The House Committee on Education and Workforce is holding its ninth hearing in 18 months on antisemitism on college campuses. CBS News' Shanelle Kaul has more details.
The House hearing on antisemitism on college campuses was punctuated by outbursts of anger, frustration, and deeply held disagreements. While the stated purpose was to examine the rise of antisemitic incidents and explore potential legislative solutions, the hearing quickly devolved into a clash of narratives and accusations. Representatives from various organizations, including Jewish student groups and civil rights advocacy groups, testified to a disturbing increase in antisemitic acts on college campuses – ranging from swastika graffiti and hateful online rhetoric to physical assaults and disruptions of Jewish events. These accounts elicited visible anger and sorrow from some committee members, who emphasized the urgency of addressing this growing problem and holding perpetrators accountable. They expressed frustration with what they perceived as insufficient action from university administrations, citing examples of inadequate responses and a perceived reluctance to confront antisemitism effectively. However, the hearing also saw considerable pushback. Some witnesses and committee members questioned the definition of antisemitism, arguing that the focus on antisemitism overshadowed other forms of bigotry and potentially stifled free speech. Accusations of anti-Zionism being conflated with antisemitism fueled intense debate, with passionate disagreements erupting over the application of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism. This led to heated exchanges and accusations of political maneuvering, with some arguing that adopting the IHRA definition would chill legitimate criticism of Israeli policies. Anger also stemmed from the perceived lack of consensus on solutions. While some advocated for stronger federal legislation and increased funding for campus security, others argued that such measures could be counterproductive and infringe on academic freedom. The lack of a clear, universally accepted path forward only intensified the frustrations expressed during the hearing. The hearing concluded with lingering anger and a clear sense that the issue of antisemitism on college campuses remains deeply divisive and complex. The conflicting narratives and the inability to reach a common ground highlighted the significant challenges in addressing this critical issue effectively, leaving many feeling that the hearing had, at best, only scratched the surface of a far more intricate problem. The anger expressed, while often unproductive in terms of finding solutions, underscored the seriousness of the problem and the intensity of the feelings surrounding it.
