tv Anti- Semitism on College Campuses CSPAN November 10, 2017 3:30pm-6:28pm EST
anonymous, talked about his experience fighting domestic terrorism in america with his book "american radical: inside the world of an undercover muslim fbi agent." interview by michael germon, author of "thinking live a terrorist." watch "after words" sunday night on booktv. >> the house judiciary committee held aing her examining anti-semitism and free speech rights on college campuses. witnesses provide recommendations to help protect jewish studentsoff anti-semitic harassment. the hearing is almost three hours. >> good morning. the committee will come to outer. without the objection the claire
is authorized to declare recesses at any anytime. welcome to the hearing on examining anti-semitism on college campuses. before i gave my opening state and before mr. conyers gives hum i'll yield to him so he can say word about the tragedy that occurred in texas over the weekend. the gentleman is recognized. >> top of the morning and i thank you, mr. chairman. welcome all nine witnesses, all-time hearing, and the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin, mr. sensenbrenner. let me just say briefly that before discussing the important topic of today's hearing, i want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency. on sunday, gunman shot and
killed 26 church goers in sutherland springs, texas. we now know that information concerning his court-martial for domestic abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the national incident criminal background check system. should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensees gun dealers, via the brady background check system. yesterday, before this information came to light, i wrote to you, mr. chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our members tomorrow afternoon by atf on the issue of bump stocks, be expanded to include the fbi to discuss the background check issues related
to sutherland springs. and that the briefing be conducted as a formal hearing open to the public. now that we have even more information that there's been a breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, i ask respectfully that we include relevant officials from the department of defense in and the air force, and i believe as i think you do, too, we should proceed quickly to learn what happened and the public deserves to hear answers directly. therefore, sir, i renew my request and expand it concerning tomorrow's briefing and i thank you for this opportunity. >> if the gentleman would yield. >> with pleasure. >> i thank the gentleman for his comments and i share his concern about having an effective nics
system and that data about domestic violence go into that system, including data that may be developed as part of our military tribunal system. therefore, we will look into a briefing on that subject, whether it can be accommodated quickly enough to be done tomorrow or not, we'll have to see, but my plan is to proceed with the briefing by the a.t.f. if we can't incolonel operate -- inincorporate that into the briefing, we'll take under advisement your request that there be a public hearing and it's important to get as much information and be informed as possible. that's where we stand now. >> will the gentleman yield. >> yes. >> i thank the gentleman from mcfor yielding. i was insis extent on putting
the instant check system in the brady bill which was passed and signed by president clinton in 1993, and at the time the legislation was drafted, i made the point that the national incident check system would only be as good as the data put into it. and it took about five years to appropriately automate and input records, not only for felony convictions, mental incompetence adjudications, as well as domestic violence, legal action, and we found that one state kept all of these records in boxes of three-by-five cards located in every county courthouse. that took while to finally automate that. so, i don't think we can blame the law for the failure of
these -- the transaction of the shooter to be identified and the co being denied. don't think we can blame the system which we set up almost 25 years ago, because the system is working in hundreds of thousands of cases. i think we have to blame in the air force for not doing what was necessary to let the system be able to identify this gentleman when he came and purchased the firearms that he ended up using in a truly horrific killing, particularly as people were in church trying to express their freedom of religion and worship god in their own -- by their own consciences is. we have to identify why the failure was and it's not just the air force. it could be any clerk of court anywhere in the country that could have done that, and i think this has got to be a lesson that when you have something that is disqualifying, that hans been adjudicated by a court, get into it the system
and get into it the system right away. thank the gentleman for yielding. >> i thank you. >> i thank the gentlemen, and i thank both mr. conyers and mr. sense bren enfor their observations -- sensenbrenner. for their observation. i want to focus on the important matter for it to and we'll proceed i've be briefing tomorrow and will add additional information or a separate briefing, depending on what time allows. >> thank you. >> i now recognize myself nor purposes of an opening statement. racism, sexism, and anti-semitism, among other forms of animus, are abhorrent when they appear, including on college campuses. while the federal civil rights laws long addressed victimization based on asian sex and ethnicity, debate is ongoing whether anti-semitism on college campus warrants a unique response compared to harassment based on race or sex for example is addressed. this hearing will examine that
question, among others. there is widespread bipartisan condemnation of anti-semitism, which i have said is an holy spirit and does -- abhorrent and does not reflect core american values of religious freedom and i'm concern about the bds moment, an effort that through boycott, die vestment and sanctions, seeks to end international support for. took 11 minutes for the united states to recognize israel after it formally declared independence in 1948. ever since then the united states and israel have had a strong relationship based on shared democratic values and common security interests. i will do everything i can to ensure that relationship remains strong. those -- there are those who disagree various ways, of course, including student, faculty and administrators on college campuses and i will do everything i can to ensure their right to speak is protected under both the first amendment to the united states constitution and prepreach principles generally.
principles generally. when do speakers, scholarship or student protesters harshly critical of israel stews anti-semitism? what is the nate tower of anti-semitism on college campuses today? has the department of education in the past or today adequately examined allegations of anti-semitism on college campuses? how does existing law address harassment based on anti-semitism? what impact would some other approaches have on freedom of speech, student relations and academic freedom and what press den wood they set -- precedents would they said, good or bad. those are some of the questions i look forward to discussing with today's witnesses. it's now my pressure to recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i welcome the witnesses and that
i wanted to mention that today's hearing on examining anti-semitism on college campuses is a part of a continuing discussion that our judiciary committee has had on the confluence of our twin interests, protecting a quality of opportunity and freedom of speech in institutions of higher education. our particular focus today is on anti-semitism, one of the most ancient forms of prejudice that unfortunately not only continues to exist but in some places has even seen resurgence in recent years. as we hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses, i'd like for us to keep several points in mind for
context. so begin with, anti-semitism on college, like other forms of discrimination guess students remains a very real concern. according to the anti-def defamation league, anti-semitic incidents increased by 67% in 2017 compared to the same period last year. and there was a significant surge in these incidents after white supremacists marched the charlottesville, virginia, last august, during which some of those marchers shouted, quote, jews will not replace us. end quotations. additionally, the league
reported a disturbingly high number of anti-semitic bullying and vandalism incidents in k through 12 schools and college campuses across the united states. in recent years, other reported incidents included the vandalism of campus property with swastikas and the passing out or posing o leaflets with sprite supremacist and anti-semitic content on campuses. in light of the foregoing i whole heartedly support the department of education's 2010 guidance interpreting title vi of the civil rights act of 1964, so as to protect jewish students and other religious minorities from discrimination. this guidance rightly clarified that while title vi, which
prohibit s discrimination on the bay is so of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive federal funding, does not include religion as a protected characteristic. it does prohibit discrimination against members of religious minorities if it is based on an actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnicity. although this guidance dates from the obama administration, the trump administration so far seems inclined not to change this interpretation. i would encourage the current administration to continue to keep it in effect. finally, while we must ensure a campus learning environment free from discrimination, we must
also be careful not to stifle legitimate, if hard-edged and even offensive political debate on controversial topics. the vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a fundamental hallmark of a democracy and of academic freedom. indeed, other than in the context of speech that amounts to objectively severe or pervasive harassment and in a few other limited circumstances, the remedy for bad speech is more speech. equality and free speech are not and must not be pitted against each other as if they were opposing values. both values are central to our democracy and to ensuring a free society. in closing, i thank the chairman
for holding this important hearing and i look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. thank you. >> thank you, mr. conyers, we welcome or distinguished witnesses and if you all would please rise, i'll begin by swearing all of you in. >> you sol almostly swear that the testimony that you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? thank you. let the record show that the witnesses answered in the affirmative, and please be seated. >> this is a wonderfully distinguished panel, all of you have excellent professional and academic credentials. you might that be surprises to learn that because there are nine of you i'm not going to give all of the details about each of you. so theocentrics are on the brief side.
the first witness is rabbi andrew biker, director of international jewish affairs at the american jewish committee, second witness is pamela nadell, director of jewish studies program at american university. our third witness is rabbi abraham cooper, the associate dean and director of the role in social action agenda of the simon wiesenthal center. our fourth witness is the mikal r and debra k ruben presidential chair of jewish history at lake forest. the fifth witness its paul clement. our sixth witness is sandra haug, chairwoman of the christians united for israel action fund. our seventh witness is jonathan greengla of the antidefamation league. the eight witness is suzanne nassel the executive director of penn america and our ninth
witness is ken stern, the executive director of the justice and karen rosenberg foundation. your rein statements will be entered into the record in your entirety and we ask you summarize your testimony in five minutes. there's a timing light on your table when the slight switches from green to yellow you have one minute to clock, and when it turns red, that's it. your time is up. rabbi baker, you can begin. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking member conyer, in my work at ajc and the osce, i have focused on europe and the problem of. she anti-semitism there while the incidents are greater than here in america there are important parallels with bearing on addressing anti-semitism in this country and in particular in the situation on our college campuses. this has much to do with the essential first step of
understanding the nature of anti-semitism, and the importance of defining it. 15 years ago we saw surge in incidents and also saw a new form of anti-semitism, whereby the state of israel, was demon niced, where its basic existence was challenge. affecting the lives of european jews themselves. they were frequently conflated with israel and subject to verbal and physical attacks as a result. merely giving voice to their own pro israel views could subject them to social intimidation and personal harassment. in 2004, the european monitoring center, umc, conducted a survey on anti-semitism, collecting and evaluating dat and conducting personal interviews with jewish letters. at the time few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone specify those that were anti-semitic, a majority of the eumcs own
monitors did not have a definition of anti-semitism to guide them. meanwhile, the personal interview and the study revealed the level of anxiety and uncertainty that had not been seen in decades. the eumc acknowledged the need for a clear comprehensive and uniform definition to strengthen the work of monitors, help governments in understanding and responding to the problem and to make sense of the pessimistic predictions of the jewish leaders surveyed. in the fall of 2004, the eumc director invited me to present her with a definition of anti-semitism. we began with the contributions of academic experts in the field. they were shared with other scholars and practitioners around the world, until a final draft document achieved consensus. it was my responsibility to negotiate agreement on a final version with the eumc and so in march, 2005, it issued what has
come to be known as the working definition of anti-semitism, a core paragraph with examples. and let us also but clear the purpose of this definition and of the eumc itself was not just to assist monitors in filing reports. it was to make a difference in the day-to-day safety and security of jews and of all europeans. to increase understanding to raise awareness, yes to be used by civil society and government monitors, but also by law enforcement, by justice officials and educators. references to anti-semitism with regard to the state of israel were both the most important and the most controversial in this definition. anti-israel animus was behind many of the physical attacks on jewish targets even as government authorities frequently dismissed them as political acts the extreme verbal attacks had their on cor rosesive impact on jewish
community security. the examples were designed to bring alert to a new form of anti-semitism. for those who feared it could inhibit critical debate, the definition also stated one should take into account the overall context, and also that criticism of israel similar to that leveled against other countries, knock -- cannot be rather as anti-semitic, over a decade has passed since the definition was issued and we can see why using it has become valuable. demonstrations in some european cities started as anti-israel and became anti-semitic. police need to be prepared for this so the definition is part of police cadet training in the uk and you can now cud in the a newly publicked ooh sce guideline on jewish communicate. an arson attack in a synagogue in germany was determined not to be anti-semitic because of the political views and religious
affiliation of the attacker. in austria, a call to kill jews was deemed not anti-semitic for the same reason. thus the austrian and german ministers justice include the definition in training police and prosecutors and judges. in may 2016, the international holocaust remembrance abryan, adopted the definition. it has since been adopted by governments of uk, rue romaina, austrie. >> germany and bulgaria. the u.s. government has its own record of use. the global anti-semitism review act of 2004 called on the state department to appoint a special envoy and stated that anti-semitism has at times taken the form of vilification of zionism and incitement against
israel. in that report and its gent one the working definition was employed. i'm an advocate for using it to be successful in combating anti-semitism, we me define it. some said it wouldey used to stifle credit civil of israel but there is apple evidence in europe that public criticism of israel is even more vocal than a decade ago and there's a recognition of the very real problem. anti-semitism as it relates to israel and the dangers its poses to the jewish community. this ought to be instructive when addressing anti-semitism as it appears on college campuses. finally, in the oseci i'm often joined by colleagues whose mandates could have other forms of intolerance against muslims, christians some people say adopting a recognition of anti-semitism request woo lead to demands for other definitions but that has not happened.
those problems are no less serious than anti-semitism and the need for governments to address them is every bit as critical. >> rabbi bakerror, your time has expired. if you can sum up in a sentence. >> my last sentence, even though representatives of vulnerable groups are not sayingya definite antianti-semitism -- those are easy to recognize and sadder still they are so prevalent. >> doctor nadell? welcome. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, and distinguished members of the committee for inviting me today. as a scholar of american jewish history, and also as president of the association for jewish studies, the learned society for scholars in my field, i know that our countries enkuhns at the with anti-semitism began in
1654 when 23 jews landed in new amsterdam and the for tried to expel what he called a deceitful race of hateful enemies and blasphemers. has he succeeded we might photo be here this morning, put he failed and since then jewish immigrants have come to america from around the world and called our nation home. as citizen, american jews enjoy the same rights to free. of speech that allows others to voice their contempt for the jewish people and the jewish religion. anti-semitism, manufacture live lent ideology has waxed and waned across the landscape of american history. the political moment, economic dislocations, social forces, the movies and their heyday, and social media in ours, set its volume control. we are by all accounts sadly of
one of those moments where the volume on anti-semitism in american life is turned way up. when violent protesters chant "jews will' not replace i pows american jews are rightly fearful. the hard evidence about the rising numbers of anti-semitic incidents is indisputable, but today's hearing is about the climate of anti-semitism on campus. and it was triggered by this who have pointed to our colleges and universities as, quote, hot spots of anti-semitism and anti-israel buya. our campuses really hotbeds of anti-semitism or are they places where jews, one minority among many, meet from time to time, stupidity insensitivity and principle did. is anti-semitism so pervasive on the cam put is has created a hostile climate for jews? social scientist find that when jew jewish students are handed a
list of anti-semitic statements, nearly three-quarters confess that they were exposed to at least one of those statements in the past year. but the same students do not characterize their campuses as anti-semitic, instead they report they feel safe there. when they do experience discomfort as jews, they trace it to the stride dent. students say that anti-semitic expression crime from peers and not from the professors or administration. one study recognizes we have, quote, more noise than accurate information about what is really happening on campus around anti-semitism. students surveyed are smart. they recognize that anti-semitism is a significant problem in american society, but
they don't characterize their campuses as anti-semitic. their research confirm mist own impressions and also what i hear from my association for jewish studies colleagues, teaching around the country. unquestionably there are explosive incidents. death to israel and to all jews posted on a jewish student organization's facebook page. but deplorable incidents do not prove that the campus is rife with anti-semitism. you may have heard that recently on my own campus, confederate flags with cotton stems were posted on bulletin boards just as we were launching a new antiresist research and policy center. but you may not note that many of the flags were affectioned to bulletin board of the center for israel studies. when such revolting racist incidents occur the response from the university leader is forceful and swift. we hold town halls well issue
statements on con dim nation, ourer students counseling and opportunities for healing. we launch investigations. perhaps there are campuses where administrators respond differently put i believe them to be the exception. our anti-semitismites targeting the college campus? unfortunately, yes. do jewish students encounter anti-semitism? yes, sadly. itself anti-semitism at the epicenter of campus intolerance as one report claims? hays it created a climate of fear than impinges upon jew jewish students ability to learn and experience college life to the full sunset my im -- my impression no. thank you...
without being physically surrounded and shunted down by extremists at campus organizations. it can bring speakers to school with every other student group and gender, racial or ethnic groups can because the speakers have and will be heckled into silence. they are often reluctant to run for student government at some schools because they seen it numerous times in just the past few years, that jewish students have been called out because they are jews and often excluded from student
government expressly due to their involvement in jewish life on campus. these incidents of hate and intimidation are widespread and the impact on campuses are large and small constituencies, the impact jewish support groups. this even led to create an act to ensure individual students can report these incidents immediately can they are not alone.mr. chairman, we are here today seeking the committee's help because too often, university administrators have been tolerating a level of harassment and intimidation of jewish students that would never dream of allowing against other demographic groups. because they know that until now there are no consequences. the department of education does not protect jewish students the same way that it protects other groups. the failure of schools and to
protect jewish students is one of the most pressing issues for the american jewish community. that is why we every mainstream credible jewish organization in the nation some of whom are here today, came together last year to demand equal protection under the law for jewish students and as you know, that is why the senate passed the bill unanimously. mr. chairman, i brought a few recent illustrations. this one hosted by a professor at rutgers university.others from university of houston, university of california berkeley, i will admit them later. that show us in real time what is going on on the campuses. while this is a distressing national phenomenon, i delved into the events in my own state
of california. instead of giving the examples that are already quoted, let me just they that the few anti-semitic incidents, some of them that are reported at university of california, jewish students on many campuses from coast-to-coast reports severe and pervasive harm to the hand of anti- israel activists. the harassment often includes physical or verbal assaults, destruction of property, bullying and intimidation, and immigration, discrimination and suppression of speech. often it takes place regardless of the victim's personal feelings on israel.jewish students report wearing their jewish sorority or fraternity letters or necklaces or even walking to dinner. the problem has so severe that university of california then-president, commissioned a fact-finding team to interview
jewish students on seven campuses in order to objectively assess the campus climate for them. according to the report, jewish students were indeed quote - confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus which focus on israel, it's right to exist and treatment of palestinians. they found that on every uc campus they visited quote - jewish students describe the environment in which they felt isolated and many times harassed and intimidated by students, faculty and outsiders. despite the undeniable hostile environment that many jewish students experience, at uc california, complaints filed under title vi of the 1964 civil rights act on behalf of jewish students on three capsids, uc irvine, santa cruz and berkeley were unceremoniously dismissed on the same day in august 2013. mr. chairman, usually members
of the clergy go on very long and look for the dispensation of the good lord. i will instead, just cut to the chase with the last two paragraphs. ocr officials used the state department definition in identifying the basis of the harassment that targeted jewish students, they would have recognized the anti-semitism at the heart of it. instead, the lack of an adequate understanding anti-semitism has effectively denied jewish students equal protection under the law and left them uniquely vulnerable among their peers. that is why we ask you and your colleagues to support our request and move this legislation forward. thank you, mr. chairman .>> thank you rabbi. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee.
it is an honor to be here today to testify on anti-semitism on college campuses. the right of students and faculty to express this is precisely what is at stake. we hear reports of a new anti-semitism not seen since the second world war and holocaust. several studies show current danger. and another war against the jews are upon us. however they are motivated less than actual threats. then i can pay for debates, scholarly research and activism in the state of israel. the truth is that the old anti-semitism such as we saw in charlottesville this summer where george bearing marcher carried a nazi confederate bag and said jews will not replace
us and murdered a protester. and this requires vigilant and persistent resistance. legislation such as the anti-semitism awareness act however, does not attempt to contend with actual anti-semitism. but rather an attempt to quell what the protected speech that is essential and to the functioning of said democratic society.it is a factual discretion to characterize campuses in the us as hotbeds of new anti-semitism. a recent study by researchers at stanford university report that while depictions of anti-semitism are widely reported in the press, they do not represent the actual experiences of jewish students at the campus level. they discover that campus life is neither threatening or alarming and in general students reported feeling comfortable on campuses and more specifically feeling comfortable as jews on campuses. much of the testimony today is likely to argue the anti-semitism is that crisis level.
i urge you to be skeptical of such claims. first, many of the stories that get wide seclusion contain factual distortions and are misrepresented in the media. second, many are based on a definition that defines -- as anti-semitic. students that engage and speak critical of israeli policy alertly motivated by their concern for palestinian human rights. they are not motivated by anti-semitic speech but the opposite. a desire to end racial discrimination of all kinds. -- this lies in a seemingly tractable problem how to critique jewish collective power in a way that does not immediately resonate with a long history of anti-semitism. the last thousand years of european history, jews were characterized as exceptional is the element not to undermine the established religious political and economic order. in each of those moments the jews were amended as united group that possess power and
authority far beyond their actual numbers. yet in 1948 come with defending israel as a solution to anti-semitism, the situation changed dramatically. for the first time insignificant number of jews had actual and not imaginary power. today the state of israel has borders, police, military, and nuclear arsenal, political parties and mostly representative a somewhat democratic system of government. like all of the states its actions must be permitted to be a matter of public debate and discourse both within the jewish community and outside of it. it is critical that they are not inherently anti-semitic. the problems that we learn how to talk about israel's actual political power in ways that do not immediately after much older anti-semitic pictures of imaginary jewish power. this is not only on account of the long history of anti-jewish hatred in the west but also because as we see in the legislative initiative such as these, to characterize any
speech critical of israel as intrinsically anti-semitic has been highly effective tool employed by the suit uncritically support any action of israel and seek to stigmatize all critics. it would be ill-advised will constitute seek authority on anti-semitism so deeply contested. was it israel cannot be protested or objected to to mandate that collective jewish power cannot be analyzed or debated, or to conclude that jews because they were once victims of humanity's greatest genocidal crimes, are somehow immune from the perpetrators, it reinforces the anti-semitic belief that jews are fundamentally different people. most dangerously of all, attempt to burn the definition of anti-semitism to encompass a number that is not clearly anti-jewish can only make it more difficult to recognize, isolate and oppose anti-semitic behavior when it appears. thank you. >> thank you.>> thank you, mr. chairman . it is a pleasure to be here. it is a particular privilege to be here representing the adl --
there are three kinds of issues going on the run this morning could one is the stent of the problem, number two is a policy wisdom of adjusting it with a clarifying definition of anti-semitism and the third is whether providing that definition raises problems under the first amendment. the others on this panel are much better situated to address the first two issues so i will direct my remarks only to the third issue. and to say as emphatically as i can, that providing a definition along the lines that the anti-semitism awareness act would do, does not raise first amendment problems for three basic reasons. one is that, this app is not a speech code but simply provides a definition that will allow the education department to use potentially speech but only for centuries surfaces and evaluating whether or not harassment is motivated by anti- semitism. second, the definition here serves first amendment values.
it does not harm them. one way or another, government officials will look into this question and i think it serves first amendment values for that to have a definition that guides their mission and third, but i think least importantly fact that the act has a clause. on the first of these point that is not a speech code, i think it is very important to understand that this act does not take any speech and make it illegal or impermissible. somebody just like they can do today, can engage on campus in the most anti-semitic speech and the education department will not take action against them just for that.but, if they couple that speech with a physical attack on a jewish student, then the act and the constitution allow the use of the anti-semitic speech to demonstrate the motive of the person engaged in harassment. the first amendment clearly prohibits that.
permits that rather. which is to say that this is not even controversial in the sense that when speech is not prohibited by only is used for evidentiary purposes, the first amendment is not offended. the supreme court laid on that rule in wisconsin against mitchell which was a unanimous decision.they were not that many things that the justices agreed on but this was one of them. no first amendment problems. and that is what the definition does here. it guides the education department in the evidentiary use of speech to allow them to decide whether or not something is anti-semitic. the second major reason i do not think that there is a first amendment problem here is that what we have here is a clarifying definition. and providing a definition to government officials one way or another are going to be looking at speed providing a definition serves first amendment values. the first amendment generally
translate government officials looking at this with discretion. that is essentially the status quo. whatever congress does have, if congress does nothing, is still going to be the education department's position that title vi forbids harassment motivated by anti-semitism. the question really boils down to whether the education department officials are going to make that judgment without a definition or with a definition. i certainly think that it serves the first amendment values to guide the discretion. i think the one area of the first amendment for a while that government officials had no guidance was the obscenity area where the supreme court at least for a while, famously had the we know it when we see a test. i do not think anybody thinks that was the finest chapter in the supreme court's first amendment. and really right now, the status quo is anti-semitism. the education department officials will know it when they see it or at least we hope
they will. because they have no guidance, no definitions guiding their work. and that is what the law can change. mr. conyers, he made the point about being concerned about first amendment values in the area and i certainly share that concern.i do think though that the first amendment issue in this area is largely, what is the standard for harassment? if that is a trigger in anything that offends anyone, it is harassment and i do think there will be first amendment problems. but i think the current law to be the standard is the same stand of the supreme court laid down the title ix context when davis against monroe. one way or another this law does not change. if you want to protect the mentor values you can do if you want to make it slightly less commanding you can do that. but all the law does is take whatever the system standard is improvised definition. two less thoughts. one is, another chairman has
raised the question of why a definition here we do not have a definition in other contexts. i do think if there were a real doubt about what constituted racist speech, or there was some argument that people were using to cover racist speech, we want to have a definition. in the same way uniquely in this context, somebody can say something anti-semitic and say, do not worry about it, it it was not anti-semitic. as of this definition really tries to address the problem. the last thing else is also have a clause in this law that i think is friendly least important reason that there is not a first amendment clause. thank you. >> welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman, ranking members. my name is sandra parker and i am on behalf of -- we represent 3.8 million members for the sole purpose of standing united on behalf of the people. in 2008.
[inaudible] to educate students about israel and arm them with the truth. because the lessons learned in classrooms today and the policies in the public square tomorrow. within the classrooms, intellectual discourse, academic freedom and the freedom of speech are sacrosanct and essential in achieving tolerance and understanding among divergent groups. despite this, with increasing regularity, jewish students, jewish groups and those who support them find themselves having these sacred rights bridged. this past summer, a group of students from san francisco state university filed a lawsuit alleges a school knowingly fostered anti-semitic discrimination and a hostile environment which have been marked by violent threat to safety of jewish students on campus.a student experience possible behavior which is ignored by the university despite a complaint being
filed. he stated, i felt get to be a jew on campus griffith university did not want me there because i was jewish. and as if we were not a lot the same rights as other organizations on campus. i felt like a second-class citizen because i was jewish. brian landry, a student at uc davis wrote this following in the california newspaper. quote as a jewish student i have seen my fair share of anti-semitic actions on campus. i have had intolerable in foul words yelled at me while i'm studying because i have a sticker of israel on my laptop. when arab israeli diplomat -- came to speak, anti-semitic students shouted death to jews at my friends and me. i have not seen as an open statement from the school about any of these events. but what's more frustrating is that due to the lack of exposure and punishment for these acts, other students do not know what happened.we
cannot change what we are not willing to confront. infiltration of this behavior without confrontation has led to its normalization. so much so that those who experience this discrimination often feel reporting it is a waste of time due to the regularity at which it occurs and complicity in which it is encountered. so pervasive is this behavior that it spills over to non-jewish individuals. many of our students have personally experienced that standing with jews or with the jewish state has resulted in the same hostility. for instance, at the university of new mexico, a student had rocks spit upon them and work -- had rock stone at them and were spit on. -- she was told she was disgusting and a baby killer for the student is not your friend to wear this shirt again. this behavior is not meant to
provide a legitimate critique. it is harassment, and two sons and check on the perspective of jewish students and those that support them. allowing this behavior to shut down free speech is at odds with the free speaking and safe environment our nation's colleges are supposed to create. since students administrator should be able to distinguish between a valid critique of a nation and anti-semitic behavior. providing a standard by which the -- both sides of the argument deserve to be heard. but at present, once it is is in the first amendment as both a sword with which to inflict harm and to shield which to protect itself from the consequences of its actions. valid intellectual discourse and equal access to education should not be mutually exclusive. and the exercise of free speech is not an affirmative defense for harassment. the first amendment does not release schools of the obligation to ensure that the
students receive equal protection under the law. as a present nominee for civil rights said quote - they have excellent tools for addressing anti-semitism in every country aside from the nine states. so why not hold himself the same standard? and despite standards 2070 study including that it was not a problem, anti-semitism was problematic enough that stanford university took upon itself to having anti-semitism -- anti-semitism is not a jewish issue in the human issue.jewish identity and ancestry continued to be a target whether one is male or female conservative or liberal, religious or agnostic. history has already shown us what happens when good men and women do nothing. in the space of such evil.not to act is to act. thank you for your consideration and your time. >> thank you ms. parker.
welcome. >> good morning chairman, ranking member and members of the committee. i am jonathan greenblatt co national debt to the anti-defamation league. i deeply appreciate the opportunity to participate. i would like to take my intent to highlight the trends that we are seeing including the rise of anti-semitic instances on campuses and the impact on unprecedented outreach and recruitment by groups on campus. to provide suggestions of some potential responses. as the congressman congers noted, we've been tracking anti-semitic instances since the 70s by annual audit which we are not doing on a quarterly basis. despite the snapshot of the national problem and helps our professionals at the headquarters in new york and our field offices across the country identifying trends and track responses. data drives policy. and the audit has led us to draft the first model of hate
crime law in the ascot say that has been adopted by the federal government and 45 states around the country including the district of columbia. and the federal hate crimes statistics act of 1990 has also based on the idea that we must count each and every bias motivated crime and teach poison communities how to respond. new art is less frequently as noted, detailed a 67 percent increase in the first three quarters of this year over the same time period last year. in fact, we have already recorded more anti-semitic incidences in 2017 then we saw in the entirety of 2016. i'm talking about acts of harassment, vandalism, violence against jewish individuals and institution. the numbers are compiled by my team of professionals with each report incident, it is verified. this is about hard facts.
anti-semitic instances indeed spiked after the night the right rally in charlottesville. until late 2016, such white supremacists were not active on college campuses. by starting with fall of last year they began a much more open effort to spread their message and recruit at colleges and universities. last year at this time, the adl had tracked nine instances of white supremacist activity on college campuses, this year for the same time. , that is to message the academic year we have tracked 80 such incidences, nearly a tenfold increase year-over-year. but anti-semitism cannot be attributed solely to extremists on the right. neither side of the political spectrum is exempt from intolerance. we've seen a rise in anti-semitic rhetoric between the radical left-wing as well. one often rooted extremely -- that can cross the line into anti-semitism. there is nothing wrong with criticizing a particular policy of a specific elected
government in israel. that happens all the time and it is not m tight end autism. just as -- is not anti-semitism. that is not what we are talking about. but whether it originates on the fringe of the left or the extremes on the right, we have seen real cases of anti-semitism search at colleges and universities. our audit documents 118 incident this year compared to only 74 in the same period last year. that is nearly a 60 percent increase. a written statement on the number of those instances i do not have time to get into them this morning, but when we identify a problem, we also have a responsibility to proposed solutions.our statement highlights an effective response and anti-semitism that we saw at the university of california system. and we believe that the adl that the enactment of this legislation that was approved
unanimously by the senate, would be an important step forward to address discrimination against jews. you also have positive implications for muslims, sikhs and members of other religious groups when discrimination is based on the groups actual perceived ancestry characteristics. as an agency, that serves as a fierce advocate for the first amendment. let me reinforce mr. clemens claims, this would not compromise freedom of speech. this would provide guidance for the department of education and the department of justice on whether to investigate anti-jewish -- and targeted intentional and unlawful discriminatory intimidation and harassment of jewish students. this will also provide several additional policy recommendations. number one, first we recommend training and outreach programs for administrators, faculty, staff and students. on best practices and protocols
to respond to hate speech, extremism, anti-semitism and bigotry. second, we recommend that education on the parameters of first amendment free-speech rights.hate speech may be protected by administrators and student leaders have a moral responsibility to adjust the accompanying impact. and while the first amendment protects hateful speech, it does not allow for harmful speech intended to incite violence. third and final, we must recognize that there are no simple complete solutions to the problem. and the history of anti-semitism and all forms of bigotry must be addressed long before the college years. the government has a responsibility provide funding for antivirus, antiracism, education, initiative and in k-12 schools. to inoculate our children from intolerance before they ever get to the university. in closing, i need, i deeply respect the opinion of the efforts of the table. but let me just say, because
the legislation balances free-speech considerations with the charge of discrimination, the adl and all other major jewish organizations, the communal leadership are unified in their support of this act. thank you very much for your leadership. i look forward to your questions. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> thank you for the opportunity to testified to an anti-semitism on campus. an american sins at the intersection of literature and human rights for open jackie o mission is to unite to suppression and liberties that make it possible to work extensively related to free speech. our report with diverse inclusion and freedom of speech in the universe universities sent out copy has analysis of intentions that rise from colleges still imperative to
make campuses hospitable learning environments to students from all backgrounds, mom maintaining on copper mines and protection for freedom of speech. these two missions can and must coexist. americans now working with university leaders and students around the country help address these by facilitating in-depth dialogue among stakeholders and promoting concrete approaches to make the campus and open environment for all people and for all ideas. we are alarmed at the rise in anti-semitic speech and actions on campus with fellow participants in this hearing that have been documented. we applaud the leadership. as an organization dedicated under the charter in both dispelling hatred and defending the transmission of thoughts, we are believing that countering the spread of this must and may not impair free expression. we have several related concerns with the act. this year we have a pressing threats. including efforts to distant right and shutdown speakers,
hateful speech intimidates members of historically vulnerable groups and efforts to deter silence and punish speech. and it is imperative to avoid allowing event well intended measures to legitimize nearly restrictive parameters were expression. it is not difficult to conceive of scenarios, model un debate adjusting resolutions targeting israel, speeches by israeli leftists or events breaking the silence with a group of former israeli soldiers who opposed the government's policies in which speech can be the definition of anti-semitism contained in the act. while such speech may not amount to civil rights violation it could form part of a claim of harassment. by subjecting the speaker to investigation and potential disciplinary action. many college students are finding a political voice for the first time. exploring activism and feeling related causes which they will champion throughout their lives. students are supposed to not
live in peril. -- one might argue that the rule of reason reddens the act would ensure that it would only be applied with speech and question that has anti-semitic intent. for campus environments is highly charged. missing the context of telling online and other expression that may seem satirical or purely academic can trigger an intense reaction in the environment of a polarized campus. israel palestine conflict is among the most contentious subject in campus debate. in this environment, any weapon to counter offensive speech is vulnerable to this misuse be receiving claims of harassment that are ultimately judged meritless and pose enormous strain on individual witnesses responsible administrators and the campus as a whole. alongside the anti-semitism other forms of hateful speech are also surging. many groups have identified slurs and insults that they believe are not fully
recognized for the derogatory nature. including cartoon images of related figures, depictions of members of historically marginalized groups for the group and invocation of lesser-known stereotypes. we should not be surprised about it historically vulnerable ribs asking for similarly expended protections. new point specific restrictions were rendered dangerous for those to express controversial ideas. finally, having reviewed the very thoughtful testimony of my fellow witnesses, we submit that we do not see evidence that the problem arising anti-semitism derives from the current confusion for the expanse that is vented definition will address the concerns we all share. while many witnesses that similar practical measures they believe can be effective, i'm not sure any of us can be sure that this. the problem we are confronting. finally, the us approach of free expression is the most protective in the world. whereas holocaust and much of
europe is considered protected speech here. not by investigations or prohibitions provide counter speech. the anti-semitism awareness act were to pass, the us claim as a -- it would be blunted. we are eating into work with the community to help adjust anti-semitism and bigotry while upholding robust protections on free speech. we have also included in the written testimony a copy of how good faith attempt to address free-speech and anti-semitism on campus could -- as well as recent case of campus free-speech laws in this state. you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman . ranking member and members of the committee. it is my pleasure to be here today for my honor to represent the rosenberg foundation which works to combat hatred and anti-semitism with focus on the
campus. 1989 until 2014 i was the american jewish committee's expert on anti-semitism and over the years, i worked with many college presidents on a variety of initiatives about bigotry, anti-semitism and anti-israel. one project was over 200 presidents and a manual how to manage campus bigotry. every project stressed that approaches with promoting academic freedom were more likely to work on campus than those that explain or harm will actually make the problem worse. let me give you a quick example. in 2700 british university and college union adopted a resolution advancing academic boycott of israel, some in the jewish-american community americans to boycott for this can be turned. that approach of course would violate academic freedom because ideas should be on their merit not the nationality of the coupon is good i worked with over 400 university presidents who signed the new york times and that essentially
said if the uc was intent on violating fundamental acts on principle and divide the academic world institute israelis should be shunned and everyone else can count the universities as israelis also. that approach worked because it underscored the importance of academic read him and free-speech. idsa, not one president signed the ad that said let's do a boycott.that is one of my main concerns about the anti-semitism awareness act. by undercutting academic freedom and free speech it to we do group rate harm to the economy and jewish students and faculty teaching jewish and israel studies. i was working with my colleague andy baker who did great politicking of the working definition on anti-semitism. it was drafted with european -- in recent years, jewish groups
and individuals began filing title vi complaints based in part on the searches that these transgress the definition pair when all of the cases lost and tried to get the university of california system to adopt the definition and failed to lawmakers. the jewish communal official acknowledged, this type of legislation would open the door for other groups to seek legislative enshrined definitions also. let's imagine african-americans asking for a definition of racism for the consideration under title vi talking political expression. would include opposition to affirmative action? would include opposition to removing statues of the confederate leaders? imagine a definition for palestinian springtime jewish people the right to self-determination is anti-semitism. you should not deny the palestinian people the right to self-determination. furthermore, there is an internal which will be debated in the jewish community on who is included in the family and who is not.
we know for sure a part today of jewish students that are zionists who sometimes have suffered severely. by jewish students and anti-zionist have been called traders, and told that they are really not jewish at all. whether you can be an 18-year-old anti-zionist inside the jewish community, is not a debate that congress should decide. by adopting this congress can do so by labeling this. additionally we have sisters exercising a heckler's veto over speakers consider curves serve in a poor basis for support for israel is seen on some campuses in a similar way, should not be creating something akin to a presumption that a pro-israel event is because of anti-semitism other than political disagreement. the focus on israel also has other challenges subdue student such as organizing and the mistaken views of drawers are largely white and cannot be victims of hatred. here is what concerns me most.
some groups and powered by a congressional endorsement to the definition of campus application will hunt speech stably transgresses it and then press administrators to suppress it or condemn it. we want administrators to conduct surveys on campus climate to find new ways and break down this thinking of conflict. we want universities to cultivate an environment with all students, jews included to feel comfortable saying what they think even if their ideas are not fully formed and they might be wrong. what an administrator is told that they should, they will be evaluated on how well they react to these political speech. the working definition was recently applied to campus in the united kingdom. you see how that worked out. it was violating the definition. a holocaust survivor had a
talkative israeli diplomat complained and most disturbing off-campus group got a university to investigate a professor violating the definition in an article couple years ago university ultimately found no basis of discipline but the exercise itself was -- my fear is that we similarly enshrined this definition to law outside groups will try to suppress rather than answer political speech they do not like. the academy, jewish students and faculty teaching jewish will all suffer. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now begin with questioning the witness. i recognize myself, rabbi hager, you write in your testimony that if we are to be successful in combating anti-semitism we must first understand that we must define it. it is a complex phenomenon it has changed over time and presents itself in both new and traditional forms. some however, that phenomenon
of anti-semitism changes over time and presents itself in different forms over time with counsel against codifying any particular definition of anti-semitism. how is a definitional complication approach compatible with the concept of discrimination that changes over time? >> thank you mr. chairman for the opportunity to expand on this. the fact is that there is i think a poor understanding of what anti-semitism is about. the way it manifests, the way people encounter, will vary from time and place. it does not mean that one day to the next it has changed forward changed dramatically. we think the idea of the definition is a working definition was developed first with great difficulty to achieve consistence among organizations useful to -- they
really began with acknowledging the traditional aspects of anti-semitism. they may as was said, wax and wane over time. we understand them but we should explain and defined them for people to be clear on this. the idea of conspiracy theories against jews. what other elements motivate this hatred but also to recognize as we have seen in more recent times for example, holocaust denial is itself a form of anti-semitism. it would have been part of a definition of this century ago but finally let me speak about anti-semitism as it relates to israel. i think that is something more and more people have come to recognize i know jews that have experiences in your and now here in the us and on college campuses. >> let me interrupt you have five minutes. thank you for that. >> you're welcome.
>> i was pleased to see that kenneth marcus, and advocate for the use of the state department definition of anti-semitism in addressing anti-semitism under title vi was nominated by the president that had the civil rights division of the department of justice which would enforce i expect and i will ask if you expect that mr. marcus if he is confirmed the position, would use a state department definition of anti-semitism and addressing anti-semitism under title vi. and if so, might be best to wait and see the results of using such a definition before congress would codified that into statutory law?>> thank you mr. chapman. i very much agree that it will be useful to find out how this will be applied in the situations rather than passing legislation can design something that we do not know how it will play out. i agree i think the suggestion is a good one.
>> mr. greenblatt, would you care to comment on that same question? >> i think we need to keep in mind that the attempt to assure that mr. walker or mr. marcus, excuse me, or other official simply can consult the definition would make it easier for them to do their job effectively. but rather than having congress wait, i would encourage you to proceed expeditiously with the process. so that mr. marcus can be an effective advocate in public servant at the department of education. >> doctor -- rabbi baker wrote in his testimony that homelike other forms of prejudice and repatriated are easy to recognize. you and any other panelist that matter disagree with that they can't and don't all forms of patronage change in circumstances and the times? >> thank you for your question.
i think we have to pay attention for contents when we looking at any one particular incident. we need to investigate it carefully. when we think about the state department definition we speak to see what anti-semitism is a can virtually encompass any particular act. they pretend that it does. for example, the state department definition claims that stating that a particular jewish person has more loyalty into the state of israel then they due to the on country is tractor the truth is it is one of the fundamental kindnesses of zionism. if you go back to theodore hartsell who is really considered the founder of design is a he argued clearly that jews are one people and therefore is useless for them to be patriots to the countries in which they reside. so there are times when statements like that are
contained in the definition of the state when actually undermine the founding premises of zionism itself. >> thank you, mike them expired but mr. stern i was intrigued by your testimony that i don't think you talked about in your oral testimony. that is, would you elaborate on the point that you make regarding something called pandora's box? >> thank you.the issue is that once you open up the capacitor having official definition, then i suspect any organization that represents other groups that are done with things on campus with -- again, look at affirmative action as i mentioned before. if somebody on campus as it should be no affirmative action, you can understand how an african-american student might hear that as i don't really belong here. and it is something that the university should take responsibility for looking at
campus culture. but you would have groups i think at that point saying wait a minute, this is something to make students feel comical. want to codify that too. under title vi, ocr should look at that as specifically. and i think you'll find other types of examples with other types of groups. >> my time is expired. but i get your point. >> mr. chairman, if i may. i just want to bring back the focus as to why we are here this morning. the united states there is agencies has failed many jewish students. who went through extreme situations of anti-semitism. we are here because we need your help to address that. and i think that needs to be a focus. secondly, with permission, the idea that a dual loyalty or being more loyal to a state other than the nation that we were born into is inherent in zionism which was just stated
by the end of the speaker, cannot go unchallenged. it is simply not true.it is not accurate and it is for anti-semites. >> you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers for his question. >> thank you, sir. this has been a very unusual situation. as an african-american, i keep thinking about what if we were looking at the question of race from this perspective? and i have four questions here. i think instead, i will just ask each one of you who chooses to take just the few sentences
to summed up annie last considerations that you would leave the house judiciary committee with and i will start with you rabbi baker. >> i think the anti-semitism awareness act would provide guidance that would explain what anti-semitism is about four people need to know, it would go beyond what you mentioned esther conyers in the 2010 guidance. that potentially, can be changed in a new administration and that would underscore the fact that title vi should be used to address anti-semitism on college campuses.
>> doctor nadell. >> thank you. i think the anti-semitism awareness act is problematic. if there is a way to see and referred to with kenneth marcus and perhaps that is the way to go but for now it will label anti-israel actions on campus as anti-somatic and it will purge free speech. and that is a mistake. >> thank you. rabbi cooper. >> thank you. we have known each other for a few decades and just to summarize, the american jewish community wall-to-wall is here this morning because we need your help. as a leader in the civil rights movement and along with the chairman, we are here because we have a defined problem. you have heard this statistics from the anti-defamation league. what is happening here is
happening in real time and those who refuse to recognize the problem of anti-semitism, is kind of like inviting people to the flat earth society to hearing about nasa. >> thank you. >> doctor -- >> thank you. what i would say is a comment but hope you would say is to listen seriously please to what the faculty who work in the field of jewish studies are asserting. we have heard from the president of the association a studies to my right and for myself and others here that have studied this issue very carefully using rigorous scientific methods.the question of anti-semitism is highly contested and it is a topic that we do not believe that should be addressed with the anti-semitism awareness act. i think you should put trust in professors and universities to
contend with the issues as they arise on the campus. allow it to teach our students unimpeded.thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> i would like to follow up on your analogy to the race context. i would think if we had a dynamic our college campuses where we felt like the existing title vi prohibitions against harassment on the basis of race were being under enforced, because people kept on saying when they were accused of harassment on the basis of race, that they had some white supremacy symbol and that this was not anti- african-american but it was all in service of the symbol that we had a consensus that that was wrong, that we could amend the definition and restore an adequate prohibition and harassment on the basis of race and it would not raise first amendment problems because it would only be triggered by harassment. >> thank you. chairwoman parker. >> thank you, ranking member. i would like to underscore that
while i understand and appreciate the academic study problem, as i was student that are living the problem.they are the ones that are having the rocks thrown at them, having the betrayal spoken to them. and the academic of stanford that did an extensive study that said for the most part, jews felt safe. the students of stanford took it upon themselves to pass a resolution doing large in part we are advocating for today. >> thank you. attorney greenblatt. >> i nonattorney mr. conyers, let me just a skill that. >> director. >> i would simply say that the anti-semitism awareness act, the first amendment perspective will not squash free speech it will not stop freedom of expression. also encourage you as you reflect upon the views of academics that limit the privilege of tenure in her ivory tower to listen to those of us that work on main street.
the adl, the american jewish committee, apac, jewish federations of north america, all of the major jewish communal organizations support this legislation. >> thank you. director. >> may gray there is a serious problem but it does not mean the solution in front of us is the correct one. i think we have to keep in mind the law and the consequences. we risk the fire of contentious debates in opening the door to other restrictive measures that would show speech. even if they do not violate the first amendment. we have practical measures we all agree on that can be reinforced and that is where i would suggest we focus. >> thank you. director stern. >> thank you. five quick points. one is that i agree with -- that we should listen closely to the people teaching on campus. especially on these issues. they are the ones that i think
have the closest feel of the pulse. sadly, this type of legislation i think will be a black hole. it will suck away all of the other things that we really want campuses to do what to do with their environment and their teaching. this will be the preferred answer and focus rather than all of the other things. third, think jewish students are suffering in many places around the israel palestine conflict because it is a great primary, just assisting on one side or the other. legislation like this rather than breaking down that binary as to the detriment of the students. and i disagree with something that rabbi cooper said in the real estate or document protecting vulnerable jewish students. i teach on the campus. i have taught the lesson anti-semitism. i do not think jewish students that i have come into contact feel themselves as vulnerable and want to be protected. were shaken up by having the full capacity to look at these issues from every possible way.
and fifth i really worry, about the instinct to monitor speech. we have seen outside groups creating dossiers online. we see what's happening in the uk. if i'm a jewish studies professor and i'm going to be monitored for what i teach if it transgresses the definition i'm going to say why should i bother? i would rather teach about 18th-century judaism. and that -- >> thank you all. i'm going to examine this conversation we have had this morning terry carefully. >> thank you. your recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman . rabbi cooper, in your experience, have you i guess have you had, i am assuming you have experienced discussing with college administrators or responded to these anti-semitic incidents? what have you learned? let's we have had a lot of interaction with primarily california-based uc and cal state administrators.
people including some of the campus police. there has been a lot of exchange, there have been seminars and discussions. what has been lacking, what we hear back from people who let's say have been burned once or twice incidents that they do not anticipate. they lack context. they are looking for a basic definition to give them a context on campus to guide them. my written and verbal testimony, i spoke at some length about the president when he was the head of the uc system, spent a lot of time on this program not because it was theoretical but because the students of the bottom of this were not being protected by the system. he tried i think, to come up with ways to begin to correct the situation but the fact that we are here today before this important group of legislators
here in the house, is a case that we do need help. that context as mr. clemens so brilliantly presented it, simply is that, a definition that will help trained college administrators, counselors and the rest to apply the existing context and rules and a situation in which they are subjected to the behaviors that brought us here today. >> so you would not say that there is an unwillingness to protect but a lack of training? is that fair assessment? i think most of the administrators are not taking measures to protect. >> i think that a lot of administrators in their own training never heard the introduction of the term anti-semitism along all of the of protected groups, groups,
gender groups that had to be protected. it simply never entered the lexicon until these incidents came forward. and it was clear from our interaction with the people, let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they were well-meaning and want to address it. they did not really know where to begin. in addition, there are many individuals on campuses, on various levels, who actually believe that israel is an exceptional state. an apartheid state, a racist state, guilty of all sorts of crimes. in which their own personal biases do enter in to the way in which they respond to situations on campuses. overwhelmingly, i don't think it is ideologically driven. i think it is something that is relatively new and not quite sure how to proceed. >> rabbi, it has been a long
time since i went to college. but in those days, it was a simpler time. this would have been very -- do not look at me -- it was a simpler time. we had the 67 war, or the 73 war occurred during my college. today it seems that we are dealing with lots of issues. every sort of politically correct speech and so on. how do we in congress, initiate a process that prioritizes the unique characteristics of anti-somatic behavior, lest we begin a process and end up caught up in the dozens of other politically correct things that we sometimes talk about how people refer to people. somebody can refer to a woman in an incorrect way. another race or religion incorrect way.
and they are often categorized as though all of them are initials. and none of them are good, but how do we in congress initiate a process to put a priority on this type of hate speech based on its history and its pervasiveness? >> i would make two points. i think that is simply a false issue. the other point here also is for us to understand it is more
complex and a lot of these controversies are part of global campaigns against the state of israel, against the jewish people and they are parachuted into campuses which is one of the reasons why so many university administrators seem so clueless about how to deal with this. when you have, god for bid, the next outbreak and when you pray it will come in the middle east, especially now with social media but even before the same mantra is that you hear on the streets of gaza, you will hear on the campuses and those attacks will not be about israel but will be talking about hitler was right and death to the jews. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york for five minutes. >> thinking. mr. stern, it is clear to me
that we been following this for a long time and is a real problem on some campuses. most people would agree with that. the anti-semitism awareness act would require only that the department of education consider and it says the department of education should take into consideration the amendment of anti-semitism as whether it is going on was motivated by anti-semitic intent. supporters note that the definition is not dispositive of whether title vi has been violated and therefore that should illuminate any concerns about a chilling effect on free speech. what is your response to that mark. >> my response is that inherently it's disingenuous. when you prioritize a certain definition it has the weight of having congress behind it compared to any other definition and i'm really not is concerned although i am about the two,
three, four or five cases that make up under this and i'm more concerned about the day-to-day impact on the campus by the fact that administrators will be told to look at this and monitor speech people from outside as they had with the early title cases and with these websites focusing on dossiers of professors and students they will say hunt the speech and if you can't suppress it like the israel apartheid type of thing you are to condemn it so you will get incentives to chill speech when i think on campus what we need is to cultivate an environment that does exactly the opposite that brings out all the different conflicts and. >> counter speech. >> use education to do it that could ever be appropriate for the government to define anti-semitism for the purpose of title vi? >> i don't think so. >> it's not that the definitions who brought you don't think there should ever be out -- i have a problem with the
definition across campus because tonight israel the right to exist is something you don't want to have on the venue of the one for president of iraq to say and that should be objective. an 18 -year-old on a college campus was trying to figure out whether i'm zionist or anti- zionist or whether i'm tribal or universal they have to have the right to explore those ideas. >> without referencing the definition of the law house to the department of education identify and investigate anti-semitism and enforce title vi? >> i actually brought her case for high school students in a new york where the kids were being harassed and nothing to do with israel but i can tell you no one asked me to look at motivation of what these people thought about jews and no one looked at the definition. what they looked at was whether these kids were being identified as jews and harassed as jews and they were. wisconsin verse mitchell basically says the same thing. it's not the motive that is the problem it's this selection of someone to be a victim in a
particular circumstance. >> in the last seven years of the doe issued guidance how would you evaluate the departments enforcement regarding anti-semitism? >> you are talking about specific cases and the ones i were aware of have problems and certainly had some condition of actions that were problematic but they also were relied heavily on it speech. i have no capacity at this point to say at a particular case they should have done something differently. those cases that were brought against had complaints about classes and tax and campus speakers and other programs and i think they were rightly concerned about finding violations. >> thank you. if enacted what protections the anti-semitism awareness and provide to students on campus that are not already provided for under current law? >> i think they would provide the protection of having the enforcement agency empowered
with the definition. i don't know -- next to the enforcement agency to do what it already did that guided by definition. >> that's right and i think it would facilitate. >> let me move on to the next question. critics of anti-semitism awareness act argue that even if you are correct the anti-semitism awareness act does not violate the first amendment it could still have a chilling effect on political speech on campus. how would you respond to that. >> i would respond to that by saying the key to ensure the title vi, not just for in the semitism but for all the things that permits the key to making sure that it doesn't have a chilling effect on speech is to make sure that the test for harassment is sufficiently robust inconsistent with our first amendment values. the rest of it i think is mistaken. when you say that this. and when someone suggests that this will stop a professor from lecturing on a topic in class that mistakes with the standard is for finding harassment under title vi.
>> leslie, mr. stern, mr. clement argues that the anti-semitism awareness act does not raise constitutional concerns because it contains a saving clause and more partly because it addresses conflicts like resolution and simply the definition to an existing provision in the law. how would you respond? >> i disagree because in the application of it and in particular it will be problematic and he is also said the saving clause is pretty much useless and i would encourage and i know the foundation for individual rights in education has also done a very thorough analysis of this and in my view they are the experts on this and they've concluded without question this would be unconstitutional. >> my time has expired. i thank you. >> the chair acknowledges the gentleman from florida for five minutes. >> i think the chairman and i'd like to begin by bragging about my state of florida. i am so proud that in response
to some of the student government association's endorsing the movement the state of florida passed legislation that divests our state of any entities that are participating in the movement and that legislation built on the landmark work of my colleagues during his service in our state legislator when he ensured that our state divested from companies that were engaging with iran in their nuclear program. rabbi, i want to drill down specifically since you mentioned a student government association's are there any commonalities and methods and tactics and practices that groups are using to influence a student government association's to pass dds resolution and to what extent with those methods were tactics be impacted by the anti-semitism awareness act? >> i'm not an expert on the student associations but when you read about what is going on, by the weight not only in the united states but what is going on in canada in which you have
activists who are exercising their first amendment right of if you are anti- israel and have a pro- palestinian agenda and they get involved with student government and they stay involved and in many times they have leadership roles where this act would help is when jewish students are called out at meetings of the government of the student government including at ucla, not just small colleges up in canada, as well. when jewish students are called out and they are basically told you do not belong in student government because in the fact it is still loyalty and you don't have a loyalty to the united states and your loyalty is to entity of israel and therefore you should be booted off the board and there are
other actions in terms of funding certain kinds of speakers will get it in certain activities will get it but i would say overall that it was just a matter of student activism then the most important message we can send through hillel and all the other groups is make sure jewish kids stay involved in the student government but when you have, as we have now numerous examples where jewish kids are called out and said you do not belong here because you are a jew that is exactly why that student would be able to go to an administrator and, if necessary, department of education to get address. >> from the anti- definition leak standpoint how do you parse that distinction between legitimate advocacy that we can combat with other legitimate advocacy and speech that would run afoul of the sect?
>> i think it's for to keep in mind that all this legislation does is require in plain language the definition be consulted by administrators on cases brought. this doesn't mandate that they do anything. this doesn't handcuff them. this doesn't limit free speech. it simply says when an issue is brought to their attention that they consult the definition. again, i think as stated by another one of the witnesses they would need to determine that there is indeed harassment taking place but having the definition that codifies what is indeed a complex problem would not in any way's shape or form prohibit or again, handcuff the administrator to prevent free speech. >> i found the data that you provided in your written testimony regarding the frequency of anti- somatic events rising particularly troubling on college campuses. to what extent we tie that solely to the activity on the college campus versus perhaps some nefarious forces
influencing students as early as high school because i am starting to see more and more folks advocating for bds type advocacy which, in my mind, is modern-day anti-semitism at the high school level. are you able to draw -- >> that's in question and there are two parts. the first part we try to understand what is the causality and the increase of interest semitism and i think extremist from both sides feel emboldened for different reasons vis-à-vis the political climate. that is creating the conditions in which we are seeing an uptick in activity and that isn't something that is a function of some academic treaties but the reality of what piercing all around the country. to your point yes, i would agree that anti- bias, antihate content in schools particularly the high school level can be an antidote to intolerance and that
is another area that i think we should explore. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i feel that. >> the gentleman one from texas is organized by minute. >> thank you very much mr. chairman. this is a important hearing and i clearly, rabbi, i think it is super important that students, or young people, that any language that particularly suggest they don't belong here i believe were obviated to protect them and protect their space of learning. so you have me committed on the idea that our young people must be protected. as i carry i am trying to find the comfort level, mr. stern, on the idea of the protected speech and i am graduated from the university of virginia law school and you can imagine my
horror as i talk to the president of the university a week ago to reinforce the horror that occurred as they came uninvited to the campus and walked along a very sacred area for students and while those students who had arrived early were looking out of their dorms or windows or standing on the front lawn if anyone knows the structure of the university of virginia and complete horror and fear. i imagine amongst those students might have been juror students, african-american students, hispanic students and others. how tragic it is that rather than words of comfort, of course, there were words that came from the highest-ranking office in the land that there
were good people on both sides or both sides had violence. i think it is important that we use our approach to also be teachers because at the same time a young student at the american university became the first african-american student who happened to be a woman, president of student government and then there was a series of hanging nooses and bananas to intimidate so the question in this day and time is how do we educate and protect our students and provide free space and free speech, free space and free speech for our academics. let me go to mr. clement who is raising the legal arguments here. mr. stern made a valid point of the hunt and i would not want to have a professor feeling that they were hunted if they had
several viewpoints that i don't agree with but several viewpoints of the issues dealing with israel, i.e. divine the jewish people the right to self-determination as a nation not have their own land and, as well, other criticisms that would be raised against israel but could be raised against others. how would i protect that professor who wants to engage in a deliberative and provocative lecture? who may be either overtly or hidden and have negative views or not to give views of israel and their in an academic setti setting. >> representative jack finley, there is no fundamental incompatibility between the free speech and free space and i think the critical question in determining where to strike a
balance is what do we think constitutes harassment and what do we think constitutes just free speech and under existing law, as i understand it, there's a pretty demanding standard before we treat something under title vi as harassment. under title vi there is to president. a is there harassment that what rises to the level and second, even if there is was it motivated by the forbidden bases under title vi, race, sex, national origin and the department has taken the position that anti-semitism is a forbidden motive and all of thi- >> this is tied to criticism of country. you don't have a right to exist, you don't have the right to own land. israel shouldn't exist back and there's a variety of ways to try to define that term and this is
the same definition that the state department has already approved and i think and i don't mean to dodge the question but the way to protect the free speech is in part to make sure that we have the right definition of harassment but once we have that boy, it seems hard from the first amendment to standpoint that it is better to not have any definition of anti-semitism, especially when it is obviously a contested term and especially when for some people it seems to be taking cover and saying i can do anything i want and i don't have to worry about being labeled anti-semitic because i'll be able to say no, i'm just anti- zionist. >> mr. greenblatt, could you and i have stated in your antihate outreach, anti-defamation league and i think there's some of the best in the country and i also believe very quickly, very keenly and i will ask mr. stern a question so i will and i think
determine for his indulgence. i truly believe the investment in k-12 is crucial and that the crisis of america is that we are not teaching antihate in the early years pulled by me by an african-american family went to mcdonald's and another child who happened to be white, little child, looked at them in horror and was afraid of them as they came into the mcdonald's. how can we deal with that and finally, mr. stern, if you could finish by your answer to the other question and how do we protect the students dealing with legislation like this which i hope to consider? mr. greenblatt, would you answer that. >> i would say quickly, let's be clear. this definition does not prevent students or faculty or administrators from criticizing a particular policy of the israeli government. it does not do that. it defines when it becomes anti-semitism which often happens and it needs to be dealt
with. with respect to training and education, congresswoman, i couldn't agree more. we need to as the government ensure that all levels our kids are immunized from intolerance of the earliest age and it is an ounce of prevention can go a long way to dealing with the disease of bigotry. >> of course,. >> your time has expired. >> mr. chairman, i appreciate the. >> mr. stern can answer the question. >> i am poor in the semitism and i don't want to foster it. i want to stop it thank you and very briefly. one thing i put in my written testimony is that i have worked with various college presidents over the years and the first manual we put out was a situation that came up hypothetical and a banner was put out a winner that says so and so, you fill in the blanks, not welcome here. there's no policy with banners out of the dorm windows. the president that i would put out a larger banner from my window saying everyone is
welcome. we want anti-semitism classes of students to know what we're talking about rather than have a definition sitting on high and we want to give them the capacity to discuss these difficult issues when their sentence of identity are wrapped up or perceived social justice. we want to use education as much as possible but i worry about the hunting situation that will chill speech, faculty members but also think about this. when i was working in an international jewish organization at a pro-israel policy and i'm a zionist and i was mostly concerned with those students who are supportive of israel. as a college professor i am also concerned about jews that are anti- zionist and they are left out in the cold here and there may targets. we have websites that go and hunt them and put dossiers on them and this will only encourage that type of activity the gentle lady as time is expired and i now organize the
gentleman from arizona for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i pity the panel be here today. this is been interesting and important topic. doctor trachtenberg talked about the potential for this definition overly broadly and mr. greenblatt talked about this is a consultant definition and i would like to talk specifically about the definition or ask or inquire on the definition and go to you, providing a definition may be a good idea and maybe consistent with the first amendment as you have argued and testified to today. my question is is this the right definition and is it potentially a sum of indicated of earlier in their testimony and is it potentially vague or can be interpreted overly broadly or is it clearly clear and concise enough. could it be worded better and if so, how?
if you could opine on that place. >> thank you for the questions. representative fix, i would say that there are other people on the panel were better able to have a debate about whether it is exactly the right definition. i am not sure that it is necessarily the platonic definition and i do think, though, it has the virtue of being a definition that the government is already using as one of my co- panelist said, it's a bit ironic that we are essentially willing to use this definition with every country on the planet except ours but, i guess, one thing i have uniquely perhaps to contribute from the first amendment to live is especially given that it's a consultant definition into the report to the definitive definition, and the loss of times you have definitions that say the following term is and
sometimes you have definition that say the following term includes and this is more in the softer second version. i think particularly because it has that character it sure beats the alternative from a first amendment which is no deficits at all. >> i appreciate that and i guess that is the question, does anyone on the panel together better definition than this definition? that is what i'm inquiring of the entire panel and by your silence, mr. trachtenberg,. >> it's not clear to me as mr. stern said that a definition is required in this way. i teach entire courses on anti-semitism and they go on for 15 weeks and we talked about the shifting definition of anti-semitism. in the past it was based on religious assumption about jews as christ killers and in the middle ages jews were seeking to recruit advised and they were
accused of that and it led to anti-semitic caricatures of jews. there were questions about jewish sexuality whether jews were even human beings are not. in the modern. we saw it as a racial distinction abuse. our jews fundamentally and biologically different. there are ideas of them as revolutionaries of verses this is what we teach to our students. settling on one definition that will apply to all circumstances is to brought into vague and should not be the basis of legislation. >> but, i don't want and the debate with you because one of the things you have said previously today is that this is a very broad definition and if you're going to make a definition it seems to me that is consultative in nature it would by its nature become a broader definition that would allow for the movement of
society as we see the impact of that definition and they're using it as consultant of idea as opposed to a very strict, binding, concise definition which is why i was asking if there was any better definition that may be out there. time goes by fast in five minutes but i was going to come back and asked and i will ask mr. clement, did anyone else, as well, any judicial opinion that provides the definition of anti-semitism, even if not in this holding -- >> i'm not come across such a definition. >> okay. all right. so, i guess i will go ahead and yield back the amount of my time since i'm under ten seconds i think the german and now organize the gentleman from florida. >> thank you mr. terry. i introduced this bill because i met with the assistant secretary
for civil rights and i asked the investigation about the ongoing cases and were they pursuant and the answer was zero, number one. number two i appreciate all of the academic discussion in the references that of the definition but let me read it for the record. anti-semitism is a certain perception of jews which may be expressed as hatred toward use, rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-semitism are directed toward jewish or non-jewish individual and or their property toward jewish communities institutions and religious facilities. that is working definition, then it goes on to include three examples and a backseat. let me address some of what we heard today. one criticism of israel, any criticism of israel would be a cinematic under and it's not true. everyone understand that is not the case. that is number one. number two is that you speak
once they are victims are removed criticism one while i am offended by that that is nothing to do with this piece of litigation. three, somehow we and this is really the effort to go after jewish anti- zionist and it's the red herrings and for the suggestion was made that we have to look at all the insides and there are all different sides to. there aren't. the comment that was made that i find the most compelling is that a college campus is where a student trying to find their voice. i could not agree more but here is the question. in all of this talk about free speech which we hold dear in which we have to be careful with this legislation, any legend would not violate or curtail, in all of the discussion what has been missing is the discussion
of the free speech of jewish students who do not feel free to speak out. they do not feel free to support israel and they don't feel free to join to the government and talk about their judaism and involvement in their jewish community and there are examples of time and time again. one last thing about this. i understand that if you look only in terms of numbers across all campuses that while some of the academics here say it is not a problem and i don't see it on my classroom and i don't hear about it and then 118 anti- somatic acts relative to the number of students on college campuses eight not seem that great, why shouldn't we be concerned about every one of those individuals and their ability to sustain and fight back and have a department of education willing to investigate those kind of attacks. this one is really hard
sometimes for me to understand and we know what is happening on college campuses and yes, i'm concerned about professors being able to teach i am but i also know that college students like my own and their friends who are on campuses who see what is happening and will avoid parts of campus, i have heard from their friends will avoid parts of campus because they are afraid if they are wearing a jewish star that they will be shut it down and that is not students finding her voice that is one student using his or her voice to stifle the free speech of that other student. yes, rabbi cooper congresswoman, i want to come back again to this visual because it is in real time and this was posted by a professor at rutgers university on his facebook page. we have a young girl, 19 years old who went to rutgers and she wants to get her degree in food
science. this is the guy she will have to go and sign up for because right now there is absolutely no price to pay and no red line, nothing about someone in the position of responsibility who openly expresses such vile hate and there is nothing to protect that freshman from pursuing her course. >> mr. greenblatt, and i so off-base here that we been going down the wrong path and worried about the 118 cases so far of anti-semitism and. >> congressman, you're dead on. i know some people teach courses over the course of 15 weeks and the aclu been tracking this for over a hundred years in data doesn't lie. what you pointed out about the definition is exactly correct. this doesn't inhibit the ability of a human individual to criticize is really policy but it does acknowledge as a definition does that definition,
by the way, that was done in consultation with leading experts from academia and communal organizations and its use by our embassies around the world to track anti- somatic incidences. some might not like it in its practicality i would submit to this committee that it has been vital to our state department doing its work to protect jewish communities around the world. >> mr. terry, for your back i would make one last point. again, criticism of israel and israel's government and policies are more than fair. they are welcome here just as they are in israel. when you take the position and it's one thing to criticize those policies but when you take, as your position, the very suggestion that israel as a nation does not have a right to exist and then you try to impose that to shut down others that is
not a student biting his or her voice that is a student or others on a college campus using their voices to silence others in a way that is wholly unacceptable which this definition is simply trying to address. are you back. >> i think the gentleman and i now recognize myself for five minutes. it was my turn left bac. [laughter] this is a compelling hearing today for me as it happens a very good friend of mine is in the audience, gary bauer, head of the christians united for israel which i've been involved in that for a long time and i think that he is perhaps the greatest friend of israel in the western world. so, i mean, the opinion is pretty high there. certainly i identify with so many of the comments here today and some of us are deeply committed to the state of israel and to the jewish people and
consequently, when we are dealing with the area of interest feminism which it obvious to any observer has grown in a profound way in recent days, i would suggest to you that whether it is from the heart, hard right or the militant left there are things that have come forward in recent days that are very disturbing. they cry out for a response in rabbi cooper's comments related to the necessity that someone needs help here and i understand that and i embrace that completely. the great challenge for those of us that deeply care about israel, of course, is the more deeply we care the more desperate we are to get the policy right. i want to try to refer to the medical term, [inaudible], first do no harm and the challenge for policymakers right now is to come up with the right policy.
with that my first question would be to [inaudible], traditionally are federal civil rights laws are not qualified definitions for illustrative list of this commentary motivation and that is our federal civil rights laws prohibit termination based on race or sex without specifying exactly what it is seminary motivation would be considered to be. leaving that question to the court and a case-by-case determination of the unique factual situation and contacts from judges and juries and we struggle with this for some time. with any particular definition of anti-semitic motivation we codified in the us code what kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to
other protected classes? i hope the question came across clearly. >> what definitions might other protected classes invoke? >> limited will interpret what particular definition of anti- somatic motivation were codified in the us code what kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration as constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to other protected classes? >> it's hard to say but i certainly think this will give rise to efforts by other groups but to think about dividing dissemination against them is probably as possible will prevent manifestations of that discrimination. one example that comes to my mind that i've worked on it softly in my career is with respect to muslims around the world in an effort that they tried to have a legal ban on the
defamation of religion which related to cartoons depicting the islamic prophet mohammed which they regard as a very particular and hurtful offense and when those cartoons were published they went to the un and sought an international treaty banning the so-called defamation of religion which they view as a form of very the rent anti- muslim sentiment and they were concerned that the world with you that way. one obvious area is offensive and is not universally recognized the sum of their other muslims don't regard it as offensive and take great exception to that effort but that is one manifestation and can has brought upon us. what about palestinian, americans and their calling into question the validity of the palestinian state and with a sink to define that as a form of discrimination against them or arguments against affirmative action that could be construed as calling into question the validity of certain students on campus. might that be defined as
dissemination. it's hard to know where it would end but opening it up does raise concerns to execute. one of our challenges here is when there is a complete lack of common decency and it's hard to know how to respond to that legislatively. mr. stern, a direct my final question to you, sir. i understand according to your tax money that you wrote the guidelines for the state department essentially that you were the lead writer on it. >> i worked closely with my colleague who did the politicking and negotiating. i was the lead drafter and i wrote 75 pages of 10% of it and got the other experts to negotiate which parts but it. >> given at do you think that guideline should be something we should consider to codify and i'm asking a pretty hard question here. that is something that would be appropriate in the statute given
the discussion today? >> for a campus, absolutely not. that was not the purpose that it was designed for and, you know, i heard the state to use it in its reports and bilateral relations and i work with rabbi baker on the hate crime training program and those were fine but a campus is a different venue. it's about ideas and giving students and faculties opportunities think outside the box to be wrong and to not measure what they are saying against some definition that is constitutionally untried. particularly for this venue i think it would be -- and atrocity. >> can i comment? >> sr, have to go the next guy here. god bless israel and i recognize you, sir, for five minutes back thank you to all the witnesses for this thoughtful discussion. i think it is important to send out that it is my view, at least, that the spike in anti-semitism is something that we should be a great concern to all of us and we should have
determined the best effective way to eliminate it in this country around the world. i think it is important of the context of this and we have an administrative that in many ways has soaked this environment by refusing to speak out against anti-semitism and whites primacy and xenophobia. president trump unapologetically came to the defense of white nationalist protesters in charlottesville who chanted anti- somatic slogan and former white house advisor, steve bannon, has promoted anti- muslim and sebastian gorka was found to have ties to enough the group and this and ministration is also disappointingly failed to appoint office [inaudible] i think we would be ignoring this elephant in the room to not understand the context of the spike in the gravity of it.
i also find it ironic in a lot of ways where in our tradition by the way, it's a free and unhindered exchange of ideas that humanity seeks the truth and this idea of respecting and honoring is a jewish value and obviously in american value. my simple question is i think that rabbi cooper said you don't belong here and when there is something that says you don't belong here because you are a jew that is an obviously anti-semitic declaration and i think everyone would agree that criticism of israel and policy disagreement is not anti-semit anti-semitic. i have a definition -- if we could have a definition that i tried to identify anti- semitic activity in the way that rabbi cooper described it but protected legitimate policy
criticisms and is that something we could do successfully or i recognize that it would open the same kind of discussion as other categories assuming we were prepared to accept that risk i also think i reject the notion that with all due respect to mr. greenblatt but that we just consulted and it matters we ought to get the definite right were going to direct people to consulted so my question is am i oversimplifying this? could we craft the definition that strictly attempts to identify anti-semitism free from criticism or disagreement on policies and is not impossible to achieve? >> i think it's an impossible test. if we asked all nine of us for a definition of anti-semitism we would have nine variants on a theme and i think we all would agree that the core of
anti-semitism in hating jews or possibly be jewish and if you go much beyond that you will enter into territory. contested territory within the community itself among scholars of anti-semitism. you enter into that territory. if you want to have the most narrow definition i think it's a baseline for which we agree but when you go beyond that will enter into very congested waters and the fact that it is contested means that we should allow people who study this issue to have the opportunity to have all the debates and conversations that they need in order to keep washing this out, as we do with the page of talmage turning it over and again to discover all the trees that we can identify with and it. >> i would submit, mr. congressman, that it is not impossible. my professionals do it every single day and to clarify the adl was also involved in that definition that the state
department uses and we think it works. alternately, who are the arbiters of this? let me introduce you to the families whose children have been bullied and have had [inaudible]. them. let me introduce you to the parents whose children had their lockers defaced with swastikas. let me introduce to you the families themselves with women harassed because of their religious garb coming out of the synagogue. let me introduce you to those people and you can ask them whether indeed there are nine different definitions or if there's one. if you look at the definition that our public servants used every day, mr. congressman, it doesn't say criticizing israel is anti-semitism, that is not what it says. >> i was going to say the examples that mr. greenblatt lives are okay because you don't need a definition to get there but what you need in these situations is a clear understanding that jews are selected to be victims of harassment because they are jewish and it doesn't matter
whether that person is using this definition or that definition or wants to do it just because because if a jewish person on a campus is being harassed they are being selected because they are jewish that is sufficient. >> could that be the definition? >> in the case i brought in the vessels different no one talked about definition and no one talked about showing the slots is as anti-semitic. clear that this would and i would add that again, we talk about the sign as and i have also seen examples of [inaudible] on campus for a kid who is trying to figure out what they think about israel and all of this exists and what is happening to the palestinians is being called traders in some way where yarmulkes they take that down and that hurts just as mu much. >> i yield back and i think the domain.
>> i am -- >> would you like me to answer that mr. chairman. >> mr. gomer for five minutes. >> i can help you out. any time a conservative jewish person cares to speak on a college campus they stand a much greater chance of being the end or being labeled as a hater by the haters. it is just amazes me that will, my friend carolyn she believes what the bible indicates was the promise land to the children of israel and because of that she canceled at university of texas right in my home state and it
wasn't because she was jewish but because she was a conservative jewish person and let's say george soros would to calm and do as he often does and meet up on israel or benjamin netanyahu and we would never be banned from a college campus breaking the with open arms. let's be real here. were talking about particularly conservative jewish people. now, when it comes to schoolchildren it comes to people who get swastikas put on their lockers and things like that or vile things said about them that seems to be just because they are jewish. i've got to tell you. i majored in history in college and i never dreamed we would get back to the level of anti-semitism that we are seeing in europe today, in germany today and i brought up to some german ministers back in august
when some of us were visiting over there how ironic it seemed to me to be that you had germany that wanted to show -- and i'm speaking to ministers of the country so i'm being respectful but how germany, since world war ii, since the holocaust has gone out of the rate to try to show how open and loving they are to all people so they bend over backwards to bring in what they think are muslim refugees and some of which are not and they are there to bring down europe as the battle of vienna prevented previously but you have brought in people who are raised to hate israelis, to hate jewish people and by virtue of your act to show how loving and open you are you are bringing in people that make you appear to be anti- somatic again and that raises hackles and gets people upset but it is certainly the
way it appears. there are college campuses that are going out of their way to try to appear so abrasive of islam that they become anti- somatic. my friend condemns, my friends and i mean true friends, bannon and gorka they were called, these guys are not anti- somatic and they are not anti- muslim but they certainly recognize that there is a portion of muslims who believe the united states and the western civilization must be brought down. there is nothing wrong with saying that and believing that and nobody should have rules pulled out to prevent them from speaking for saying that. for heavens sake, brandeis university withdraws of their offer of a doctorate to
[inaudible] she's an atheist, as i understand it, but what a courageous person. what happened to brandeis? have they forgotten why they were found. i know harvard and yell have forgotten while they were founded and they don't want conservatives, christians or conservative jews coming in and speaking but they will welcome anybody that will come in and bash israel. i welcome all the comments i've been hearing from people across the aisle condemning anti-semitism but i would hope my friends they would be just as upset when it's a conservative jew and as far as the boycott that seems to be growing across the world and in particular europe, anything made -- it's just another effort to slam israel but i have stood there at the tomb of king david's father, jesse, and he run.
he run is also were abraham and sarah and isaac and jacob, their wives are buried right there and i'm supposed to say that that is absolutely not israeli territory and we should be on anything coming from that area? that is ridiculous and we need to be more realistic in our assessment of what truly is anti- semitism and when it applies to a conservative jew. thank you, i yield back. >> i now recognize mr. raskin for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. this is the very first thing i did in a newly elected member of the house of representatives is to organize a tour of the freshman class to the holocaust museum. we spent two hours there and i believe very strongly that the touchstone of our politics has got to be in opposition to anti-semitism and racism in the other hatred that made the last
century a nightmare for people. i'm insensitive to the free-speech concern that have been raised by many of the witnesses and i want to look for common ground coming out of the panel and i want to start with this. title vi prohibits discrimination based on race, color and national origin but not on religion. did everyone on the panel believes that religion generally should be covered under title vi and forgive me, i have so few minutes and so many of you but if you don't mind going down the aisle, does everyone agree that religion should be covered, yes, no or no comment will suffice. >> well, my focus is europe and not here but i think that you open an entirely new avenue of debate when you say it should cover religion. >> okay. i was hoping for yes, sir no because i have so little time.
>> yes. >> i'm not sure i would address the issues today. >> i think it would expand properly so but it would be a whole other discussion to come back on it another time. >> okay. >> i agree with rabbi cooper that this is a larger set of issues that would need to be addressed,. >> okay. >> i would agree it is company. you have other things like the free exercise clause and religious freedom restoration act and there's a lot of things that make it, it. >> likewise, it is outside the scope of our organization. >> i think it's propagated as well but religion to be perfected. >> i think religion should be protected in ways that are careful with compliance with other institutional appliance. >> particularly with harassment i would agree that.
>> it seems like there's a category of speech that has been hotly contested here which is that relating to the israeli government for the israeli state in terms of its anti- somatic contact. would everyone agree that, for example, what to place in charlottesville is anti- somatic and does anyone believe that, for example, richard spencer who is now on a nationwide speaking tour does everyone agree that he does have a first amendment right to appear on public campuses and does anyone think that he does not enjoy first amendment rights to speak on public university campuses? >> everyone seems to agree that he does. >> well, unless he incites violence but in terms of the content of the speech he should not be there for that reason. okay. so, i want to go to the question that has tormented the country
about statues of confederate soldiers, robert e lee and jefferson and so on. i have no doubt that the vast majority or i would dare say all racist support continuing keep those they are but a lot of people who support keeping the statues are not racist, right? would it not be a problem to use, as indicia, of racism whether or not someone supports having those statutes president their? perhaps -- >> i would agree with that. my view is not germane to this exactly but if you remove all the statues people don't see the history and i'd rather put them in context and let them be used as a way to explain why they were put up in the first place for support segregation and support. >> that would be a hateful view. let me come to this now.
my dear colleague read the operative definition that he had and i might even broaden it a bit to say that anti-semitism is discrimination, prejudice or hostility against jews. it seems like what is getting everyone into this controversy is the illustrations or examples that were offered in the state department policy but does anyone know of an antidiscrimination statute that passed by congress that includes the illustration or examples. to my knowledge there is not one. does anyone think that those illustrations or examples are necessary to the definition? okay. can you explain. >> the idea of the example is to show how it plays out in a practical way so people who have a responsibility to address the problem will understand it. let me cut you off there. i have so few seconds left. when we wrote the title vii
statute and we talk about race dissemination, dissemination in the workplace we made it broad and let the courts work it out whether or not there was a different story motive. i'm just thinking in terms of trying to keep civilization together here and to keep our unity together and why would we get into a series of controverted examples that will divide people as opposed to staying with principles and allowing those to be worked out -- [inaudible conversations] >> in 2004 in the global anti- semitism review act congress said that anti-semitism has at times and i quote taken the form of vilification of zionism. >> okay but i'm talking about it dissemination statute sentiments time has expired. doctor trachtenberg you can answer the example in particular well, the examples are particularly problematic but again the idea the art of having a definition that will boxes in in terms of what anti-semitism is is at the root of our
discussion. >> are you back. thank you. >> i think the gentleman and now the gentleman from texas is organized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the witnesses be here today. our nation's college campuses are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas where students from all kinds of different backgrounds can learn new perspectives based on everything i have heard it sure seems like a lot of our college campuses have become bastions of self-proclaimed political correctness and that, in turn, has led to the outright harassment of some students based on their beliefs. i think that is readily apparent in the treatment of jewish students across the country. i refer to the report either in mr. clement who was in your testimony about just this year 1299 anti- somatic incidences
from january to september and i think, again it is troubling that a political correctness seems to have allowed anti-semitism to flourish. again, i appreciate the thoughtful discussion here from all the witnesses and as we try to get back to having our institutions of higher education be that marketplace for ideas while also stabbing the rising tide of anti-semitism and i appreciate all of your perspectives today. mr. clement, i don't -- one of the things he focused on in this anti-semitism awareness act and i read your interest faded responses to the first amendment concern and regulation of speech, is an over application
>> but to have a case by case definition you need the case. and one of the things that everybody sees here not the there aren't anti-semitic instances on campus or enforcement action so i don't think we have the luxury to have the education department with the definition with the number of enforcement actions. so we need to jump-start the process and to guide the discretion. >> and with that
determination where that will cross over in - - in to anti-semitism. and i also go to rabbi cooper testimony that they never found a civil-rights violation. so put on the solicitor general had to lung negative packed with all of these incidents with all of these violations. >> so that would be difficult for any solicitor general. to give rise to the
questions that have been raised. and with the deliberation and. and with those many challenges but to have that entire jewish leadership with together united. and what that committee has been able to achieve. and moving forward for a vote on the floor. >> which time is expired. >> i agree with that sentiment. i appreciate you being here today. >> mr. chairman things to the witnesses for sharing your perspective.
>> and where i represent but i cannot help but listen with one courage and one recently graduated. those that had recently experienced that i am personally concerned with the rise of anti-semitism around the world. we must count each and every one. will we see is the increasingly organized efforts and to express that judea's of as well as the support for the jewish state.
and then to feel comfortable with the academic environment we all agree that what they should do to explore new ideas that is what the university is for. so starting with you is there is considered -- a considered ever for a hostile environment?. >> it is nice to see you today first of all, but the challenges as i have said what congressman franks call ball hard right to either side of the ideological spectrum is exempt but whether they are organizing campaigns are spontaneous action we need to be clear
and considering the number of cases we're dealing with with, said the staff was correct so that maybe pete the number is o. so for this to make it easier for someone else to do their job it does not preclude political speech but it ensures the definition that is utilized by policymakers. >> i want to share a short anecdote and we're still
talking 11 but this is the only issue you have trouble speaking about? every betty worries if they step into a land mine. so that just feeds into that the answers are not legislation but issues with that campus. >> there very few questions on anti-semitism. so to understand those issues those are the things that need to be done. added say beneficial step
>> and that dialogue is welcome. but now we have heard over the last few years that helping with the government. >> will the gentleman yield?. >> so that mistake was made that not every jewish group and there are groups that don't support the bill. >> my time is expired. >> so as a question did you sign a petition in 2013 in
jerusalem and to be complicitous in the occupation. >> yes i did. >> also did you vote for the modern language association to boycott israel?. >> did you vote for a boycott of israel?. >> no. >> i want to ask a question to respectfully point out that all races are in favor that the civil war monuments to paraphrase. that what he says that there
is no such thing as a black racist. and to look at that to their homelands or bias. and at the same time dealing with the issue on college campuses with bigotry and hatred. that gives us a definition and so that means in the educational conduct. added so severe that educational experience to denied equal access.
so that is the supreme court's definition to instruct the department of education. >> that is a very fair question and but i will say is that right now to read mr. a slightly different context, i would assume this is the standard of the education department right now. >> it sounds like there is no standard in a desperately needed area?. >> so what is the level of conduct but this second question is if this still doesn't prohibit it on race
order national origin so with this particular context trying to get a definition of anti-semitism to spark the inquiry. i don't think this is designed to move the needle of harassment necessary to bring title six action and that question probably has much more to do with the first amendment and how you define anti-semitism so you are much better off having officials to have that rather than without a definition so the zero cases currently being brought in the event their reasons zero
cases have been brought because not one of those cases was at that level of harassment under davis and that would be the acceptable result from the first amendment to. no i strongly doubt that is what is going on but with those cases they were not brought because of some confusion that is the problem. >> i will interrupt you as they get mr. greenblatt view. which is set?. >> i am not familiar. i don't know. >> it would be reasonable to look at those cases to
prevent that vanity office from doing its job. >> i yield. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. >> this has been an issue people going at it at the end of the day but because of anti-semitism and other forms it doesn't matter where they're located but this is an issue with education by one to focus back to the arguments that i have heard that this is a first amendment issue so you have been in front of the supreme court with the legislative director, she
says hello but she is glad she is not here she did not want to be tested. [laughter] >> so looking at these cases this prohibits discriminatory conduct but not a speech?. >> correct. >> what role does that evidence show as a violation of the civil rights act?. >> and that was quite clear that evidence of free-speech used for the evidentiary purpose. so with nine supreme court justices they unanimously held they could use speech. >> so now let's continue on
with the process. so how does one distinguish distinguish?. >> i eating bad is the harassment test because the supreme court has basically said the different level of protection for conduct and when you have contact the rises to that level, it is perfectly permissible to say to prohibit the wrath if motivated the is dave matter to try to figure out in that inquiry that it doesn't raise the first amendment problem but it just seems to figure out sometimes it
could be a combination of both from somebody's door print - - store room but to make that determination if it is anti-semitic and violates. >> therein is a concern that you are criminalizing the thought? i am not sure if it is the definition but but what you say with this definition with the first amendment rights?. >> i don't think that would go one way to think of the difference is a very different situation if that anti-semitic speech is
prohibited but that is not what this law does italy is the conduct reaching to the level of harassment but then uses this as a way to figure of motivation. >> we don't see this to bring brought forward. >> that is exactly right. in the abstract maybe we don't want that definition written in the statute they develop that but you need the cases so there are no cases allowing us to develop period the official process so it makes sense why congress would want to step an even though they don't feel that in another context. >> so with your testimony it
includes the savings clause. and it your opinion does this violates the first amendment?. >> that would be perfectly constitutional with the savings clause and one is not a direct regulation speech but only evidentiary of motivation that is the definition so to the extent that somebody could say even though not unconstitutional the savings clause that is not the way it would be applied. >> it is good to know you could apply from any way with the discussion.
it is just something we need to move forward to bring some clarity that may be lacking to move forward not simply because we have questions but i do believe we have questions to move this forward. i yield back. >> thanks to the witness is with an excellent hearing this helps to shed a lot of light on important issues. i am deeply concerned about what is happening to jewish students on college campuses and we need to work together to make sure those forces are brought to bear with the u.s. department of education to solve the problem but all of you have made a great