Calling for Accountability — 23 May 2024

Question

What did the 23 May 2024 House Education and the Workforce Committee hearing establish about Northwestern University, Rutgers University, and UCLA responses to campus antisemitism and encampments following October 7, 2023, and what remained contested?

Context

This was the same committee's next dated university-leader hearing focused on campus antisemitism after the Columbia hearing on 17 April 2024 (already on this Observatory). Chair Virginia Foxx titled it "Calling for Accountability: Stopping Antisemitic College Chaos."

Three university presidents testified: Michael Schill (Northwestern), Jonathan Holloway (Rutgers), and Gene Block (UCLA). Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and CEO of Phi Beta Kappa Society, also testified.

Witnesses

Mr. Michael Schill, President, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois
Dr. Jonathan Holloway, President, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey
Mr. Frederick M. Lawrence, Secretary and Chief Executive Officer, Phi Beta Kappa Society, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Gene Block, Chancellor, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California

Established — Northwestern's encampment and institutional admission

Schill's written testimony states Northwestern "has an antisemitism problem." The Deering Meadow tent encampment violated rules, was "highly disruptive and a source of incidents of antisemitic intimidation," and made many Jewish students feel unsafe.

Schill testified in his oral statement: "On the morning of April 25th, an encampment was erected on Deering Meadow." His written testimony states he announced the Interim Policy for Student Demonstrations on April 25. Schill testified Northwestern considered three options: allowing tents to stay indefinitely (rejected), police clearance and arrests (rejected as too risky), or talks to get students to leave voluntarily.

Schill testified: "The encampment came down in just five days." When asked "Were there any arrests?" he answered: "There were no arrests needed." His written testimony states they "resolved the matter without violence, and the encampment has not returned."

Schill stated Northwestern said no to divestment from Israel and to ending the university's Israeli-innovation academic program. Whether other commitments constituted concessions remained contested.

Contested — what Northwestern agreed to

Schill testified: "We did not give in to any of the protestor's demands, and the commitments we made are consistent with our values." Representative Stefanik pressed on specific commitments announced as part of the Deering Meadows agreement.

Schill acknowledged commitments to fund two visiting Palestinian faculty for two years and five Palestinian undergraduates. He characterized these as part of existing "Scholars at Risk" programs for war-torn countries (citing Afghanistan, Ukraine precedents) and stated the program "will also include people from Israel."

Written testimony describes establishing a house for Muslim and Middle Eastern students—"something that had been under discussion for the past year and addressed an existing campus need"—as comparable to existing spaces for Jewish, Catholic, and Lutheran students.

Whether these represented new commitments extracted by protest or merely publicized existing programs and long-standing campus needs, and whether framing them as part of an "agreement" constituted capitulation, remained the core contested question.

Established — Northwestern's ADL grade and consultation failures

Representative Stefanik testified that Northwestern "was the only university whose grade was downgraded" by the ADL and "earned an F" for failure to respond to antisemitism. Schill confirmed awareness and stated: "I am sad that they gave Northwestern an F."

When pressed whether Jewish and Israeli students were consulted on the Deering Meadows agreement, Schill answered: "Jewish and Israeli students were not consulted with respect to the agreement, and it would have been impractical to do that, Representative Stefanik, with all respect."

These admissions are on the record. Northwestern received an ADL F grade (the only downgraded institution per Stefanik), and Schill acknowledged Jewish students were not consulted. Whether consultation was "impractical" under emergency conditions or constituted institutional failure remained contested.

Established — seven Northwestern advisory committee members resigned

Schill testified that seven Jewish members of Northwestern's President's Advisory Committee on Preventing Antisemitism and Hate resigned. His written testimony states the committee "could not reach a consensus on specific proposals, which led to the resignation of some of its members."

In oral testimony, Schill stated: "They were unable to reach consensus about what antisemitism was" and "they resigned because they were not consulted with respect to the negotiations."

The resignations are established. Whether they occurred because of principled objection to the Deering Meadows agreement (majority framing) or because of consultation failure and definitional disputes (Schill's explanation) reflects competing interpretations.

Contested — Northwestern antisemitism allegations under investigation

Representative Stefanik pressed Schill on specific incidents: a Jewish student assaulted, a student verbally harassed and stalked to Hillel, a student wearing a yarmulke spat on, and a student told "Go back to Germany and get gassed."

Schill's repeated answer: "There are allegations... we are investigating those allegations." Schill confirmed "zero suspensions, zero expulsions" as of the hearing date, adding "thus far, with lots of investigations on their way."

As of May 23, these incidents remained under investigation with no disciplinary outcomes. Whether investigations reflected due process or institutional delay was contested. The incidents themselves were documented as allegations being investigated, not as established violations with outcomes.

Established — Rutgers encampment timeline and resolution

Holloway's written testimony documents the timeline: April 29, protesters moved to Voorhees Mall and erected tents. May 2 (first day of exams), Rutgers notified protesters to clear by 4 p.m. or be treated as trespassers. The university assembled 125 officers. The camp ended after talks rather than arrests.

Representative Smucker stated: "You agreed to eight of their ten demands in a matter of days." Holloway did not dispute the number. He characterized it as "not negotiating with the mob but talking with students" and stated Rutgers was "acting in the state of emergency."

Representative Smucker's eight-of-ten figure went uncontradicted in the exchange. Whether this constituted appropriate crisis management or capitulation was contested.

Established — what Rutgers rejected

Holloway's written testimony states emphatically what Rutgers "did not do": the administration "did not agree to divest from companies that do business in Israel" and will not sever the Tel Aviv University relationship. Holloway stated: "I believe the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement is wrong. I think Rutgers' divestment from Israel would be wrong."

These rejections are documented in written testimony. What Rutgers did agree to—student requests concerning "a cultural center, trainings, course offerings"—and whether those agreements constituted problematic concessions remained less clear in the hearing record.

Contested — Rutgers response timing to Jewish faculty requests

Smucker contrasted Rutgers' rapid response to encampment demands with slower action on requests from Rutgers' Jewish Faculty, Administrators and Staff (JFAS) group submitted in December.

JFAS requests included: full public accounting of antisemitic incidents, suspension of students/organizations repeatedly violating conduct codes, prohibiting departments from taking institutional political stances, and convening a standing committee on antisemitism.

Holloway testified that JFAS requests "are being acted on post haste" and that action plans addressing "most of their concerns" had been drafted. When asked for specific commitments, Holloway stated work was underway or under review.

The timeline contrast is documented: encampment demands addressed within days, JFAS requests from December still being processed in May. Whether this reflected emergency response versus longer institutional process, or demonstrated differential treatment, was contested.

Established — UCLA encampment, violence, and delayed response

Block's written testimony documents the timeline: April 25, protest began. April 28, after violence broke out between opposing rallies, Block decided to remove the encampment. April 30, written notice given that encampment was unlawful. Before police resources could be assembled, "assailants attacked the encampment that evening." It took "several hours before law enforcement could quell the violence." When more than 200 protesters later refused orders, police removed the encampment.

Block's written testimony includes this admission: "With the benefit of hindsight, we should have been prepared to immediately remove the encampment if and when the safety of our community was put at risk."

Chair Foxx stated UCLA led to "243 arrests." Representative Takano's exchange with Schill referenced UCLA's "maybe hundreds of arrests" as contrast to Northwestern's zero.

The violence occurred. Arrests numbered in the hundreds. Block acknowledged institutional failure to prepare for immediate removal when safety was at risk. Whether this reflected reasonable reliance on UC system guidance not to use police "unless absolutely necessary to protect physical safety" or constituted dereliction was contested.

Established — UCLA checkpoint allegations

Chair Foxx asked Block about "Jewish and other UCLA students being denied access to central parts of campus by encampment members who had set up unauthorized checkpoints. In some cases, the students were questioned on whether they were Zionists."

Block answered: "I heard accounts of students being blocked, and we issued instructions to our staff to make sure that all walkways were free... I then sent a memo out to the entire community on... April 30th, instructing that that was intolerable, and we would not tolerate the blocking of access to parts of campus."

When Foxx asked if it stopped, Block stated: "I believe it did, but we kept vigilant."

That checkpoints existed and students reported being questioned about being Zionists is documented by Block's acknowledgment of "accounts" and his institutional response (memo declaring it intolerable). The extent, duration, and systematic nature of enforcement remained less documented than the fact that such reports prompted action.

Contested — outsider involvement in UCLA violence

Block testified: "The most dramatic attacks were carried out by individuals not affiliated with UCLA. Not the university students, faculty, that were arrested."

This suggests outside agitators played significant roles. Whether this absolves UCLA of campus security responsibility or reflects deflection was contested. The distinction between student protesters and outside attackers was documented as Block's claim but not substantiated with detailed arrest data.

What the hearing did not establish

The hearing did not establish:

• Whether Northwestern's Deering Meadows commitments were new concessions or publicized existing programs (Schill claimed the latter)
• Whether any Northwestern antisemitism allegations under investigation meet conduct violation thresholds
• What specific agreements Rutgers made beyond rejecting divestment and Tel Aviv severance
• Whether UCLA's delayed police response reflected UC system policy constraints or institutional failure
• Whether checkpoint enforcement at UCLA was systematic or isolated
• Comparative disciplinary outcomes across the three institutions
• Whether any institution violated Title VI obligations (no adjudication occurred)

The hearing featured university presidents defending responses under congressional pressure. No student witnesses testified. Civil liberties organizations did not present. The record reflects institutional perspective examined by congressional majority and minority framings.

The enforcement versus dialogue split

Chair Foxx's 22 May committee notice characterized university leaders as "mealy-mouthed, spineless" and stated: "Congress will not tolerate your dereliction of your duty to your Jewish students." Her hearing opening stated presidents "capitulating to the antisemitic rulebreakers" failed duties.

Ranking Member Scott stated: "Complaining about a problem is not a solution." He argued the committee should fund the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights rather than holding additional hearings, noting Republicans proposed a 25 percent OCR budget cut despite increased complaint volume.

Both framings have testimonial support. Northwestern and Rutgers resolved encampments without violence through negotiation. UCLA saw violence and hundreds of arrests. Whether negotiated approaches represented responsible de-escalation or capitulation to antisemitic pressure, and whether police intervention represents necessary enforcement or escalation risk, were not resolved.

Lawrence's academic freedom frame

Frederick Lawrence testified that protest is "presumptively protected" academic freedom until it crosses into "threats or undue disruption." This frame treats most campus protest as protected expression unless it meets specific thresholds.

Lawrence's testimony was not challenged by university presidents. Whether this frame adequately protects Jewish students from hostile environments or provides cover for antisemitic harassment was contested between majority and minority perspectives but not adjudicated.

Both accountability and institutional constraint frames have evidence

The accountability frame (universities failed Jewish students, negotiations rewarded rulebreakers, enforcement came too late or not at all) has: Northwestern's institutional admission of an antisemitism problem, ADL F grade, seven committee resignations, Jewish student non-consultation, zero Northwestern disciplinary outcomes as of May 23, Rutgers' eight accepted demands, UCLA violence and checkpoint allegations, Block's hindsight admission of failure.

The institutional constraint frame (universities balanced competing obligations, avoided escalation, followed due process) has: Northwestern resolved encampment peacefully without arrests, Schill's testimony about impractical consultation under emergency and due process requirements, both universities' rejection of divestment demands, Holloway's emergency-response characterization, Block's testimony about UC system guidance limiting police use and law enforcement resource assembly time.

The hearing record does not adjudicate between these frames. Both are interpretations of documented events. Whether primary institutional failure was insufficient antisemitism enforcement or excessive response to political protest depends on the legal and moral standard applied.

Limits

This analysis relies on the official House transcript (HHRG-118-ED00-Transcript-20240523) and written testimony statements. It does not claim access to:

• University disciplinary case files or investigation outcomes
• Complete data on Palestinian student program enrollments or admissions
• Detailed UCLA arrest records and outside agitator identification
• Internal university legal counsel advice
• Post-hearing developments or amended policies

Aftermath—whether Northwestern completed investigations and imposed discipline, whether Rutgers fulfilled JFAS requests, whether UCLA identified and prosecuted assailants—is outside this analysis's scope. The hearing is reconstructed as of May 23, 2024.

Voice

This analysis presents the May 23, 2024 House Education and the Workforce hearing's documented record. Three university presidents testified to different approaches: Northwestern negotiated encampment resolution without arrests while acknowledging an institutional antisemitism problem, Rutgers accepted eight demands while rejecting divestment and Tel Aviv severance, UCLA saw violence requiring hundreds of arrests and Block's hindsight admission of failure to prepare for immediate removal.

What remained contested: whether negotiated resolutions constituted responsible crisis management or capitulation to antisemitic demands, whether investigation timelines reflected due process or delay, whether Jewish students received equal institutional attention to safety concerns, and whether any institution violated Title VI obligations.

Both the enforcement accountability frame (universities failed Jewish students, rewarded rulebreakers, avoided discipline) and the institutional constraint frame (universities balanced safety with speech, avoided escalation, followed due process and system policies) have testimonial support. The hearing established institutional actions and admissions. It did not resolve whether those actions constitute Title VI compliance or failure to protect Jewish students.

What the record does establish: Northwestern and Rutgers negotiated with protesters and reached agreements, Northwestern's Jewish students were not consulted, seven Northwestern advisory members resigned, zero Northwestern disciplinary outcomes as of the hearing, UCLA experienced violence requiring hundreds of arrests with Block's hindsight admission of preparedness failure, and all three institutions faced antisemitism allegations. Whether these facts demonstrate institutional failure or reasonable crisis response under First Amendment constraints remained contested at the hearing's close.

Sources

U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and the Workforce. "Calling for Accountability: Stopping Antisemitic College Chaos." 23 May 2024.

Official hearing record: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent.aspx?EventId=117258

Committee page: https://edworkforce.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=410502

Transcript PDF: https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117258/documents/HHRG-118-ED00-Transcript-20240523.pdf

Written testimony:

• Schill: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED00/20240523/117258/HHRG-118-ED00-Wstate-SchillM-20240523.pdf
• Holloway: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED00/20240523/117258/HHRG-118-ED00-Wstate-HollowayJ-20240523.pdf
• Block: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED00/20240523/117258/HHRG-118-ED00-Wstate-BlockG-20240523.pdf
• Lawrence: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/ED/ED00/20240523/117258/HHRG-118-ED00-Wstate-LawrenceF-20240523.pdf

This is a signed analysis from the official congressional record and written testimony.