Confronting the Scourge — 14 November 2023

Question

What did the 14 November 2023 House subcommittee hearing establish about campus antisemitism following October 7th, what did witnesses testify about Title VI enforcement and DEI office responses, and what remained contested?

Context

On Tuesday, 14 November 2023, the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development convened at 10:03 a.m. in Rayburn 2175 for a hearing titled "Confronting the Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus." Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT) presided. Ranking Member Frederica Wilson (D-FL) was joined by full committee Ranking Member Robert C. "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), who delivered the minority opening statement. The hearing was designated Serial No. 118-27.

This sitting occurred one month and one week after the 7 October 2023 attacks in Israel. It preceded the 5 December 2023 university presidents hearing by three weeks. Four witnesses testified about campus climate, enforcement mechanisms under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and institutional responses.

The subcommittee recessed for floor votes and reconvened to complete questioning.

Witnesses

Rabbi Moshe Hauer, Executive Vice President, Orthodox Union, New York, New York

Kenneth L. Marcus, Founder and Chairman, Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Washington, D.C.

Stacy Burdett, Independent Consultant in Antisemitism Prevention and Response, Washington, D.C.

Sahar Tartak, Student, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Written testimony was submitted for all four witnesses. Questions for the record were later filed by Rabbi Hauer and Kenneth Marcus (1 March 2024).

Established — witness accounts of campus climate

Tartak testified about conditions at Yale following October 7th. She stated she received "death threats for my Jewish activism" and that "the Ivy League institution refuses to provide me with direct protection." She testified that she "have not had time to mourn the murder of over 1,400 members of my Jewish family across the sea."

She described a Yale event titled "Gaza Under Siege" where she stated "My Jewish friends and I were barred from entry." She testified that panelists at that event "refused to label Hamas 'terrorists', let alone to condemn them when asked" and instead stated "Violent resistance movements often emerge in colonized spaces."

Tartak testified that the Yale Daily News "redacting my mention of Hamas' raping women and beheading men from an article I published for the paper, deeming these atrocities unsubstantiated." She stated that "hundreds of my peers gleefully yelled, 'Resistance is justified'" at protests and that the officially recognized campus group Yale is for Palestine publicly celebrated "the resistance's success."

These are Tartak's accounts of events at Yale. The GPO transcript records her testimony as given.

Rabbi Hauer testified that Jewish campus educators who "went into this field in order to be able to educate and to nurture instead find themselves, despite their own trauma, and their own fear, having to spend their time just caring for the trauma and the fear of their students." He stated "Day to day, instead of educating, they are protecting."

Hauer testified that "Today, unlike a short time ago, that admission introduces them to an environment where they experience fear and hostility." He stated "The ability to convene in Jewish spaces. Jewish spaces are targeted. People are seeking extra security."

These are Rabbi Hauer's testimony about campus educators' experiences. The transcript records his statement as given.

Established — Cooper Union and Cornell incidents referenced in openings

Chairman Owens stated in his opening that "Jewish students at the New York City's Cooper Union being forced to lock themselves in a college library, and later escorted out the back door." He stated "A Cornell history professor called the pure evil of the terrorist attack on civilian innocents exhilarating."

Scott's opening statement acknowledged "a rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidences on America's colleges and universities" following the October 7th conflict.

The Cooper Union and Cornell references appear in the chairman's opening. The GPO transcript records these statements.

Established — reported increase in antisemitic incidents

Tartak testified "there has been a 400 percent increase in reported antisemitic incidents of vandalism, harassment and assault, in comparison to the same timeframe in the previous year across America" since October 7th.

Marcus testified "During the weeks following October 7th, we had more than a 10fold increase in intake as compared to the historic levels that we had seen before that." He stated this was "before we announced a joint program with the Antidefamation League and Hillel, to do intake together, at which point it skyrocketed above that."

Burdett testified "Antisemitic crimes are rising, and the number of police agencies who bother to track it is at a 5-year low."

Representative Kathy Manning (D-NC) stated "the ADL has found an almost 400 percent increase of antisemitic incidents on college campuses" since October 7th and referenced "a 40 percent increase in antisemitic incidents at colleges and universities" before October 7th.

These figures are testimony and member statements from the hearing. The underlying ADL data and Brandeis Center intake records were not opened here.

Established — Marcus testimony on Title VI enforcement recommendations

Marcus testified about the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the Department of Education. He stated "When I served in the George W. Bush and Trump administrations, when there was a matter of national importance that we wanted to address and bring public attention to, we would establish a nationwide initiative, with investigations proactively addressed through all of the regions of the agency."

He testified "There is no need to simply wait for complaints to come in. The agency can reach out." He stated "even short of compliance initiative, the agency has the power to institute self-directed investigations."

Marcus testified about Executive Order 13899 on combating antisemitism. He stated "The Biden administration has committed over and over again to issue regulations implementing President Trump's former executive order on combatting antisemitism, which remains active policy, but lacks the durability of a regulation." He stated "It is now due next month in December."

He testified about the Antisemitism Awareness Act: "there is legislation that has been introduced that would formalize and codify the executive order established by the last President, President Donald Trump. This would provide tools needed by OCR in order to ensure that there will be consistent, standard use of the understanding of antisemitism."

These recommendations are Marcus's testimony about administrative and legislative actions. The GPO transcript records his recommendations as stated.

Established — Heritage Foundation DEI study cited by chairman

Chairman Owens stated in his opening "A study from the Heritage Foundation explains that how diversity offices fuel antisemitic fire. After searching through the Twitter feeds of 741 campus DEI personnel, the Heritage Jay Green found that 96 percent of the Israel related tweets were either critical of Israel, or especially antisemitic."

This 96 percent figure is Chairman Owens citing a Heritage Foundation study in his opening. The transcript attributes the statement to Owens. The Heritage study itself was not opened here.

Representative Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) later referenced the same study in questioning: "In 2021, Mr. Chairman, you referenced a study that Heritage did, a report on antisemitism of DEI staff at universities. They conducted a search of Twitter feeds of 741 DEI personnel at 65 universities" and stated "96 were critical of the Jewish State."

The transcript records both member statements about the Heritage study. The study document was not opened.

What remained contested — DEI offices and antisemitism

Chairman Owens framed DEI offices as structurally antisemitic in his opening. He stated "There is a dirty little secret at the heart of DEI as it seems to dismantle systems of oppression. It divides the world into oppressors and the oppressed, ascribing collective guilt to the oppressors and collective innocence to the oppressed." He stated "The DEI hierarchy places the Jewish people at the very bottom of oppression spectrum."

He stated "DEI programs are at its core, antisemitic because it ascribes collective guilt to the entire State of Israel for their mere existence" and characterized DEI as promoting "discrimination, intolerance and bigotry."

Burdett offered a contrasting view. She testified "organizations like the American Jewish Committee, and the Anti-Defamation League see DEI as a critical framework for their work, they are investing in DEI compatible education material about antisemitism." She stated "It is true, Jews do not fit neatly into the protected categories. It is not rocket science to fix that, so enhance it. Do not make us the excuse to shutdown something important."

She testified "I do not know a single Jewish organization or Jewish school principal, or rabbi that wants the civil rights infrastructure of this country to be decimated" and stated DEI work "can be enhanced, and the people that I work with have adapted, and are protecting Jews now. Do not bring it down on account of us. We need it."

Marcus testified about DEI offices: "there are some people in the DEI field who are doing good work, and even helping Jewish students, but there are three fundamental problems." He stated "DEI programs often do not even mention antisemitism or Jewish identity in their training programs" and that "studies from the University of Arkansas show that often DEI professionals, especially in higher education, have strong anti-Israel views, that cross the line into antisemitism."

He testified "oftentimes DEI programs are built on an ideology, which creates a dichotomy between oppressor and oppressed, between white supremacist and BIPOC, and too often Jews are viewed as being ultra white oppressors."

Tartak testified that DEI offices at Yale "have done nothing for me and my friends" and stated "Surveys of DEI organizations on college campuses have found that only 2 in 24 even address antisemitism."

The hearing established that majority members and some witnesses characterized DEI offices as contributing to campus antisemitism, while Burdett testified that leading Jewish organizations view DEI frameworks as essential civil rights infrastructure. The factual question of how DEI offices have responded to antisemitic incidents remained unresolved without systematic data on enforcement patterns.

What remained contested — OCR capacity and funding

Multiple exchanges addressed OCR's capacity to investigate antisemitism complaints. The hearing occurred as Congress debated appropriations for the Department of Education.

Representative Joe Courtney (D-CT) stated that "The civil rights division in the Department of Justice is looking at a 41 million dollar cut from their budget, and the civil rights division in the Department of Education is looking at a 35 million dollar cut." He stated "when there is no remedy, there is no right."

Burdett testified "Republicans and democrats have complained to the Department of Education about their backlog, about their alacrity and I do not understand how we could complain about a group of people not getting through 19,000 cases when they were not set up. They are not equipped to handle that deluge."

Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) referenced "a push among my Senate colleagues, led by Help Committee Chairman Sanders to include a 27 percent funding increase for the Department Office of Civil Rights in a supplemental appropriation bill."

Marcus testified that "fluctuations in the budget of OCR are not what impacts the ability of OCR to address antisemitism" because "antisemitism as an issue that seldom occupies even one-tenth of 1 percent of intake." He stated "it is really a combination of political will and management that is made the difference on those periods where it is been dealt with effectively."

When questioned by Scott about budget cuts affecting OCR's ability to handle cases, Marcus stated "Change in the budget might have other source of affects on the agency, but not necessarily in my opinion, on antisemitism matters" because of the small percentage of antisemitism cases in overall intake.

The hearing did not resolve whether OCR's capacity to investigate antisemitism would be constrained by budget reductions, whether political will or resources are the binding constraint, or how OCR should prioritize antisemitism cases relative to other civil rights complaints. Democrats emphasized resource constraints and the 19,000-case backlog. Marcus emphasized political will and proactive investigation authority over budget levels.

What remained contested — free speech and harassment boundaries

Multiple exchanges addressed where protected speech ends and Title VI violations begin. Owens stated in his opening "Antisemitic speech might be free. It deserves our moral condemnation. With respect to all free speech, this Committee fully supports students' rights to political expression. What we do not and will not support is terrorism and threats of violence."

Scott stated in his opening "we should also be able to agree that schools have a responsibility to protect student's civil rights and safety. If they do not want to agree to that, Title VI makes it clear that they have that responsibility." He referenced "the Department of Education has recently provided additional guidance to colleges and universities on how to uphold their obligation under Title VI."

Representative Bob Good (R-VA) asked Marcus "Should universities like Yale be able to hide behind the First Amendment, or should there be consequences when we see this kind of antisemitism play out." Marcus responded "the problem is not just that there are students who are saying the wrong thing, but universities that are doing the wrong thing."

When Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked Tartak "Why is the speech that you have been subjected to different" from protected speech, Tartak responded "speech that is harassment, intimidation, or can lead to violence simply should not be allowed on college campuses" and cited a Harvard incident where "a Jewish student, who was on his way to class and was assaulted by a group of other students yelling, 'Shame'."

The hearing did not establish legal boundaries for when anti-Israel protest speech becomes harassment violating Title VI, whether "Resistance is justified" or similar slogans constitute protected political speech or incitement, or how universities should distinguish between condemnable-but-protected speech and conduct code violations. These questions remained contested.

What remained contested — student organization recognition and funding

Multiple members raised questions about whether universities should derecognize or defund student organizations supporting Hamas or calling for violence.

Good asked Tartak what administrators should do. She responded "I think that they can also de-recognize and defund student groups that promote violence, and that supports terrorist organizations recognized by the U.S. Government." She cited National Students for Justice in Palestine: "on their Instagram commemorates somebody who planned multiple suicide bombings" and stated "Maybe SJP chapters that repost something like that, of course within the boundaries of the First Amendment nitty gritty, of which I am not an expert, but maybe they could experience some sort of scrutiny, if not consequences."

Marcus testified "When you see 30 student groups who are celebrating atrocities like that, you need to have tough conversations throughout your university about what you are doing to harbor this." He stated regarding student organizations that state they are "part of the Hamas murder, rape and torture" that "there are questions under the Terrorism Act."

The hearing did not establish whether universities have legal authority to derecognize student organizations based on speech supporting designated terrorist organizations, whether such action would violate First Amendment protections for student organizations, or what standard should distinguish protected advocacy from material support for terrorism. Members and witnesses raised these questions without resolution.

Established — October 6th versus October 7th framing

Multiple witnesses used "October 6th" as shorthand for the campus climate before the attacks. Marcus testified "A month ago, shortly before this 7th of October, I would have told you that we were facing historic levels of campus antisemitism, worse than we had ever seen before. That was nothing like what we have seen since then."

Burdett testified about responsive universities: "No. 1, they get that this is not business as usual. We have heard from the other panelists. October 6th was a different world."

When questioning Rabbi Hauer, Owens asked whether protection for Jewish students "has changed in recent years, especially since the Hamas attack." Hauer responded "It has changed. It has changed dramatically. It has changed over the years. Yes, as you will hear from all of us, October 6th we were also dealing with an intensely fearful and changed campus environment, and it has multiplied exponentially since October 7th."

The transcript records witnesses using October 6th to denote the pre-attack baseline and October 7th as the inflection point. Witnesses testified that campus antisemitism predated October 7th but intensified significantly afterward.

Limits

This reconstruction acknowledges the following constraints:

No comprehensive campus incident data. The hearing presented witness testimony about specific incidents and percentage increases in reports. It did not produce systematic data on the total number of antisemitic incidents at each institution, investigation outcomes, disciplinary actions taken, or comparative enforcement patterns. Claims about campus-wide conditions rest on witness accounts and reported statistics rather than comprehensive documentation.

No university response records. Committee members and witnesses referenced university statements and actions. The hearing did not include university administrators as witnesses and did not examine internal investigation files, enforcement decisions, or communications showing what universities knew and when. Conclusions about institutional responses rest on outside observations.

No OCR case files. Marcus and Manning discussed OCR complaint numbers and processing capacity. The hearing did not examine specific case files, investigation timelines, resolution agreements, or enforcement priorities. Claims about OCR effectiveness rest on witness testimony about their experience with the office rather than systematic case data.

Heritage and Arkansas studies not opened. Chairman Owens and other members cited a Heritage Foundation study of DEI personnel Twitter activity and Marcus referenced University of Arkansas research on DEI professional views. These studies were not opened. The 96 percent figure and other study claims are cited as presented in testimony, not as verified findings.

No DEI office records. Multiple exchanges addressed whether DEI offices address antisemitism. The hearing did not examine DEI office mission statements, training materials, incident response records, or staffing data. Claims about DEI office priorities and responses rest on witness characterizations rather than institutional records.

Contested questions remain open. The hearing surfaced fundamental disagreements about DEI frameworks, OCR resource needs, speech-harassment boundaries, and student organization policies. These disagreements were presented but not resolved. The reconstruction does not adjudicate contested claims when the hearing record leaves them open.

Temporal limitation. The hearing occurred five weeks after October 7th during a rapidly evolving situation. Campus policies, enforcement practices, and federal guidance were in flux. The hearing captured conditions in mid-November 2023, not settled outcomes.

Source notes

Primary source: U.S. Government Publishing Office transcript, "Confronting the Scourge of Antisemitism on Campus," House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development, 14 November 2023, Serial No. 118-27. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118hhrg55964/html/CHRG-118hhrg55964.htm

Supporting materials: House Committee Repository event page for 14 November 2023 sitting. Available at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventID=116552

Written testimony and Questions for the Record available via the committee repository. This reconstruction cites the oral testimony from the GPO transcript. Written testimony was not opened for direct quotation.

All testimony excerpts, member statements, and statistical claims are sourced to the GPO transcript as recorded. Page references are omitted because the GPO HTML transcript uses line numbering rather than traditional pagination. No claim rests on sources outside the opened primary materials.