U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–325 WASHINGTON : 2018

EXAMINING ANTI-SEMITISM ON COLLEGE 

CAMPUSES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

Serial No. 115–45 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

RAU ́ L LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas 

MARTHA ROBY, Alabama 

MATT GAETZ, Florida 

MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana 

ANDY BIGGS, Arizona 

JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, Jr., Georgia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIE ́ RREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana 

HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ERIC SWALWELL, California 

TED LIEU, California 

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland 

PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington 

BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

PAGE 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ......................................................................................................................... 3 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Rabbi Baker, Director, International Jewish Affairs, American Jewish Committee 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 6 

Dr. Pamela Nadell, Patrick Clendenen Chair in Women’s and Gender History, 

President, Association for Jewish Studies, American University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 8 

Rabbi Cooper, Associate Dean, Director Global Social Action Agenda, Simon 

Wiesenthal Center 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 9 

Dr. Barry Trachtenberg, Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History, Director, 

Jewish Studies Program, Wake Forest University 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Paul Clement, Partner, Kirkland & Ellis LLP 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 13 

Sandra Hagee Parker, Chairwoman, Christians United for Israel Action Fund 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 15 

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and National Director, Anti-Defamation League 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 16 

Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director, PEN America 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 18 

Ken Stern, Executive Director, Justus & Karin Rosenberg Foundation 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 20 

(1) 

EXAMINING ANTI-SEMITISM ON COLLEGE 

CAMPUSES 

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 2017 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Chabot, Issa, 

Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino, Collins, DeSantis, Buck, 

Ratcliffe, Gaetz, Biggs, Rutherford, Handel, Conyers, Nadler, Jackson Lee, Deutch, Cicilline, Raskin, and Schneider. 

Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Staff Director; Branden Ritchie, 

Deputy Staff Director; Zach Somers, Parliamentarian and General 

Counsel; Paul Taylor, Chief Counsel, Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice; James Park, Minority Chief Counsel, 

Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice; and Veronica 

Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Good morning, the Judiciary Committee 

will come to order and, without objection, the chair is authorized 

to declare recesses of the committee at any time. We welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing on Examining Anti-Semitism on 

College Campuses. 

Before I give my opening statement and before Mr. Conyers gives 

his, I am going to yield to him, so he can say a word about the 

tragedy that occurred in Texas over the weekend. The gentleman 

is recognized. 

Mr. CONYERS. 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, a gunman shot and killed 26 churchgoers 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 Instant Criminal Background System. He should have been prevented from purchasing firearms 

from licensed gun dealers via the Brady background check system. 

Yesterday, before this information came to light, I wrote to you, 

Mr. Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our memVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:43 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032325 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325
2 

bers 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 has been a 

breakdown in the implementation of our background check system, 

I ask respectfully that we include relevant officials from the Department of Defense and the Air Force. And I believe, as I think 

you do too, 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. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. If the gentleman will yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. With pleasure. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comment 

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 a 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 will have to see. But my plan is to proceed with the briefing 

by the ATF. 

If we cannot incorporate the other into that briefing, we will do 

it another time and we will certainly take under advisement your 

request that there be a public hearing. I think that it is important 

that we get as much information to be as informed as possible and 

that is where we stand right now. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you for your interest. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for 

yielding. I was the one who was insistent in putting the instant 

check system and the Brady Bill, which was passed and signed by 

President Clinton in 1993. And, at that time the legislation was 

drafted, I made the point that the National Instant Check System 

would only be as good as the data that was put in to it. 

And it took about 5 years to appropriately automate and input 

records, not only for felony convictions, mental incompetency adjudications, as well as, domestic violence legal action. And, you know, 

we found that one State kept all of these records in boxes of 3-by5 cards located in every county courthouse. That took a while to, 

you know, finally automate them. 

So, you know, I do not think we can blame the law for the failure 

of these, the transaction of the shooter to be identified and the sale 

being denied. I do not think we can blame the system which we set 

up almost 25 years ago because the system has worked in hundreds of thousands of cases. 

I think we have to blame the Air Force for not doing what was 

necessary to let the system be able to identify this gentleman when 

he came and purchased the firearms that he ended up using in a 

truly horrific killing. 

Particularly, as people were in church trying to, you know, express their freedom of religion and worship God by their own consciences. 

3 

So I think we have to identify, you know, why this failure was. 

And it is 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 got something that is 

disqualifying that has been adjudicated by the court, get it into the 

system and get it into the system right away. I thank you gentlemen for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. I thank you both. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I thank you gentlemen. I thank both Mr. 

Conyers and Mr. Sensenbrenner for their observations. I want to 

return to focus on the important matter that is before us today. 

But we will proceed with a briefing tomorrow and we will add additional information or a separate briefing depending on what time 

allows. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I now recognize myself for the purpose of 

an opening statement. 

Racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism among other forms of animus 

are abhorrent whenever they appear, including on America’s college campuses. While our Federal civil rights laws have long addressed discrimination based on race, sex, and ethnicity, a debate 

is ongoing whether anti-Semitism on college campuses warrants a 

unique response compared to how 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 abhorrent and does not reflect core American 

values of equality and religious freedom. 

I am also concerned about the so-called, BDS Movement. An effort that through boycott, divestment, and sanctions seeks to end 

international support for Israel. It took just 11 minutes for the 

United States to recognize Israel after it formally declared independence in 1948. And ever since then, the United States and 

Israel have had a strong relationship based on shared democratic 

values and common security interests. I will do everything I can to 

ensure that relationship remains strong. There are those who disagree in various ways, of course, including student faculty and administrators on college campuses. 

I will also do everything I can to ensure their right to speak is 

protected under both the First Amendment to the United States 

Constitution and free speech principals generally. It is in that spirit in welcoming all perspectives that I have convened this hearing 

today. 

When do speakers, scholarship or student protesters that are 

harshly critical of Israel constitute anti-Semitism? What is the nature 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 

precedents would they set, good or bad? Those are just some of the 

questions I look forward to discussing with today’s witnesses. It is 

now my pleasure to recognize a ranking member of the Judiciary 

4 

Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers for his 

opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the witnesses and I wanted to mention that today’s hearing on Examining 

Anti-Semitism on College Campuses is apparent of a continuing 

discussion that our Judiciary Committee has had on the confluence 

of our twin interests: protecting equality 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 

would like for us to keep several points in mind for context. 

To begin with, anti-Semitism on college and university campuses, 

like other forms of invidious discrimination against students, remains a very real concern. According to the Anti-Defamation 

League, as of September 30th, anti-Semitic incidents increased by 

67 percent in 2017 compared to the same period last year. And 

there was a significant surge in these incidents after white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia last August during 

which some of those marchers shouted, ‘‘Jews will not replace us.’’ 

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 posting of leaflets 

with white supremacists and anti-Semitic content on campuses. 

In light of the foregoing, I wholeheartedly support the Department of Education 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 prohibits discrimination on the basis 

of race, color, or national origin in programs that receive Federal 

funding, does not included religion as a protected characteristic. It 

does prohibit discrimination against members of religious minorities if it is based on an actual or perceived, shared ancestry or ethnicity. 

Although this guidance dates from the Obama administration, 

the Trump administration so far seems inclined not to change this 

interpretation. And I would encourage the current administration 

to continue to keep it in effect. 

Finally, while we must ensure a campus learning environment 

free from discrimination, we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate, 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 essential to our democracy and to ensuring a free society. 

5 

And in closing, I thank the chairman for holding this important 

hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. We welcome our 

distinguished witnesses. And if you all would please rise, I will 

begin by swearing all of you in. Please raise your right hand. Do 

you solemnly 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 not be surprised to learn that because there are nine of you, I am not going 

to give all of those details about each of you. So, these introductions are on the brief side. But they are, nonetheless, important. 

Our first witness is Rabbi Andrew Baker. Director of International Jewish Affairs at the American Jewish Committee. Our 

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 Global Social Action 

Agenda of the Simon Wiesenthal Center. 

Our fourth witness is Barry Trachtenberg, the Michael R. and 

Debra K. Rubin Presidential Chair of Jewish History at Wake Forest University. Our fifth witness is Paul Clement, a partner at 

Kirkland and Ellis, LLP. Our sixth witness is Sandra Hagee 

Parker, Chairwoman of the Christians United for Israel Action 

Fund. 

Our seventh witness is Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO and National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. Our eighth witness 

is Suzanne Nossel, the Executive Director of Pen America. And our 

ninth witness is Ken Stern, the Executive Director of the Justice 

and Karen Rosenberg Foundation. 

Welcome to all of you. Your written statements will be entered 

into the record in their entirety and we ask that you summarize 

your testimony in 5 minutes. To help you stay within that time 

there is a timing light on your table. When the light switches from 

green to yellow, you have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. 

When the light turns red, that is it. Time is up. And it signals your 

5 minutes have expired. 

Rabbi Baker, welcome. You can begin. 

6 

STATEMENTS OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL JEWISH AFFAIRS, AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE; PAMELA NADELL, PATRICK CLENDENEN CHAIR IN 

WOMEN’S AND GENDER HISTORY, PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION 

FOR JEWISH STUDIES, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY; RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER, ASSOCIATE DEAN, DIRECTOR GLOBAL SOCIAL 

ACTION AGENDA, SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER; BARRY 

TRACHTENBERG, RUBIN PRESIDENTIAL CHAIR OF JEWISH 

HISTORY, DIRECTOR, JEWISH STUDIES PROGRAM, WAKE 

FOREST UNIVERSITY; PAUL CLEMENT, PARTNER, KIRKLAND 

& ELLIS LLP; SANDRA HAGEE PARKER, CHAIRWOMAN, 

CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL ACTION FUND; JONATHAN 

GREENBLATT, CEO AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, ANTI–DEFAMATION LEAGUE; SUZANNE NOSSEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PEN AMERICA; AND KEN STERN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

JUSTUS & KARIN ROSENBERG FOUNDATION 

STATEMENT OF RABBI ANDREW BAKER 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Conyers. In my work at AJC and at the OSCE, I have focused on Europe and the problem of anti-Semitism there. While the number of 

incidents and their severity are much greater than here in America, there are important parallels that have bearing on addressing 

anti-Semitism in this country, and in particular, with 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. Fifteen years ago, we saw a surge in incidents. We also saw 

a new form of anti-Semitism whereby the State of Israel was demonized, where its basic existence was being challenged. This affected 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 Centre, The EUMC conducted 

its own survey on anti-Semitism, collecting and evaluating data 

and conducting personal interviews with Jewish leaders. At the 

time, few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone specify those that were anti-Semitic. A majority of the EUMC’s own 

monitors did not even have a definition of anti-Semitism to guide 

them. 

Meanwhile, the personal interviews 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 its 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. 

7 

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 be 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 own corrosive impact on Jewish community security. 

The examples were designed to bring clarity to this 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 level against 

other countries cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic. 

Over a decade has passed since this definition is issued and we 

can see why using it can 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 it is now included in a newly published OSCE guideline on Jewish community security. 

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 of justice include the definition in training police and 

prosecutors and judges. 

In May 2016, IHRA, the International Holocaust Remembrance 

Alliance adopted the definition. It has since been adopted by the 

governments of the UK, Romania, Austria, Germany, and Bulgaria. 

Earlier this year, it was recommended for use by the European 

Parliament and the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. 

The U.S. Government has its own record of use. The global AntiSemitism Review Act of 2004 called on the State Department to appoint a special envoy and stated that anti-Semitism has, at times, 

taken the form of vilification of Zionism, the Jewish National Movement, and incitement against Israel. It called on State to report on 

acts of anti-Semitism around the world. In that report and in a 

subsequent one, the working definition was employed. I am an advocate for using it if we are to be successful in combating anti-Semitism, we must first understand it. We must define it. 

Some said it would be used to stifle criticism of Israel, but there 

is ample evidence in Europe that public criticism of Israel is even 

more vocal than a decade ago. But there is also a recognition of the 

very real problem of anti-Semitism as it relates to Israel and the 

dangers it poses to the Jewish community. This ought to be instructive when addressing anti-Semitism as it appears on college 

campuses. 

8 

Finally, in the OSCE I am often joined by colleagues whose mandates cover other forms of intolerance against Muslims, Roma, 

Christians. Some people said adopting a definition of anti-Semitism 

would lead to demands of 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. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Rabbi Baker, your time has expired. 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. If you could sum up in a sentence? 

Rabbi BAKER. My last sentence, even though the representatives 

of vulnerable groups are not saying they need a definition, unlike 

anti-Semitism, those other forms of prejudice are easy to recognize 

it is sadder still that they are so prevalent. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Dr. Nadell. Am I pronouncing that correctly? Thank you. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PAMELA NADELL 

Ms. NADELL. Thank you. There, got it. Thank you. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, ranking member, and distinguished members of 

this committee for inviting me today. 

As a scholar of American Jewish History and also as President 

of the Association for Jewish Studies the learned society for scholars in my field, I know that our countries encounter with anti-Semitism began in 1654 when 23 Jews landed in New Amsterdam and 

its governor tried to expel what he called this deceitful race of 

hateful enemies and blasphemers. Had he succeeded, perhaps we 

would not be here this morning. 

But he failed, and since then Jewish immigrants have come to 

America from around the world and called our Nation home. As 

citizens, American Jews enjoy the same right to freedom of speech 

that allows others to voice their contempt for the Jewish people 

and the Jewish religion. 

Anti-Semitism, a malevolent ideology has waxed and waned 

across the landscape of American History. The political moment, 

economic dislocations, social forces, the movies in their heyday, and 

social media in ours set its volume control. We are all, by all accounts, sadly, at one of those moments where the volume on antiSemitism in American life is turned way up. 

When violent protestors chant, ‘Jews will not replace us,’ 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 those who have pointed to our colleges and universities as ‘hot spots of anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias.’ 

Are campuses really hot beds of anti-Semitism? Or, are they 

places where Jews, one minority among many, meet from time to 

time, stupidity, insensitivity, and prejudice? Is anti-Semitism so 

pervasive on the campus that it has created a hostile climate for 

Jews? 

Social scientists find that when 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. 

9 

Instead, they report that they feel safe there. When they do experience discomfort as Jews, they trace it to the stridency of both 

sides of the Israel-Palestine debate. While that debate can devolve 

into anti-Semitism, such political speech is not ipso facto anti-Semitic. 

Students say that anti-Semitic expression comes mostly from 

their peers, not from their professors or the administration. One 

study even recognizes that we have, ‘more noise than accurate information about what is really happening on campus around antiSemitism.’ Students surveyed are smart. They recognize that antiSemitism is a significant problem in American society, but they do 

not characterize their campuses as anti-Semitic. 

The research confirms my 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 organizations 

Facebook page. But deplorable incidents do not prove that the campus is ripe with anti-Semitism. 

You may have heard that recently on my own campus Confederate flags affixed with cotton stems were posted on bulletin boards 

just as we were launching our new Antiracist Research and Policy 

Center. But you may not know that many of those flags were affixed to the bulletin board of the Center for Israel Studies. 

When such revolting racist incidents occur, the response from the 

university leaders is forceful and swift. We hold townhalls. We 

issue statements of condemnation. We offer students counseling 

and opportunities for healing. We launch investigations. Perhaps 

there are campuses where administrators respond differently to 

such events. But I believe them to be the exception. 

Are anti-Semites targeting the college campus? Unfortunately, 

yes. Do Jewish students encounter anti-Semitism there? Sadly, yes. 

Is anti-Semitism act the epicenter of campus intolerance as one report claims? Has it created a climate of fear that impinges upon 

Jewish student’s ability to learn and experience college life to the 

fullest? My impression, just by social science research and my Jewish studies colleagues an unequivocal, no. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Rabbi Cooper, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF RABBI ABRAHAM COOPER 

Rabbi COOPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; Mr. Conyers, good to 

see you. Distinguished members. 

In the past several years, Jewish students on certain college 

campuses, not all, but a large number have been subjected to unprecedented levels of anti-Jewish sentiment, leading many to feel 

uncomfortable participating in Jewish campus life or other campus 

activities whose participants are especially hostile to Jewish students. 

Jewish students often cannot table their organizations at student 

event fairs without being physically surrounded and shouted down 

by extremist anti-Semitic campus organization. They cannot bring 

speakers to school like every other student group and gender and 

racial and ethnic group can, because the speakers have and will be 

heckled into silence. 

10 

They are often reluctant to run for student government at some 

schools because they have seen the 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 impacts on campuses with large and small constituencies. They impact on Jewish support groups like Hillel and Jewish fraternity 

member of AEPi. This even led the Simon Wiesenthal Center to 

create an app, CombatHateU, to ensure individual students they 

can report these incidents immediately and 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 they 

would never dream of allowing against other demographic groups 

because they know, 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 Federal Government to protect Jewish 

students on campus from harassment is one of the most pressing 

issues for the American Jewish Community. That is why the Simon 

Wiesenthal Center and 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 

posted by a professor at Rutgers University. Others from the University of Houston, University of California at Berkley—I will submit them later—that show us in real time what is going on on the 

campuses. 

While this is a destressing national phenomenon, permit me to 

delve into the events in my own State of California. Instead of giving the examples that are already quoted, let me just say 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 report severe, persistent, and pervasive harms at the hands of anti-Israel 

activist. That harassment often includes physical and verbal assaults, destruction of property, bullying and intimidation, denigration, discrimination, and suppression of speech. And often takes 

place regardless of the victim’s personal feelings on Israel. 

Jewish students report fearing displaying their Jewish star necklaces, wearing their Jewish sorority and fraternity letters, or sometimes even walking to Hillel for Shabbat dinner. The problem had 

become so severe that University of California then President Mark 

Yudof commissioned a fact finding team to interview Jewish students on seven UC campuses in order to objectively assess the campus climate for them. 

According to the team’s report, Jewish students were indeed, 

‘confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus which focused on Israel, its right to exist, and 

its treatment of Palestinians.’ 

11 

The team found that on every U.C. campus they visited, ‘Jewish 

students described an 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 experienced at UC California complaints filed 

under title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act on behalf of Jew students on three campuses—U.C. 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, very 

long and look for a dispensation from the good Lord for the clock. 

I will instead just cut to the chase of the last two paragraphs. Had 

OCR officials used the State Department’s 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, OCR’s lack of an adequate understanding of 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 

to move this legislation forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Rabbi. Dr. Trachtenberg, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY TRACHTENBERG 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, Ranking 

Member Conyers, and members of this committee. It is an honor 

to be here today to testify on the issue of anti-Semitism on college 

campuses. I am grateful that you are soliciting a wide range of 

voices on this important subject, because the right of students and 

faculty to express diverse views is precisely what is at stake in the 

current attempts to limit campus speech. 

It is increasingly common to hear reports that a new anti-Semitism threatens to engender students on a scale not seen since the 

second World War and the Holocaust. Studies from several major 

organizations have sounded the alarm that anti-Semitism is a clear 

and present danger while a number of commentators have argued 

that yet another war against the Jews is upon us. 

However, they are motivated less by an actual threat facing 

American or world Jewry than they are part of a persistent campaign to thwart debates, scholarly research and political activism 

that is critical to the State of Israel. 

The truth is that the old anti-Semitism, such as we saw in Charlottesville this summer where torch-bearing marchers carried Nazi 

and Confederate flags and chanted, ‘‘you Jews will not replace us,’’ 

and murdered a protester is still live in the United States and requires vigilant and persistent resistance. 

Legislation such as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, however, 

is not a genuine attempt to contend with actual anti-Semitism. But 

rather is an attempt to quell what are in fact protective acts of 

speech that are vital and necessary to the scholarly missions of 

educational institutions and to the functioning of democratic societies. 

It is a factual distortion to characterize campuses in the United 

States as hot beds of new anti-Semitism. A recent study by researchers at Stanford University reported that while depictions of 

12 

rampant anti-Semitism are widely reported in the press, they do 

not represent the actual experiences of Jewish students at the campus level. 

They discovered that campus life is neither threatening or alarmist. In general, students reported feeling comfortable on their campuses and more specifically, feeling comfortable as Jews on their 

campuses. 

Much of the testimony you will hear today is likely to argue that 

anti-Semitism is at crisis levels. I urge you to be skeptical of such 

claims. First, many of the stories that get wide circulation contained factual distortions and are misrepresented in the media. 

Second, many studies are based on a definition that defines criticism of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. 

Rather, students who engage in speech that is critical of Israeli 

policy are largely motivated by their concern for Palestinian human 

rights. They are not motivated by anti-Semitic speech, but its opposite: a desire to end racial and religious discrimination of all kinds. 

It is profoundly difficult to create a definition of anti-Semitism for 

legislative purposes. The root of current debates in anti-Semitism 

lie in a seemingly intractable problem of how to critique Jewish collective power in a way that does not immediately resonate with a 

long history of anti-Semitism. 

Throughout the last thousand years of European history Jews 

were regularly characterized as an incommensurate and exceptional element who sought to undermine the established religious, 

political, and economic order. In each of those moments, Jews were 

imagined as a united group that possessed power and authority far 

beyond their actual numbers. 

Yet in 1948 with the founding of Israel as the solution of antiSemitism, the situation changed dramatically. For the first time a 

significant number of Jews gained actual, not imaginary power. 

Today the State of Israel has borders, police, courts, a military, a 

nuclear arsenal, political parties that are mostly representative 

and somewhat democratic system of government. 

Like all other 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 speech that is critical of Israel still strikes 

many as inherently anti-Semitic. The problem is we are still learning how to talk about Israel’s actual political power in ways that 

do not immediately echo much older and anti-Semitic depictions of 

imaginary Jewish power. 

This is not only on account of the long history of anti-Jewish hatred in the west, it is also because as we see in a legislative initiative such as these to characterize any speech that is critical of 

Israel as intrinsically anti-Semitic has been a highly effective tool 

employed by those who uncritically support every action of Israel 

and see to stigmatize all critics. 

It would be ill-advised for Congress to establish legal authority 

on the definition of anti-Semitism that is so deeply contested. To 

insist that Israel cannot be protested or objected to, to mandate 

that collective Jewish power cannot be analyzed or debated, or to 

concluded that Jews—because they were once victims of humanities greatest genocidal crimes—are somehow immune for becoming 

13 

perpetrators of violence against other people’s reinforces the antiSemitic believe that Jews are fundamentally different people. 

Most dangerously of all, attempts to broaden the definition of 

anti-Semitism to encompass phenomena that are clearly not antiJewish can only make it more difficult to recognize, isolate, and oppose actual anti-Semitic hatred when it does appear. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Clement, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL CLEMENT 

Mr. CLEMENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Conyers. It is a 

pleasure to be here. It is a particular privilege to be here representing the ADL, Wiesenthal Center, APAC, and the Jewish Federations of North America. 

There are at least three kinds of issues floating around the room 

this morning: one is the extent of the problem; two is the policy 

wisdom of addressing 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 Act is not a speech code, but simply provides 

a definition that will allow the Education Department to use, potentially, speech—but only for evidentiary purposes—in evaluating 

whether or not harassment is motivated by anti-Semitism. 

Second, that a definition here serves First Amendment values, it 

does not harm them. One way or another, government officials are 

going to be looking in to this question, and I think it serves First 

Amendment values for them to have a definition that guides their 

mission. 

And, third, but I think, frankly, least importantly the fact that 

the Act has a savings clause. 

So on the first of these points that it 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. 

So somebody, just like they can do today, can engage on campus 

in the most abhorrent anti-Semitic speech and the Education Department will not take action against them just for that. But, if 

they couple that abhorrent speech with say a physical attack on a 

Jewish student, then this Act and the Constitution allow the use 

of that anti-Semitic speech to demonstrate the motive of the person 

engaged in the harassment. 

And the First Amendment clearly permits that. Which is to say 

that this is not even controversial in the sense that when speech 

is not prohibited, but only is used for evidentiary purposes, the 

First Amendment is not offended. The Supreme Court laid down 

that rule in Wisconsin v. Mitchell which was a unanimous decision. 

There were not that many things that Chief Justice Rehnquist and 

Justice Blackman agreed on, but this was one of them: no First 

Amendment problem. And that is just what the definition does 

here. It guides the Education Department in the evidentiary use of 

14 

speech to allow them to decide whether or not something is antiSemitic. 

The second major reason I do not think there is a First Amendment problem here is that what we have here is a clarifying definition. And providing a definition to government officials who, one 

way or another, are going to be looking at speech, providing a definition serves First Amendment values. The First Amendment generally abhors government officials looking at speech with unfettered discretion. But that is essentially the status quo. 

Whatever Congress does here, if Congress does nothing it is still 

going to be the Education Department’s position that title VI forbids harassment motivated by anti-Semitism. So, the question really boils down to whether the Education Department officials are 

going to make that judgment without a definition or with a definition. And I certainly think it serves First Amendment values to 

guide that 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 it’’ test. I do not think anybody thinks that 

was the finest chapter in the Supreme Court’s First Amendment 

juris prudence. 

And, really, right now the status quo is anti-Semitism. Well, the 

Education Department officials will know it when they see it, or at 

least we hope they will because they have no guidance, no definition guiding their work. And that is what this law could change. 

Mr. Conyers, you made the point about being concerned about 

First Amendment values in this 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 

hair-trigger and anything that offends anyone is harassment, then 

I do think there will be First Amendment problems. But I take the 

current law to be that the harassment standard is the same standard the Supreme Court laid down in the title IX context in Davis 

v. Monroe, but one way or another, this law does not change it. 

So if you want to make that more demanding to protect First 

Amendment values, you could do that. If you want to make it 

slightly less demanding, you could do that. But all this law does 

is take whatever the existing standard is and provides a definition. 

Just two last thoughts. One is I know the chairman has raised 

the question of why a definition here when you do not have a definition in other contexts? I do think that if there were a real doubt 

about what constituted racist speech, or there was some argument 

people were using to cover raciest speech we would want to have 

a definition. 

And in the same way, uniquely in this context, somebody can say 

something anti-Semitic and say, ‘‘Oh, do not worry about it. It was 

just anti-Zionist. It was not anti-Semitic.’’ And so, this definition 

really tries to address this problem. 

The last thing I will say is we also have a savings clause in this 

law. I think that is, frankly, the least important reason though 

that there is not a First Amendment problem. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. Ms. Parker, welcome. 

15 

STATEMENT OF SANDRA HAGEE PARKER 

Ms. HAGEE PARKER. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte, ranking 

member Conyers and distinguished members. My name is Sandra 

Hagee Parker, and I am here on behalf of Christians United for 

Israel Actions. We represent 3.8 million members whose sole purpose is to stand united on behalf of the Jewish State and its people. 

In 2008, CUFI on campus was established aiming to educate students about Israel and arm them with the truth because the lessons learned in classrooms today become the policies in the public 

square tomorrow. And within these classrooms, intellectual discourse, academic freedom, and the freedom of speech are sacrosanct 

and essential to achieving tolerance and understanding among divergent groups. Despite this, within increasing regularity, Jewish 

students, Jewish groups, and those who support them find themselves having these sacred rights abridged. 

This past summer, a group of students from San Francisco State 

University filed a lawsuit alleging its school knowingly fostered 

anti-Semitic discrimination and a hostile environment, which had 

been marked by violent threats to safety of Jewish students on 

campus. Student Jacob Mandel experienced hostile behavior, which 

was ignored by the university despite a complaint being filed. He 

stated, ‘‘I felt scared to be a Jew on campus. I felt as if the university did not want me there because I was Jewish and as if we were 

not allowed 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 the following this 

past week in the California Aggie Newspaper, ‘‘As a Jewish student 

I have seen my fair share of anti-Semitic actions on campus. I have 

had foul and intolerable words yelled at me while I am studying 

because I had a sticker of Israel on my laptop. 

When Arab-Israeli Diplomat George Deek came to speak on campus, anti-Semitic students shouted ‘death to Jews’ at my friends 

and me. What I have not seen is an open statement from the school 

about any of these events. But what is 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 with which it is encountered. So pervasive is this harassing behavior that it spills over to non-Jewish 

individuals. 

Many of our CUFI students have personally experienced that 

mere standing with Jews or the Jewish State has resulted in the 

same hostility. For instance, at the University of New Mexico, a 

CUFI student had rocks thrown at them while tabling with an 

Israeli flag. They were also spit upon. 

At George Mason, a CUFI student wearing a CUFI T-shirt was 

confronted in their cafeteria, cursed, and yelled at in front of several hundred students and told that she was disgusting and a baby 

killer. That student is now too frightened to wear the shirt again. 

This behavior is not meant to provide a legitimate critique. It is 

16 

harassment aimed to silence and shut down the prospective of Jewish students and those who support them. 

Allowing this behavior to shut down free speech is at odds with 

the free thinking and safe environment our Nation’s colleges strive 

to create. Students and administrators alike should be able to distinguish between a valid critique of a nation and anti-Semitic behavior cloaked as opposition to Zionism. Providing a standard by 

which to judge these acts, no more chills free speech in the presence of a thermometer prevents the temperature from rising. Both 

sides of the argument deserve to be heard, but at present, one side 

is using the First Amendment as both a sword with which to inflict 

harm and a shield with which to protect itself from the consequences of its actions. 

Valid intellectual discourse of 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 

relieve schools of their obligation to ensure that their students receive equal protection under the law. As Kenneth L. Marcus, President Trump’s present nominee for Assistant Secretary of Civil 

Rights in the DOE has stated, ‘‘The U.S. Department of State has 

developed excellent tools for addressing anti-Semitism in every 

country other than the United States.’’ So, why not hold ourselves 

to the same standard? 

And despite Stanford’s 2017 study concluding it was a problem, 

anti-Semitism was problematic enough at Stanford University that 

its student body took it upon itself to pass a resolution against 

anti-Semitism and within it included the same definition used by 

the State Department for guidance. 

Anti-Semitism is not a Jewish issue, it is a human issue. Jewish 

identity and ancestry continue 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 woman 

do nothing in the face of such evils. Not to act is to act. Thank you 

for your consideration and your time. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Ms. Parker. Mr. Greenblatt, 

welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN GREENBLATT 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and members of the committee. I 

am Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO and National Director of the AntiDefamation League. I deeply appreciate the opportunity to participate in this timely hearing on anti-Semitism on college campuses. 

I would like to use my time this morning to highlight the trends 

we are seeing including the rise of anti-Semitic incidences on campuses and the impact of unprecedented outreach and recruitment 

by organized hate groups on campus. Then, provide suggestions to 

some potential responses. 

As the Congressman Conyers noted, the ADL’s been tracking 

anti-Semitic instances in America since the 1970s. Our annual 

audit, which we are now doing on a quarterly basis, provides a 

snapshot of this national problem and helps our professionals, at 

our headquarters in New York and our 26 field offices around the 

country, identify trends and craft responses. 

17 

Data drives policy and our audit has led us to draft the first 

model hate crime law in the U.S. Today that hate crime law has 

been adopted by the Federal Government and 45 states around the 

country, including the District of Columbia. And the Federal Hate 

Crimes Statistic Act of 1990 is also based on the idea that we must 

count each and every bias motivated crime and teach police in communities how to respond to them. 

New audit data released last week as, Congressman Conyers 

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 their entirety of 2016. I am talking about acts of harassment, 

vandalism, and violence directed against Jewish individuals and institutions. These numbers are compiled by my team of professionals with each reported incident verified before we log it. This 

is not about rumors or rhetoric. This is about hard facts. 

Anti-Semitic incidences indeed spiked after the Unite the Right 

rally in Charlottesville. Until late 2016, such white supremacists 

were not active on college campuses. But starting in the 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 incidences of 

white supremacist activity on college campuses. This year, for the 

same time period—that is two months into the academic year—we 

have tracked 80 such incidences. Nearly a tenfold increase year 

over year. 

But anti-Semitism cannot be attributed solely to extremist on the 

right. Neither side of the political spectrum is exempt from intolerance. We have seen a rise in anti-Semitic rhetoric coming from a 

radical left wing viewpoint as well. One often rooted in extremely 

hostile views on Israel that can cross the line into anti-Semitism. 

Now, there is nothing wrong with criticizing particular policies of 

a specific elected government in Israel. That happens all the time, 

and it is not anti-Semitism. Just as criticizing policies of the 

Trump administration or the U.S. Congress does not make you 

anti-American. That is not what we are talking about. 

But whether it originates on the fringes of the left or the extremes on the right we have seen real cases of anti-Semitism surge 

at colleges and university. Our audit documented 118 such anti-Semitic incidences this year, compared to only 74 in the same period 

last year. That is nearly a 60 percent increase. 

Our written statement outlines a number of those incidences. I 

do not have time to get into them this morning. But when we identify a problem, we also believe we have a responsibility to propose 

solutions. Our statement highlights an effective response on antiSemitism that we saw in the University of California system. 

And we believe at the ADL that the enactment of this Act—legislation that was approved unanimously by the Senate—would be an 

important step forward to address discrimination against Jews. It 

would also have positive implications for Muslims, Sikhs, and 

members of other religious groups when discrimination is based on 

the group’s actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. 

18 

As an agency that serves as a fierce advocate for the First 

Amendment, let me reinforce Mr. Clement’s claim: this would not 

compromise freedom of speech, period. It would provide guidance to 

the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on 

whether to investigate anti-Jewish discrimination in instances in 

which anti-Israel activity crossed the line in to targeted, intentional, and unlawful discriminatory intimidation and harassment of 

Jewish students. 

Our statement also provides 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, but 

administrators and student leaders have a moral responsibility to 

address 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 this problem. And the issue of anti-Semitism 

and all forms of bigotry must be addressed long before the college 

years. The government has responsibility to provide funding for 

antibias, antiracism education initiatives in K through 12 schools 

to inoculate our children from intolerance before they ever get to 

the university. 

In closing, I deeply respect the opinions of the experts at the 

table, but let me just say, because this legislation balances free 

speech considerations with the surge 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. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. Ms. Nossel, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF SUZANNE NOSSEL 

Ms. NOSSEL. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, 

and members of the committee thank you for the opportunity 

to—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. You may want to turn the microphone on. 

Ms. NOSSEL. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

anti-Semitism on campus. 

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human 

rights to protect open expression in the U.S. and worldwide. Our 

mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. 

We work extensively on issues related to campus free speech. 

Our fall 2016 report in Campus For All, diversity, inclusion, and 

freedom of speech U.S. universities sets out a comprehensive analysis of the tensions that rise from colleges’ dual imperatives to 

make campuses hospitable learning environments for students 

from all backgrounds while maintaining uncompromising protections for freedom of speech. It is our view that these two missions 

can and must coexist. 

19 

PEN America is now working with university leaders, faculty, 

and students around the country to help address these strains by 

facilitating in depth dialogues among diverse stake holders and 

promoting concreate approaches to make the campus an open environment both for all people and for all ideas. We are alarmed at 

the rise of anti-Semitic speech inactions on campus that fellow participants in this hearing have documented. We applaud the committee for leadership on this issue. 

As an organization dedicated under our charter, both dispelling 

hatreds and defending the hampered transmission of thought we 

are firm in the belief that countering the spread of hatred must 

and need not impair free expression protections. Consistent with 

that commitment we have several related concerns with the Act. 

This hearing takes place at a moment of pressing threats to free 

speech on campus. Including efforts to disinvite and shout down 

speakers. Hateful speech that intimidates members of historically 

vulnerable groups. And efforts to deter, silence, and punish speech. 

Amid these encroachments, it is imperative to avoid allowing even 

well-intended measures to legitimize newly restrictive parameters 

for expression. 

It is not difficult to conceive of scenarios, a model U.N. debate 

expressing resolutions targeting Israel, speeches by Israeli leftists 

are an event featuring breaking the silence, a group of former 

Israeli soldiers who oppose their government’s policies in which 

speech could meet the definition of anti-Semitism contained in the 

act without being anti-Semitic at all. 

While such speech alone might not amount to a civil rights violation, alongside other incidents and expression, it could form part of 

a claim of harassment thus subjecting the speaker to investigation 

and potential disciplinary action. 

Many college students are finding their political voice for the 

first time, exploring modes of activism, and feeling their way to 

causes that they will champion throughout their lives. Students are 

supposed to experiment and should not live in peril that an errant 

political chant, speaker invitation, or a remark could trigger a civil 

rights claim. 

One might argue the rule of reason read into the act would ensure that it would only be applied where the speech in question 

bore signifiers of anti-Semitic intent or sentiment. But the campus 

environment today is highly charged. We have seen in the context 

of title IX and other controversies that expression that may seem 

anodyne, satirical, artistic, or purely academic can trigger an intense reaction in the hothouse environment of a polarized campus. 

The Israel-Palestine conflict is among the most contentious subjects of campus debate. In this environment, any new weapon to 

counter offensive speech is vulnerable to misuse. We have seen 

that even claims of harassment that ultimately judged meritless 

can pose enormous strain on individual witnesses, responsible administrators, and the campus as a whole. 

Alongside rising 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 their derogatory character. 

These include cartoon images of religious figures, depictions of 

20 

members of historically marginalized groups by those outside of the 

group, and the invocation of lesser-known stereotypes or slurs. 

If this Act is passed, we should not be surprised if other historically vulnerable groups ask for similarly expanded protections. The 

campus is already a minefield when it comes to speech. New viewpoint specific restrictions will render it even more dangerous for 

those who dare express controversial ideas. 

Finally, having reviewed the very thoughtful testimony of my fellow witnesses, we submit that we do not see evidence that the 

problem of rising anti-Semitism derives from the current definitional confusion nor that an expanded definition will address the 

concerns we all share. While many witnesses cite similar practical 

measures they believe can be effective, I am not sure any of us can 

be confident that this definitional change will actually help solve 

the problem we are confronting. 

Finally, the U.S.’ approach to free expression is the most protective in the world, a proud distinction. Whereas Holocaust denial is 

banned in much of Europe, it is considered protected speech here, 

best answered not by investigations or prohibitions but by counter 

speech. If the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act were to pass, the U.S.’ 

claim as a global standard bearer against viewpoint-based restrictions on speech would be blunted. 

PEN America is eager to work with the committee to advance 

constructive steps to help address anti-Semitism and bigotry while 

upholding robust protections on free speech. To this end, we have 

also included in our written testimony a copy of ‘‘Wrong Answer: 

How Good Faith Attempts to Address Free Speech and Anti-Semitism on Campus Could Backfire.’’ A new PEN America white paper 

that analyzes the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act as well as a recent 

spate of campus free speech laws in the States. Thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. Mr. Stern, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KEN STERN 

Mr. STERN. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking Member Conyers, and all the honorable members of the committee. It is my pleasure to be here today, my honor to represent 

the Justus and Karin Rosenberg Foundation which works to combat hatred and anti-Semitism with a special focus on the campus. 

From 1989 to 2014, I was the American Jewish Committee’s expert on anti-Semitism, and over those years I worked with many 

college presidents and on a variety of initiatives about bigotry, 

anti-Semitism, and anti-Israel animus. One project was to train 

over 200 college presidents on a manual of how to manage campus 

bigotry. Every one of these projects stressed that approaches which 

promote academic freedom are more likely to work on campus and 

those that explain it away or harm it will actually make the problem worse. 

Let me give you one quick example. In 2007, when the British 

University and College Union, the UCU adopted a resolution advancing an academic boycott of Israel, some in the American Jewish community said Americans should boycott British academics in 

return. That approach, of course, would violate academic freedom 

21 

because ideas should be evaluated on their merit not on the nationality of their proponents. 

I have worked with over 400 university presidents who signed 

the New York Times ad that essentially said if the UCU was intent 

on violating fundamental academic principles and dividing the academic world into two, Israelis who should be shunned, and everyone else, then count their universities as Israelis too. 

That approach worked because it underscored the importance of 

academic freedom and free speech and I dare say not one president 

would have signed that ad that said, ‘‘let’s do a counter boycott.’’ 

And that is one of my main concerns about the anti-Semitism 

Awareness Act. By under cutting academic freedom and free 

speech, it, too, would do great harm to the academy and to Jewish 

students and to faculty teaching Jewish and Israel Studies. 

I was the lead drafter working along with my colleague Andy 

Baker who did the great politicking of the working definition of 

anti-Semitism in which the State Department definition is based. 

It was drafted, as Rabbi Baker said, with European data collectors 

upmost in mind and not to chill or regulate speech on American 

campuses. 

In recent years, some Jewish groups and individuals began filing 

title six complaints based in part on assertions that anti-Israel expressions transgressed the definition and when all those cases lost. 

They tried to get the University of California system to adopt the 

definition and when that failed they turned to lawmakers. As a 

Jewish communal official acknowledged, this type of legislation 

would open the door for other groups to seek legislatively enshrined 

definitions too. 

Let’s imagine African American groups asking for a definition of 

racism from consideration under title VI targeting political expression deemed racist. Would it include opposition to affirmative action? Would it include opposition to removing statues of Confederate leaders? Imagine a definition designed for Palestinians. If denying the Jewish people the right to self-determination is antiSemitism, then should not denying the Palestinian people the right 

to self-determination be anti-Palestinianism? 

Furthermore there is an internal and frequently distasteful debate in the Jewish community as to who is included in the family 

and who is not based on whether they are Zionists. We know for 

sure, and we have heard today, of Jewish students who are Zionist 

who have sometimes suffered and suffered severely, but Jewish 

students who are anti-Zionists have been called traitors, have been 

called capos by pro-Israel Jews and told they are really not Jewish 

at all. 

Now, whether you can be an 18 year old anti-Zionist and inside 

the Jewish community is not a debate the Congress should decide. 

But by adopting this definition, Congress would do so by labeling 

anti-Zionist Jews anti-Semites. Additionally in the last few months, 

we have seen students exercising a heckler’s veto over speakers 

considered conservative or racist. Support for Israel as seen on 

some campuses in a similar vein. 

Congress should not be creating something akin to a presumption that if a pro-Israel event is targeted it is because of anti-Semitism rather than political disagreement. The focus on Israel also igVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:43 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032325 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325
22 

nores other challenges to Jewish students today, such as Albright 

campus organizing and the mistaken views that because Jews are 

largely white they cannot be victims of hatred. 

Here is what concerns me most. Some groups empowered by a 

congressional endorsement of the definition for campus application 

will hunt speech they believe transgresses it and then press administrators to either suppress it or condemn it, threatening title VI 

cases. We want administrators and other campus officials to conduct surveys on campus climate to offer full semester classes on 

anti-Semitism to find new ways to use education to break down the 

binary thinking around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 

We want universities to cultivate an environment in which all 

student Jews included feel comfortable saying what they think 

even if their ideas are not fully formed and they might be wrong. 

But when an administrator is effectively told, as they will be by the 

general counsels, that they will be evaluated on how well the police 

react to anti-Israel political speech, that will likely be their only 

focus. 

As we have heard today, the working definition was recently applied to campus in the United Kingdom. See how that worked out. 

An Israel apartheid week event was canceled as violating the definition. A Holocaust survivor had to change the title of the campus 

talk after an Israeli diplomat complained. And most disturbing an 

off-campus group got a university to investigate a professor for violating the definition and article she had written years ago. The university ultimately found no basis to discipline her, but the exercise 

itself was chilling and McCarthy-like. 

My fear is we simply 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 about Jewish issues will all suffer. Thank you very much. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Stern. We will now begin 

with the questioning of the witness and I recognize myself. 

Rabbi Baker, you write in your written testimony that ‘‘if we are 

to be successful in combating anti-Semitism, we must first understand it. We must define it. It is a complex phenomenon. It has 

changed over time. It presents itself in both new and traditional 

forms.’’ To some, however, that the phenomenon of anti-Semitism 

changes over time presents itself in different forms over time would 

counsel against codifying any particular definition of anti-Semitism. 

How is a definitional codification approach compatible with the 

concept of discrimination that changes over time? 

Rabbi BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to 

expand on this. The fact is that there is I think a core understanding of what anti-Semitism is about. But the way it is manifested, the way people encounter it will vary from time and place. 

It does not mean that one day to the next it has changed or 

would change dramatically. I think the idea of a definition, and in 

fact this working definition that was developed first with great difficulty to achieve consensus among Jewish experts and organizations around the world and then to find its use in the UMC and 

in other bodies in Europe, really began with acknowledging those 

traditional aspects of anti-Semitism. 

23 

They may, as Dr. Nadell said, wax and wane over time. We understand that but we should explain and define them for people to 

be clear on this. The idea of conspiracy theories against Jews, what 

other elements motivate this hatred. But also to recognize, as we 

have seen in more recent times, for example, Holocaust denial is 

itself a form of anti-Semitism. 

It would not have been part of a definition a century ago, but it 

is critical now. And finally, when we speak about anti-Semitism as 

it relates to Israel. And I think that is something more and more 

people have come to recognize not just Jews who have experienced 

it in Europe or now here in the U.S. and on college campuses. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Let me interrupt. 

Rabbi BAKER. That is okay. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Since I only have 5 minutes. Thank you 

for that. 

Rabbi BAKER. You are welcome. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I get your message. Dr. Nadell, I was 

pleased to see that Kenneth Marcus an advocate for the use of the 

State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism in addressing antiSemitism under title VI was nominated by the President to head 

the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice which would 

enforce title VI. 

I expect, and I guess I will ask if you expect, that Mr. Marcus, 

if he is confirmed to that position, would use the State Department’s definition of anti-Semitism in addressing anti-Semitism 

under title VI. And if so might it be best to wait and see the results 

of using such a definition before Congress were to codify it into 

statutory law. 

Ms. NADELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much agree that 

I think it would be very useful to find out how this is going to be 

applied in different situations rather than passing legislation to decide something that we do not know how it will play out. So, I 

agree with you, I think your suggestion is a good one. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Mr. Greenblatt, would you care to comment on that same question? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I think we need to keep in mind that the attempt to ensure that Mr. Marcus or other officials simply can consult the definition, would make it easier for them to do their job 

effectively. So, rather than having Congress wait, I would encourage you to proceed expeditiously with this process so that Mr. 

Marcus can be an effective advocate and public servant at the Department of Education. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Dr. Trachtenberg, Rabbi Baker wrote in 

his written testimony that unlike anti-Semitism, other forms of 

prejudice and group hatreds are easy to recognize. Do you, or any 

of the other panelists for that matter, disagree with that? That is, 

cannot and do not all forms of hatred change with the circumstances and the times? 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Thank you for your question. I think we always have to pay attention to context when we are looking at any 

particular one incident, and we need to investigate it carefully. 

When we think about the State Department definition which 

seeks to codify what anti-Semitism is, it is such a flawed definition 

24 

that it can virtually encompass any particular act without any real 

regard for context although it pretends that it does. 

For example, the State Department definition claims that stating 

that a particular Jewish person has more loyalty to the State of 

Israel than they do to their own country is necessarily an example 

of anti-Semitism. Where the truth is, that is one of the fundamental premises of Zionism, and if you go back and look at the 

statements say of Theodore Hertzel, who really what is considered 

the founding text of Zionism, he argued very clearly that Jews are 

one people and therefore it is useless for them to be patriots to the 

countries in which they reside. 

So there is times when a statement like that is contained in the 

definition of the State Department would actually undermine the 

founding premises of Zionism itself. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. My time is expired, but Mr. 

Stern I was intrigued by a portion of your testimony that I do not 

think you talked about in your oral testimony. And that is would 

you elaborate on the points that you make with regard to something you call ‘‘Pandora’s Box?’’ 

Mr. STERN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. And the 

issue is that once you open up this capacity for having an official 

definition, then I suspect any organization that represents other 

groups that are concerned with things on campus would want a 

definition too. 

I mean, again, to look at affirmative action as I mentioned before, if somebody on campus says, ‘‘There should be no affirmative 

action,’’ you could understand how an African American student 

might hear that as, ‘‘I do not really belong here.’’ And that is something that the university should take responsibility for in looking 

at the campus culture. 

But you would have groups, I would think, at that point saying, 

‘‘Wait a minute, this is an issue of something that makes students 

feel uncomfortable and want to codify that too,’’ under title VI the 

OCR should look at that as a condition specifically. And I think you 

can find other types of examples with other types of groups down 

the road—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. My time is expired so I do not think we 

are going to do it at this point. 

Mr. STERN. But that is the point. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. But I get that from your point. 

Rabbi COOPER. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Yes, Rabbi Cooper. 

Rabbi COOPER. If I may? I just want to bring back in focus as 

to why we are here this morning. The United States, through its 

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, just, with permission, the idea that a dual loyalty or 

being more loyal to a state other than the nation that we have been 

born into is inherent in Zionism which was just stated by another 

speaker cannot go unchallenged. It is simply, it is not true, it is not 

accurate, and it is cannon fodder for anti-Semites. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you. The chair now recognizes the 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his questions. 

25 

Mr. CONYERS. 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. But I think instead I will just ask each 

one of you who chooses to take just a few sentences to sum up any 

last considerations that you would leave the House Judiciary Committee with, and I will start with you, Rabbi Baker. 

Rabbi BAKER. I think the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would 

provide guidance that would explain what anti-Semitism is about 

to people who need to know. It would go beyond what you mentioned, Mr. Conyers, in the 2010 guidance that potentially can be 

changed in a new administration that would underscore the fact 

that title VI should be used to address anti-Semitism on college 

campuses. 

Mr. CONYERS. Dr. Nadell. 

Ms. NADELL. Thank you. I think the Anti-Semitism Awareness 

Act is problematic if there is a way to see it 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-Semitic, and it will 

quash free speech. And that is a mistake. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Rabbi Cooper. 

Rabbi COOPER. Congressman Conyers, we know 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. 

And 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 the statistics from the Anti-Defamation League. They 

are quite shocking. What is happening here is happening in real 

time. And those who refuse to recognize the problem of anti-Semitism, well it is kind of like inviting people from the Flat Earth Society to a hearing about NASA. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Dr. Trachtenberg. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Thank you. What I would say as a comment 

that I hope you leave with today is to listen seriously please to 

what the faculty who work in the field of Jewish studies are asserting. What you have heard from the president of the Association for 

Jewish studies just to my right, as well as from myself. 

And for many, many other faculty members who have studied 

this issue very, very carefully using rigorous scientific methods, the 

question of anti-Semitism is a highly contested one and it is a topic 

that we do not believe that should be addressed with the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act. And I think you should trust professors and 

universities to contend with these issues as they arise on their 

campus and allow us to teach our students unimpeded. Thank you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, sir. Attorney Clement. 

Mr. CLEMENT. Mr. Conyers, I would just like to follow up on your 

analogy to the race context. And I would think if we had a dynamic 

on our college campuses where we felt like the existing title 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 an anti-African American but it was 

all in service of this symbol, that we had a consensus that that was 

wrong, that we could amend the definition, and restore an adeVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:43 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032325 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325
26 

quate prohibition of harassment on the basis of race. And it would 

not raise First Amendment problems, because it would only be triggered by harassment. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Chairwoman Parker. 

Ms. HAGEE PARKER. Thank you, Ranking Member Conyers. I 

would just like to underscore that while I understand and appreciate that academics study the problem, it is our students who are 

living the problem. They are the ones that are having the rocks 

thrown at them. They are the ones that are having the vitriol spoken to them. And the academics of Stanford did an extensive study 

that said, for the most part, Jews felt safe. The students of Stanford took it upon themselves to pass a resolution doing large in 

part what we are advocating here for today. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Attorney Greenblatt. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Not an attorney Mr. Conyers, let me dispel 

that. 

Mr. CONYERS. Director Greenblatt. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. What I would simply say is that the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act from a First Amendment perspective will not 

squash free speech. It will not chill freedom of expression. But I 

would also encourage you as you reflect upon the views of academics who live with the privilege of tenure in the ivory tower and 

listen to those of us who work on Main Street, the ADL, the American Jewish Committee, APAC, Jewish Federations in North America, all the major Jewish communal organizations support this legislation. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Director Nossel. 

Ms. NOSSEL. Thank you. We agree that there is a serious problem does not mean that the solution is right in front of us is the 

correct one. I think here we have to keep in mind the law of unintended consequences. We risk fueling the fire of contentious debates and opening the door to other restrictive measures that 

would chill speech, even if they 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 that we focus. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. Director Stern. 

Mr. STERN. Thank you. Five quick points. One is I agree with Dr. 

Trachtenberg that you should listen closely to the people that are 

teaching on the campus, especially on these issues. They are the 

ones that I think have the closest feel of the pulse. 

Secondly, this type of legislation I think will be a black hole that 

will suck away all the other things that we really want campuses 

to do to deal with their environment, to deal with their teaching. 

This will be the preferred answer and the focus rather than all 

those other things. 

Third, I think Jewish students are suffering in many places 

around the Israel-Palestine conflict because there is a great binary. 

Justice is seen all on one side or all on the other side. Legislation 

like this, rather than breaking down that binary, will add to it to 

the detriment of Jewish students. Fourth, I disagree with something in Rabbi Cooper’s written statement where he talked about 

protecting vulnerable Jewish students. 

I teach on the campus, too. I have taught a class on anti-Semitism at Bard College. I do not think the Jewish students that I 

27 

come into contact feel themselves as vulnerable and want to be protected. They want to be engaged and have their thinking shaken 

up by having the full capacity to look at these issues from every 

possible way. 

And fifth, I really worry about the instinct to monitor speech. We 

have seen the outside groups creating dossiers online. We have 

seen what is happened in the U.K. If I am a Jewish Studies professor and I am going to be monitored for whether I teach something that transgresses this definition I am going to say why 

should I bother, I would rather teach about 18th century Judaism 

rather than Jews today and that is going to be harmful. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, all. I am going to examine this conversation we have had this morning very carefully. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thank you, Mr. Conyers. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Issa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Rabbi Cooper, in your experience: I am assuming you have experience discussing with college 

administrators or response to these anti-Semitic incidents and 

what have you learned? 

Rabbi COOPER. Well we have had at our Museum of Tolerance in 

Los Angeles a lot of interaction with primarily California-based 

U.C. and Cal State administrators, people up and down the line, 

including some of the campus police; there is been a lot of exchange. There have been, you know, seminars and discussions. 

What has been lacking and what we hear back from people who 

have, let’s say, been burned once or twice by incidents that they 

did not anticipate, is they lack a context. 

They are looking for a basic definition to give them a context on 

campus to guide them. In my written and verbal testimony, I spoke 

at some length about President Yudof when he was the head of the 

U.C. system spent an enormous amount of time on this problem, 

not because it was theoretical, but because the students at the bottom of all of this were not being protected by the system. And he 

tried, I think mightily, to come up with ways to begin to correct 

that situation. But the fact that we are here today before this important group of legislators here in the House indicates that we do 

need help. 

That context, as Mr. Clement so brilliantly presented it, simply 

is that it is a definition that will help trained college administrators, chancellors, and the rest to apply the existing context and 

rules to a situation in which Jewish kids have been subjected to 

the kinds of behaviors that brought us here today. 

Mr. ISSA. So, you would not say that that there is an unwillingness to protect, but a lack of training? Is that a fair assessment? 

Because I see it as their most of the administrators are not taking 

measures to protect. 

Rabbi COOPER. I think a lot of administrators in their own training never heard the introduction of the term anti-Semitism along 

all the other areas of protected groups, minority groups, agenda 

groups that have to be protected. It simply never entered the lexicon until these incidents came forward. And it was clear from our 

interaction with the people and let’s give them the benefit of the 

doubt that they were well-meaning and wanting to address it. They 

did not really know where to begin. 

28 

In addition there are many individuals on campuses on various 

levels who actually believe that Israel is an exceptional state—i.e. 

an apartheid state, a racist state—guilty of all sorts of crimes in 

which their own personal biases do enter in to the way in which 

they respond to situations on campuses. But overwhelmingly I do 

not think it is ideologically driven. I think it is something that is 

relatively new. They are not quite sure how to proceed. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you know, Rabbi you know it is been a long time 

since I went to college. But in those days, it was a simpler time. 

This would have been very clear—yeah. Do not look at me as how 

much simpler—but it was a simpler time. We would have looked 

at it. We would had the ’67 war, the ’73 war actually occurred during my college period. Today it seems like we are involved with lots 

and lots of issues, every sort of politically correct speech and so on. 

How do we in Congress initiate a process that prioritizes the 

unique characteristics of anti-Semitic behavior, lest we begin a 

process and end up caught up in the dozens of other politically correct things that we sometimes talk about how people refer to people? You know, somebody can refer to a woman in an incorrect 

way, another race, or religion, in an incorrect way. And they are 

often categorized as though all of them are equals. And none of 

them are good, but how do we in Congress initiate a process that 

put a priority on this type of hate speech based on its history and 

its pervasiveness? 

Rabbi COOPER. I would just make two points and perhaps also 

Mr. Clement will want to. The two points I would make is number 

one we are not looking to put the Jewish student at the head of 

the line. We are looking to include Jewish students within the context of the commitment on every campus against intimidation or 

creating a place where you can exchange ideas. And there is not 

a single organization represented here that, in fact, ever handed 

the State of Israel a moral blank check for specific actions or policies that it is taken. So, I think that is a simply a false issue. 

The other point here also is for us to understand it is a more 

complex time and a lot of these controversies are part of global 

campaigns against the State of Israel, against the Jewish people. 

They are sort of parachuted into campuses which is one of the reasons why so many university administrators seem so clueless about 

how to deal with it. But when you have, God forbid, the next outbreak and we pray it will not come in the Middle East especially 

now with social media, but even before, the same mantras you will 

hear on the streets of Gaza, you will hear on the campuses. And 

those attacks will not be about Israel. They will be talking about 

Hitler was right and death to the Jews. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

New York, Mr. Nadler for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Stern, it is clear to me, at least I 

have been following this for a good long time, that there is a real 

problem on some campuses, and I think most people would agree 

with that. But the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act would require 

only that the Department of Education consider. 

It says, ‘‘The Department of Education should take into consideration the definition of anti-Semitism as part of the Department’s 

29 

assessment of whether whatever was going on was motivated by 

anti-Semitic intent.’’ Supporters note that the definition is not dispositive of whether title VI has been violated. That, therefore, that 

should eliminate any concerns about a chilling effect on free 

speech. What is your response to that? 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Use your microphone. 

Mr. STERN. My response is that you know inherently is disingenuous. When you prioritize a certain definition, it has the weight of 

having Congress behind it compared to any other definition they 

can consult. 

And, you know, I am really not as concerned, although I am, 

about the two, three, or four, or five cases that may come up under 

this. I am 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, and people from outside as they have with these 

early title VI cases and with these websites focusing on dossiers of 

professors and students will say, you know, hunt the speech. 

And if you cannot suppress it, like the Israel apartheid week 

type of thing you ought to at least condemn it. So, you will give 

incentives to chill speech when I think on campus what we really 

need is to cultivate an environment that does exactly the opposite, 

that brings out all the different sides of the conflict and—— 

Mr. NADLER. Counter-speech. 

Mr. STERN. Counter-speech and use education to do it now. 

Mr. NADLER. So, would it ever be appropriate for the Federal 

Government to define anti-Semitism for the purposes of title VI? 

Mr. STERN. I do not think so or for any other type of bigotry because then you—— 

Mr. NADLER. So, it is not that this definition is too broad. You 

do not think there should ever be a definition? 

Mr. STERN. I think there are problems with the definition of 

using it for campus. Because again, you know, denying Israel the 

right to exist is something you do not want to have in the venue 

of the U.N. for the president of Iran to say and that should be objected to. An 18-year-old on a college campus who is trying to figure 

out a Jewish student whether I am Zionist, whether I am anti-Zionist, whether I am tribal, whether I am universal. They have to 

have the right to explore those ideas. 

Mr. NADLER. Now without referencing a definition of law, how 

should the Department of Education identify and investigate antiSemitism and enforce title VI? 

Mr. STERN. I actually brought a case when I was at AJC for high 

school students in Binghamton, New York, Vestal school district, 

where the kids were being harassed—had nothing to do with 

Israel. But I can tell you nobody asked me to look at the motivation, what these people really thought about Jews. Nobody looked 

at the definition. 

What they looked at was whether these kids were being identified as Jews and harassed as Jews, and they were. Wisconsin v. 

Mitchell basically says the same thing. It is not the motive that is 

the problem. It is this selection of somebody to be a victim in a particular circumstance. And I think that is how you approach it. 

30 

Mr. NADLER. In the last 7 years since the DOE issued its guidance, how would you evaluate the department’s enforcement efforts 

regarding anti-Semitism? 

Mr. STERN. You know you are talking about specific cases. I 

think the cases, that at least I was aware of had problems they certainly had some indicia of actions that were problematic, but they 

also rely very heavily on protected speech. 

So I have no capacity at this point to say at a particular case 

they should have done something differently on those cases. And 

those cases that were brought, again, contained complaints about 

classes, about text, about campus speakers, about other programs. 

And I think they were rightly concerned about filing title VI violations on those situations. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Mr. Clement, if enacted, what protections would the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act provide for students 

on campus that are not already provided for in the current law? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I think, Mr. Nadler, they would provide the protection of having the enforcement agency empowered with the definition. So, I do not know that this is—— 

Mr. NADLER. All right, the enforcement agency could do whatever 

it could already do, but they would be guided by definition. 

Mr. CLEMENT. That is right. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. 

Mr. CLEMENT. That is right. And I think it would facilitate the 

whole process. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me go into the next question. 

Mr. CLEMENT. Sure. 

Mr. NADLER. Critics of the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act argue 

that even if you are correct that 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? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I would respond to that by saying the key to ensure that title VI, not just for anti-Semitism but for all of the 

things that it prohibits, the key to making sure that it does not 

have a chilling effect on speech is to make sure that the test for 

harassment is sufficiently robust and consistent with our First 

Amendment values. 

But the rest of it, I think is mistaken. I mean, when someone 

suggests that this is going to stop a professor from lecturing on a 

topic in class; that just mistakes what the standard is for finding 

harassment under title VI. 

Mr. NADLER. Lastly, Mr. Stern, Mr. Clement argues that the 

Anti-Semitism Awareness Act does not raise constitutional concerns because it contains a saving clause, more importantly, because it addresses conduct-like harassment rather than protected 

speech and it simply adds definition to an existing prohibition in 

the law. How would you respond to that? 

Mr. STERN. I would say two things. First, I disagree because in 

the application of it in particular it will be problematic. Mr. 

Clements has also said the saving clause are pretty much useless 

as Suzanne Nossel said as well. I know the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has also done a very thorough analysis 

31 

of this. In my view, they are the experts on this and they have concluded without question that this would be unconstitutional. 

Mr. NADLER. My time has expired. I thank you. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. The chair now 

recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Gaetz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GAETZ. I thank the chairman, and I would like to begin by 

bragging about my State of Florida. I am so proud that in response 

to some of the student government associations endorsing the BDS 

movement, the State of Florida passed legislation that divests our 

State of any entities that are participating in the BDS movement. 

That is legislation built on the landmark work of my colleague Mr. 

Deutch during his service in our State legislature when he ensured 

that our State divested from companies that were engaging with 

Iran in their nuclear program. 

Rabbi Cooper, I want to drill down specifically with you since you 

mentioned student government associations. Are there any commonalities, methods, tactics, practices that groups are using to influence student government associations to pass BDS resolutions? 

And to what extent with those methods or tactics be impacted by 

the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act? 

Rabbi COOPER. Well I am not an expert on the student associations but when you read about what is going on, by the way not 

only in the United States, but also what is going on in Canada, in 

which you have activists who are exercising their First Amendment 

rights; let’s say, who are anti-Israel, have a pro-Palestinian agenda, 

they get involved with student government. They stay involved. 

And many times they have leadership roles. 

Where this Act would help is when Jewish students are called 

out at meetings of the student government including at UCLA, not 

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 effect it is still loyalty. You do not really 

have a loyalty to the United States. Your loyalty is to a foreign entity Israel, and therefore you should be booted off the board. And 

there are other obviously kinds of actions that could be taken in 

terms of funding; certain kinds of speakers will get it, certain activities will get it. 

But I would say overall that if was just a matter of student activism, then the most important message we can send through Hillel 

and AEPi and all the other groups is make sure Jewish kids stay 

involved in student government. But when you have, as we have 

now had numerous examples, where Jewish kids are called out and 

say you do not belong here because you are a Jew, that student 

would be able to go to an administrator, and, if necessary, to the 

Department of Education to get redress. 

Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Greenblatt, from the Anti-Defamation League 

standpoint, how do you parse that distinction between legitimate 

advocacy that we can combat with other legitimate advocacy and 

speech that would run afoul of this act? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Thank you. I think it is really important to 

keep in mind that all this legislation does is require in the plain 

language that the definition be consulted by administrators when 

a case has brought. This does not mandate that they do anything. 

This does not handcuff them. This does not limit free speech. It 

32 

simply says when an issue is brought to their attention that they 

consult the definition. 

Now, again, I think, as stated by another one of the witnesses, 

they we need to determine that there is indeed harassment taking 

place. But having a definition that codifies what is indeed a very 

complex problem would not in any way shape or form prohibit or, 

again, handcuff administrator to prevent free speech. 

Mr. GAETZ. I found the data that you have provided in your written testimony regarding the frequency of anti-Semitic events rising 

particularly troubling on college campuses. To what extent do we 

tie that solely to the activity on a college campus versus perhaps 

some nefarious 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 a nexus there? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. So, Mr. Congressman, I think that is a very 

good, and I think it is an important question. So, there are two 

parts to it. To the first part: if we try to understand what is the 

causality and the increase in anti-Semitism I think extremists from 

both sides feel emboldened for different reasons vis a vis the political climate. And so, that is creating the conditions in which we are 

seeing an uptick in activity. And that is not something that is a 

function of some academic treatise. That is the reality and what we 

are seeing all around the country. 

But to your point, yes, I would agree that antibias, antihate content in schools, particularly at the high school level, can be an antidote to intolerance and that is another area that I think we should 

explore. 

Mr. GAETZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. The 

chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To the 

ranking member, this is a very, very important hearing. And, 

Rabbi Cooper, I think it is important that students or young people 

and that any language that particularly suggests they do not belong here. I believe we are obligated to protect them and to protect 

their space of learning. 

So you have me committed on the idea that our young people 

must be protected. So, as I query, 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. 

You can imagine my horror as I talked to the president of the university just 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 while those students who had arrived early were looking out of their dorms or windows or standing on the front lawn— 

if anybody knows the structure of the University of Virginia—in 

complete horror and fear. I imagine amongst those students might 

have been Jewish students, African American students, Hispanic 

students, and others. 

And how tragic it is that rather than words of comfort, of course, 

there were words that came from the highest ranking office in the 

33 

land that there were good people on both sides or both sides had 

violence. 

So, I think it is important that we use our approach to also be 

teachers. Because, at the same time, a young student at the American University became the first African American student happened to be a woman, president of student government, and then 

there was a series of hanging nooses and bananas to intimidate. 

And so, I think the question in this day and time is how do we educate and protect our students and provide free space and free 

speech for our academics? 

So, let me go to Mr. Clement who is raising the legal arguments 

here. Mr. Stern made a valid point of the hunt. So, I would not 

want to have a professor feeling that they were hunted if they had 

several viewpoints that I do not agree with but several viewpoints 

of the issues dealing with Israel, i.e. denying the Jewish people the 

right to self-determination and saying they should not have their 

own land, and as well other criticisms that would be waged against 

Israel but could be waged against others. 

So, how would I protect that professor who wants to engage in 

a deliberative and maybe provocative lecture and who may be either overtly or hidden have some negative views, conspicuous or 

nonconspicuous views about Israel and they are in an academic setting? 

Mr. CLEMENT. Well, Representative Jackson Lee, I think that 

there is no fundamental incompatibility between free speech and 

free space. And I think the critical question in determining where 

to strike that balance is what do we think constitutes harassment 

and what do we think constitutes just free speech? And under existing law, as I understand it, there is a pretty demanding standard before we treat something under title VI as harassment. 

But under title VI there is two questions. A, is there harassment 

that rises to that level? And then, second, even if there is, was it 

motivated by one of the forbidden bases under title VI: race, sex, 

national origin? And the Department is taking this position that 

anti-Semitism is a forbidden motive. And, really, all this legislation—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And is it tied to criticism of a country. You 

do not have a right to exist. You do not have the right to your own 

land. Israel should not exist. 

Mr. CLEMENT. And there is a variety of ways to try to define that 

term. This is the same definition, obviously, the State Department 

has already approved. I do not mean to dodge the question, but I 

think the way to protect free speech is in part to make sure we 

have the right definition for harassment. 

But once we have that, boy, it seems hard at least from a First 

Amendment standpoint to think that it is better to not have any 

definition of anti-Semitism, especially when it is obviously a contested term, and especially when at least some people seem to be 

taking cover and say, ‘‘I can do anything I want and I do not have 

to worry about being labeled anti-Semitic, because I will just be 

able to say, ‘No I am just anti-Zionist.’ ’’ 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Greenblatt, could you quickly just, I have 

participated in your anti-hate outreach with the Anti-Defamation 

League. I think they are some of the best in the country. And I also 

34 

believe very keenly—and I am going to ask Mr. Stern questions so 

I am going to end quickly, and I thank the chairman for his indulgence—but I truly believe the investment in K to 12 is crucial and 

that the crisis of America is that we are not teaching anti-hate in 

the early years. 

As told to me by an African American family that 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 then 

finally, Mr. Stern, if you could finish your answer to the hunt question, and how do we protect these students dealing with legislation 

like this which I hope to consider? Mr. Greenblatt would you quickly answer that? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Thank you very much for the question. I would 

say quickly, number one, let’s be clear this definition does not prevent students or faculty or administrators from criticizing particular policies Israeli government. It does not do that. It simply 

defines when it becomes, indeed, anti-Semitism which, indeed, 

often happens and needs to be dealt. 

With respect to training and education, Congresswoman I could 

not agree more. We need to, as a government, ensure that at all 

levels our kids are immunized from intolerance at the earliest age. 

It is an ounce of prevention really can go a long way to dealing 

with this disease of bigotry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I abhor—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Gentlewoman, your time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman I appreciate—— 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Mr. Stern could answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you. I abhor anti-Semitism. And so I 

do not want to foster it. I want to stop it. 

Mr. STERN. Right. Thank you. And very briefly: one thing I put 

my written testimony is that I have worked with various college 

presidents over the years. The first manual that we put out there 

was a situation that came up a hypothetical. A banner is put out 

of a window that says, you know, so and so, you fill in the blanks, 

not welcome here. There is no policy against banners out of dorm 

windows. What do you do? The president of New Paltz said, ‘‘I 

would put out a larger banner from my office saying, ‘everybody 

welcome here.’ ’’ 

We want anti-Semitism classes so students can understand what 

we are talking about as opposed to having a definition sitting on 

high. We want programs to give students the capacity to discuss 

these difficult issues when their senses of identity are wrapped up 

in something of perceived social justice. We want to use education 

as much as possible. 

What I worry about the hunting situation is it is going to chill 

speech; faculty members, for sure. But also think about students. 

When I was working at a national Jewish organization that had a 

pro-Israel policy, and I am a Zionist, I was mostly concerned with 

those students who were supporters 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 in fact made 

targets. We have websites that go and hunt them and put dossiers 

on there. I think this will only encourage that type of activity. 

35 

Mr. FRANKS [presiding]. And the gentlelady’s time has expired. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BIGGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all the 

panelists being here today. This has been very interesting an important topic. And Dr. Trachtenberg talked about the potential for 

this definition to be interpreted overly broadly. And Mr. Greenblatt 

talked about this is a consultative definition. And so, I would like 

to inquire specifically about the definition. And I will go to you Mr. 

Clement. 

Providing a definition may be a good idea, it may be consistent 

with the First Amendment as you have argued and testified to 

today. My question is: is this the right definition? As some have indicated earlier in their testimony, is it potentially vague or can be 

interpreted overly broadly? Or is it clear and concise enough? 

Could it be worded better? If so, how? So if you could provide your 

opinion on that please? 

Mr. CLEMENT. So thank you for the question, Representative 

Biggs. I would say that there are probably other people on the 

panel who are better able to sort of have a debate about whether 

it is, you know, exactly the right definition. I am not sure that, you 

know, that it is necessarily the platonic definition. 

I do think, though, that it has the virtue of being a definition 

that the government is already using, as one of my sort of co-panelists said, it is a bit ironic that we are essentially willing to use this 

definition with every country on the planet except ours. 

But I guess the one thing I really have uniquely perhaps to contribute from a First Amendment perspective is, especially given 

that it is just a consultative definition and does not purport to be 

the definitive definition—you know, in the law sometimes you have 

definitions that say the following term is and sometimes you have 

definitions 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 

perspective which is no definition at all. 

Mr. BIGGS. And I appreciate that. And I guess that is my question. I mean, is anybody on the panel think they have a better definition than this definition? I am inquiring to the entire panel. Dr. 

Trachtenberg. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I am going to speak to that. It is not clear 

to me that—— 

Mr. BIGGS. Your microphone. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Sorry. It is not clear to me, as Mr. Stern 

said, that a definition is required in this way. I mean, I teach entire courses on anti-Semitism and they go on for 15 weeks, and we 

talk about this shifting definition of anti-Semitism. You know, in 

the past it was based on religious assumptions about Jews as 

Christ-killers, and the Middle Ages Jews were repeatedly accused 

of seeking to recrucify Christ through all sorts of different methods 

and that led to anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews. 

There are questions about Jews sexuality, whether Jews were 

even human beings or not. In the modern period, we saw it as a 

racial distinctions of Jews. You know, are Jews fundamentally biologically different? We saw it grounded in notions of race. There 

36 

are questions of Jews as capitalist schemers or revolutionary subversives. 

So, this is what we teach to our students. Settling on one definition that is going to apply to all circumstances is just too broad and 

too vague and should not be the basis of legislation. 

Mr. BIGGS. But, I mean, I do not want to get into a debate with 

you because—— 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Sure. 

Mr. BIGGS [continuing]. I have other questions to ask. But, I 

mean, one of the things you have said previously today is that this 

is a very broad definition. Well, if you are going to make it a definition it would seem to me that is consultative in nature, it would 

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 

as they are using it as a consultative idea as opposed to a very 

strict binding concise definition. Which is why I was asking you if 

there is any better definition that may be out there? 

Time goes by fast in 5 minutes. But I was going to come back 

and ask, and I will ask, Mr. Clement and to anyone else as well, 

do you know of any judicial opinion that provides definition of antiSemitism even if not in a holding in its dicta? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I have not come across such a definition. 

Mr. BIGGS. Okay. All right. And so, I guess I am going to go 

ahead and yield back the balance of my time since I am under 10 

seconds. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentlemen and I recognize the gentleman, Mr. Deutch, from Florida. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I introduced 

this bill because I met with Assistant Secretary of Education for 

civil rights and asked how many ongoing investigations into cases 

of anti-Semitism were they pursuing? And the answer was zero. 

Number one. Number two, I appreciate all of the academic discussion and the references to the definition. Let me just read it for the 

record. 

‘‘Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish 

individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish communities, institutions, and religious facilities.’’ That is the working definition 

then goes on to include contemporary examples and a fact sheet. 

Let me address some of what we have heard today. One, that 

any criticism of Israel would be anti-Semitic under this. It is not 

true. Everyone understands that that is not the case. That is number one. 

Number two, that Jews because once they were victims are immune from criticism, one, while I am offended by that, that has 

nothing to do with this piece of legislation. Three, that, somehow, 

this is really some effort to go after Jewish anti-Zionists is the reddest of red herrings. And four, the suggestion was made that we 

have to look at all different sides. There are not all different sides 

to anti-Semitism. There are not. 

And the comment that was made that I find the most compelling 

is that a college campus is where students are trying to find their 

voice. I could not agree more. But here is the question: in all of this 

37 

talk about free speech which we hold dear and which we have to 

be careful of this legislation, any legislation, would not violate or 

curtail. 

In all of that discussion, what is been missing is a discussion of 

the free speech of Jewish students who do not feel free to speak 

out. They do not feel free to support Israel openly. They do not feel 

free to join student government and talk about their Judaism and 

their involvement in their Jewish community. And there are examples time and time again. 

One last thing about this. I understand that if you look only in 

terms of numbers across all campuses, that while some of our academics here say, ‘‘It is not a problem; I do not see it in my classroom. I do not see it on my campus. I do not hear about it.’’ And 

then, 118 anti-Semitic acts relative to the number of students on 

college campuses may not seem that great. 

Why should we not be concerned about every one of those individuals and their ability to sustain and fight back and have a Department of Education that is willing to investigate those kinds of 

attacks? This one is really hard sometimes for me to understand. 

We know what is happening on college campuses and, yes, I am 

concerned about professors being able teach. I am. 

But I also know that college students, like my own and their 

friends, who are on campuses who actually see what is happening, 

who will avoid parts of campus—I have heard from their friends— 

will avoid parts of campus because they are afraid if they are wearing a Jewish star that they are going to be shouted down. That is 

not students finding their voice. That is one student using his or 

her voice to stifle the free speech of that other student. Yes, Rabbi 

Cooper? 

Rabbi COOPER. Congressman Deutch, I just want to come again 

to this visual, because it is in real time. 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 because she wants 

to get her degree in food science. 

This is the guy she is going to have to go and sign up for because 

right now there is absolutely no price to pay, there is no red line, 

nothing about someone in a position of responsibility who openly 

expresses such vile hate. And there is nothing to protect that freshman from pursuing her course. 

Mr. DEUTCH. And Mr. Goodlatte, am I so off base here? Have we 

been going down the wrong path, worrying about the 118 cases so 

far of anti-Semitism so far this year? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Congressman, you are dead-on. I mean, again, 

I know some people teach courses over the course of 15 weeks. The 

ADL has been tracking this for over 100 years, and data does not 

lie. And what you pointed out, about the definition, is exactly correct. 

This does not inhibit the ability of an individual, student, faculty, 

or otherwise to criticize necessarily policy, but it does acknowledge, 

as that definition does—that definition, by the way, that was done 

in consultation with leading experts from academia and communal 

organizations, and it is used by our embassies around the world to 

track anti-Semitic incidences. 

38 

So, some might not like it in its abstraction, but in its practicality, I would submit to this committee it has been vital to our 

State Department doing its work to protect Jewish communities 

around the world. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. Before I yield back, 

I would just finally make one last point. Again, criticism of Israel, 

Israel’s government, and Israel’s policies are more than fair. They 

are welcomed here just as they are in Israel. But when you take 

the position, it is 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 you then try to impose that to shut down others, that is not 

a student fighting his or her voice. That is students or others on 

a college campus using their voices to silence others in a way that 

is wholly unacceptable, which this definition is simply trying to address. And I yield back, thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize 

myself for 5 minutes. It was my turn, just for the record. 

This has obviously been a very compelling hearing here today for 

me. As it happens, a very good friend of mine is in the audience, 

Dr. Gary Bauer, who is the head of the Christians United for 

Israel, which I have 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. And certainly, I identify with so many of the comments here today. 

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 anti-Semitism, which as obvious to any observer, has grown 

in a profound way in recent days, I would suggest to you that 

whether it is from the hard, hard right or the militant left, there 

are things that have come forward in recent days that are very disturbing and cry out for a response. And Rabbi Cooper’s comments 

related to the necessity that someone just needs help here. And I 

understand that; 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. And I want to try to refer to the old medical 

term, you know, ‘‘primum non nocere;’’ ‘‘first, do no harm.’’ And so, 

the challenge before policymakers right now is to come up with the 

right policy. 

And so, with that my first question would be to Ms. Nossel. Ms. 

Nossel, traditionally our Federal civil rights laws have not codified 

definitions or illustrative lists of discriminatory motivations. That 

is, our Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination based on 

race or sex, for example, without specifying exactly what a discriminatory motivation would be considered to be. 

Now, leaving that question to the courts and a case-by-case determination of the unique factual situations in context by judges 

and juries. So, you see, we have struggled with this for some time. 

If any particular definition of anti-Semitic motivation were codified 

in the U.S. Code, what kinds of definitions might be proposed for 

consideration as constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to other protected classes? I hope the question came across 

clearly. 

39 

Ms. NOSSEL. What definitions might other protected classes invoke to relate—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Let me say it one more time. If a particular definition of anti-Semitic motivation were codified in the U.S. Code, what 

kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration as constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to other protected 

classes? 

Ms. NOSSEL. Well, it is a good question. I think it is hard to say, 

but I certainly think this will give rise to efforts by other groups 

to think about defining discrimination against them, you know, as 

broadly as possible so that manifestations of that discrimination 

are not ignored. 

In one example that comes to my mind that I have worked extensively in my career is with respect to Muslims around the world. 

In an effort that they made to try to secure an international legal 

ban on the so-called defamation of religion, which really related to 

cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet, Muhammad, which they regard as a very particular and hurtful offense. 

And so, when those cartoons were published, they went to the 

U.N. and sought an international treaty banning the so-called defamation of religion, which they view as kind of a priori form of very 

virulent, anti-Muslim sound sentiment. And they were concerned 

that the rest of the world did not see it that way. 

So, I think that is, you know, one obvious area. It is offensive. 

It is not universally recognized to be as offensive as some Muslims 

regard it to be. There are other Muslims who do not regard it as 

offensive and take grave exception to that effort. But I think that 

is one manifestation. 

And you know, Ken has brought up others. You know, what 

about, you know, it was Palestinian Americans, and they were calling into question the validity of a Palestinian State. Would they 

want to seek to define that as a form of, you know, discrimination 

against them? Or arguments against affirmative action that, you 

know, could be construed as calling into question the validity of the 

presence of certain students on a campus. You know, might that 

be defined as a form of discrimination? 

So, I think it is hard to know, you know, where it would end. But 

opening it up, I think, does give rise to serious concerns. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. You know, sometimes one of our 

challenges here is when there is a complete lack of common decency sometimes, when it comes in these situations, it is hard to 

know how to respond to that best legislatively. So, Mr. Stern, I will 

direct my final question to you, sir. I understand, according to your 

testimony, that you wrote the guidelines for the State Department. 

Essentially, that you were the lead writer on it. 

Mr. STERN. I worked very closely with my colleague, Andy 

Bleecker, who did the politicking and negotiating. I was the lead 

drafter. I was the one who probably wrote 75 to 80 percent of it 

and got the other experts and negotiated, you know, which parts 

to put in—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Given that, do you think that that guideline should 

be something we should consider, to codify and statute? I am asking a pretty hard question here. But do you think that something 

40 

like that would be appropriate in statute, given the discussion 

today? 

Mr. STERN. For a campus, absolutely not. That was not the purpose that it was designed for, and, you know, I encourage the State 

Department to use it in its reports and bilateral relations. I worked 

with Rabbi Baker on a hate crime training program in New York. 

Those things were fine. 

A campus is a different venue. It is about ideas. It is about giving students and faculty the opportunity to think outside the box, 

to be wrong, and not to measure what they are saying against 

some definition that is constitutionally enshrined. So, particularly 

for this venue, I think it would be an atrocity. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you all. I am sorry. I am going to have 

to go to the next guy here, but I want to thank you all, and God 

bless Israel. And Mr. Cicilline, I recognize you, sir, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you to all the witnesses for this really 

thoughtful discussion. I think it is very important to say at the outset that, it is my view at least, that this spike in anti-Semitism is 

something which should be of grave concern to all of us. And we 

should determine the best and most effective way to respond to it, 

to eliminate it in this country and around the world. 

I think it is important to consider the context of this, and that 

is that we have an administration that, I think, in many ways has 

stoked this environment by refusing to speak out against anti-Semitism, white supremacy, and xenophobia. 

President Trump unapologetically came to the defense of white 

nationalist protesters in Charlottesville who chanted anti-Semitic 

slogans. Former White House advisor, Steve Bannon has made a 

career out of promoting racist, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant 

ideas. Another former Trump advisor, Sebastian Gorka, was found 

to have ties to a Nazi group. 

And this administration has also disappointingly failed to appoint an envoy of the office to monitor and combat anti-Semitism 

through which the U.S. encourages foreign governments to protect 

vulnerable Jewish communities around the world. So I think we 

would be ignoring this sort of elephant in the room to not understand the context of this spike and the gravity of it. 

I also find it kind of ironic in a lot of ways where in our tradition 

is, by the way, a free and unhindered exchange of ideas that humanity seeks the truth. And you only need to go to the Talmud to 

see the exchange of ideas on every page by the rabbis. So, this idea 

of respecting and honoring the free exchange of ideas is an important Jewish value, and obviously an important American value. 

So, I guess my kind of simple question is—I think Rabbi Cooper 

said, you know, when there is something that says, you know, you 

do not belong here because you are a Jew; that seems sort of an 

obvious anti-Semitic declaration. I think everyone would agree that 

criticism of Israel and policies of Israel and disagreement is not 

anti-Semitic as a principle. 

And so, if we could have a definition which attempted to at least 

identify anti-Semitic activity, in the way that Rabbi Cooper described it, but protected legitimate policy criticism, is that something we could do successfully? I recognize that it would open the 

same kind of discussion with other categories. 

41 

Assuming we were prepared to accept that risk, I also reject the 

notion that well, just—with all due respect to Mr. Greenblatt, who 

I respect enormously—it is not binding. It matters. We ought to get 

the definition right if we are going to direct people to consult it. 

So, my question for the panel really is, am I oversimplifying this? 

Could we craft a definition that strictly attempts to identify antiSemitism, free from criticism or disagreement on policy, as they 

say, or is that impossible to achieve? Dr. Trachtenberg, I will start 

with you. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I think it is an impossible task. I think if we 

asked all nine of us for our definition of anti-Semitism, we would 

have nine variants on a theme, certainly. I think we would all 

agree that the core of anti-Semitism is hating Jews simply for 

being Jewish. If you go much beyond that, you are going to start 

entering into contested territory; contested territory within the 

Jewish community itself among scholars of anti-Semitism, we are 

going to enter into that territory. 

So, if you want to have the most narrow definition, I think that 

is a baseline from which we all agree. Once you go beyond that, we 

are going to enter into very contested 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 all the 

conversations that they need in order to keep fleshing this out. 

As we do with a page of the Talmud, keep turning it over and 

turning it over again to discover all the truths and everything that 

we can identify within it. Thank you. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I would submit, Mr. Congressman, that it is 

not impossible, that my professionals do it every single day, and to 

clarify, the ADL was also involved in writing that definition that 

the State Department uses, and we think it works. 

But ultimately, who are the arbiters of this? Let me introduce 

you to the families whose children have been bullied and have had 

pennies thrown at them. Let me introduce you to the parents 

whose children had their lockers defaced with swastikas. 

Let me introduce you to the families themselves who have been 

harassed because of their religious garb or coming out of a synagogue. Let me introduce you to those people and you can ask them 

whether indeed there are nine different definitions or there is one. 

So, if you look at the definition that our public servants use 

every day, Mr. Congressman, it does not say criticizing Israel is 

anti-Semitism. That is not what it says. Period. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Stern. 

Mr. STERN. I was going to say that the examples that Mr. 

Greenblatt gives are okay, but you do not need a definition to get 

there. 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 does not matter whether that person is thinking of this 

definition or that definition, or is philosemitic, or just, you know, 

wants to do it because they think it is fun. If a Jewish person in 

a campus is being harassed because they are being selected because they are Jewish, that is sufficient. And you do not need to 

open up this whole other can of worms. 

Mr. CICILLINE. So, could that be the definition? 

42 

Mr. STERN. Well, in the case that I brought in the Vestal District, nobody talked about a definition. Nobody talked about that 

you have to show that a swastika is anti-Semitic. It is clear that 

these kids were picked upon simply because they were Jewish. 

And I would add that, you know, again, we talk about the proZionist, pro-Israel students. I have also seen examples that break 

my heart on campus, too, where a kid who is trying to figure out 

where they think about Israel and all this and should it exist. 

And what is happening with the Palestinians, are being called 

traitors or Kapos and some who were wearing yarmulkes, saying, 

‘‘Take that thing off.’’ That offends me just as much. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the indulgence, and I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. I am left wondering how 

being the first President to stand in front of the Western World 

and pray projects some anti-Semitic sentiment. But I would—— 

Mr. CICILLINE. Would you like me to answer that, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. FRANKS. No. I call upon the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, I can help you out. Anytime a conservative 

Jewish person cares to speak on a college campus, they stand a 

much greater chance of being banned or being labeled as a hater 

by the haters. 

Well, my friend, Caroline Glick. She believes what the Bible indicates was the Promised Land to the children of Israel, and because 

of that, she canceled at University of Texas, right in my own State. 

It was not because she was Jewish, it was because she was a conservative Jewish person. And say, George Soros were to come and 

do as he often does and beat up on Israel or Netanyahu, he would 

never be banned from a college campus. He would be welcomed 

with open arms. So, let’s be real here. We are talking about particularly conservative Jewish people. 

Now, when it comes to school children, when it comes to people 

that get swastikas put on their lockers and things like that, or vile 

things said about them, that seems to be just because they are 

Jewish. And I have got to tell you, I majored in history in college. 

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 am 

speaking to ministers of the country, so I am being respectful—but 

how Germany since World War II, since the Holocaust, has gone 

out of their way to try to show how open and loving they are to 

all peoples. 

So they bend over backwards to bring in what they think are 

Muslim refugees, some of which were not—they were there to, you 

know, bring down Europe as the Battle of Vienna prevented previously—but you know, I said, ‘‘So, you are bringing in people who 

are raised to hate Israelis, to hate Jewish people, and by virtue of 

your act to show how loving and open you are, you are bringing in 

people that make you appear to be anti-Semitic again.’’ 

43 

And of course, that raised some hackles and got some 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 embracive of Islam that they become anti-Semitic. And 

when my friends condemns—and I mean true friends, Bannon and 

Gorka, they were called—these guys are not anti-Semitic, 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. 

And 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. 

I mean, for heaven’s sake, Brandeis University withdraws their 

offer of a doctorate to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I mean, she is an atheist, 

as I understand it, but what a courageous person. I mean, what 

happened to Brandeis? I mean, have they forgotten why they were 

founded? 

I know Harvard and Yale forgot how they were founded. They do 

not want conservative Christians or conservative Jews coming in 

and speaking. But they welcome anybody that will come in and 

bash Israel. So, I welcome all the comments I have been hearing 

from people across the aisle condemning anti-Semitism, but I 

would hope my friends will be just as upset when it is a conservative Jew. 

And as far as the boycott that seems to be growing across the 

world, and particularly in Europe, of anything made in Israel, it is 

just another effort to slam Israel. But I have stood there at the 

tomb of King David’s father, Jesse, in Hebron. Hebron also is 

where Abraham, and Sarah, and Isaac, and Jacob, and their wives 

are buried, right there. 

And I am supposed to say that that is absolutely not Israeli territory? And we should ban anything coming from that area? That is 

ridiculous, and we need to be more realistic in our assessment of 

what truly is anti-Semitism; it applies when it is a conservative 

Jew. Thank you. I yield back. I see my time is up. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman, and I now recognize Mr. 

Raskin for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. The very first 

thing that I did as a newly elected member of the House of Representatives was to organize a tour of the freshman class, the 

Democrats and Republicans both, to the Holocaust Museum, and 

we spent 2 hours there. And I believe very strongly that the touchstone of our politics has got to be in opposition to anti-Semitism 

and racism and the other hatreds that made the last century such 

a nightmare for so many people. 

I am also a professor of constitutional law, so I am very sensitive 

to the free speech concerns that have been raised by many of the 

witnesses today. But I want to try to look for some 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. Does everyone on the panel agree 

that religion generally should be covered under title VI? And forgive me, I have so few minutes and there are so many of you, but 

if you would just, if you do not mind going down the aisle, does evVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:43 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032325 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325
44 

erybody agree that religion should be covered? Yes, no, or no comment will suffice. Starting with Rabbi Baker, if you would. 

Rabbi BAKER. 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. 

Mr. RASKIN. Yeah. Okay. I was hoping for yes or no because I 

have so little time. 

Ms. NADELL. Okay. Yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Rabbi COOPER. Yeah, I am not sure I would address the issue as 

we are here today. I think it would expand it properly so, but it 

would be a whole other discussion to come back at another time. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I actually agree with Rabbi Cooper here that 

this has actually opened up a larger set of issues that we need to 

address, not a simple yes or no. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Okay. 

Mr. CLEMENT. And I would agree. It is complicated. You have 

other things, like the Free Exercise Clause and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I mean, there is a lot of things that make it 

complicated. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Ms. HAGEE PARKER. Likewise, it is outside the scope of our organization and its mission. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. It is complicated. I think it is complicated as 

well, but religion should certainly be protected. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. 

Ms. NOSSEL. I think religion should be protected, but in ways 

that are careful to be compliant with other constitutional and legal 

provisions. 

Mr. STERN. And I would agree with that. It is particularly about 

harassment, as opposed to religion. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. It seems like there is a category of speech 

that has been heavily contested here which is that relating to the 

Israeli government or the Israeli State, in terms of its anti-Semitic 

content. But would everybody agree that, for example, what took 

place in Charlottesville is anti-Semitic? 

But does anybody believe that, for example, Richard Spencer, 

who now seems to be on a nationwide speaking tour, does everybody agree that he does have a First Amendment right to appear 

at least on public campuses? Does anybody think that he does not 

enjoy a First Amendment right to speak on public university campuses? Everybody seems to agree that he does, okay. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Mr. Congressman, unless he incites violence 

against people. 

Mr. RASKIN. Unless he incites violence. Yeah. But in terms of the 

content of his speech, that he should not be banned for that reason. 

Okay. 

So, I want to go to the question that has tormented the country 

for a while now about statues of Confederate soldiers, Robert E. 

Lee and Jefferson Davis, and so on. I have got no doubt that the 

vast majority, or I would dare say all racists support continuing 

keeping those there. 

45 

But a lot of people who support keeping those statues up are not 

racist, right? So, would it not be a problem to use as indicia of racism whether or not someone supports having those statues present 

there? And perhaps—— 

Mr. STERN. I would agree with that. I mean, my view is not germane to this exactly, but if you remove all the statues, people do 

not see the history. I would rather put them in context and let 

them be used as a way to explain why they were put up in the first 

place to, you know, support segregation and so forth—— 

Mr. RASKIN. But back in—— 

Mr. STERN [continuing]. That would not be a hateful view. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. All right, now let me come to this now. So, 

my dear colleague, Mr. Deutch, read the operative definition that 

he had. I might even broaden it a little bit just to say that antiSemitism is discrimination, prejudice, or hostility against Jews. It 

seems like what is getting everybody into this seared in controversy is the illustrations or the examples that were offered in 

the State Department policy. 

But does anybody know of an antidiscrimination statute that has 

been passed by Congress that includes the illustrations or examples? Because to my knowledge, there is not one. And so, does anybody think that those illustrations or examples are necessary to the 

definition? 

Rabbi BAKER. Yes. 

Mr. RASKIN. Okay. Can you explain, if you would, Rabbi? 

Rabbi BAKER. Well, the whole idea of the examples was to show 

how it plays out in a practical way so people who have a responsibility to address the problem will understand it. 

Mr. RASKIN. Right. Let me just cut you off there for a second, because I have so few seconds left. But when we wrote the title VII 

Statute, when we talk about race discrimination or sex discrimination in the workplace, we lead it broad and we let the courts work 

it out, whether or not there is a discriminatory animus or motive. 

So I am just thinking in terms of trying to keep civilization together here and to keep our unity together, why would we get into 

a series of controverted examples that are going to divide people, 

as opposed to stating what the principles are and then allowing 

those to be worked out in practice? I do not know, Dr. 

Trachtenberg. 

Rabbi BAKER. When Congress passed the—— 

Mr. RASKIN. Let me just go to Dr. Trachtenberg, and I am happy 

to come back to you. 

Rabbi BAKER. Because in 2004, in the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act, Congress said that anti-Semitism has at times ‘‘taken the 

form of vilification and Zionism.’’ 

Mr. RASKIN. Sure. Okay. So, but I am talking about a discrimination statute. Dr. Trachtenberg. 

Mr. FRANKS. The gentleman’s time is expired, but Dr. 

Trachtenberg you can answer. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I am, thank you. Well, the examples are particularly problematic against the idea of having a definition which 

is going to box us in in terms of what anti-Semitism is, is really 

at the root of our discussion here. 

46 

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the gentleman. And now, the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate all the witnesses being here today. You know, 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 seemed 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. 

And I think that is readily apparent in the treatment of Jewish 

students across the country. I refer to the report—I think it was 

Mr. Clement, it was in your testimony—about just this year, 1,299 

anti-Semitic incidents from January to September. I think, again, 

it is troubling that political correctness seems to have allowed antiSemitism to flourish. But again, I appreciate the thoughtful discussion here from all the witnesses as we try to get back to having 

our institutions of higher education be that marketplace for ideas 

while also stemming the rising tide of anti-Semitism. I appreciate 

all of your perspectives today. 

Mr. Clement, I know one of the things that you focused on in this 

Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, and, you know, I read your anticipated responses to the First Amendment concerns and regulations 

of speech. Is it oversimplification to say that having a definition, 

as purposed within the Act, is trying to find that line between 

speech that is anti-Zionist versus speech that is anti-Semitic? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I think that is what the definition is trying to get 

at, Representative Ratcliffe. You know, there is a particular concern in the context of anti-Semitism that I am not sure is present 

in some of the other discrimination prohibited by title VI, which is 

you do have this ability for people to essentially cloak it and say, 

‘‘Oh, it is not anti-Semitic, it is just anti-Zionist.’’ And so, I think 

the definition is trying to get at that. 

You know, the other thing, and I know a couple of questions have 

sort of, you know, kind of gotten to the question of do we really 

need a definition here? And what I would say to that is, you know, 

in the abstract it might be fine to have anti-Semitism defined on 

a case-by-case basis over time, but to have a case-by-case definition 

you need cases. And one of the things I think everybody is seeing 

here is that it is not that there are not anti-Semitic incidents on 

campuses, and yet there are no enforcement actions. 

And so, I do not think we have, sort of, the luxury of just letting, 

you know, the Education Department sort of develop the definition 

over, you know, the course of a number of enforcement actions. I 

think, in a sense, we need to jumpstart the process. And I think 

the definition is designed in part to do that, and then in part to 

guide the discretion of the Education Department officials. 

Mr. RASKIN. Well, I think I agree with you. I think there needs 

to be a specific point where we can point and have a determination 

of where criticisms of Israel cross over into anti-Semitism. And I 

go back to that report that is referenced in your testimony about 

the 1,299 incidents, and I also go to Rabbi Cooper’s written testiVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:43 Oct 12, 2018 Jkt 032325 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A325.XXX A325
47 

mony that the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has 

never found a civil rights violation in any claim filed on behalf of 

Jewish students. 

So, put on your Solicitor General hat. If you were making this 

argument to a court, is the fact that you have all these reported 

incidents, yet no violations found. It would seem like that that is 

a violation of equal protection under the law for Jewish students 

based on that type of evidence. 

Mr. CLEMENT. I think it would sure be a difficult thing for any 

Solicitor General to try to explain, and I think it is the kind of 

thing that would give rise to an inference that something other 

than just looking for the exact right case and prosecutorial discretion is going on. 

Mr. RASKIN. Rabbi, I want to let you weigh in on that as well. 

Rabbi COOPER. Congressman, let me make just two points very 

quickly. This definition, you know, had an evolution, starting with 

the OSCE, 56 out of 57 countries, of course, minus Russia, eventually agreeing on, and the evolution down to our discussion this 

morning. It is probably the best definition that we are going to get, 

and it is the most relevant one. 

To really summarize, and I am pleased both Mr. Franks and the 

chairman is here. You have the wall-to-wall leadership of the 

American Jewish community here. We came, I would say, hat in 

hand. We have a problem. We need your help. And I think what 

we would respectfully ask for is after the appropriate deliberations, 

that with all of the Congressman Raskin and former professor, all 

of these important questions that have been raised, we need to 

move the ball forward. We hope you will send this to the floor of 

the House for further deliberation. 

I have no doubt that if it is passed there will be many challenges, 

just by virtue of the testimony you heard today. But you have the 

entire Jewish leadership of the American Jewish community coming together united, something that apparently nothing less than 

this great committee has been able to achieve. And we really hope 

that after the appropriate deliberation it will be moved forward for 

a vote on the floor. 

Mr. RATCLIFFE. My time is expired, Rabbi, but I will tell you that 

I agree with that sentiment. And if I was sitting on the top row, 

I might have a little more influence in making that happen. But 

I appreciate you all being here today. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. Thanks, gentleman. And I recognize the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Schneider, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for calling 

this important hearing. I want to thank all of the witnesses today 

for sharing your perspectives. I do want to take the prerogative in 

welcoming in the gallery Lisa Shuger, who represents the Jewish 

Federation of Chicago, where I represent. 

As I have listened to the testimony today, the questions, I cannot 

help but listen as a Jew. As a parent of Jewish college students, 

one current and one recently graduated, I represent a State in 

which at least six of our universities have recently experienced 

anti-Semitic incidents. 

I am, personally, gravely concerned about the recent significant 

rise in anti-Semitism on our campuses, in our communities, in fact, 

48 

around the world. Mr. Greenblatt, you said, we must count each 

and every one of the incidents and leave none of them to go unanswered. What we are seeing on campus, I fear, is an increasingly 

organized, concerted, and wellfunded effort to create a hostile environment for Jewish students that publicly express their Judaism as 

well as their support for the Jewish State. 

It does not take a lot of events or a lot of incidents to make it 

difficult for Jews to feel comfortable in the academic environment 

where they are, as I think we have all agreed, seeking the opportunity as every student should have to explore new ideas, to find 

their voice, and to reach their own conclusions. That is what the 

university is for. But I do worry about this difference. 

So maybe I will start with you, Mr. Greenblatt. Do you see a difference between free speech and a concerted effort to create a hostile environment? 

Mr. GREENBLATT. First of all, Mr. Congressman, thank you for 

the question. As a former resident of the North Shore of the Chicago area, it is nice to see you here today. I think it is safe to say 

that there are challenges, again, as I had stated in my oral testimony from both what the Congressman Franks called the ‘‘hard 

right’’ and sort of elements of the militant left. Neither side of the 

ideological spectrum is exempt from intolerance. 

But whether they are organized campaigns, or they are spontaneous actions, we need to be clear about the fact that, again, title 

VI does not explicitly protect these Jewish students. 

And considering the number of cases we are dealing with on 

campus today, the stat that the Congressman Deutch represented 

was correct. There were investigations led by the Office of Civil 

Rights, Department of Education, case of anti-Semitism. Zero. 

Let me repeat, that number is zero. We believe having a definition will make it easier for whoever is administering the office, 

whether it is indeed Mr. Marcus or someone else, to ably do their 

job and ensure that Jewish students have the same protection that 

other students have. 

It does not preclude political speech. It does not limit freedom of 

expression. It simply ensures the definition that we also worked on 

is utilized by policymakers and campus administrators. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Mr. Stern. 

Mr. STERN. I just want to share a short anecdote. I was doing 

a training for students at Columbia a number of years ago on antiSemitism. We started at 7:00 and we were still talking at 11:00, 

and they said this was the first time they felt open to speaking 

about Israel. 

I said, ‘‘Oh that is interesting. Is this the only issue that you 

have trouble speaking about openly?’’ 

‘‘No.’’ 

‘‘Your friends at other campuses have a problem, too?’’ 

‘‘Yes.’’ 

Everybody is sort of worried about where they are going to step 

into a landmine in the context today. And what I worry about this 

legislation is it feeds into that rather than breaks it down. 

I think the answers are not with legislation that is going to create an additional sense of, you know, these are folks here and those 

are folks there. But initiatives that campuses are lacking on to how 

49 

do we have these difficult discussions. There are very few classes 

on anti-Semitism. 

I think if you have more classes on anti-Semitism, students are 

going to understand the issues that combine us and divide us here 

today much more deeply and it will affect the campus environment. 

Those are the things that need to be done, and not this type of legislation. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Well, I appreciate that, and I agree that we need 

more classes on anti-Semitism. I think that would be a beneficial 

step forward. But that does not change the fact that there are efforts on these campuses to make these Jewish students feel profoundly uncomfortable, unwelcomed. I think it was you who said 

putting out a sign, whoever you are, saying, ‘‘You are not welcome 

here.’’ I have been to campuses where the signs say, ‘‘Hate is not 

welcome here.’’ I think that is a much better sign. 

Mr. STERN. That is right. And the question is, how do you help 

administrators? And you know, Mr. Greenblatt has said that, too, 

in his testimony: how do you help them think through cultivating 

that environment in which you have the capacity for students to 

be wrong, to say what they think, but then others to identify what 

is hateful and then to teach about it? 

There should be no question that Israel and Palestine, as contentious as that is, should be an ideal subject for getting students to 

think about how do you deal with the competing narratives and 

competing histories? How do you look at identity? How do you look 

at the equities, and so forth? Rather than just feed them into, if 

something is said about Israel that is anti-Zionist, that that is antiSemitism and that ends the matter. It should be the beginning of 

the questions, not the end of it. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. Right. Rabbi Cooper, my time is expired but—— 

Rabbi COOPER. Just very quickly. Classes alone and dialogue, as 

welcome as they are, will not protect your kids on campus. And 

when there is an incident—and we have now heard over the last 

few hours, there are many—we need the help of our government 

to ensure that Jewish students are afforded the same protections 

as everyone else on campus. 

Mr. NADLER. Will the gentleman yield for a second? 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. I will yield. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay, great. I just want to make clear for the 

record that a mistaken statement a moment ago. Not every Jewish 

group supports this bill. I have a letter here, for instance, from J 

Street U opposing it, and there are groups that do not support the 

bill and the groups that are. So, I just wanted to clear that up for 

the record. Thank you. 

Mr. SCHNEIDER. My time has expired. I wish I had more, but I 

will yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Buck, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Trachtenberg, quick 

question. In 2013, did you sign a petition to boycott a conference 

at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and did the petition state 

that the Hebrew University is deeply complicit in the occupation, 

settler colonialism, and apartheid? 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Yes. 

50 

Mr. BUCK. I cannot hear you. 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. Yes, I did. 

Mr. BUCK. Okay. And did you also vote for the Modern Language 

Association to boycott Israel? 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I am not a member of the Modern Language 

Association. 

Mr. BUCK. But did you vote for a boycott of Israel with that 

group? 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. I would not have had the capacity to vote for 

it because I am not a member of the MLA. 

Mr. BUCK. So, that is a no? 

Dr. TRACHTENBERG. No. 

Mr. BUCK. And Mr. Clement, I wanted to ask you a question. 

And I guess I want to respectfully point out something that my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said. He said that all racists are in favor of 

keeping the Civil War monuments, to paraphrase, and that indicates something to me that is deeply troubling. What he is really 

saying is that racists have to be white in this country. There is no 

such thing as a black racist that might want to take down those 

monuments. And I think when we look at this issue, we look at it 

through our own lens, through our own bias. 

And that is what, I think, we are really struggling with here, is 

how do we respect the Constitution and at the same time deal with 

a deeply troubling issue on college campuses, and that is the issue 

of anti-Semitism, and bigotry, and hatred. 

And my understanding is that there is a Supreme Court case in 

1999 that gave us a definition, the Davis case, and I just want to 

quote that and then ask you a question. It found that ‘‘peer-on-peer 

harassment in the educational context is so severe, pervasive, and 

objectively offensive and that so undermines and detracts from the 

victim’s educational experience, that the victim students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.’’ 

If that is the Supreme Court definition, why do we not use that 

definition in this bill and instruct the Department of Education to 

proceed in that way? 

Mr. CLEMENT. So, Representative Buck, I think that is, you 

know, a very fair question and I think that what I would say is 

that right now I assume that in administering, you know—it is 

slightly different context, title VI versus title IX, and the like—but 

I would assume that that is in fact the standard that the Education 

Department is using right now in administering title VI—— 

Mr. BUCK. Well, it sounds like it is not using any standard, because it has not done any work in this area, in this desperately 

needed area. 

Mr. CLEMENT. Well, but I think there is two issues to keep separate. And one is, what is the level of conduct that rises to the level 

of harassment? And then, the second question is: if there is harassment, then title VI still does not prohibit it, if it is not on the basis 

of race, national origin, and the like. 

And so, what we are really struggling with in this particular context is to try to get a definition of anti-Semitism that will work for 

the motive part of the inquiry. 

51 

I do not think this bill is designed to really move the needle on 

what level of harassment is necessary to sort of bring a title VI action. And I think, though, as I have tried to suggest, that, you 

know, that question probably has much more to do with the First 

Amendment than the question of how we define anti-Semitism. 

And I would say, from a First Amendment perspective, we are 

much better off having government officials with a definition than 

without a definition. 

And just to refer to, just for a second, the statistics we have 

heard a lot about. So, there are zero cases currently being brought. 

Now, in the event that the reason zero cases have been brought is 

because not one of the cases that they investigated rose to the level 

of harassment under the Davis case, then that would be an acceptable result from a First Amendment standpoint. That would be the 

reason these cases are not being brought, is that they do not rise 

to the level of harassment. 

Now, I strongly doubt that is what is going on, and if the question is, if some subset of these hundreds of cases rose to the level 

of harassment, and they were not being brought because of some 

confusion about what constitutes anti-Semitism, that is the problem. That—— 

Mr. BUCK. I am going to interrupt you just for a second, because 

I want to get Mr. Greenblatt’s view on that. Which is it? He just 

gave you two options. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. Well, I cannot say definitively because I am 

not familiar with every case—— 

Mr. BUCK. Sure you can. 

Mr. GREENBLATT. I do not know all the cases they are looking at, 

but I can say, indeed, it is, you know, it would be reasonable to 

look at those cases and determine whether or not the lack of a definition prevented the office from doing their job effectively with respect to these specific incidents where Jewish students are affected. 

Mr. BUCK. Thank you. My time is up, and I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think this 

has been an issue in discussion, listening to, you know, putting 

nine people on the panel and all going at it. Wow, this is like 

throwing the ball and having us run and seeing who wins at the 

end of the day. 

But it has been good to discuss this because this is one of the 

things, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination, are abhorrent everywhere. It does not matter where they are located, and 

this is an issue that is particularly troubling when bigoted acts and 

harassment prevent students from basically accessing education. 

But I want to focus back because I think—I look like I am probably the last one here—to going back to one of the arguments that 

I have heard about that is against this in many ways is the First 

Amendment issue. This is a First Amendment issue. 

Mr. Clements, you have been in front of the Supreme Court more 

than any of us here, and also by the way my Legislative Director, 

Sally Rose Larson, who took Constitutional Law for undergrads, 

she says hello, but she is also glad she is not here. She did not 

want to be tested on this. So. We appreciate that. 

52 

Mr. Clement, you have argued these cases and I think you might 

be in need to discuss this. I want to discuss it from this level. Title 

IV of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discriminatory conduct, not 

speech. Correct? 

Mr. CLEMENT. Title VI, that is right. It is directed at harassment, as we were discussing. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. What role does the evidence of discriminatory speech play in analyzing allegations of a violation of the Civil 

Rights Act? 

Mr. CLEMENT. And that is where the Wisconsin v. Mitchell case 

makes quite clear that evidence of—including speech—can be used 

for an evidentiary purpose. And so, even though I think, you know, 

in Wisconsin v. Mitchell, you had nine Supreme Court justices that 

are very protective of the First Amendment, they unanimously held 

that you can use speech in that kind of evidentiary way. 

Mr. COLLINS. To show the intent that we are talking about here? 

Mr. CLEMENT. Right. Exactly. 

Mr. COLLINS. Okay. So, let’s continue on in this process. In consideration of potential violations of Title VI stemming from discriminatory-motivated harassment, how does one distinguish between the protected speech and the nonprotected conduct? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I think that is where it is really the harassment 

test that has to do the work. Because, you know, the Supreme 

Court has basically said that, you know, that there is a different 

level of protection for conduct as opposed to speech. 

And when you have conduct that rises to the level of harassment, 

you know, I think it is common ground that it is perfectly permissible to say that we are going to prohibit the harassment if it is 

motivated by race, national origin, or anti-Semitism. And then, it 

is just a matter of trying to figure out whether that is, in fact, what 

motivated the harasser. 

And in that inquiry, then you cannot take into account speech. 

It does not raise a First Amendment problem, by virtue of unanimous Supreme Court. And it just seems that in figuring out whether the speech, the conduct, sometimes it could be a combination of 

both; you know, somebody spray paints a swastika on somebody’s 

dorm room, and that is probably more conduct than speech. But all 

of that can then be used in order to make a determination whether 

the harassing conduct was anti-Semitic and, therefore, violates title 

VI. 

Mr. COLLINS. Many times, in looking at this, you know, there is 

a concern in many circles of are you, you know, in crossing over 

this area, especially in hate crimes or other things, are you criminalizing the thought? I am not sure if a definition, in the sense 

that we are talking about here with this Act, actually goes that far. 

And what you are saying, with this definition, impinge on this 

First Amendment right or some of the list of horribles that have 

come from several on the panel today? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I do not think it would, and I think maybe one 

way to think about the difference is this would be a very different 

situation if this was a proposal to say that the following anti-Semitic speech will be prohibited, and here is the definition. But that 

is not what this law does. It takes an existing framework that only 

reaches conduct that rises to the level of harassment based on a 

53 

certain level of motivation, and then uses this as a way of figuring 

out what motivation counts. 

Mr. COLLINS. And where it does not seem to be working at all. 

Since we are not seeing this being brought forth. Although we are 

seeing out in the world very evidently, we are not seeing it brought 

in these cases. 

Mr. CLEMENT. That is exactly right. Look, in the abstract, one 

could say that maybe we do not want a definition written into the 

statute and we would prefer to do it case by case and have courts 

develop it, but you need cases. 

Mr. COLLINS. Right. 

Mr. CLEMENT. And I think what we are seeing here is that there 

are no cases that are allowing us to develop a definition through 

the judicial process. And so, it makes sense why Congress would 

want to step in here, even if it would not necessarily feel like it 

needed to step in in some other context. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I appreciate the other witnesses. I do have one 

last question because it was brought up earlier concerning—your 

testimony concerning this—into what was put into this. As it is 

shifting to this legalization, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, includes a savings clause. And hypothetically, without the savings 

clause, in your opinion, would it violate the First Amendment, and 

if so, why? 

Mr. CLEMENT. I think this would be perfectly constitutional without the savings clause for the two principle reasons that I have 

given. 

One is that it essentially is not a direct regulation speech, but 

only essentially an evidentiary test for the motivation for harassment. 

And second, because the definition actually serves First Amendment values. I just think the savings clause, you know, to the extent that with any statute, somebody can come in and say, ‘‘Well, 

maybe it is going to, even though it is not unconstitutional on its 

face, maybe it will be applied in the wrong way.’’ And I think the 

savings clause gives some additional sort of comfort that that is not 

the way that the statute would be applied. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, I thank the panel today, and all nine opinions 

have served well to know that you can apply it pretty much any 

way from any angle that you want. But I think it has been a good 

discussion. 

I agree with my friend from Texas just a few minutes ago, this 

is something we need to, I think can move forward on without infringing on the First Amendment rights, which was the overall 

issue, and bring some clarity that may be lacking at this point 

today. But that is the reason we move forward. That is not simply 

because we have questions that we should not move forward, it is 

the very fact that we have questions that I believe should move 

this forward. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman GOODLATTE. The chair thanks the gentleman. I want 

to thank all the witnesses. This has been an excellent hearing. I 

think we have helped to shed a lot of light on a very important 

issue. I am deeply concerned about what is happening to Jewish 

students on college campuses, and I think that we need to work together to find the right approach to make sure that the forces are 

54 

brought to bear, including the U.S. Department of Education, to 

solve this problem. And I am sure this dialogue will continue. But 

all of you have made a great contribution today, and I think you 

have helped to educate the members of the committee. 

So, this concludes today’s hearing, and I, again, thank all of you 

for your participation. And, without objection, all members will 

have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for 

the witnesses or additional materials for the record. And with that, 

this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ