Combating Workplace Antisemitism — 26 June 2024

Frame

On 26 June 2024, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce's Subcommittee on Workforce Protections held a hearing titled "Combating Workplace Antisemitism in Postsecondary Education: Protecting Employees from Discrimination." Chair Kevin Kiley (R-CA) led the examination of antisemitic discrimination at universities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination based on religion, national origin, or race. The hearing examined whether colleges met their legal duty to protect faculty and staff from discrimination and harassment.

Four witnesses testified: Professor Dafna Golden, Geography Professor at Mt. San Antonio College; Professor Brian Keating, Chancellor's Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of California, San Diego; Mark Rienzi, President and CEO of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; and Melissa Emrey-Arras, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security at the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

This is a signed hearing reconstruction from the public record. It does not claim access to official transcripts, sealed testimony, or unpublished committee materials. Where testimony is referenced, it represents documented written submissions and widely reported exchanges.

The testimony

Mt. San Antonio College — Professor Golden

Professor Dafna Golden testified about her experiences as a Jewish professor at Mt. San Antonio College in California following the October 7, 2023 attacks. Golden described objecting to a planned screening of "The Occupation of the American Mind," a film "Narrated by the notorious anti-Semite Roger Waters" whose "central thesis is that a cabal of 'leaders of major Jewish organizations' have conspired to use their power to control and thus 'occupy' the minds of innocent Americans so that they would support Israel."

According to Golden's written testimony, after she raised concerns about the film, a colleague "instigated a campaign of harassment against me by emailing his entire class falsely labeling me a 'violent Zionist' and a 'former soldier in the IDF,' both of which are false, and inciting his students 'to stand up' to me." Golden testified that "A Jewish student in the professor's Mexican American History class documented these actions, including a disturbing incident where the professor mimicked a Nazi salute in class."

Golden testified that her academic library display on Israel's borders was removed, her RateMyProfessors profile was "bombarded with fake negative reviews," and students at Board of Trustees meetings demanded that she "be fired and declared a boycott of my classes." Her spring on-campus class was then canceled due to low enrollment.

Golden reported filing complaints with Deans and Human Resources. According to her testimony, "The office found it be unsubstantiated, in part because the student who documented the emails and voice recordings did not want to submit a statement to the Human Resources Office out of fear of retaliation and harassment." Golden testified that her employer "refuses to act; refuses to take any disciplinary action." She stated that her employer "did not help me; did not protect me; and did not fulfill its responsibilities under the law."

According to the majority recap, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) asked Golden to elaborate on her experience. Golden replied, "The administration has chosen the path of least resistance, doing the bare minimum to appear to take antisemitism seriously."

UC San Diego — Professor Keating

Professor Brian Keating testified about workplace conditions at UC San Diego, where he has been a professor for over twenty years. Keating stated that "The recent Anti-Defamation League (ADL) report card on campus antisemitism gave UC San Diego a 'D' grade, as it did for every other UC campus tracked in the report card. The exception was UCLA, which was recently downgraded from a D to an F."

Keating noted that "California is the state with the second most antisemitic hate crimes in the nation, just behind New York."

Keating's written testimony included accounts from graduate student employees. One student, identified as a member of the United Auto Workers union through a position as "Reader/Grader for students in biological sciences," reported that "The union, which is supposed to represent me, has entirely isolated myself and countless other Jewish employees" through strike authorization efforts. The student stated that "as a volunteer student researcher in a cardiology research lab, I had to avoid conducting my research on June 3rd as our buildings had to be locked from the outside to prevent protesting mobs during SJP's "UCSD's complicity tour,""

According to Keating's testimony, another graduate student testified she doesn't know "how much longer I can do this. I can't work at UCSD, I can barely live here – and I have learned, brutally and painfully, where my life ranks for the people I'm surrounded by every day."

Keating testified about an annual event at UCSD. According to the majority recap, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-NC) asked about an "annual anti-Israel event" at the campus. The recap states that after describing the event colloquially known as "Israel Hate Week," which aligns each year with Holocaust Remembrance Day, Keating testified that "It becomes an intimidating, intolerable location at the center of our campus student union for most students to walk by for an entire week on campus."

Keating testified about union involvement in campus protests. According to the majority recap, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) asked about a UAW strike on campus. The recap states Keating responded: "I am aware of it, in fact, our teaching assistants in my classes—and I've taught thousands of students over the years—they are effectively forced to be members of the United Auto Workers union as part of their contract and collective bargaining agreement."

Legal remedies — Mark Rienzi

Mark Rienzi testified as President and CEO of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty and law professor at Catholic University of America. Rienzi's firm represents students suing UCLA over campus conduct following October 7.

Rienzi testified that existing federal law provides multiple mechanisms to hold universities accountable. He stated that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Rienzi testified that "the Supreme Court has made clear that discrimination against Jews is discrimination based on race."

On employment protections, Rienzi testified that "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it an 'unlawful employment practice for an employer to … discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.'" Rienzi stated this includes "creating a 'hostile work environment,' where discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult are severe and pervasive, alter the conditions of employment, and create an abusive working environment."

Rienzi testified that additional civil rights protections exist under the Ku Klux Klan Act. He stated that Section 1985 applies when individuals "conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws." Rienzi testified that "When universities acquiesce in antisemitic activity and refuse to apply their campus policies to unlawful behavior, that can give rise to a Section 1985 claim against the universities."

Rienzi testified that Section 1986 permits liability for failure to prevent a conspiracy, stating that when universities "have the power to prevent racially motivated attacks and hostile work environments against their Jewish students, faculty, and employees, they must do so. Otherwise, they're violating Section 1986."

According to the majority recap, Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) unveiled the bombshell accusation of a Jewish UCLA student, who in a lawsuit alleges "professors would offer students extra credit for attending antisemitic rallies."

Federal agency role

Rienzi testified that the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights can initiate investigations without waiting for formal complaints. He testified that "As OCR itself has noted, agency-initiated cases, called 'compliance reviews' are intended to 'target resources to compliance problems that are particularly acute, national in scope, or newly emerging.' Antisemitism on college campuses undoubtedly fits that bill."

What the hearing established

The hearing established that faculty members at both institutions testified to experiencing workplace impacts they characterized as antisemitic discrimination. Both Golden and Keating submitted documented accounts of incidents at their respective institutions.

The hearing established that existing federal law — including Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and provisions of the Ku Klux Klan Act — applies to discriminatory conduct against Jewish employees at universities receiving federal funding. Witnesses testified that discrimination against Jews qualifies as race-based or religion-based discrimination under these statutes.

The hearing established that mechanisms exist for enforcement beyond individual litigation, including Department of Education compliance reviews and Department of Justice intervention in employment discrimination cases.

What remains contested

The hearing did not resolve whether the specific incidents described constitute actionable violations of federal civil rights law. Witness testimony presented allegations and institutional responses, but no finding was made about whether conduct crossed legal thresholds for hostile work environment or discrimination claims under Title VII.

No determination was made about whether universities' responses to reported incidents satisfied their legal obligations. The hearing surfaced competing accounts of institutional action and inaction but did not establish whether any particular institutional response violated federal law.

Questions remained about the boundary between protected First Amendment expression and conduct creating a hostile work environment. The majority recap stated that Chairman Kiley identified the blood-boiling irony at the heart of campus antisemitism and said, "Many of the universities that have been the worst offenders in terms of oppressing free speech and violating the First Amendment on campus are now suddenly claiming the mantle of the First Amendment." The hearing did not resolve where that line should be drawn in specific cases.

The hearing did not establish whether union conduct described by witnesses — including strike authorization and use of union communications platforms — violates labor law or civil rights protections when it allegedly isolates Jewish members based on their identity or views.

Limits

This reconstruction does not include testimony from the GAO witness, Melissa Emrey-Arras, whose written testimony could not be opened as a primary document. Claims relying on GAO testimony are omitted from this analysis.

The hearing examined workplace discrimination at two specific California institutions. Findings about conditions at Mt. SAC and UC San Diego do not establish patterns at other postsecondary institutions.

No evidentiary record from the institutions themselves was introduced at the hearing. Witness testimony reflected employee perspectives and experiences. The hearing did not include institutional defenses, investigative findings, or determinations about whether reported incidents occurred as described.

The hearing did not examine whether specific remedies identified by witnesses — including Department of Education compliance reviews or Department of Justice enforcement actions — have been pursued or would be effective in the cases discussed.

Questions about appropriate remedies for workplace antisemitism at universities remain open. Witnesses identified available legal mechanisms, but the hearing did not establish criteria for when federal intervention is warranted or what remedies would satisfy legal obligations in specific cases.

Sources

U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, hearing titled "Combating Workplace Antisemitism in Postsecondary Education: Protecting Employees from Discrimination," 26 June 2024. This is a signed reconstruction from written testimony and publicly documented exchanges. It does not claim access to official hearing transcripts, sealed testimony, or unpublished committee materials.