Faculty, Funding, and Ideology — 15 July 2025

Question

What did the 15 July 2025 House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing establish about Georgetown University, the City University of New York, and UC Berkeley responses to campus antisemitism, and what remained contested regarding faculty conduct, foreign funding transparency, and the role of DEI ideology?

Context

This hearing shifted focus from campus encampments to underlying factors the committee identified as drivers of antisemitism: faculty groups, unions, Middle East studies centers, foreign funding, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. Chairman Tim Walberg titled it "Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology."

Four witnesses testified: Robert M. Groves (Interim President, Georgetown University), Félix V. Matos Rodríguez (Chancellor, CUNY), Matt Nosanchuk (former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education), and Rich Lyons (Chancellor, UC Berkeley).

The hearing occurred against the backdrop of Department of Education workforce reductions and Office for Civil Rights (OCR) closures, creating contested terrain about whether enforcement infrastructure was being strengthened or dismantled.

Witnesses

Dr. Robert M. Groves, Interim President, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez, Chancellor, The City University of New York, New York, NY
Mr. Matt Nosanchuk, Principal, Mattnos Strategies and Former Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Rich Lyons, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, California

Official Sources

• Official event page: House Committee Repository Event 118469
• Congress.gov hearing text: LC75547
• Serial: 119-22
• GPO jacket: 63-056
• Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2025, 10:18 a.m., Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building

Established — Definitions of antisemitism

Chairman Walberg opened with direct questions requiring each university leader to define antisemitism. The definitions provided:

Georgetown (Groves): "Hatred of the Jewish people, and all of the behaviors that might be connected with such hatred."

CUNY (Matos Rodríguez): "Hatred or prejudice against Jews or individuals who are perceived to be Jewish."

UC Berkeley (Lyons): "Hatred or discrimination against Jewish people."

All three leaders provided definitions without hesitation. Whether these definitions aligned with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, which the hearing record references, was not explicitly confirmed in these opening exchanges.

Established — CUNY disciplinary numbers and complaint volume

Matos Rodríguez provided specific figures when questioned by Chairman Walberg:

• Antisemitism complaints received: 68 in 2024, 16 in 2025 (through July 15)
• Students disciplined for antisemitic conduct: 18 over the prior two years
• Students disciplined for inappropriate protest behavior: 25 additional students

When asked how many Jewish students transferred out of CUNY since October 7, 2023, Matos Rodríguez stated: "I do not have that information."

The committee chairman entered into the record testimony from CUNY students documenting experiences of antisemitism, along with a complaint filed by Hunter College Jewish Studies Chair Leah Garrett alleging a hostile workplace environment. These submissions are part of the hearing record but represent allegations rather than adjudicated findings.

Contested — CUNY's Chief Diversity Officer employment history

Representative Stefanik questioned Matos Rodríguez about CUNY's Chief Diversity Officer Saly Abd Alla, hired in 2021, regarding prior employment with the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

Stefanik characterized CAIR as "a co-conspirator in a terrorist financing case" with "ties to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization." She asked whether Alla remains employed by CUNY.

Matos Rodríguez confirmed Alla's current employment and stated she was hired "to be the Chief Diversity Officer at the Central Office with no responsibility over cases that have to deal with students or faculty." He added: "I was not directly responsible for that hire."

Whether the hire was appropriate, whether CAIR affiliation constitutes disqualifying conduct, and whether the position should be eliminated remained contested. Stefanik predicted "no disciplinary action" would be taken. Matos Rodríguez repeatedly stated that any employee violating CUNY policies would be investigated and held accountable.

Contested — CUNY Clear legal clinic and Mahmoud Khalil defense

Stefanik raised CUNY Clear, the clinical arm of CUNY School of Law, stating its founder and professor heads Mahmoud Khalil's legal defense fund. She characterized Khalil as "the Chief Pro Hamas agitator that led to the antisemitic encampments at Columbia, the rioting and violent takeover of Hamilton Hall, the harassment and physical assault of Jewish students."

Matos Rodríguez testified he was not familiar with CUNY Clear. When asked whether it concerned him that New York taxpayers fund the legal defense of Khalil, he answered: "Yes."

Stefanik pressed whether the professor heading Khalil's defense would be fired. Matos Rodríguez responded: "Anybody that breaks our rules and our policies, there will be an investigation... and if there is any disciplinary actions to be taken, we will take it."

Whether providing legal defense through a law school clinical program constitutes antisemitic conduct, whether such representation violates CUNY policy, and whether disciplinary action is warranted remained contested. The exchange documented the allegation and CUNY's stated investigation process, not a determination of wrongdoing.

Established — City College encampment damage and discipline

Representative Allen and others questioned the Spring 2024 City College encampment. Matos Rodríguez's written and oral testimony addressed this incident:

• The encampment occurred during Spring Break 2024
• Damage to campus property occurred (Allen stated $3 million; Matos Rodríguez did not dispute the figure)
• CUNY ended the encampment with help from the New York City Police Department
• Seven individuals were disciplined for breaking into a building
• Three students and four faculty/staff were among those disciplined

Matos Rodríguez stated: "We learned from that experience, and we now have a zero-tolerance policy against encampments." He testified that CUNY hired more than 150 full-time security employees and contracted with an additional 250 security personnel. In Spring 2025, CUNY "applied our zero-tolerance policy and worked with CUNY public safety to prevent an encampment at City College."

When asked about specific disciplinary outcomes (suspension, expulsion, termination), Matos Rodríguez declined to comment on individual cases but stated: "Discipline goes from reprimand, training, suspension or termination, and we have terminated individuals in the faculty and staff for violating our policies on antisemitism."

Established — Georgetown's no-encampment record and Georgetown-Qatar relationship

Groves testified in his opening statement: "Since October 7th, Georgetown has not experienced an encampment, physical violence, cancellation of commencement activities, or city police activities."

Regarding Georgetown's campus in Qatar, established in 2005, Groves testified:

• The Qatar Foundation approached Georgetown to build western universities in Doha
• Georgetown has "full control over the curriculum, admissions, faculty hiring and research activities" at the Qatar campus
• Nearly 70 percent of students at the Qatar campus are women
• "Non-U.S. financial support is accepted only to fulfill our longstanding mission, but never to alter it"

Groves stated Georgetown follows its Jesuit values globally, which since 1789 have "demanded the absence of antisemitism and other hatreds."

When asked about Georgetown's vetting process for antisemitic content in faculty hiring, Groves answered: "Not at this time, Congressman."

Contested — Georgetown's relationship with Francesca Albanese

Representative Allen questioned Georgetown's affiliation with Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian territories. Allen cited Albanese's 2014 statement: "America and Europe, one of them subjugated by the Jewish lobby and the other by the sense of guilt about the Holocaust."

Allen stated the Trump administration sanctioned Albanese "over her long track record of supporting terrorism and perpetrating antisemitism." When asked if Albanese remains an affiliated scholar of Georgetown, Groves answered: "She is still listed as an affiliate, but she is not present on campus, nor participating in the Center."

Groves testified: "She is not on the payroll of Georgetown, and never was." He stated he was not aware of the 2014 statement and would follow up on whether Georgetown considered terminating the relationship.

Whether maintaining an affiliation with Albanese—even without campus presence or salary—constitutes institutional endorsement of antisemitism, and whether Georgetown should sever the relationship, remained contested. Allen urged removal; Groves did not commit to action during the hearing.

Contested — Georgetown speaker Mohammad Al Khor

Representative Owens detailed multiple appearances by activist Mohammad Al Khor at Georgetown over three years, including four documented speaking events. Owens attributed statements to Al Khor including:

• Israelis "harvest organs of the martyr" and have "an unquenchable thirst for Palestinian blood"
• Jewish people "control the media"
• Wishes "every single Zionist to perish"
• Hamas had "good political reasons" for taking hostages who were "well treated"
• Describing Hamas as a "liberation movement" and October 7 as "a resistance tactic"

The final event cited was February 16, 2025, when Georgetown University in partnership with Georgetown Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine invited Al Khor for a book launch.

Groves testified he was not familiar with Al Khor by name. When Owens read the statements and asked if they constituted antisemitism, Groves answered "Absolutely" and characterized Hamas's October 7 attack as "pure evil."

Owens asked: "Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths of black Americans to speak at Georgetown?" Groves answered: "No, but we endeavor to have speakers from many different sides..." Owens interrupted: "I do not think we would."

Owens concluded: "If Georgetown would prevent white KKK bigots on the campus, why would a university allow on advice of faculty or students to invite Palestinian antisemitic bigots?"

Whether Al Khor's speeches occurred as documented, whether Georgetown properly vetted speakers, whether faculty groups can independently invite speakers with institutional space, and whether the KKK analogy is valid remained contested. The exchange established the allegation and Groves's stated opposition to the content described, but not institutional policy on speaker vetting or faculty-sponsored events.

Established — UC Berkeley's time, place, and manner enforcement

Lyons testified about Berkeley's enforcement of protest rules during his first year as Chancellor:

• "Tents are not allowed. Tents are not part of an expression of free speech. Were we tested? We were tested. We took them down immediately."
• Berkeley has "no tolerance rules" against blocking Sather Gate, a central campus gateway
• When a sukkah was erected blocking part of Sather Gate, "We took it down, effectively immediately"

Lyons stated these rules are "content neutral" and apply regardless of the viewpoint being expressed.

Representative DeSaulnier entered into the record a letter from over 80 Jewish faculty at UC Berkeley supporting the Chancellor's actions against antisemitism. Lyons characterized this as evidence that "they like what they say, we have made a lot of changes."

Contested — UC Berkeley professor characterization and hiring

Representative Fine stated a UC Berkeley professor "stated the unprovoked October 7th attack was justified" and asked Chancellor Lyons: "Why he hired and continues to employ" this professor.

Lyons defended the professor multiple times, stating: "He is a fine scholar."

Fine pressed Lyons on whether Jewish students feel safe. Lyons answered: "I think there are Jewish people that don't feel safe in lots of parts." When asked again specifically about campus safety, Lyons said: "I think there is antisemitism in society."

Whether the professor's statements justify continued employment, whether Lyons's characterization as "a fine scholar" minimizes antisemitism concerns, and whether Jewish students' campus safety concerns are being adequately addressed remained contested. The exchange documented competing frames: Fine's focus on faculty statements and student safety, Lyons's emphasis on academic credentials and societal context.

Contested — UC Berkeley Sather Gate checkpoint incident

Representative Kiley referenced "a checkpoint at Sather Gate, where Jewish students, their movement was impeded" and asked whether "a student or faculty member who physically obstructs the movement of someone on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and nationality, religion" should face automatic expulsion or termination.

Lyons responded with "no tolerance rule for blocking Sather Gate for any reason" but declined to commit to automatic expulsion: "Part of it were they physically restricting people that were from a different identity group? At the same time there is just a lot of context and facts before somebody could say we need to jump to the point where somebody is getting expelled."

Lyons described "tiered response" considering whether conduct is "a first offense" or "20th offense" and "how extreme was it."

Whether the Sather Gate checkpoint incident involved identity-based discrimination, whether such conduct warrants automatic expulsion, and whether context-dependent investigation is appropriate or constitutes inadequate accountability remained contested.

Established — Nosanchuk's critique of OCR gutting and complaint dismissals

Nosanchuk, testifying as a former OCR official, provided specific figures and institutional critique:

• OCR "gutted," with "most of its regional offices" closed and "staff cut in half"
• OCR "dismissed over 3,400 complaints in just 3 months" (March through June)
• This represented "an unprecedented number suggesting students in harm's way are being ignored"

He contrasted the prior resolution agreement approach—"detailed, monitored resolution agreements, obligating the schools to take verifiable action"—with the current approach of "ultimatum style notices of violation, riddled with inaccuracies, and political hyperbole."

Nosanchuk quoted a campus Hillel director describing the impact of an OCR resolution agreement: "Jewish life has improved remarkably. Jewish students now receive responsive to bias incidents within 24 hours. The Hillel Center reported a 40 percent increase in daily usage. Parents feel confident sending their children there."

He testified: "An administration committed to strengthening enforcement against antisemitism invests in responsible offices and critical personnel. It does not shutter agencies and fire staff."

Contested — Whether the administration is strengthening or undermining antisemitism enforcement

The hearing record contains two fundamentally incompatible frames:

Majority frame (Chairman Walberg, Representatives Stefanik, Owens, Fine, Allen, others): Universities have failed to address antisemitism drivers including antisemitic faculty, foreign funding, unions, and DEI policies. The hearing is necessary oversight to hold universities accountable. The administration is taking strong action against antisemitism through ultimatum-style notices and funding conditions.

Minority frame (Ranking Member Scott, Representatives Bonamici, Adams, DeSaulnier, Lee, Ansari, McBath, others): The administration is "gutting" the OCR office responsible for Title VI enforcement, dismissing thousands of complaints, and using antisemitism as pretext for ideological attacks on higher education. Representative Bonamici cited White House officials with "ties to antisemitic extremists" including promotion of "the antisemitic great replacement conspiracy theory." Scott noted this was the committee's ninth antisemitism hearing in 18 months, with no hearings on "racism, xenophobia, sexism, Islamophobia, or other challenges affecting other student groups."

Nosanchuk's expert testimony: The current approach is "contradictory and counterproductive," including "gutting the office mandated to enforce the law, while claiming to champion the fight against antisemitism." He described it as "the Wizard of Oz, projecting an intimidating, demanding, illusory image of action, but here the man behind the curtain cancels funds for civil rights enforcement."

Whether the administration's approach strengthens or undermines Jewish student protection, whether enforcement infrastructure is being built or dismantled, and whether the hearing series represents accountability or weaponization remained the fundamental contested question underlying the entire proceeding.

Contested — The role of DEI policies in antisemitism

Chairman Walberg stated in his opening: "The DEI ideology embraced by so many university bureaucrats categorizes Jews as white oppressors, and therefore, excuses or even justifies antisemitic harassment."

Representative Adams challenged this framing: "I have heard that in this Committee that DEI is to blame, that foreign scholars are a threat, that faculty ought to be punished for their views... We do not need political scorecards. We need real solutions."

Representative Lee stated: "This is yet another hearing to demonize Muslims and their religion, to demonize Palestinians... to pit Jewish Americans against Muslim Americans."

No witness testified that DEI policies directly cause antisemitism. University leaders described multi-faceted efforts including training, complaint procedures, and partnerships with Jewish organizations. Nosanchuk described effective resolution agreements requiring "climate surveys, mandatory training, and ensuring all complaints get addressed promptly and effectively."

Whether DEI policies contribute to campus antisemitism, whether they should be eliminated or strengthened, and whether focusing on DEI distracts from effective Title VI enforcement remained contested along partisan lines throughout the hearing.

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not produce:

1. Adjudicated findings of Title VI violations at any of the three institutions. OCR investigations are referenced but outcomes are not documented in this hearing record.

2. Quantified rates of antisemitic incidents per student population, making comparative assessment difficult. CUNY provided complaint numbers (68 in 2024, 16 in 2025) but without enrollment context or comparison to other bias incident types.

3. Evidence of direct foreign funding influence on faculty hiring, research, or institutional statements. Georgetown's Qatar relationship was discussed but Groves testified to "full control" over academic matters.

4. Documented connection between specific faculty speech and hostile environment harassment under Title VI legal standards. Allegations were made, but whether speech crosses from protected expression to actionable harassment was not legally analyzed.

5. Effectiveness data on different institutional approaches. Berkeley's no-tolerance enforcement, CUNY's zero-tolerance encampment policy, and Georgetown's no-encampment record were documented, but comparative outcomes for Jewish student safety were not measured.

6. Resolution of whether speaker invitation processes involve institutional endorsement. Whether student or faculty groups can invite controversial speakers using campus space without institutional vetting or approval was referenced but not clarified.

7. Clarity on whether OCR complaint dismissals represent appropriate case management or abandonment of enforcement duties. The 3,400-dismissal figure was provided without case-by-case breakdown of dismissal reasons.

8. Agreement on the appropriate balance between free speech protection and hostile environment prevention at public universities. This tension was acknowledged by multiple witnesses but not resolved.

Questions for the Record

The hearing record notes that Questions and Responses for the Record were filed by Dr. Groves, Dr. Lyons, and Dr. Matos Rodríguez on July 31, 2025. These responses are part of the official hearing record (Serial 119-22) but are written submissions, not hearing testimony. They may contain additional detail, clarification, or context not captured in the oral hearing proceedings.

Note on Method

This audit relies exclusively on the official Congress.gov hearing text (LC75547), the House Committee Repository event page (Event 118469), and the hearing recap published by the Education and Workforce Committee. All witness statements, member questions, and testimony are drawn from these official sources. Characterizations of statements as "established" reflect their presence in the sworn testimony record; "contested" indicates areas where competing interpretations, factual disputes, or normative disagreements appear in the record without resolution. No statements are attributed to witnesses without direct quotation or paraphrase from the official transcript.