Beyond the Ivy League — 7 May 2025

Question

What did the 7 May 2025 House Education and Workforce Committee hearing establish about Haverford College, DePaul University, and California Polytechnic State University responses to campus antisemitism following October 7, 2023, and what remained contested?

Context

This sitting extended the committee's campus-antisemitism inquiry beyond the Ivy League and flagship institutions previously examined. Chair Tim Walberg titled it "Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses."

Three university presidents testified: Wendy Raymond (Haverford College), Robert Manuel (DePaul University), and Jeffrey Armstrong (California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo). David Cole, Georgetown Law professor and former ACLU National Legal Director, testified on First Amendment and Title VI legal frameworks.

Witnesses

Dr. Wendy Raymond, President, Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania
Dr. Robert Manuel, President, DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois
Mr. David Cole, Esq., George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center, and former National Legal Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Washington, D.C.
Dr. Jeffrey Armstrong, President, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California

Established — institutional acknowledgments of failure

Raymond testified: "I recognize that we have not always succeeded in living up to our ideals. Many have wished that the college, or I, as President, had responded differently to various actions." She stated directly: "I am sorry that my actions and my leadership let you down."

Manuel testified: "We have made mistakes along the way. As DePaul's leader, I want to acknowledge that openly. To our students, our parents, our faculty, our staff, our alumni and our friends, I am deeply sorry."

All three presidents made institutional admissions of insufficient initial response. Whether those admissions demonstrated accountability or inadequate leadership remained contested.

Established — disciplinary actions taken

Armstrong testified that six students were disciplined as a result of 2024 events, with discipline "ranging from two quarters suspension to deferred suspension to probation."

Manuel testified that post-October 7, eight student groups were investigated, two were suspended and placed on probation, and he believed two arrests occurred after the encampment dissolution, one of whom was a student.

Raymond refused to provide disciplinary numbers. When Chair Walberg asked for suspension and expulsion counts, she responded: "We do not publicize those numbers, and we use suspension and expelling as normal parts of our disciplinary process." When pressed by Representative Mackenzie, she stated: "We do not share our results of our disciplinary processes on our campus or publicly."

That Cal Poly and DePaul disclosed some disciplinary outcomes is documented. Whether Raymond's refusal to disclose reflected privacy concerns or accountability avoidance was contested. Two of three presidents provided numbers; Haverford did not.

Established — DePaul encampment timeline and institutional delay

Representative McClain pressed Manuel on the timeline. The encampment began April 29, 2024. On May 10, Manuel issued a statement titled "quad safety concerns" urging the DePaul community to avoid the quad. The encampment was not removed until May 16 or 17.

McClain asked: "It took you 3 weeks?" Manuel responded: "I would agree with you that we need to do better." When asked if three weeks was acceptable, Manuel stated: "I would, and—" McClain cut him off: "Thank you very much."

The timeline is documented: April 29 encampment start, May 10 safety warning, May 16-17 removal. That DePaul took approximately three weeks to remove the encampment is established fact from Manuel's testimony.

Contested — DePaul violence allegations and victim testimony

Chair Walberg stated in his opening: "At DePaul meanwhile, there have been multiple, yes multiple instances, of physical violence against Jewish students. Last May, the University permitted a multi-week encampment that was so disruptive and violent that the nearby elementary school had to cancel recess. After finally forcibly shutting down the encampment, DePaul still ended up giving in to agitators' demands. We have a student here today who had surgery as a result of the attack on him, and a colleague."

Manuel testified to "two of our students who were attacked last November. What happened to them was a hate crime. No one should ever be attacked because of who they are, and I am sorry for the pain that they are experiencing."

Representative McClain referenced "Michael, and his friend that sustained a concussion and a broken wrist." The CHRG-119hhrg61619 transcript does not include student victim testimony. Whether the November attack occurred at an SJIP protest, who the perpetrators were, and what disciplinary outcomes resulted from the attack were not established in the hearing record.

The chairman's claim that the encampment required an elementary school to cancel recess appears in his opening statement but was not substantiated with documentation or questioned testimony during the hearing.

Established — Students for Justice in Palestine suspension status

Manuel testified that SJIP "has been suspended. They are on probation" and that after a Thursday Instagram post (described by Chair Walberg as "accusing Israel of being just like the Nazi's"), SJIP was "immediately suspended, and all their operations from campus pending a new hearing."

When asked if he would commit to permanently banning SJIP, Manuel stated: "The cumulative effect of their work will be considered in the results or the outcomes of that next hearing. I would be happy to report back to you on their findings."

SJIP's suspended status is documented. Whether suspension would become permanent ban depended on future hearing outcomes not yet completed as of May 7.

Established — Haverford October 7 response and subsequent apology

Representative Harris pressed Raymond on Haverford's initial statement. Harris testified that days after October 7, Haverford released a statement highlighting tragedies "since the start of the semester" including earthquakes in Morocco and Afghanistan, wildfires, and Ukraine, with only "passing reference" to "the outbreak of war in Israel and Gaza."

Harris stated: "October 7, was not a mutual 'outbreak of war between two countries.' In fact, it was a terrorist attack by Hamas on Israel. Babies were butchered. Women were raped. 1,200 innocents were slaughtered, and over 250 people were kidnapped."

Raymond responded: "Representative Harris, we did condemn the attack by Hamas on Israel, and it was not--you are correct, in that email, which I was responsible for. I would do it differently now. This is an example of a difficult period of learning where I did not get it right."

Raymond's acknowledgment that she "did not get it right" and "would do it differently now" is on the record. Whether the initial framing reflected institutional moral failure or overly inclusive crisis response was contested.

Contested — Haverford faculty statements and consequences

Chair Walberg cited Haverford and Bryn Mawr Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine (FSJIP) praising a Palestinian terrorist who led a 1978 attack killing 38 Israelis including 13 children, claiming the terrorist "sacrificed herself for her country, and fought for the freedom of many Palestinians."

Walberg asked: "Does praising the murder of Jews violate any Haverford policies?" Raymond responded: "Of course it does. There is no place for that, ever, anywhere."

When asked if Haverford professors in FSJIP faced consequences, Raymond stated: "I am not aware of that particular post, and antisemitism in any of its forms is not tolerated at Haverford College."

Representative Foxx pressed on Professor Guangtian Ha's August 2024 X posts: "The State of Israel must be dismantled, and the society denazified. Zionism is Nazism, it is Fascism, Zionists are racist" and "The only way to deal with Zionists is to stop talking to them and refuse to let them waste your time."

When Representative Fine asked if Ha still works at Haverford, Raymond confirmed: "Yes, he does." Fine pressed: "That is OK, and you can continue to work on your campus when you make those statements, that is OK, keep the job." Raymond responded: "Those statements are repugnant, and I do not defend those statements."

Representative Fine also cited a visiting assistant professor who wrote on October 7, 2023: "October 7th is a beautiful sight to wake up to this morning" and stated Haverford offered this person another position in June 2024.

That these statements occurred is documented by chair and member testimony. Whether faculty made these statements in official or personal capacity, whether they constitute protected speech or conduct violations, whether academic freedom protects such expression, and whether institutional employment decisions reflected appropriate judgment or tolerance of antisemitism remained unresolved.

Established — Haverford ADL event disruption

Representative Onder testified that on September 30, 2024, students disrupted an ADL presentation titled "Antisemitism 101" by "chanting through a megaphone, 'From Gaza to Lebanon, Israel will still be gone--will soon be gone,' banging pots and pans, and holding signs with statements, including, 'No Zionists on Campus.'"

Onder asked if Raymond believed that was "an incident of intimidating Jewish students, and an incident of antisemitism." Raymond responded: "I do believe that is an act of intimidation, yes."

When asked if students were disciplined, Raymond stated: "We did put through discipline, some of the students that were involved in disrupting that event, and we learned from that event to have clearer policies, which we now have on what it means to disrupt through noise outside an event."

Representative Onder pressed for numbers and specifics. Raymond stated: "I will not give numbers or specifics."

That the disruption occurred, that Raymond characterized it as intimidation, and that some discipline resulted is documented. How many students were disciplined and what sanctions were imposed remained undisclosed.

Contested — anti-Zionism and Title VI

Representative Foxx asked Raymond: "Do you believe there is a distinction between anti-Zionism and antisemitism?" Raymond responded: "I want to say that we support all of our Zionist students, staff and faculty at Haverford, and we are squarely against antisemitism."

Foxx pressed: "Do you believe anti-Zionism is any more acceptable than antisemitism?" Raymond: "Antisemitism is unacceptable. There is no place for it." Foxx: "How about anti-Zionism?" Raymond: "There is room for criticizing the government of any nation."

Foxx stated: "The State of Israel has existed for almost 80 years. Under the premise of anti-Zionism, the Jewish State as it exists today should not exist. Is that what you believe that Israel should not exist?" Raymond: "Pardon me, that is not at all what I said, or what I meant here."

Foxx asked Armstrong if anti-Zionism could constitute national origin discrimination. Armstrong responded: "Yes."

Whether anti-Zionism constitutes antisemitism, protected political speech, or national-origin discrimination under Title VI was not resolved. Raymond distinguished criticizing Israeli government policy from opposing Israel's existence but did not explicitly state whether the latter constitutes antisemitism. Armstrong affirmed it could be discrimination. Cole's testimony framed most speech as protected unless it crosses specific legal thresholds.

David Cole's legal framework and committee criticism

Cole testified that antisemitic speech is constitutionally protected, just as racist, sexist, and homophobic speech is. He stated Title VI prohibits only discriminatory denial of equal access to education, not offensive speech at protests or online.

Cole identified two narrow circumstances where antisemitic speech implicates Title VI: (1) harassment targeted at an individual because of Jewish identity specifically (not Israel support), and (2) speech so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive it denies equal access to education—"a very high standard" that has "almost never been met in the case law."

Cole stated: "Title VI governs only colleges, not students, so when a student harasses another student that student has not violated Title VI, and the college has not violated Title VI because the student does not speak for the college. The college only violates Title VI if it is deliberately indifferent to the act, deliberately indifferent, again, a very high standard set forth by the Supreme Court in the Davis case, and almost never met."

Cole concluded: "With all due respect, these proceedings have had more in common with those of the House Un-American Activities Committee. They are not an attempt to find out what happened, but an attempt to shield protected speech. That was a mistake then, and it is a mistake now."

Cole's legal framework established what Title VI requires versus what falls within protected speech. Whether the committee's proceedings constitute legitimate oversight or political harassment of institutions for tolerating protected speech remained the core contested question.

The Office for Civil Rights dismantling frame

Ranking Member Scott stated in his opening: "Unfortunately, instead of properly enforcing Title VI, this Committee is holding the eighth hearing describing the problem, and complaining about antisemitism on college campuses, instead of taking any meaningful action to actually solve the problem."

Scott testified that over the first three months of the Trump administration, OCR closed 7 of 12 regional offices and laid off nearly half its staff. Representative Takano pressed Cole: "How many OCR field offices have been closed under the Trump administration?" Cole: "My understanding is 7 of the 12, so more than half have been closed."

Takano noted that San Francisco, Chicago, and Philadelphia OCR field offices—serving the regions where all three universities are located—had been closed. He asked Cole what recourse a student with a religious discrimination claim now has. Cole: "I do not think they have much recourse."

Representative McClain and others emphasized the need for action rather than "lip service." Ranking Member Scott countered that the solution is properly funded OCR enforcement, not additional hearings. Whether the committee's focus on institutional accountability or the administration's OCR dismantling better addressed campus antisemitism was contested along party lines.

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not establish:

• Whether any institution violated Title VI obligations (no adjudication occurred)
• Complete disciplinary outcomes at Haverford (Raymond refused to disclose)
• Whether faculty speech constitutes protected academic freedom or conduct violations
• Who attacked the DePaul students in November, what investigation outcomes were, or what campus location the attack occurred
• Whether the DePaul encampment actually required an elementary school to cancel recess (chairman's claim, not substantiated in witness testimony or documentary evidence)
• What specific Cal Poly faculty conduct toward Jewish students occurred (chairman's opening statement referenced "at least one faculty member has been complicit in harassing Jewish students who were trying to attend an Israel related special lecture," but no testimony developed this claim)
• Whether anti-Zionism constitutes antisemitism or national-origin discrimination
• Comparative ADL grade outcomes (chairman submitted report cards for the record but comparative analysis was not examined)

Both frames have testimonial support

The accountability frame (universities failed Jewish students, leadership inadequate, enforcement came too late or not at all) has: Raymond and Manuel's institutional apologies, Raymond's admission she "did not get it right" on October 7 response, DePaul's three-week encampment removal timeline, Raymond's refusal to disclose disciplinary numbers, documented faculty statements praising terrorists and comparing Zionism to Nazism with no announced consequences, ADL event disruption with unspecified discipline, and Manuel's admission two Jewish students were attacked in a hate crime.

The institutional constraint frame (universities balanced competing obligations, followed due process, protected academic freedom) has: All three presidents' testimony about policy reforms implemented, Armstrong and Manuel's disclosure of specific disciplinary actions, Cole's legal framework establishing high Title VI thresholds, Raymond's testimony that discipline occurred but privacy concerns prevent disclosure, distinction between protected faculty speech and institutional endorsement, and the absence of OCR findings or determinations that any institution violated Title VI.

The hearing record does not adjudicate between these frames. Both are interpretations of documented events.

The free speech versus safety collision

Cole testified that most antisemitic speech is protected and universities committed to free speech should tolerate it. He stated the committee conflates protected speech with Title VI violations and engages in "broad based charges of antisemitism without any factual predicate."

Chair Walberg's opening characterized faculty who "express support for known terrorist groups, verbally harass Jewish students and call for the destruction of Israel" as manifesting antisemitism. Representatives pressed on specific slogans: "Long Live the Intifada," "From Gaza to Lebanon, Israel Will Soon Be Gone," "Resistance is not terrorism."

Raymond characterized these as "antisemitic form of speech" and "repugnant speech" she disavows. When asked if these statements "call for the genocide of Jews," she stated: "There is no tolerance for any such speech that would call for that."

Whether slogans like "Long Live the Intifada" constitute calls for violence, political speech about Palestinian resistance, or coded antisemitic threats was not adjudicated. Raymond condemned them. Cole's framework suggests most such speech is constitutionally protected unless it crosses specific harassment or hostile-environment thresholds. The committee majority treated them as evidence of institutional tolerance of antisemitism.

Limits

This analysis relies on the official House transcript (CHRG-119hhrg61619) and the official Event 118209 page. It does not claim access to:

• University disciplinary case files or investigation outcomes (particularly Haverford's undisclosed records)
• Faculty personnel files or academic freedom review processes
• Complete DePaul attack investigation findings and perpetrator identification
• Elementary school recess cancellation documentation
• Cal Poly faculty incident details beyond chairman's opening statement reference
• ADL report card methodology or comparative institutional data
• Post-hearing written responses (QFRs were noted as filed but outcomes not tracked here)

Voice

This analysis presents the 7 May 2025 House Education and Workforce hearing's documented record. Three university presidents testified to different institutional responses: Haverford's President admitted she "did not get it right" on October 7 response and refused to disclose disciplinary numbers, DePaul's President apologized for three-week encampment removal delay and acknowledged two students were victims of a hate crime, and Cal Poly's President disclosed six students disciplined with specific sanctions.

What remained contested: whether institutional responses constituted adequate Title VI compliance or tolerance of antisemitism, whether faculty statements represent protected academic freedom or conduct violations, whether anti-Zionism constitutes antisemitism or protected political speech, whether the committee's proceedings serve legitimate oversight or constitute political harassment of institutions, and whether the solution to campus antisemitism requires university accountability hearings or restored OCR enforcement capacity.

David Cole's testimony established that Title VI sets high legal thresholds—deliberate indifference to severe, pervasive, objectively offensive conduct denying equal access—and that most antisemitic speech is constitutionally protected. Whether universities meet that standard or fall short depends on evidentiary assessments OCR conducts, not congressional characterizations.

Both the accountability frame (universities failed Jewish students, avoided discipline, tolerated faculty extremism) and the institutional constraint frame (universities balanced safety with speech, followed due process, protected academic freedom under First Amendment obligations) have testimonial support. The hearing established institutional actions, admissions, and some disciplinary outcomes. It did not resolve whether those actions satisfy Title VI obligations or constitute failure to protect Jewish students.

What the record does establish: Haverford's President admitted her October 7 response failed and refused to disclose disciplinary outcomes, DePaul took three weeks to remove an encampment and two students were victims of a hate crime, Cal Poly disciplined six students with disclosed sanctions, faculty at Haverford made statements comparing Zionism to Nazism and praising terrorists with no announced consequences, and the ADL "Antisemitism 101" event was disrupted with some unspecified discipline. Whether these facts demonstrate institutional failure or reasonable crisis response under competing constitutional obligations remained contested at the hearing's close.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Workforce. "Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses." 7 May 2025, Serial 119-11.

Official hearing record: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=118209

GPO transcript: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119hhrg61619/html/CHRG-119hhrg61619.htm

GPO PDF: https://www.congress.gov/119/chrg/CHRG-119hhrg61619/CHRG-119hhrg61619.pdf

This is a signed analysis from the official congressional record.