesty for the employees and students to 
basically fight for their right to be antisemitic, I guess.
    Professor Keating, are you aware of the UAW strike on the 
campus?
    Mr. Keating. Yes, sir. I am aware of it. In fact, our 
teaching assistants in my classes, and I teach--I have taught 
thousands of students over the years. They are effectively 
forced to be members of the United Autoworkers Union as part of 
their contract, and their collective bargaining agreement.
    Mr. Burlison. Even though it is a university, they are 
forced. Is it a public university, or are they----
    Mr. Keating. Yes, its a public university.
    Mr. Burlison. Is this a government system, and yet people 
are being compelled to pay to be a member?
    Mr. Keating. I believe that I cannot speak if they are 
literally forced to do it. I know that Jeffrey resigned, and in 
fact, many of the graduate student teaching assistants 
submitted their testimonials to me. In fact, had to meet with 
their unit representative in order to resign from the union 
actively based on their partisan advocacy for the in support of 
anti-Israel demonstrators, receiving full rights.
    Again, why they want to receive full rights to a diploma to 
a university that they claim is genocidal, complicit, et 
cetera, et cetera, and hold constant boycotts against is beyond 
me. However, I should point out that none of the students that 
I teach, which are I remind you, physic students, astronomy 
students, et cetera, including Muslims, who work with me and 
for me, and I have always had a proud tradition of educating 
people from around the world.
    They refuse to strike, and they in fact, they told me we 
stand with Israel, and for them to be sort of have to 
proactively tell me that because otherwise I might have had to, 
you know, take over all their responsibilities.
    There is a faculty organization, which is not officially 
sanctioned by the university, they call themselves the San 
Diego Faculty Association, that again was encouraging protests, 
encouraging walkouts, and encouraging the graduate students who 
are employees.
    In fact, one employee of the union, a teaching assistant, 
broadcasted to his undergraduate students that they have a 
right, a moral obligation to protest the university's complicit 
nature with the activities of Israel in Gaza and beyond. He was 
using an intimidation tactic on the students whose grades he is 
partially responsible for, to advocate for political speech.
    Mr. Burlison. That is appalling. What were the policies of 
the university that they were violating on campus? If pro-
Israeli students were protesting and violating these policies, 
one might expect there to be equal treatment. What were the 
policies that were being violated?
    Mr. Keating. These were encouragement to not grant work. 
They were operating--the graduate students did go on strike 2 
years ago to advocate for higher wages, and then as you know, 
living in La Jolla is not an unexpensive endeavor. I support, 
you know, their right to advocate.
    Mr. Burlison. Right.
    Mr. Keating. This was an unauthorized strike in the sense 
that they were not authorized by their own union rules to go on 
strike for political purposes. They can go on strike for 
whatever reason.
    Mr. Burlison. They violated a labor practice?
    Mr. Keating. That was the--I have to defer to legal 
experts, but I believe that was the decision. In fact, 
California State courts ruled that that strike was no longer 
supported. It was in violation of the union's contract, so they 
did go back to work eventually.
    Mr. Burlison. Do you think most members of the UAW 
understand that there is a segment of their labor union that is 
actively making sure that people have a right to be 
antisemitic?
    Mr. Keating. I think they claim to represent 58,000 members 
of the University of California as Congressman Kiley said. It 
is an enormous employer in the State of California. That is not 
an insignificant fraction of the employment of the State of 
California, and yet I do not believe they represent more than a 
few percent.
    Mr. Burlison. Well, and what I find striking is that, you 
know, they are supposed to represent all workers' rights, and 
yet did you see any activity that they were expressing, 
indicated that they cared about the Jewish students and 
workers?
    Mr. Keating. No. In fact, one graduate student teaching 
employee, she stated that she met with the union organizing 
unit, the then unit Chair, and they said that we sometimes 
advocate for political reasons.
    Mr. Burlison. Thank you. My time is expired.
    Chairman Kiley. Representative from North Carolina, Ms. 
Manning, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. I have found the failure of our 
universities to protect Jewish students and faculty members 
from discrimination, and harassment, since October 7th to be 
enormously concerning, disappointing and problematic for the 
future of our democracy. Your testimony has given us concrete 
examples of this failure, and the impact on real people.
    Other examples of the examples that you have stated of the 
kinds of harassment you have experienced is simply 
unacceptable, and we cannot allow the continued normalization 
of antisemitism on campuses, and in the workplace. Sadly, we 
have learned that antisemitism in the workplace has become more 
open and pervasive.
    A recent study published in the Academic Journal of Socius 
found that more than half of Jewish respondents experienced 
discrimination at work, and another survey found that 25 
percent of hiring managers are less likely to advance Jewish 
candidates. This issue goes beyond the college campus, and it 
is critical that employees understand how to file complaints, 
and that the EEOC have the resource they need to resolve these 
complaints in a timely and effective manner.
    Professor Golden, I want to start by thanking you for 
sharing your heartbreaking story. Your account was incredibly 
painful to hear, and I am sure it must have been much more 
painful to live through. You filed a discrimination complaint 
initially with Mt. San Antonio College. Is that correct?
    Ms. Golden. Yes, it is.
    Ms. Manning. When you started working there, were you ever 
told that you could file a discrimination complaint with the 
EEOC?
    Ms. Golden. I do not remember exactly. I may have been 
informed that there were outside processes, but I do not think 
that the specific organization was discussed.
    Ms. Manning. Okay. Were you aware of the differences 
between filing with the OCR, the Office of Civil Rights, and 
filing with the EEOC?
    Ms. Golden. Definitely not. That was not clarified.
    Ms. Manning. Okay. Professor Keating, thank you for sharing 
your story as well, also so disturbing. I want to ask you the 
same question. Were you ever told about the option, or your 
ability to file an EEOC complaint on the basis of religious 
discrimination?
    Mr. Keating. No, ma'am, I was not.
    Ms. Manning. Were you aware of the differences between 
filing with the Office of Civil Rights, and filing with the 
EEOC?
    Mr. Keating. I was not. I have since familiarized myself 
with that policy.
    Ms. Manning. I think this reflects an issue similar to the 
one that we have seen with students who faced antisemitic 
discrimination, many of whom did not know that they could file 
an OCR complaint, and clearly, we have an awareness problem. I 
know that the OCR has attempted to put into place an awareness 
campaign.
    Ms. Emrey-Arras, are you aware that any such campaign, 
awareness campaign, has been put into effect by the EEOC?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. We know that EEOC has done educational 
efforts to help employers, including institutions, learn about 
their services. We think this issue of under reporting is a 
central one, although we did not focus specifically on that in 
this employment discrimination work.
    In past work we have looked at hate crimes on college 
campuses, and in that work we found that under reporting was a 
significant issue. According to the Department of Justice, with 
hate crimes, they expected that about half of hate crimes were 
not being reported.
    Ms. Manning. Thank you. In your written testimony you noted 
that there are cases where faculty filed with OCR, and those 
cases then have to be turned over to the EEOC. Is that correct?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes.
    Ms. Manning. Many of those cases were not referred within 
the 30 days required by Federal law. Is that also correct?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Required by policy, correct.
    Ms. Manning. By policy. Thank you. Was this in part due to 
lack of resources at both OCR and the EEOC?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. We did hear from OCR that they were 
concerned about resources, and that that was a factor on their 
end.
    Ms. Manning. We know that there has been a dramatic 
increase in the number of cases filed at OCR. Is that correct?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is correct. They have also 
experienced a significant decline in investigative staff during 
the same time period.
    Ms. Manning. Would you say that increasing Federal funding 
to OCR and EEOC, and expanding their staffing capacities and 
their staff training, could help with the potential correction 
to this problem?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Although I would not be able to comment on 
budgetary issues, I do think that it is important that both OCR 
and EEOC implement our recommendations, and we think that they 
have the technology to do so.
    Ms. Manning. It seems clear that there are several key 
problems here. Faculty do not always know what to do when they 
face discrimination. They do not know whether to file with OCR 
or the EEOC. If they file at OCR, and it does not have the 
capacity to send their cases to the EEOC in a timely basis, 
those cases may fall through the cracks.
    Clearly I would like to close by saying we need to fund the 
OCR and the EEOC, as my colleagues and I have been demanding 
for months, and I will close by again calling for the majority 
to increase, rather than cut these agencies budgets if they 
really want to do better by Jewish students and faculty, and I 
yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. The Representative from Wisconsin, Mr. 
Grothman, is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Grothman. Thank you. First of all, I will start with 
Mr. Keating. I am a little bit surprised here to say that 
apparently the local UAW union decided to weigh in when 
California San Diego students were asked to disperse. Can you 
elaborate on that, as I am a little surprised that the union 
would try to put all their prestige on the line here.
    Mr. Keating. Yes. It was not only the University of 
California San Diego, Congressman, it was all the university 
campuses within our university system, so multiple campuses. 
They organized rolling strikes. They called them day of action, 
or complicity tours, where they would organize shutdowns of 
campus, or attempt to shutdown campus.
    The students again are the life blood of the university, 
and every educator has to recognize that. They are not only our 
students, but they are employees of the University of 
California as well. We pay their salaries through research 
grants. Some of them--Federal grants that come from the 
National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, et cetera, 
and there is a representative union that they have been under 
representation by--is known as the United Autoworkers Union.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, sometimes the unions wind up getting 
involved with things that are none of their business, if that 
leadership is kind of involved in that. There is apparently, an 
exhibit in the college's library, kind of a non-controversial 
thing showing the lines on a map, Israel, West Bank, apparently 
over a period of time. That was removed. Do you have any 
comments as to what UCLA was thinking of there?
    Mr. Keating. I believe that was Professor Golden's 
testimony.
    Mr. Grothman. Oh, I am sorry. I should talk to you. What 
was going on with the university there?
    Ms. Golden. I had obtained verbal approval from a librarian 
to develop an educational exhibit on Israel's changing borders 
created for Geography Awareness Week. It was removed because of 
what they called procedural oversight. However, the library 
later claimed that it was taken down because of student 
complaints, and the alleged division it caused.
    Mr. Grothman. A complaint. Is that not too bad? Somebody 
did not like an impartial analysis of this situation, and all 
of a sudden your First Amendment is out the door?
    Ms. Golden. The display included a book promoting 
coexistence and reconciliation, and included both Palestinian 
and Israeli flags. The implication that simply showcasing 
Israel's history and geography is divisive, suggests that the 
college may inadvertently be endorsing the idea that Israel's 
very existence is offensive.
    As an academic institution, they should be upholding the 
principles of academic freedom, and allow for the presentation 
of factual, educational content, even if it faces objections. 
The removal of my display not only undermines these principles 
but sends a chilling message that certain topics are off 
limits, stifling open dialog.
    Mr. Grothman. We are getting more into the attack on the 
First Amendment, which I think is becoming sadly, a little more 
par for the course for too many universities. Now, I would have 
to say that this intolerance was going to spring up in any 
areas of society, I guess it does not surprise me it would 
spring up at America's universities.
    I am looking here at a study that was done by a variety of 
professors. I know one was from George Mason a few years back, 
but nevertheless, they collected ideological data of various 
different professors and different disciplines at seven 
campuses. In some states people have identified as republican, 
democrat.
    English literature departments, of every person identified 
republican, 35 identified as democrat. Performing arts, for 
every person who identified republican, 31 identified as 
democrat. History, for every person who identified as 
republican, 16 voted democrat, or identified as democrat. 
Sociology, we cannot say a racial, because nobody identified as 
republican, everybody identified as democrat.
    I think when you have an ideological monolith, it is just a 
recipe for horrible ideas to bubble to the top. Could any of 
you comment on what effect it has in general on a campus where 
it appears likely they must almost be actively discouraging 
people who are outside the left wing to be employed at a 
campus?
    Ms. Golden. Well, DEI policies originally were enforced for 
other groups, but the atmosphere for Jewish faculty and 
students, especially since October 7th, has been one of 
hostility and silencing.
    Mr. Keating. On my campus, some of the most unifying 
moments I have had between my liberal democrat and conservative 
republican friends, as in the sciences, as you probably noted, 
there are more republicans, but the notion has never been--we 
have never been closer.
    That said, there are great many professors that identify 
themselves liberal and Jewish, and they actually compared my 
Chancellor to the biblical genocidal maniac known as Pharoah, 
when he decided to disburse the campus violence that took place 
early May 2024.
    Mr. Grothman. Okay. You do not see a correlation between 
the really dislike of republicans that preceded this 
antisemitism, and the intolerance you are seeing now?
    Mr. Keating. I mean, there is not an ideological litmus 
test that is applied. I think people feel more comfortable 
speaking out. I have colleagues in literature. I have co-taught 
classes in literature, as you noted, very, very much unified 
politically on the democratic side.
    People of intellectual stature can get along. It is--one of 
the hallmarks of academia should be tolerance. Unfortunately, 
it is not so common these days.
    Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you.
    Chairman Kiley. The gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Miller, 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, and thank you to 
our witnesses for being here today. Professor Golden, your 
written testimony indicates that a campaign of antisemitic 
harassment against you resulted in the cancellation of your 
spring in person class. How has antisemitic harassment and a 
hostile work environment affected your career?
    Ms. Golden. The antisemitic harassment has had a profound 
impact on my career. I went from being deeply engaged and 
enthusiastic to feeling alienated and counting the days until 
retirement. While it feels unbearable to continue teaching at 
Mt. SAC, the experiences of other Jewish professors I connected 
with suggests that this is a widespread issue.
    If this pervasive campus, antisemitism is not addressed, 
the administrator, by administrators nationwide, we risk losing 
talented and brilliant educators from our colleges and 
universities.
    Mrs. Miller. It is really a shame, but I do want to thank 
you for coming forward and giving your testimony, and I would 
like to say this is all a clear violation of Title 7. Very sad 
to see, and I yield back the remainder of my time to Chairman 
Kiley.
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. Professor Keating, one 
of the sort of perverse ironies that we have seen in this rise 
of antisemitism on campus is that many of the universities that 
have been the worst offenders, in terms of suppressing free 
speech, and violating the First Amendment on campus, are now 
suddenly claiming the mantel of the First Amendment as a reason 
to allow what is actually antisemitic conduct that is not 
indeed protected under the First Amendment.
    Would you be--could you give us a little bit of sense of 
how that double standard, or sort of backward State of affairs 
has played out on your campus?
    Mr. Keating. Yes. It seems to me that freedom of speech is 
never applied so liberally as it is when it comes to demonizing 
Jews and antisemitic voices on campuses. Unfortunately, this is 
probably within the purview. We asked, and we heard from the 
other witnesses today about policies at the EEOC, and support 
that could be used.
    All campuses currently already have principles of community 
that forbid harassment, discrimination based on any other 
identifying trait, whether it is religion, national origin, 
gender status, et cetera, et cetera. These would be forbidden, 
and they are.
    In fact, as I testified when there is--long before October 
7th--there is this Justice in Palestine Week that has been 
taking place. It becomes a terrifying place for a young Israeli 
American student who is just trying to become a pre-med, so she 
can treat people and help save lives.
    There is an environment on campus, which is almost 
orgiastic, of violence, of hatred toward Jewish people, and 
toward the State of Israel that she has to endure, that others 
have to endure, and it is well within the purview in my 
opinion, I am not a lawyer, but the opinion that I hold is that 
it's our principles of community that are continually being 
violated, including wearing complete head coverings, head to 
toe masks, and chants for the destruction and violence against 
people based on their national origin.
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you. Mr. Rienzi, one of the really 
disturbing things that we have seen is at some universities the 
response to these illegal encampments has been to surrender to 
them, and to accede to the demands of those in the encampments, 
and to sort of institutionalize the antisemitic character of 
them by incorporating it into university policy.
    You gave us a number of different legal tools that are 
available for universities, and that we as the House might look 
to. Do you see how any of them might apply to that sort of 
situation?
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. Where the universities fail to stop and 
actively facilitate this type of discrimination, they are in 
violation of many Federal laws. They are violating Title 6. 
They are violating the Ku Klux Clan Act. They are violating the 
Constitutional rights of the Jewish students, who have a right 
to exercise their religion, to appear as Jews to consider 
themselves a part of a Jewish homeland in Israel.
    The universities are failing to enforce their laws, and are 
failing to protect the rights of those students. I will just 
say at UCLA for example, they have policies that make--they are 
in favor of free speech. They are in favor of free speech, but 
they say speech must not interfere with the orderly operation 
of a campus, must be conducted in a manner that reasonable 
protects others, must not block entrances to, or otherwise 
interfere with the free flow of traffic.
    Cannot knowingly and willingly interfere with others. 
Schools know that this is not First Amendment protective 
behavior that is going on here. If the schools are facilitating 
it by aiding with the barricades, and sending the Jewish 
students away, and that is just a clear constitutional and 
Federal civil rights violation.
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. The Representative 
from Michigan, Mr. Walberg, who is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for letting me 
waive on to this important Subcommittee hearing and thank you 
to the panelists for being here. Following the October 7th 
attack on Israel, we have seen a disgusting rise in antisemitic 
harassment of Jewish students and staff at our so-called elite 
universities, which should be places where free speech, freedom 
of religion and truth prevail.
    On March 1st at the University of Virginia Board of 
Visitors member, Burt Ellis, attempted to discuss the outbreak 
of antisemitism on campus, and across the country. The broader 
BDS movement, and the need to discuss the harassment of Jewish 
students. Unfortunately, Mr. Ellis was not permitted to discuss 
this issue in a public session and was told he would be 
reprimanded if he pursued the issued by Rector Hardy, 
threatening to punish a Board member for wanting to discuss the 
rampant harassment and violence being directed at Jewish 
students is unacceptable.
    The University is also facing a lawsuit from a Jewish 
student who alleges he was assaulted because he is Jewish. The 
lawsuit also notes that professors would offer students extra 
credit for attending antisemitic rallies.
    Mr. Rienzi, you detailed in your written testimony the 
antisemitism UCLA faculty have faced. In your expertise, would 
retaliating against a faculty or a Board member, such as the 
incidents in the University of Virginia, potentially constitute 
a Title 7 violation?
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. I am not familiar with the facts of the 
University of Virginia case, but as you describe it, both Title 
7, and the first amendment have been enforced by the Federal 
courts to not only--Title 7, to not only protect people from 
illegal discrimination in their employment, but to also protect 
people from retaliation from pointing out Title 7 violations.
    Both under Title 7, and under the First Amendment I would 
think you could have a retaliation claim if someone is punished 
or restricted for pointing out those violations. May I just 
say, again, I do not know the facts of Virginia, but I do think 
it's incumbent on people who hold jobs like Board members of 
these prominent universities, they have obligations to run the 
university in a lawful way, particularly in a public 
university, so it seems to me it is entirely consistent with 
their obligations to look into these things.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. You would think. Mr. Rienzi, UCLA is only 
one among dozens, if not hundreds of colleges and their 
campuses that have been host to antisemitic protests since the 
October 7th Hamas attack on Israel. What responsibilities do 
colleges and universities have toward Jewish faculty and staff 
under Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act?
    Mr. Rienzi. All employers with more than 15 employees, so 
colleges and universities, but many, many other employers in 
the country too, have obligations under Title 7 not to 
discriminate against their employees, and not to allow their 
employees to have to suffer through a hostile work environment 
for their religion, religious exercise, national origin and so 
forth.
    I think it is true of the stories we have heard today. I 
think it is true for faculty and staff at UCLA, and I am sure 
it is true for faculty and staff at many other places that 
their employers are failing.
    They are violating Federal civil rights law when they allow 
the Jewish employees to have to endure day after day going to a 
work--going to a workplace where people are saying, ``Death to 
the Jews. Death to Israel.'' You know, ``Beat that F'ing Jew,'' 
which was a common refrain on UCLA's campus.
    Employers should not allow that to continue. They have an 
affirmative obligation to not have their employees thrust into 
a hostile work environment.
    Mr. Walberg. Seems very clear. Thank you. Professor Golden, 
your written testimony describes antisemitic harassment 
directed toward you and your college administration's lack of 
response to this harassment. In your opinion, is your college 
even-handed when it comes to how it treats different groups, 
and different kinds of speech and behavior?
    Ms. Golden. The administration's response to harassment has 
been far from even-handed. They have silenced and isolated me, 
the victim, while seemingly appeasing those who created and 
foster a hostile environment. It appears they prioritize 
avoiding campus unrest over protecting Jewish students and 
faculty.
    For example, after the tragic events of October 7th, it 
took significant urging before the President of Mt. SAC issued 
a weak statement that failed to even mention Jews. This lack of 
direct acknowledgement undermines the severity of the issue, 
and the specific impact that it has on the Jewish community.
    By silencing pro-Israel voices, and removing educational 
exhibits about Israel, the administration inadvertently 
emboldens those who promote hate and insight violence. This 
creates a chilling effect on campus, making Jewish students and 
faculty feel unsafe and unwelcome.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Equal justice for all has been 
missed there. I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. The Representative of the--the Ranking 
Member of the Full Committee, Representative Scott, is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Ms. Emrey-Arras, you mentioned the 
backlog several times, and you mentioned the mix of cases. Can 
you remind us what the top three categories of cases in the 
backlog of OCR cases are?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Happy to share with you our data. We 
looked at EEOC charges alleged against higher education 
institutions from 2011 to 2021, and so these were cases that 
EEOC received. We found that the top three categories included 
charges related to race, that was the top category.
    The second was related to sex, and the third was related to 
disability.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. You had religion and national origin as 
fourth and fifth?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Correct.
    Mr. Scott. Fifth and sixth?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Correct. We had after disability, we have 
national origin and then religion, and then color following 
that.
    Mr. Scott. Within national origin and religion, are there 
things other than antisemitism that could have been involved in 
those?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Scott. Like what?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. There could be other faiths considered in 
addition to Jewish religious discrimination complaints. There 
could be complaints against individuals of Muslin faith, 
Christian faith, and the like for example.
    Mr. Scott. Now, you mentioned it takes a long time to refer 
these cases to the EEOC. Why does it take so long?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. Quite frankly, education is not tracking 
it. They are not keeping an eye on how long it is taking them, 
and if they do not know how long it is taking, they cannot 
manage it. They do have the ability to do that.
    Mr. Scott. Are you suggesting that if they did a quick 
review, they could do this much more quickly?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. We know that a little over 25 percent of 
the cases are being referred on time, and we think that if they 
did a review to figure out what was helping those cases go on 
time, they could use those lessons learned to help the others.
    Mr. Scott. Is the insufficiency of the OCR budget a factor?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. That was something that we did hear from 
Education.
    Mr. Scott. That is what they said. Do you think it is a 
factor?
    Ms. Emrey-Arras. We do think it is a factor. They did raise 
the concern around the increased number of complaints, and the 
decrease in investigative staff.
    Mr. Scott. Thank you. Mr. Rienzi, in the 1960's there was a 
pretty solid policy that if you received institution or an 
organization received Federal money, that it could not 
discriminated based on race, color, creed or national origin. 
Is that still the case?
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. I believe you are referring to Title 6 of 
the Civil Rights Act, and that remains the case.
    Mr. Scott. If a religious organization received Federal 
money they could not discriminate based on religion?
    Mr. Rienzi. No. I think they can discriminate based on 
religion.
    Mr. Scott. After they have taken Federal money?
    Mr. Rienzi. I do not believe there is anything in Title 6 
that restricts religious universities from discriminating based 
on religion. I may be misunderstanding your question.
    Mr. Scott. Okay. Well, in the 1960's they did not care who 
you were--if you took Federal money you could not discriminate, 
and now you are saying that if you are a religious organization 
taking Federal money, you can in fact discriminate. Is that 
right?
    Mr. Rienzi. If you are asking me about Title 6?
    Mr. Scott. I am talking about if you were a South Carolina 
foster care agency taking Federal money, and you restrict the 
placement just to Christian families?
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. I think the Court resolved that case and 
said that under Federal law it was permissible for that agency 
to operate as a religious nonprofit, and I believe they cited 
the Supreme Court's 9-nothing Fulton decision in support of 
that.
    Mr. Scott. Now they can have a policy that we will not 
place children with Jewish families?
    Mr. Rienzi. I do not know if the agency in question had 
that policy, but I do know that the Court in South Carolina 
said that they are allowed to remain a religious institution.
    Mr. Scott. What about employment?
    Mr. Rienzi. I think Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
enacted by this Congress says that religious institutions are 
allowed to consider religion in their hiring, and I think the 
First Amendment says that as well.
    Mr. Scott. If a South Carolina agency is a religious 
institution taking Federal money, they can have an articulated 
policy, we do not hire Jews?
    Mr. Rienzi. I think any religious institution under Title 7 
is allowed to engage in what you might call religious 
discrimination, whether it is a Jewish institution that would 
not hire me, or another.
    Mr. Scott. Is that something we need to fix as a condition 
of Federal money you should not be able to discriminate?
    Mr. Rienzi. No. I think under the free exercise clause, and 
under Federal law, religious institutions are both permitted to 
participate in helping solve social problems, without having to 
give up their free exercise rights.
    Mr. Scott. Well, yes, but that is with Federal money?
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. The Supreme Court decided the Fulton case 
9-nothing with all of the Justices.
    Mr. Scott. I am not talking about whether it is legal or 
not, I am saying whether we ought to fix it?
    Mr. Rienzi. No. I think it is legal, and it should be left 
where it is because the Court has correctly recognized that 
those institutions are permitted to do it.
    Mr. Scott. With Federal money. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 
Professor Keating, I have a letter here from the President of 
the University of California system, Michael Drake. I had 
written him about my concerns about some of the things going on 
in campuses within the system, and he wrote me a letter back, 
which I appreciate.
    This is the Chief Executive of the entire UC system, which 
includes your campus, and ten others. It is an organization, it 
includes 200,000 and some employees, as well as all the 
students. One of the things he says in the letter is that the 
University of California has consistently opposed calls for a 
boycott against anti-vestment from Israel.
    While the university affirms the right of our community 
members to express diverse viewpoints, a boycott of this sort 
impinges on the academic freedom of our students and faculty, 
and the unfettered exchange of ideas on our campuses, which is 
good. I am glad he said that. It is the right policy of course, 
it is actually the law in California.
    How has the BDS movement, how active has it been on your 
campus, and what role has the faculty played, or some faculty 
members in support of it?
    Mr. Keating. Yes. Unfortunately, it has been incredibly 
active, and they do tend to exercise, as I said every year, 
coincident with Israel's Independence Day, and with Holocaust 
Remembrance Day, this Justice in Palestine Week, which many 
students have told me they call Israel Apartheid Week, or Hate 
Israel Week.
    It is an event that just last year, May 2023, 6 months, 7 
months before the October 7th terrorist attacks, found on a 
campus dorm a swastika made of human feces, where Jews live and 
work. It is a combined use facility. At that time there were 
also events at our sister campus, University of California 
Santa Cruz, which are both antisemitic and homophobic.
    Again, we hear words from Dr. Drake about how we take this 
seriously, and there would be panels. This is over a year. To 
my knowledge, no substantive changes have taken place. Is it a 
coincidence that it takes place? Coincident with this event 
that is held annually? I cannot say for sure, but it certainly 
predates October 7th.
    After October 7th, he did commission a panel, which 
apparently has a budget of over 7 million dollars, which had a 
combined mission to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia. We 
have not seen, at least in my campus, in my person eye witness, 
I have not seen any repercussions from it. In fact, as I 
mentioned, dialog is often discouraged by people that support 
the academic and cultural boycott of the one single Jewish 
State.
    Chairman Kiley. Extremely troubling. You also mentioned 
earlier, the Dean of the faculty refused to meet with Jewish 
students, even as he readily met with representatives of other 
groups. Could you tell us a little more about that?
    Mr. Keating. Yes, sir. That was the Chair of the Academic 
Senate, John Hildebrand, who has the responsibility for 
effectively running meetings, and having panels brought in, but 
not to advocate political causes, or things of that nature, did 
knowingly meet with Students for Justice in Palestine before 
they were issued a cease and desist order for a violation of 
campus policies.
    He refused on five separate occasions that I have 
documented in my written testimony, to meet with any Jewish 
students, citing lack of time, and he blew them off in my 
opinion, referring them to lessor campus procedural violations, 
even though they are expressing their heartfelt pain and 
suffering emotionally, sometimes feeling physically threatened.
    He is responsible for faculty governance. We have a shared 
governance model in our campus, and he did refuse to meet with 
very many stakeholders, including Jewish professors, 
essentially myself and others outside of very limited 
circumstances.
    Chairman Kiley. This gentleman is still the Chair of the 
Academic Senate?
    Mr. Keating. He will be replaced in the upcoming academic 
year.
    Chairman Kiley. Okay. I want to ask a final question, and 
anyone of the witnesses can weigh in on this if you would like, 
which is that let is imagine that, you know, that when school 
resumes in most places in the fall, you see these unlawful 
encampments which are still actually operating in some places, 
but on your campuses, or on any particular campus.
    They come back in full force along the lines that we saw at 
UCLA, we saw at UC San Diego, or at least they start to form. 
What would you--what action would you recommend that the 
leaders of those universities take? We have seen a menu of 
options, whether for how these things have been handled.
    Some have allowed them to grow and grow and grow until they 
become unmanageable. Some have given in to the demands of those 
leading the encampments. Others have simply enforced the law 
and campus policies in an even-handed manner, and dealt with 
the issue in short order.
    Which of these options might you recommend to a university 
leader, and maybe we can start with you, Mr. Rienzi, and go 
down the panel for whoever would like to answer.
    Mr. Rienzi. Yes. Happy to address it, and it is the right 
question because fall is coming soon, and students need to be 
able to safely return to campus. I think what the universities 
really need to do is aggressively stop the encampments from 
starting. Somebody comes and sets up tents, the first move is 
you just remove the tents.
    You do not allow a group to take over a section of campus. 
You do not allow them to stay there and stop others from 
entering. I think the key aspect of the mistake at a lot of 
these schools has been to allow the problem to fester, allow it 
to grow, allow it to get reinforced.
    When you do that to a group of people chanting, ``Death to 
Jews,'' or ``Beat that F'ing Jew,'' what inevitably happens is 
that the Jews get excluded from parts of campus, and the 
universities have an obligation to make sure that does not 
happen, and you know, I will just speak as to our lawsuit.
    Our clients are very concerned. They have to return to 
campus in just under 2 months from now, and UCLA still does not 
seem to be able to stop the encampments, or really to muster 
the will to do it, and they need to be told by a Federal Court, 
or otherwise to do that.
    Mr. Keating. Yes. I asked the Committee to consider the 
following thought experiment, as we physicists are likely to 
do, which is you know, to imagine that on our campus we have 
access to reproductive rights for young women on campus.
    Imagine if there was an organization diametrically opposed 
to that, believe in the strict right to life, and they set up 
an encampment, a no-go zone, where young women felt intimidated 
to exercise their privileges and rights on this campus.
    I think their ID cards would be taken away and shutdown 
later that afternoon. I do not think there is ever, you know, 
kind of the tolerance of these things.
    They allow themselves to fester, as Mr. Rienzi said, and I 
think enforcing existing laws. We were asked about do we need 
more funding for committees, and do you guys need to do--and 
men and women, need to do more funding wise?
    That may be true, but every university has principles of 
community. They are entitled to enforce those principles of 
community, and they have an obligation to do so equally, 
liberally and equitably, for their students to feel safe, and 
their employees to operate effectively in the workforce.
    Chairman Kiley. Would you like to add to that? We are a 
little over time, but if you could go briefly.
    Ms. Golden. The administration should acknowledge and apply 
the definition of the antisemitism, and disseminating this 
definition would enhance awareness and understanding of what 
constitutes antisemitism, because I think a lot of students do 
not even recognize it when they see it.
    Additionally, the human resources office should increase 
its efforts to advertise the reporting mechanisms for Title 6 
violations across campus because again, I think a lot of 
students are not even aware of when these violations are taking 
place.
    The DEI programming and initiatives should have orienting 
materials and written guidelines that explicitly include 
antisemitism based on the IRA definition. Finally, the 
administration must take a firm stance against display of 
symbols of hate, such as swastikas and Hamas flags.
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I will now recognize 
the Ranking Member for a closing statement.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Kiley, and thank you again 
to our witnesses today for your testimony. Everyone deserves a 
workplace free from discrimination, even on college campuses, 
university campuses. The challenges raised today regarding 
addressing antisemitism, and other forms of discrimination 
demand our urgent attention and immediate action.
    We must ensure that everyone's civil rights are protected, 
and that all individuals, regardless of background, feel 
respected and valued in their educational and professional 
environments. Today's conversation reinforced my commitment to 
advancing inclusive policies that protect the rights and 
dignity of all individuals, especially students.
    It is also clear to me that a critical part of our response 
must be to fully resource our civil rights enforcement agencies 
because they cannot do their jobs without the support. We 
cannot expect to make progress in addressing discrimination in 
our schools and workplaces by short-changing the very agencies 
responsible for enforcing our civil rights laws.
    By strengthening the capacity of our enforcement agencies, 
enhancing diversity initiatives, and fostering equitable 
treatment, I believe that we can create environments where 
every person can thrive. I am encouraged by today's 
deliberations, and I look forward to continuing this important 
work.
    Again, I want to thank my colleagues and thank our 
witnesses for your contributions today. Mr. Chairman, I thank 
you, and I yield back.
    Chairman Kiley. Thank you very much. I want to thank all of 
the witnesses for being here to testify, and for your courage. 
I know that you are speaking for a great many of your 
colleagues as well as your students in relaying the experience 
that you have had, and what you have been through these last 
several months, and even before that.
    I also want to thank my colleagues and members of the 
Committee on both sides of the aisle, for participating today. 
I think it is clear there is a strong bipartisan commitment to 
assuring that the safety and civil rights of students and 
faculty alike are protected on our campuses.
    I particularly appreciate the comment from Congresswoman 
Manning, that we cannot continue to allow the normalization of 
antisemitism at universities and in the workplace.
    This Committee will continue to do everything we can, use 
every tool available to assure that that does not happen. I 
want to close first by citing another excerpt from the letter 
that I received from the President of the UC system, Michael 
Drake.
    He said, ``We readily accept our obligation to protect the 
rights and safety of our students, faculty, staff and visitors 
to our campuses. We must exercise these rights and ensure 
safety within the broad confines of the law, as well as the 
policies we have established.
    Destructive actions that prevent members of the community 
from accessing public facilities, or leaving campus in a safe 
and timely fashion, are not protected actions, but illegal 
disruptions to the operations of our campuses, and the mission 
of the university.''
    This Committee, the full Committee, has had the opportunity 
at this point to hear from a number of university Presidents, 
and we have seen some real accountability. We have seen 
university leaders resign or be replaced. We have seen new 
initiatives on campus. We have seen reforms.
    We have seen encampments taken down, so there has been some 
progress. The words that I just read from the President, is 
absolutely the right position. We have also seen that sometimes 
there is a disconnect between the words that we hear from these 
campus leaders, and what is actually going on on campus.
    I appreciate our witnesses shedding some light on that, and 
I can assure everyone watching that this Committee is watching 
very closely what is happening on our university campuses, and 
whether the law is being upheld there. I thought I would just 
close by reading a few more testimonials.
    This is just from one particular university, the University 
of San Diego. These are fully contained within the appendix to 
Professor Keating's testimony, but here is just a few more 
voices from that campus, which again, is just a few voices from 
one particular campus in California.
    This is from Jubilee Kabalen, who is a Ph.D. student 
researcher. It says, ``I don't feel like I can be outwardly 
Jewish in my place of work and schooling, and I am scared of 
being targeted, and I am scared of being confronted to choose 
or speak up. I ask myself do I do what my ancestors did, and 
hide my Judaism to survive, or do I show myself a Jew without 
trembling knees? I don't feel safe on campus. I am constantly 
on the brink of a breakdown with fear of people asking are you 
a good Jew or a bad Jew.''
    This is from a student employee, Hiye Renanan Bacheri, who 
says, ``My inbox is full of emails from my Department, composed 
by faculty, administration and graduate students that are 
steeped in blood, libeland antisemitic rhetoric. I cannot turn 
a corner on campus without being face to face with a flyer 
promoting the destruction of Israel by any means necessary, 
posters, and graffiti and pamphlets that repeat the phrase--
that repeat 'From the River to the Sea'' slogan, calling for 
the deaths of my family, and the annihilation of any Jews who 
dare live in our indigenous homeland.''
    ``About 2 weeks ago,'' this testimonial continues, ``I 
walked out of the building, which I teach, and was greeted by a 
sign reading, 'One solution, intifada revolution.' I was 
talking with a student at the time, but completely froze, and 
couldn't continue answering his question. I was too busy 
dealing with PTSD, something that seems to be a regular 
occurrence whenever I'm on campus, which is anywhere from three 
to 6 days a week.''
    It goes on, ``I'm afraid to leave my apartment for fear of 
the outpouring of antisemitism that's flooded the campus.'' 
Also notes, ``My department has become completely inhospitable 
with every meeting, event and performance preceded by 
statements supporting the people calling for the murder of 
Jews.''
    We have several more. I will just close with Professor Jeff 
Bracewell who says, ``During a recent hiring process for an 
endowed Chair in the archeology of ancient Israel, Professor 
has labeled candidates as 'too Zionist,' or 'too religious,' 
leading to hostile interviews and protests.
    A distinguished archeologist faced harassment due to his 
religion and nationality with protestors disrupting his 
presentation and spreading false claims about his work.'' This 
should never happen in the United States of America, least of 
all at our institutions of higher learning, which are so vital 
to the future of our country.
    Without objection, there being no further business, the 
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]   

                                 [all]