the committee will come to order and without objection authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. we welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on examining anti-semitism on college campuses. before i give my oop opening statement, i'm going to yield to him so he can say more about the tragedy that occurred in texas

over it weekend. >> top of the morning and i thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. all nine witnesses. all time hearing. and the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin. let me just say briefly that before discussing the important topic of the day's hearing, i want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency. on sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 church goers in southern springs, texas. we now know that information concerning his court marshal for domestic abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the national instant criminal

background check system and should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the brady background check system. yesterday before this information came to light, i wrote to you, mr. chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our members tomorrow afternoon by atf on the issue of bump stocks. be expanded through the fbi to discuss the background check issues. related to southern springs. and in that briefing be conducted as a formal hearing open to the public. now tat we have even more information that there's been a break down in the implementation

of our background system, i ask that we include relevant officials from the department of defense in the air force. and i believe as i think you do too that we should proceed quickly to learn what happened and tdirectly. therefore, i renew my request and expand it concerning tomorrow's briefing and i thank you for this opportunity. >> i share his concern about having an effective system. and that data about domestic violence go into that system, including data that may be developed as part of our military tribunal system. therefore, we will look into a

breaching on that subject, whether it can be accommodated quickly to be done tomorrow or not, we'll have to see. but my plan is to proceed with the briefing by the atf. if we can't incorporate the other if to that briefing, we'll do that another time and do it under advisory. i think it's as important to be as informed as possible. >> i was the one who was insistent on putting the brady bill if had to system in 1993. and at the time the legislation was drafted, i made the point that the national instant check system would only be as good as the data put if to it and it

took about five years to aproep retly automate and input records not only for felony and convictions, mental inhad comp tense ajudeications as well as domestic violence legal action. and we found that one state kept all of these records in boxes of three by five cards located in every county court house. tat took a while to finally automate them. so i don't think we can blame the law for the failure of these -- the transaction of the shooter to be identified. and i don't think we can blame the system which we set up almost 25 years ago because it system has worked in hundreds of thousands and what was necessary

to let the system be able to identify this gentleman with he came and purchased the firearm and he used in a horrific killing particularly as people were in church. why this failure was and it's not just the it air force. it could be any clerk of court. anywhere in the country that could have done that. and it's been ajudsicated by te court, get it into the system and get it in it system right away. >> i thank the gentleman and i thank both for their observations. i want to return to focus on it important matter that's before us today. but we will proceed with the briefing tomorrow and we will

add additional information or a separate briefing depending on what time allows. >> thank you. >> i now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening statement. racism, sexism and anti-semitism among other forms of anmous are abhorrent whenever they appear, inhadcluding on america's college kafcampuses. while our civil rights laws have long doctor addressed this. the there questions about anti-semitism is addressed. this will examine that question and others. anti-semitism does not reflect core religious values of equality and freedom. i'm also concerned about the sof called bds movement that seeks

to end international support for israel. it took just 11 minutes for the united states to recognize israel after it formally declared independence and ever since then the united states and israel have had a strong relationship based on common security interests and economic vallaus. there are those who disagree in various ways of course, including student faculty and administrators on college campuses. i will also do everything i can to insure their right to speak is protected under free speech principals generally. it's in that spirit of welcoming are perspectives that i've convened this hearing today. when do speakers, scholarership or student protesters harshly critical of israel constitute anti-semitism? has the department of education

in the past or today adequately examined allegations of anti-semitism on college campuses. how does existing law address harassment based on anti-semitism. what impact would some other approaches have on freedom of speech, student relations and what precedence would they set, good or bad? those are some of the questions i look forward to discussing with today's witnesses. it's now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from michigan from his opening statement. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i welcome the witnesses. and i wanted to mention that today's hearing on examining anti-semitism on college campuses is a part of a continuing discussion that our judiciary committee has had on

the confluence of our twin interests. protecting equality of opportunity and freedom of speech in inhad stugz stitutionr education. our particular focus is on anti-semitism. one of the most ancient forms of prejudice that unfortunately not only continues to exist but in some places has even seen anan. as we hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses i'd like to keep several points in mind for context. to begin with anti-semitism on college and university campuses like other forms of inviddious discrimination remain as very real concern. according to the antidefamation

league as of september 30th, anti-semitic incidents decreased by 67% in 2017 compared to the same period last year. and there's a significant surge in these incidents after white supremacists marched in charlottesvil charlottesville, virginia, last august. during which some of those marchers shouted quote jews will not replace us end quotation. additionally the league reported a disturbingly high number of anti-semitic bullying and vandalism incidents in k through 12 schools and college campuses across the united states. in recent years other reported incidents included the vandalism

of campus property with swastikas and the it passing out or posting of leaflets with white supremacists and anti-semitic content on campuses. in light of the four going, i whole heartedly support the department of education's guidance interpreting title six of the civil rights act of 1964. so as to protect jewish students and other religious minorities from discrimination. this guidance rightly clarified that while titles six, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs that receive federal funding, does not include religion as a protected characteristic. it does prohibit discrimination

against members of religious minorities. if it is based on an actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnicity. although this guidance dates from the obama administration, the trump administration so far seems inclined not to change this interpretation. i would encourage the current administration to continue to keep it in effect. finally, while we must insure a campus learning inhad environment free from discrimination, we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate had, if hard edged and even offensive political debate on controversial topics. it vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a

fundamental hallmark of a demarkeracy and of academic freedom. indeed other than in the context of speech that amounts to objectively severe or pervasive harassment and in few other limited circumstances, the remedy for bad speech is more speech. equality and free speech are not and must not be pitted against each otherer as if they were opposing values. both values are social to our democracy and to insuring a free society. in closing, i thank the chairman for this holding this important hearing and i look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. >> thank you, mr. coniers. we welcome our distinguished

witnesses and i'll begin by swearing all of you in. please raise right your hand. you solemnly swear the testimony shall be the truth, the whole truth. and so help you god. . this is a wonderfully disti distinguished panel, you might not be surprised to learn that because there are nine of you, i'm not going to give all of those details about each of you. they're on the brief side but they're nonetheless important. our firsz witness is rabbi andrew baker. director of international jewish affairs at it american jewish committee. our second witness is pamela nidel. director of jewish studies program at american university. our third witness is rabbi abraham cooper, associate dean and director of the global

soels social action agenda. our third witness is michael r. and deborah k. reuben, presidential chair at wake forest university. our fifth witness is a partner at kirkland and ellis llp and sandra haguey partner, chairwoman of the christians for israel united fund. and national director of the antidefamation league, our eighth witness is the executive director penn america and rosenberg foundation. your written statements will be iftered in their entirety and we ask that you sums are your testimony within five minutes. there's a timing light on your

table. when 2 t switches from green to yellow -- and rabbi baker, welcome. you can begin. >> thank you, for had chairman. in my work at a.j.c. and at the osce i have focussed on europe and the problem of anti-semitism there. while the number of incidents and their severity are much greater than here in amaircu, there are important parallels on addressing anti-semitism in this country. this has much to do with the essential first step of fdsing the nature of anti-semitism and the importance of defining it. 15 years ago we saw a surge in incidents. we also saw a new form of anti-semitism, whereby the state of israel was demonides, where its existence was being

challenged. this effected the lives of jews themselves. subject to verbal and physical attacks as a result. merely giving voice to their own proisrael views could subject them to personal harassment. in 2004, the european monitoring center conducted its own survey conducting and evaluating data and conducting personal interviews with jewish leaders. at the time few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone those that were anti-semitic. the own monitors did not even have a definition to guide them. meanwhile the personal interviews in the study revealed the level of anxiety and uncertainty that had not been seen in decades. they acknowledged the need for a uniform definition to strengthen

the work of its monitors and to make sense of the pessimistic predictions of the jewish leaders surveyed. in the falloff 2004, the director inhadvited me to present her with a definition of anti-semitism. we began with academic experts in the field. they were shared with others in the world until a final draft document achieved consensus. it wuz my responsibility to negotiate agreement on a final version of the e, oc. so in march of 2005 it issued what as come to be known as the working definition of anti-semitism. a core paragraph with examples. and let us also be clear the purpose of this definition was not just to assist monitors in filing reports, it was to make a

difference in the day to day safety and security. of all europeans. raise awareness. the most important and most controversial in this definition. antiisrael was behind many of the physical attacks even as they frequently dismissed them as political acts. they had their own corrosive impact on security. the take into acount the overall context and that criticism of

israel cannot be regarded as antisimettic issue and you can see why using it has become valuable. demonstrations in some european cities became anti-semitic. police need to be prepared for this. so the definition is part of police cudet training in the uk and it's now included in a newly published guideline on u.s. security. an arson attack on the synagogue in germany was determined not to be antisimettic because of the affiliation of the attacker. an offer to call kill jews was deemed not anti-semitic for it same reason. thus they include the definition in training police and prosecutors and judges. in may 2016 ira, the

international ha international holocaust remembrance alliance adopted this. it has since been adopted by germany, bulgaria and introduced for use in the european parliament and the parliamentary assembly. the yoours government has its own record of use. the anti-semitism act of 2004 called on the state department to call a special envoy and said it has at times taken the form of villification of ziennism, and called on state to report on acts of anti-semitism around the world. in tat report and a subsequent one, the working definition was employed. i'm an advocate for using it, if we're to be successful in combatting anti-semitism, we must define it. some said it would be used to stifle criticism of israel.

but there's ample evidence that public criticism is more vocal than a decade ago. and a recognition of the very real problem relates to israel j the dangers it poses to the jewish community. this ought to be instructive when addressing anti-semitism as it appears on college campuses. finally i'm often joined by colleagues whose mandates cover other forms of intallgence against muslims, romas, christians. some said adopting a definition would lead to demands of other definitions. but that has not happened. those problems are no less serious than anti-semitism and the need for governments to address them is every bit as critic critical. >> if you can sum up in a sentence. >> my last sentence, even though representatives of vulnerable

groups are not saying they need a definition, unlike anti-semitism, they're easy to recognize and sadder still that they're so prevalent. >> dr. adel. am had i pronouncing that correctly? >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member and distinguished members of this committee for ifviting me today. as a scholar of american jewish history and as president of the association for jewish studies, the learned society for scholars in my field, i know that our country's encounters with anti-semitism began in 1654 when 23 jews landsed in new amsterdam and its governor tried to expel what he called this deceitful race of hateful enemies and blas foreign ministerers. perhaps we would not be there this morning but he failed and

since then jewish immigrants have come from around the world and called our nation home. as citizens american jas if joyed the same right and ask others to voice their content for the jewish people and religion. a malevolent ideology has waxed and waned across the landscape of american history. the political moment, economic dislocations, social forces, the movies in their hay day and social media in ours set its volume control. we are, by all accounts, sadly of one of those moments where the volume on anti-semitism in american life is turned way up. when violent protesters chant jews will not replace us, american jews are rightly fearful. the hard evidence is

indisputable. but today pfsz hearing is about the climate of anti-semitism on campus and it was triggered by those that have pointed to our colleges and universities and antiisrael bias. our campuses really hot beds of anti-semitism or are they places where jews, one minority among many meet from time to time stupidity and sensitivity and prejudice. is it so pervasive on the campus that it's created a hostile climate for jas. and nearly three quarters confess. and they're exposed to one of the statements of the past year. they do not characterize their campuses as anti-semitic. instead they report they feel

safe. when had ta do experience discomfort, they trace it to the stridency of both sides of the israel/palestinian debate. while it can devolve, such political speech is not if so facto antianti-semitic. students say anti-semitic expression comes mostly from their peers, not from professors or the administration. one study recognizes we have quote more noise than accurate information about what is really happening on campus around anti-semitism. students surveyed are smart. they recognize it's a significant problem in american society but they don't characterize their campuses as anti-semitic. it confirms what i hear from my association for jewish studies colleag colleagues. teaching around the country.

unquestionably death to israel and all jews posted on a organization's facebook page. but deplorable incidents do not prove that campus is rife with anti-semitism. you may have hired recently on my own campus confederate flags wurb posted just as we were launching our new antiracism and policy center but you may not know that many were affixed to the bulleten bord for israel studies. when such incidents occur, the response is forceful and swift. we hold town halls, issue statements of condemnations, we offer students counseling and opportunities for healing. we launch investigations. perhaps there are campuses where they respond disdantly to such events but i believe them to be the exception. are they targeting the college campus?

unfortunately yes. do jewish students encounter anti-semitism there? sadly yes. has it creaided a climate of fear to infringed on the ability to live life to the fullest. my impression by social science research and my jewish studies colleagues an unequivocal no. thank you. >> rabbi cooper, welcome. >> thank you prrks had chairman. mr. coniers g to see you. distinguished members. in the past several years jewish students, not all, but a large number have been subjected to unprecedented numbers of antijewish sentiment. leaving many to feel -- or other campus activities whose participants are especially hostile to jewish students.

jewish students often can't table their organizations without being physically surrounded and shouted down by anti-semitic campus organizations. they can't bring speakers to school like every other group can because it speakers have and will be heckled into silence. they're often reluctant to run for student government at some schools because they've seen numerous times in just the past few year s that jewish students have been called out because they are jews and often excluded from government expressly due to their involvement on life on campus. these are widespread and impacts are large and small constituencies. the impact on jewish support groups and jewish members like -- this even led them to

create an app to insure individual students they can report these incidents immediately and they are not alone. mr. chairman, we're here today seeking the committee's help because too often university administrator's have been tolerating a level of harassment that would never -- they would never dream of allowed of allowing because they know until now there are no consequences. the department of education does not protect jewish students the same way that it protects other groups. the failure of schools and federal governments to protect on campus is one of the most pressing issues for the american jewish community. some of whom are here today came together last year to demand equal protection under the law for jewish students and as you

know that's why the senate passed the bill unanimously. mr. chairman, i brought a few recent illustrations. this one posted by a professor at rutger's university. others from university of houston, california berkeley. i'll submit them later. that show us in real time what's going on, on the campuses. i'll -- while this is a distressing national phenomenon, let me get in my own state of california. instead of giving the examples that are already quoted, let me just say the few anti-semitic incidents, some of them that are reported in university of california, jewish students report severe and pervasive harm at the hands of antiisrael

actsivists. it often includes physical and verbal assaults. and immigration didn't let me. don't blame jewish star necklaces. wearing the jewish fraternity leaders. the problem had become so severe that university of california, then president commissioned the fact finding team to interview jewish students on seven uc campuses in order to objectively assess the campus climet for them. according to the team's report, jewish students were indeed quote confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus, which folked on israel, its right to exist and treatment of palestinians.

the team found that on every uc campus, and at times harassed and intimidated by student, faculty and outsiders. despite what many jas experienced, complaints filed under title six of the 19 civil rights act on behalf of jewish students on three campuses, uc irvine, sanltau cruz and berkeley were unceremoniously dismissed and on 13. mr. chairman, usually members of the clergy go on very, very long and look for a dispensation from the good lord for the clock. i will instead just cut to the chase of the last two paragra paragraphs. at ocr officials used the state

department's definition in identifying the basis of the harassment that targeted jewish students, they would have recognized the anti-semitismality the heart of it. instead, it has effectively denied jewish students equal protection under the law and left them uniquely vulnerable among their peers. that's why we ask you and your colleagues to supporter our request and to move this legislation forward. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. rabbi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good luck. it's an honor to be here today. i'm grateful that your soliciting a wide range of voices on this important subject because the right of students and faculty is precisely what is at stake in the current attempts to limit speech bp and a new

anti-semitism threatens to injentder students on a scale not seen since the holocaust. they have sounded the alarm that it's a clear and present danger. while others have argued that another war of it jews is upon us. that's critical of the state of israel. the truth is such as we saw in charlottesville where torch bearing marchers chanted "you jews will not replaced us" and murdered a protester is still live in the yunls and requires vigilant and persistent -- isrr not a genuine attempt but rather as an attempt to quell speech that is vital and to the functioning of democratic societies.

it's a factual disorgz to characterize them as hot beds of anti-semitism. they reported that while depictions are wiredly reported in the press, they do nautd represent the actual experiences of students at the campus level. it's neither threatening nor alargest. in general they reported feeling comfortable and more importantly comfortable as jews. and it's likely to argue that it's at crisis levels. i urge you to be skeptical of such claims. they contained factual dist oorgzs. many studies are based on a definition tat defines it as anti-semitic. rather students who -- and are largely motivated by palestinian human rights. it's opposite. a desire to end racial and

religious discrimination of all kinds. it is profoundly difficult to create anti-semitism for legislative purposes. the root lie in a seemingly intractable power. in a way that is long history of anti-semitism. they establish religious and political economic. it possesses power and authority. for the first time a sniignifict number of jews gained actual power. they have a military arsenal, mostly representative in democratic system of government. its actions must be permitted to

be a matter of public debate in the jewish community and outside of it. it still strikes many as anti-semitic and we're talking about the actual political power in ways that don't echo anti-semitic depictions of power. this is not only -- it's also because as we see in the legislative initiative such as this, to characterize it as intrinzically anti-semitic is a tool employed by those that seek to stigmas it all critics. it will be ill advised to establish legal authority that is so deeply contested. to insist that israel cannot be protested or objected to, to mandate that, jewish power cannotby analyzed or debated. it's once victims are somehow

immu immune. and most dangerously of all, attempts to broaden the attempts to encompass what are clearly not antijewish can only make it more difficult to isolation and oppose actual hatred with had it does occur. thank you. >> thank you. >> it's a pleasure to be here. it's a particular privilege to be here. representing the adl. apack and the jewish federations of north america. two is the policy wisdom of addressing it with clarifying definition and it third is whether providing that definition raises problems under the first amendment. address the first two issues.

and to say as emphatically as i can that providing a definition along the lines that the anti-semitism awareness act would do does not raise first amendment problems for three basic reasons. one is that this act is not a speech code but simply provides a definition that will allow the education department to use potentially speech but only for ever dengsiary purposes in evaluating whether or not harassment is motivated by anti-semitism. second, that a definition here serves first amendment values. it doesn't harm them. one way or another government officials are going to be looking into this question and i think it serves fir s first ame values to guide their mission and third, but least import ntdly the faktd that act as a savings clause. so on the first of these points that it's not a speech code, i think it's very important to

understand that this act is not take any speech and make it illegal or imporous miscible. so somebody just like they can today can engage on campus in the most abhorrent anti-semitic speech and the education department will not take action against them just for that. but if they couple that speech with a physical attack on a jewish student, then this act allow it use of that anti-semitic speech to demonstrate the motive of the person engaged in harassment. and it first amendment clearly prohibits that. permits that, which is to say that this isn't even controversial in the sense that when speech is not prohibited but only used in evidentiary purposes, it's not amended. the supreme court laid down that rule against mitchell. there weren't too many things

they agreed on but this was one of them. no first amendment problem and tlafrlts just what the definition does here. it guides the education department in the evidentiary use of speech to allow them to decide whether something is anti-semitic. the second major reason i don't think there's a problem is what we have is a clarifying definition and providing a definition to official whose are going to be making a speech, providing a definition serves first amendment values. looking at speech with unfeterred discretion, looked at as abhorrent. whatever congress does here, if congress does nothing, it's still going to be the education department's position that title 6 forbids harassment. so the question really boils down to whether the education department officials are going

to make that judgment without a definition or with a definition. and i certainly think it serves first amendment values to guide that discretion. i think the one area of the first amendment for a while. that gufrmnt government offici l officials had no guidance in was they famously had it know it when we see it test. i don't think anybody thinks this is the finest chapter. it's the status quo is anti-semitism. the education department officials will know it when they see it or at least we hope they will because they have no guidance, no definition guiding their work and that's what this law can change. mr. coniers made the point about being concerned about first amendment values in this area. i do think though that the fist amendment issue in this is what

is the standard for harassment? if that's a hair trilger, then i think there will be first amendment amendment problems. i take the current law to be the harassment standard is the same the law laid in the title 9 context in davis against monroe. one way or another this law doesn't change it. if you want to make that more demanding to protect first amendment values you could do that or make it slightly less demanding you can do that. all this law does is take the standard definition. i know the chairman has raised why a definition here when you don't have a definition in other contexts. i do think if there were a real doubt what constituted racist speech or some argument people were using to cover racist speech we'd want to have a definition. in this context, somebody can say something anti-semitic,

don't worry about it, it was just anti-zionist, not anti-semitic. this tries to address this problem. i think the savings clause is the least reason there's not a first amendment problem. thank you. >> thank you. miss parker, welcome. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member conyers and distinguished members. my name is sandra hey gee parker and i am here on behalf of the christian united for israel action. our sole purpose is to stand united on behalf of the jewish state and its people. in 2008, cfi on campus was established to educate students about israel and arm them with the truth because the questions in this classroom today become the policies in the scare tomorrow. intellectual discourse, academic freedom and freedom of speech

are sacrositting in and essential to getting tolerance among divergent groups. despite this jewish students and jewish groups and students who support them find themselves having these sacred rights abridged. this past summer the students from san francisco state university filed a lawsuit ac hedgi ledge -- alleging the students were a threat to safety on campus. student jacob mendel experienced hostile behavior ignored by the university despite a complaint being filed. he stated i felt squared to be a jew on campus. i felt the university didn't want me there because i was jewish and we weren't allowed the same rights other students. brian landry wrote this in the

california aggie newspaper quote as a jewish student i have seen my fair share of anti-semitic actions on campus. i've had foul and intolerable words yelled at me while i'm studying because i have a sticker of israel on my laptop. when george deke came to speak on campus, students shouted death to jews at my friends and me. what i haven't seen is an open statement from the school about any of these events. what's more frustrating due to the lack of exposure and punishment for these acts other students don't know what happened end quote. we cannot change what we are not willing to confront. infiltration of this behavior without con fron taufrontation o its normalization, so much so that those who experience this discrimination often feel reporting is is a waste of time due to the regularity it occurs

and pervasive, it spills over to non-jewish individuals. many of our cfi students have personally experienced mere standing with jews or the jewish state has resulted in the same hostility. for instance at the university of new mexico a cfi student had rocks thrown at them while at a table with a jewish flag and were spit on. a student at george mason was confronted in the cafeteria and cursed and yelled at in front of several hundred students and told she was disgusting and a baby killer. that student is now too frightened to wear her cfi shirt again. it is not for legitimate critic, it is harassment to shut down jewish students and those who support them. allowing misbehavior to shut down free speech is at odds with the free thinking and safe environment our nation's colleges strive to create. students and administrators alike should be able to distinguish between the valid critique of nation and

anti-semitic behavior cloaked as opposition to zionism providing a standard to judge these acts no more chills free speech than the temperature of a therm prevents the side from rising. one side is using the first amendment as a sword to inflict harm and shield to protect itself from the consequences of its actions. valid intellectual discourse and equal action to education should not be mutually exclusive. the exercise of free speech is not an affirmative defense for harassment. the first amendment does not relieve schools of their responsibility to ensure students receive protection under the law. the present secretary of civil rights in the doa said quote we have developed rules for anti-sem tim anti-semitism in every country except the united states. instead of saying it was not a

problem anti-semitism was present enough at stanford university the student body took on itself to pass a resolution against anti semitism and included a resolution for guidance. anti semitism is not a jewish issue a human issue. jewish identity and ancestry continue to be a target. history has shown us what happens when good men and women do nothing in the face of such evils. not to act is to act. thank you for your consideration and your time. >> thank you, miss parker. mr. greenblatt, welcome. >> thank you. good morning chairman and members of the committee. i'm jason greenblatt and i appreciate appearing at this hearing. i want to take my time to highlight the trends we are seeing including the rise of

anti-semitic and hate groups on campus and provide suggestions and some potential responses. as the congressman conyers noted the adl has been tracking the incidences since 1970s, our annual audit we're doing on a quarterly basis provides a snapshot of this national problem and helps our professionals at our headquarters in new york and 26 field offices around the country identify friends and craft responses. data drives policy. our audit has led us to draft the first hate crime law in the u.s. and adopted by the federal government and 45 states around the country including the district of columbia and he hate grime statistics act of 1890 is based on the fact we must count each by used motivated crime and teach communities how to respond to them. new audit data released last week as congressman conyers

noted detailed a 67% increase in the first three-quarters this year over the same time period last year. we have already recorded more anti-semitic incidences in 2017 than we saw in their entirety of 2016. i'm talking acts of harassment, vandalism environment. these are reported by my professionals with each incident verified before we log it. this is not about rumors or rhetoric, this is about hard facts. anti-semitic incidences spiked after the unite the rally in charlottesville. until 2016 they were not active on college campuses. starting in the fall of last year they began an open effort to spread their message and recruit at colleges and universities. last year at this time the adl tracked nine incidences of white

supremist activity on college campuses. this year for the same time period two months in the academic year we tracked 80 such incidences nearly a ten-fold increase year-over-year. anti-semitism cannot be attributed to solely extremists on the right. neither side of the political spectrum is exempt from intolerance. we have seen the anti-rhetoric coming from the left wing one rooted in extremes on israel that can cross the lines into anti-semitism. there is nothing wrong with criticizing specific policies in israel. that happens all the time and not anti-semitism just as criticizing policies of the trump administration or u.s. congress doesn't make you anti-american. that's not what we're talking about. whether it originates on the fringes of the left or extremes on the right we have seen real cases of anti-semitism surge at

colleges and universities our audit documented 118 incidence this year compared to 74 in the same period last year. that's nearly a 60% increase. our written statement outlines a number of those incidences, i don't have time to get into them this morning. when we identify a problem we believe we have responsibility to propose solutions. our statement highlights and effective response on anti-semitism we saw in the university of california system and we believe at the adl the enactment of this act, legislation approved unanimously by the senate would be an important step forward to address discrimination against jews and have positive implications for muslims, sikhs and other religious groups and characteristics. as an agency that serves as a fierce advocate for the first

amendment let me reinforce mr. clemmons' claim this would not compromise freedom of speech period. it would provide guidance to the department of education and department of justice on whether to investigate anti-jewish discrimination in instances in which anti-israel activity crass the line into targeted intentional unlawful discriminatory intimidation and harassment of jewish students. our statement also provides several additional policy recommendations. number one, first, we recommend training and outreach program for administrators, faculty, staff and students on best practices and protocols to respond to hate speech, extremism, anti-semitism and bigotry. second, we recommend education on the parameters of first amendment free speech rights, hate speech may be protected but admin straytors and student

leaders have the moral responsibility to address the impact and does not approve inciting violence. there are no complete solutions to this problem and all anti-semtry and bigotry must be addressed long before the college years. the government that the responsibility to fund anti-bias, anti-racism education in k through 12 schools to inoculate our children to intolerance before they ever get to the university. in closing, i deeply respect the opinions of the experts at the table. let me just say, because this legislation balances free speech considerations with the surge of discrimination, the adl and all other major jewish organization, the communal leadership are unified in their support of this act. thank you for your leadership. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> welcome.

>> thank you, members of the community. >> you might want to turn the microphone on. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on anti-semitism on campus. pen america stands at the increasing of open expression and worldwide. our mission to unite writers and allies for creative expression and defend liberties to make it possible. we work on issues of campus free speech. our fall 2016 report and campus for all diversion and inclusion of freedom of speech sets out a comprehensive analysis of the tensions that rise at colleges dual imperatives to make campuses hospitable learning environments for students of all backgrounds while maintaining uncompromising protections of freedom of speech. it's our mission these two can and enough exist. pen america is working to address these strains by facilitating in-depth dialogues and make the campus an open

environment for all people and all ideas. we are alarmed at the rise of anti-semitic speech actions fellow participants in this hearing have documented. we applaud the leadership on this issue. as an organization dedicated under our charter disspelling hatred and the unham everyday transmission of thought we are in the belief it must and need not impair freedom of expression protections. consistent with that we have several concerns with the act. this hearing takes place at a moment of pressing threats 0 free speech on campus including efforts to disinvite and shout down speakers, hateful speech that intimidates members of historically vulnerable groups and efforts to punish speech. it's imperative to avoid even well intended measures to lemz newly restrictive parameters for expression. addressing resolutions targeting

israel or leftists and events breaking the silence a group of former israeli soldiers who oppose those government's policies whose speech address anti-semitism in the act. while it might not lead to a civil rights violation it could form part of a claim of harassment thus subjecting the speaker to investigation and potential disciplinary action. many college students are find their political voice for the first time exploring activism and finding their way to causes they will champion the rest of their lives. they should not live in peril an errant political chant or political remark could trigger a civil rights claim. one might read the reason should imply the speech in question bore signify ors of anti-political sentiment. the campus today is highly charged. we've seen in the context of title 9 and other controversy

that may seem satirical or purely academic can trigger reaction in a campus. the israeli conflict is among the most contentious of campus debate. in this environment any new weapon of speech is vulnerable to misuse. wee have seen claims of harassment ultimately judged meritless can impose strain on witnesses and responsible administrators and the cam muss as a whole. alongside anti-semitism other forms of hate speech are surging many identified slurs and insults not fully recognized for their derogatory character. cartoon images of religious figures, pictures of historically marginalized groups outside and the slurs. if this is passed we should not be surprised if other historically vulnerable groups ask for protections. the campus is already a minefield when it comes to speech. new viewpoints will render it

more dangerous for those who dear express controversial ideas. finally, having reviewed the very thoughtful testimony of my fellow witnesses we submit we do not see evidence that the problem of rising anti semitism arrives from the current confusion nor than expanded definition will address the concerns we all share. while many witnesses cite practical measures they believe can be effective i'm not sure any of us are confident this change can help solve the problem we are confronting. finally, the u.s.'s approach of free expression is the most distinctive in the world. while the holocaust is denied in europe it is free speech here and protests and if the counter speech were to pass the u.s. is a standard bearer against viewpoint based restrictions on speech would be blunted. pan america is eager to work with the committee to advance constructive steps to advance

anti-semitism and bigotry and free speech. we have in fluided in our written testimony a copy of wrong answer, how good faith attempts to address free speech and anti-semitism on campus could backfire a new pan-american white paper that analyzes campus free speech laws in the states. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. stern, welcome. >> thank you, chairman goodlatte and ranking member conyers and the members of the community. it's my honor to represent the rosenberg foundation that works to prevent anti-semitism. i was the jewish expert on anti semitism and over those years i worked with many college presidents on a variety of issues about bigotry and anti semitism and anti-israel annie mouse and one was a manual how to manage campus bigotry.

every one of these promote academic freedom are more likely to make it on campus or expose it or harm it will make it worse. let me give you an example. the ecu adopted a resolution advancing an academic boycotts of israel. some in the american jewish community said americans should boycott academics in return and that would violate academic freedom because ideas should be evaluated on their merit not nationality of their proponents. i worked with over 400 college presidents who said dividing the academic world into two, israelis who should be shunned and everyone else count their universities as israelis, too. that approach worked because of academic free speech. i guarantee you not one

president would have signed an ad that says let's do a counter-boycott. that's one of my concerns of the anti semitism awareness act, by undercutting academic free speech it too would do great harm to the academy and students studying israel jewish studies. i was a lead drafter with my colleague andy baker who did great politicking of anti semitism which the state department definition is based. it was drafted with european data collectors upmost in mind and not to chili or regulate speech on american campuses. in recent years jewish groups and individuals began filing title 6 complaints that it transgressed the definition. when all those cases lost they tried to get the university of california system to adopt the definition. when that failed they turned to lawmakers. as a jewish community official acknowledged this type of legislation would open the door for other groups to seek

legislative definitions, too. let's imagine african-american groups asking for a definition of racism for consideration under title 6 for political expression deemed racist. would it include opposition of affirmative action and opposition of removing statutes of confederate leaders. denying the jewish people the right to this anti-semitism shouldn't determining this right be anti-palestinianism. there is a debate who is included and not and based on zionists. we have heard from jewish students zionists but those anti-zionists have been called traders and told they're really not jewish at all. whether you can be an 18-year-old anti-zionist inside the jewish community is not a debate congress should decide but by adopting this definition

congress would do so by labeling anti-zionist jews anti-semites. we have seen hecklers over speakers considered conservative or racist and on campus seen in a similar vein. congress should not be creating something akin to a presumption if pro israel event is targeted. and other challenges to jewish students today such as alt-right campus organizing because jews are largely white they cannot be victims of hatred. what concerns me most some groups empowered by the congressional endorsement of campus application will hunt speech they believe transgresses it and press administrators to oppress it or condemn it threat therening title 6 cases. we wanted an administer tors to conduct surveys to offer full classes on anti semitism to find new ways to use education to

break down the binary thinking around the israel-palestine conflict and cultivate an environment all students, jews included to say what they think even if they're not fully formed and might not be wrong. when an administrator is told, as they will be by the general counsels, they will be evaluated how well they react to anti-political speech that will likely be their only focus. as we heard today the working definition recently applied to campus in the united kingdom. you see how that worked out. and israel apartheid event was canceled and one speaker had to cancel a talk after a diplomat complained and a university investigated a professor for violating it for an article she had written years ago and the university ultimately found no basis to discipline her but the exercise itself was chilling and mccarthy-like. if we similarly enshrine this

definition into law outside groups will suppress speech they don't like and the academy and faculty will all suffer. >> thank you, mr. stern? we now begin with questioning of the witnesses. i recognize myself. rabbi baker, you write in your written testimony if we are to be successful in combatting anti semitism we must first understand it, we must define it. it is a complex phenomenon, it has changed over time. it presents itself in new and traditional forms. that it changes over time and presents itself in different forms over time would counsel against codifying any particular definition of anti semitism. how is a definitional codification approach compatible with concept of discrimination that changes over time?

>> thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to expand on this. the fact is there is a core understanding what anti semitism is about. the way it's manifest, the way people encounter it will vary from time and place. it does not mean that one day to the next it has changed or would change dramatically. i think the idea of a definition that in fact this working definition that was developed first with great difficulty to achieve consensus among jewish experts and organizations around the world, and then to find its use in the eumc and other bodies in europe really began with acknowledging those traditional aspects of anti-semitism. they may as said, wax and wane over time. we understand them but we should explained define them for people to be clear on this. the idea of conspiracy theories

against jews, what other elements motivate this hatred. also to recognize as we've seen in more recent times, holocaust denial is a form of anti semitism, wouldn't have been part of a definition a century ago but critical now. finally when we speak about anti semitism as it relates to israel, that is something more and more people have come to recognize not justjus who experienced it in junior or here in the u.s. and on college -- experienced it here in the u.s. and on college campuses. >> thank you. doctor, i was pleased to see the use of the state department's definition of anti semitism in addressing anti semitism under title 6 was nominated by the president to head the civil rights division of the department of justice which would enforce title 6. i expect and i guess i'll ask if you expects mr. marcus, if he's

confirmed to that position would use the department's definition of anti semitism in addressing it under title vi and if so, might it be best to see the results of using such a definition before congress were to codify it into statutory law? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i very much agree. i think it would be very useful to find out how this is going to be applied in different situations rather than passing legislation to decide something we don't know how it will play out. so i would -- i agree with you. i think your suggestion is a good one. >> mr. greenblatt, would you care to comment on that same question? >> i think we need to keep in mind the attempt to insure mr. walker or mr. marcus, excuse me or other officials simply can consult the definition would make it's easier to do their job

effectively. rather than having congress wait i would encourage you to proceed expeditiously with this process so mr. marcus can be an effective advocate and public servant at the department of education. >> dr. tractenberg, rabbi baker wrote in his written testimony unlike anti-semitism, other forms of prejudice and group hatreds are easy to recognize. do you or any of the other panelists for that matter disagree with that, that is can't and don't all forms of hatred change with the circumstances and the times? >> thank you for your question. i think we always have to pay attention to context when we're looking at any particular one incident. we need to investigate it carefully. we think about the state department definition, which seeks to codify what anti semitism is, it's such a flawed definition it can virtually encompass any particular act without any real regard to

context although it pretends it does. for example, the state department definition claims stating a particular jewish person has more loyalty to the state of israel than they do to their own country is necessarily an example of anti semitism. the truth is that's one of the fundamental premises of zionism, if you look at the statement of theodore hurt zell who wrote what's considered the founding text of zionism he argued clearly jews are one people and therefore it's useful for them to be patriots to the countries in which they reside. there's time when a statement like that is contain in the definition of the state department would undermine zionism. >> thank you. i was intrigued in a portion of your testimony i don't think you talked about in your oral testimony, that is, would you elaborate on the point that you make with regard to something you call pandora's box?

>> thank you. thank you, chairman goodlatte. the issue is that once you open up this capacity for having an official definition i expect any organization concerned with groups on campus would want a definition, too. look at affirmative action, as i mentioned before. if somebody on campus says there should be no affirmative action you can understand how an african-american student might hear that as i don't belong here and something the university should take responsibility for looking at the campus culture. you would have groups saying wait a minute, this makes students feel uncomfortable and we want to codify that, too, under title vi, ocr should look at that as an indicia specifically. i think you can find other types of examples with other types of groups down the road. >> my time has expired but i get your point.

>> mr. chairman, if i may, i want to bring back the focus as to why we're here this morning. the united states, through its agencies, has failed many jewish students who went through extreme situations of anti semitism. we're here because we need your help to address that. i think that needs to be a focus. secondly, with permission, the idea that a dual loyalty or being more loyal to a state other than the nation we've been born into is inherent in zionism, which was just stated by another speaker cannot go unchallenged. it is simply -- it's not true, it's not accurate and it is cannon fodder for anti-semites. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. conyers, for his questions. >> thank you, sir.

this has been a very unusual situation. as an african-american, i keep thinking about what if we were looking at the question of race from this perspective. and i have four questions here, but i think instead i will just ask each one of you who chooses, to take just a few sentences to sum up any last considerations that you would leave the house judiciary committee with.

i'll start with you, rabbi baker. >> i think the anti semitism awareness act would provide guidance that would explain what anti semitism is about to people who need to know. it would go beyond what you mention, mr. conyers, in the 2010 guidance, that potentially can be changed in a new administration thad would underscore the fact that title vi should be used to address anti semitism on college campuses. >> dr. nadell. >> thank you. i think the anti semitism awareness act is problematic. if there is a way to see it referred to with kenneth marcus, then perhaps that is the way to go. but for now it will label

anti-israel actions on campus as anti-semitic and it will quash free speech and that's a mistake. >> thank you. rabbi cooper. >> congressman conyers, we know each other for a few decades. just to summarize, the american jewish community is here this morning because we need your help. as a leader in the civil rights movement and along with the chairman, we're here because we have a defined problem. you've heard the statistics from the anti-defamation league. they're quite shocking, what's happening here is happening in realtime. those who refuse to recognize the problem of anti semitism, it's kind of like inviting people from the flat earth society to a hearing about nasa. >> thank you. dr. tractenberg. >> thank you. what i would say, as a comment that i hope you leave with today

is to listen seriously, please, to what the faculty who work in the field of jewish studies are asserting. you've heard from the president of the association for jewish studies to my right. both from myself and many other faculty members who studied this issue very carefully using rigorous scientific measures. anti semitism is a highly contested one. i think you should trust professors and universities to contend with these issues as they arise on their campus and allow us to teach our students unimpeded. thank you, sir. attorney clemmons. >> i would like to follow up on your analogy to the race context. i think if we had a dynamic on our college campuses we felt the existing title vi provisions on race were being underenforced

because people kept on saying when they were accused of harassment based on the basis of race they had a white supremacy symbol and this wasn't anti-african-american but all in service of this symbol, that we had a consensus that that was wrong, that we could amend the definition and restore an adequate prohibition of harassment on the basis of race and it wouldn't raise first amendment problems because it would only be triggered by harassment. thank you. chair woman parker. 92 thank you, ranking member conyers. >> i want to underscore while i appreciate academics study the problem it's our students living the problem. they're the ones having the rocks thrown at them and having the vitriol spoken to them. the academics of stanford did an extensive study said jews felt safe. the jews of stanford took it

upon themselves to pass a resolution doing in large part what we're advocates for here today. >> thank you. attorney greenblatt. >> i'm not an attorney, mr. conyers. let me dispel that. >> director greenblatt. >> what i would simply say is that the anti semitism awareness act from a first amendment perspective will not squash free speech, it will not shelve freedom of expression. i would also encourage you, as you reflect upon the views of academics who live with the privilege of tenure in the ivory tower and listen to those of us who work on main street, the adl, american jewish committee, apec, jewish federations of north america, all the major jewish community organizations support this legislation. >> director nossel. >> thank you. that we agree there is a serious problem doesn't mean the solution right in front of us is the correct one. we have to keep in mind the law

of unintended consequences. we risk fueling the fire of contentious debates and opening the door to other restrictive measures that would chill speech even if they don't violate the first amendment. we have practical measures we all agree on that can be reinforced and that's where i suggest we focus. >> director stern. >> thank you. five quick points. one is i agree with mr. trachtenberg that -- dr. trachtenberg you should listen closely to the people teaching on the campus, especially on these issues, they're the ones i think have the closest feel of the pulse. secondly, this type of legislation, i think, will be a black hole. it will suck away all the other things that we really want campuses to do to deal with their environment, deal with their teaching. this will be the preferred answer and focus rather than all those other things. third, i think jewish students are suffering in many places around the israel-palestine

conflict because there is a great binary. legislation like this rather than breaking down that binary will add to the detriment of jewish students. i disagree with something in rabbi cooper's written statement on vulnerable jewish students. i taught in college and i don't feel the jewish students i have come into contact with feel vulnerable and want to be protected. they want their thinking shaken up and having the full capacity to look hat these issues from every possible way. fifth, i really worry about the instinct to monitor speech. we've seen outside groups creating dossiers online. we've seen what's happened in the uk. if i'm a jewish studies professor and i'm going to be monitored whether i teach something that transgresses this definition, i will say, why should i bother, i'd rather speak about 18th century judaism

today. >> thank you all. i will monitor this conversation very carefully. >> the chair recognizes mr. issa for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. rabbi cooper, in your experience, have you had but i'm assuming you had experience discussing with college administrators the response to these anti-semitic incidents and what have ah learned? >> we had our museum of tolerance in los angeles and a lot of interactions primarily california-based, uc and cal state administrators, including some of the campus police. there's been a lot of exchange. there have been seminars and discussions. what has been lacking and what we hear back from people who, let's say, have been burned once or twice by incidents they didn't anticipate, is they lack a context.

they're looking for a basic definition to give them a context on campus to guide them. my written and verbal testimony i spoke at some length, president udoff, when he was head of the uc system spent an enormous amount of time on this problem not because it was theoretical because the students at the bottom of all of this were not being protected by the system. he tried, i think, mightily, to come up with ways to begin to correct that situation. the fact that we're here today before this important group of legislators here in the house indicates that we do need help. that context, as mr. clement so brilliantly presented it, simply is that, a definition that will help train the college administrators, chancellors and the rest, to apply the existing

context and the rules toization in which jewish kids have been subjected to the kinds of behaviors that brought us here today. >> so you wouldn't say that there's an unwillingness to protect but a lack of training, is that a fair assessment? i see it as most of the administrators are not taking measures to protect. >> i think that -- i think a lot of administrators in their own training never heard the introduction of the term anti semitism along all the other areas of protected groups, minority groups, gender groups that have to be protected. it simply never entered the lexicon until these incidents came forward and it was clear from our interaction with the people, let's give them the benefit of the doubt they were well-meaning and wanted to address it, they didn't really

know where to begin. in a digs, there are many on campuses who believe israel is an exception state ie an apartheid state, a racist state, guilty of all sorts of crimes in which their own personal biases do enter into the way in which they respond to situations on campuses. but overwhelmingly, i don't think it's ideologically driven, something relatively knew and they're not sure how to proceed. >> rabbi, it's been a long time since i went to college. in those days it was a simpler time. this would have been -- don't look at me as how much simpler, but it was a simpler time. we would have looked at it, we had the '67 war -- the '73 war actually occurred during my

college period. today, it seems like we're involved with lots and lots of issues, every sort of politically correct speech and so on. how do we in congress initiate a process that prioritizes the unique characteristics of anti-semitic behavior unless we begin a process and end up caught up in the dozens of other politically correct things that we sometimes talk about how people refer to people. somebody can refer to a woman in an incorrect way, another race or religion, in an incorrect way. they're often categorized as though all of them are equals. none of them are good but how do we in congress initiate a process that put a priority on this type of hate speech based on its history and its pervasiveness. >> i would just make two points, and perhaps also mr. clement would want to.

the two points i would make, number one, we're not looking to put the jewish student at the head of the line, we're looking to include jewish students within the context of the commitment on every campus against intimidation, creating a place where you can exchange ideas. there isn't a single organization represented here that ever handed the state of israel a moral blank check for specific actions or policies that it's taken. i think that's simply a false issue. the other point here also is for us to understand, it is more complex now and a lot of these controversies are part of global campaigns against the state of israel, against the jewish people. they're sort of parachuted into campuses which is one of the reasons why so many university

administrators seem so clueless how to deal with it. when you have the next outbreak, we pray it won't come, in the middle east, especially now with social media and even before the same mantras you will hear on the streets of gaza, you will hear on the campuses, and those attacks won't be about israel. they'll be talking about hitler was right and death to the jews. >> thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, for five minutes. >> thank you. >> mr. stern, it's clear to me at least, i've been following this a good long time, there's some problem on most campuses. i agree with that. the anti-semitism awareness act is that the department should take into consideration the definition of anti semitism as part of the department's assessment whatever was going on was motivated by anti-semitic

intent. supporters know the definition is not dispositive whether title vi has been violated and should eliminate any concerns about a chilling effect on free speech. what is your response to that? >> my response is that inherently, it's disingenuous. when you prioritize a certain definition it has the weight of having congress behind it, compared to any other definition it can consult. i'm really not as concerned, although i ham about the two, three or five cases that may come up under this. i'm more concerned about the day-to-day impact on the campus by the fact administrators will be told to look at this and monitor speech and people from the outside as they have with title vi cases and websites focusing on dossiers and students and say hunt this speech. if you can't suppress it like the israel apartheid type of

thing you ought to at least condemn it so you will give incentives to chill speech when i think on campus what you really need is cultivate an environment that does exactly the opposite, brings out all the different sides of the conflict. >> counter-speech. >> counter-speech and use education to do it. >> would it ever be appropriate for the federal government to define anti semitism for the purposes of title vi? >> i don't think so for any other type of bigotry. >> not that the definition is too broad. >> i think there are problems with using the definition for campus, denying israel the right to exist is something you don't want to have in the venue of the u.n. for the president of iran to say and that should be objected to. an 18-year-old on a college campus trying to figure out with a jewish student whether i'm zionist or universal, they ought to have the right to explore those laws. >> how should the department of

education examine anti-tomorrowtianti-semitism and title vi. for high school students in new york, kids were being harassed, nothing to do with israel. but, i can tell you nobody asked no look at the motivation, what these people really thought about jews, nobody looked at the definition. what they looked at whether these kids were being identified as harassed as jews and they were. wisconsin v mitchell basically says the same thing, not the motive that's the problem, the selection of stobe be a victim of a particular circumstance. i think that's how you approach it. >> in the last seven years since the doe issued its guidance, how would you evaluate the department's enforcement efforts regarding anti semitism? >> you're talking about specific cases. i think the cases at least i was aware of had problems. they certainly had some indicia of arksz that were

problematic-of actions that were probl problematic but relied heavily on protected speech. i have no capacity at this point to say they should have done something differently in those cases and those cases that were brought again contained complaints about classes and text and campus speakers and other programs and i think they were rightly concerned about finding title vi violations. >> mr. clement, if enacted what protections would the anti semitism awareness act provide for students on campus not already provided for under current law? >> i think they would provide the protection of having the enforcement agency empowered with the definition. >> the enforcement agency can do whatever it can already do but guided by the definition. right. >> all right. thank you, let me go to the next question. critics of the anti semitism awareness act argue even if you're correct that the anti semitism awareness act does not violate the first amendment, it

could still have a chilling effect on political speech on campus. how would you respond to that? >> i would respond to that by saying the key to ensure title vi not just for anti semitism but for all the things it prohibits, the key to making sure it doesn't have a chilling effect on speech is to make sure that the test for harassment is sufficiently robust and consistent with our first amendment values. the rest is mistaken. when you say this will stop, when someone suggests this will stop a professor from lecturing on a topic in class that mistakes what the standard is for finding harassment under title vi. >> lastly, mr. stern, mr. clement argues the anti semitism awareness act does not raise constitutional concerns because it contains a saving clause more importantly because it address conducts like harassment rather than protected speech and adds definition to the existing definition of the law. what would you say to that? >> i would say two things,

disagree on the application of it in particular it will be problematic. mr. clemens has also said the saving clause is pretty much useful as suzanne nossel said as well. i encourage the individual rights in education has done a very thorough analysis of this. in my view, they're the experts on this and concluded without question this would be unconstitutional. >> my time has expired. i thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. gates for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman. i'd like to begin by bragging about my state of florida, i'm so proud some of the student government associations endorsing the bds movement the state of florida passed legislation that divests our state of any entities participating in the bds movement. that's legislation built on the landmark work of my colleague, mr. deutsche, during his service

in our legislature when he insured our state divested those engaging with iran and their nuclear program. rabbi, i want to drill down specifically with you since you mention student associations, are there any commonalities, methods, tactics, practices, groups are using to influence student government associations, pass bds resolutions, and to what extent would those methods or tactics be image packeted by the anti semitism awareness acts? >> i'm not an expert on the student associations, but when you read about what's going on -- by the way, not only in the united states but also what's going on in canada, in which you have activists who are exercising the first amendment rights, let's say are anti-israel, have a pro palestinian agenda, get involved in student government and stay involved and many times they have leadership roles, where

this act would help is when jewish students are called out at meetings of the student government including at ucla, not small colleges, up in canada as well, when jewish students are called out and they're -- they're basically told you don't belong in student government because, in effect, it's dual loyalty. you don't really have a loyalty to the united states, your loyalty is to a foreign entity, israel, and therefore you should be booted off the board. there are other obviously kinds of actions that can be taken in terms of funding, certain kinds of speakers will get it, certain activities will get it. i would say overall, if it was just a matter of student activism, the most important message we can send through hill l and ae pi and all the other

groups is make sure jewish students stay involved in student government. when you have, as we have now numerous examples where jewish kids are called out and say you don't belong here because you're a jew, that's exactly why we would -- that student would be able to go to an administrator, and if necessary, to the department of education to get redress. >> mr. greenblatt, from the antsty defamation standpoint, how do you parse that distinction between legitimate advocacy we can combat with other legitimate advocacy and speech that would run afoul of this act? >> i think it's important to keep in mind all this legislation does is require in the plain language of the definition, be consulted by administrators when a case is brought. this doesn't mandate that they do anything. this doesn't handcuff them, this doesn't limit free speech, it simply says when an issue is

brought to their attention they consult the definition. i think as stated by another one of the witnesses, they would need to determine there is indeed harassment taking place. having a definition that codifies what is indeed a very complex problem wouldn't in any way shape or form prohibit or again handcuff an administrator to prevent free speech. >> i found the data that you provided in your written testimony regarding the frequency of anti-semitic events rising, particularly troubling, on college campuses. to what extent do we tie that solely to the activity on a college campus versus perhaps some nefarious forces influencing students as early as high school? because i'm starting to see more and more folks advocating for bds type advocacy, which in my mind is modern anti-semitism, at the high school level. are you able to draw a nexus there? >> mr. congressman, that's a good and important question.

there are two 0 parts to it. if we try to understand the causality and increase in anti semitism i think extremists proposal both sides feel emboldened for different reasons vis-a-vis the political climate and why we're seeing an uptick in activity. that isn't something a function of academic treatise, that's the reality what we're seeing all around the country. to your point, yes, i would agree anti-bias, anti-hate content in schools, particularly at the high school level, can be an antidote to intolerance. that is another area i think we should explore. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. thank you. i recognize miss jackson lee from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much and to the ranking member. this is a very very important hearing. clearly, rabbi, i think it's important that students are young people and any language

that particularly suggested they don't belong here i believe we're obligated to protect them and protect their space of learning. so you have me committed on the idea that our young people must be protected. as i query, i'm trying to find the comfort level, mr. stern, on the idea of the protected speech. and i graduated from the university of virginia law school. you can imagine my horror as i talked to the president of the university just a week ago to reinforce the horror that occurred as they came uninvited to the campus and walked along a very sacred area for students, while those students who had

arrived early were looking out of their dorms or windows or standing on the front lawn, anybody knows the structure of the university of virginia, in complete horror and fear. i madge amongst those students might have been jurist students, african-american students and other. and how tragic it is that, rather than words of comfort, of course, there were words that came from the highest ranking office in the land that there were good people on both sides or both sides had violence. so i think it is important that we use our approach to also be teachers because at the same time a young student at the american university became the

first african-american student happened to be a woman, president of the student government, then there was a series of hanging nooses. to intimidate. so the question in this day in time is how do we educate and protect our students and provide free space and free speech for our academics. so let me go to mr. clemt. who is raising the legal argument here. mrs. stern made a valid point of the hut. so i would not want to have a professor feeling they were hunted if they had several viewpoints that i don't agree with. but several viewpoints of that the issues dealing with israel. ie denying the jewish people the right to self-determination and shopt have their own land and as well other criticisms that would

be waged against israel and others. so how would i protect that professor who wants to engage in a deliberative and provocative lecture? and maybe overtly or hidden have some negative views, conspicuous or not about israel. and in an academic setting. >> representative jackson lee, i think that there is no fundamental inka pat blt between free speech and free space. i think the critical question in determining where to strike that balance is what do we think constitutes harassment. and what do we think constitutes just free speech. and under existing law, as i understand it, there's a pretty demanding standard before we treat something under tightle six as harassment.

but under title six there's two questions. a is there harassment that rises to the level? and second, even if there is, what is motivated by one of the forbidden basis under title six i race, sex, national origin. and the department has taken the position that antisemitism is a forbidden motive. and really all this legislation. >> does that tie to criticism of a country? you don't have a right to exist, to your own land, israel shouldn't exist? >> there's a variety of ways to try to define that term. this is the same definition obviously that the state department is already approved. and i think i don't mean the dodge the question. the way to protect free speech is make sure we have the right definition for harassment, but once we have that, it seems hard from a first amendment standpoint to think that it's better to not have any

definition of antisemitism. especially when it's obviously a contested term and especially when at least some people seem to be taking cover and say i can do anything i want and i don't have to worry about being labeled antisemitic. i can say no i'm antizionist. >> i have participated in your antihate out reach. with the antidefamation league. they're some of the best in the country. and believe keenly and i'll ask mr. stern a question. i'll end quickly. but i truly believe the investment in the k through 12 is crucial. and the crisis of america is we're not teaching antihate in the early years. as told to me by an african american. a little white child looked at them in horror and was afraid of

them as they came into the mcdonalds. how do we deal with that. and how do we protect the students dealing with legislation like this which i hope to consider. >> thank you very much for the question. i would say quickly number one, let's be cloer this definition didn't prevent students or faculty or administrators from criticizing a particular policy. israel gvt. it doesn't go that. it's defines when it becomes antisemitism. which happens and needs to be dealt with. with respect to training and education, i couldn't agree more. we need to as a government an sure all kids are immunized from intolerance at the earliest age. an ounce of prevention can go a long way dealing with the

bigotry. >> i appreciate the -- i don't want to foster it. i want to stop it. >> very briefly. one thing i put in the written testimony. i worked with various college presidents over the years. the first manual we put out there was a situation that came up hypothetical is banner is out of the window that says so and so not welcome here. not policy against banners out of the dorm windows what do you do? the president said i would put out a larger banner from my office saying everybody almost. we want in the situations we want to antisemitism classes so students can understand what we're talking about. instead of a definition on high. we want programs to give students the capacity to discuss the difficult issues when the sense of identity is wrapped up in social justice. we want to use education as much as possible. what i worry about the hunting

situation is it will chill speech, faculty members and think about students. when i was working at the national jewish. i was concerned with the students that were supporters of israel. as a college professor i'm also concerned about jews that are antizionist and left in the cold here and in fact made targets. we have web sites that go and hunt them and put, this will only encourage the activity. >> i recognize the gentlemen from arizona for five minutes. >> i appreciate all the panelists here today. this has been interesting and important topic. talked about the potential for the definition to be interpreted overly broadly. and mr. greenblatt talked about this is a consultive definition. i would like to talk

specifically about the definition or ask inquire about the definition. and i'll go to you. providing a definition maybe a good idea. maybe consistent with the first amendment as you have argued. and testified today today. my question is this tht right definition? is it potentially a some have indicated earlier in their testimony, is it vague or overly interpreted overly broadly or clear and concise enough? could it be wordrd better? if so, how? >> so thank you for the question. representative bigs. i would say that there probably other people on the panel who are better able to sort of have a debate about whether it's exactly the right definition. i'm not sure that that it's necessarily the platonic

definition. i do think though it has the virtue of being a definition that the government is already using. as one of my sort of copanelist said it's a bit ironic we're essentially willing to use this definition with every country on the planet except ours. i guess the one thing i really have perhaps to contribute from a first amendment perspective is especially given that it's just a consultive definition and doesn't proport to be the definitive definition. sometimes you have definitions that say the following term includes. this is in the so far second version. i think particularly because it has that character, it sure beats the alternative from a first amendment perspective which is no definition at all. >> i appreciate that. and i guess that's my question. does it -- does anybody think they va better definition than

this definition? i'm inquiring the entire panel. by your silence -- >> it's not clear to me as mr. stern said that a definition is required in this way. i teach entire courses on antisemitism sdp go on for 15 weeks. we talk about this shifting definition of antisemitism. in the past it was based on religious assumptions about jews as christ killers and the middle ages jews were accused of seeking to recrucify christ through different methods. it led to antisemitic characters of jews. questions about jews sexuality. whether they were human or not. in the modern period, we saw it as racial distinction of jews. our jews fundamentally and different. there are questions as capitalist schemers and

revolutionary subversive. this is what we teach. settling on one definition is that's going to apply so all circumstances is too broad and too vague. and shouldn't be the basis of legislation. >> i mean i don't want to get into a debate. one of the things you said previously is this is a broad definition. if you're going to make a definition it would seem that's consultive in nature, it would by nature become a broader definition that would allow for the movement of society as it as we see the impact of that definition using it as consultive idea. opposed to a strict binding concise definition which is why i was asking if there's any better definition that maybe out there. time goes by fast in five minutes. but i was going to come back and

ask mr. clemt and anyone else. do you know of any judicial opinion that provides the definition of antisemitism even if not in the holding in the adicta. >> i have not come across such a definition. >> all right. and so i guess i'm going to go ahead and yield back. since i'm down to ten seconds. >> i thank the gentlemen. and recognize the gentlemen from florida. >> thank you. first of all, i introduced this bill because i met with the assistant secretary of education for civil rights. and asked how many informations ongoing investigations in the cases of antisemitism were they pursuing. and the aps answer was zero. number two, i appreciate all of the academic discussion. and the references to the definition. let me read it for the record.

antisemi-tich is a certain perception of jews which maybe expressed as atread. rhetorical and physical manifestations are directed towards jewish and non-jewish individuals. property, institutions and religious facilities. then goes onto include examples and a fact sheet. let me address what we heard today. one, criticism of israel is any criticism would be antisemitic under this. it's not true. everyone understands that's not the case. that's number one. number two, that jews because once they were victims are immune from criticism. while i'm offended by that that has nothing to do with the legislation. three, that somehow we should this is really some effort to go after jewish antizionists is the reddest of red herrings. and four, the suggestion was

made that we have to look at all different sides. there aren't all different sides to antisemitism. there aren't. and the comment that was made that i find compelling is that a college campus is where a students trying to find their voice. i could not agree more. here's the question. in all of this talk about free speech which we hold dear and which ef to be careful of this legislation, any legislation would not violate or curtail. in all of that discussion, what's opinion missing is the discussion of the free speech of jewish students who do not feel free to speak out. they don't feel free to support israel openly. they don't feel free to join student government and talk about their judaism and their involvement. and there are champls time and time again. i understand that if you look

only in terms of numbers across all campuses, that while some of the academics here say it's not a prb. i don't see it in the classroom or campus. i don't hear about it. and 118 antisemitic acts relative to the number of students on college campuses may not seem that great, why shouldn't we be concerned about that and their ability to sustain and fight back and have a department of education that's willing to investigate those kinds of attacks? this one is really hard sometimes for me to understand. we know what's happening on college campuses and yes i'm concerned about professors being able to teach. i am. but i also know that college students like my own and their friends who are on campuses who actually see what's happening who will avoid parts of campus i

have heard from their friends, will avoid parts of campus because they're afraid if they're wearing a jewish star they will be shouted down. that's not students finding their voice. that's one student using his or her voice to stifle the free speech ot other student. yes rabbi cooper? >> congressman. i want to come back again to this visual. because it's a realtime. this was posted by a professor at rutgers university on his facebook. we have a young girl 19 years old. who went to rutgers because she wants to get her degree in food science. this is the guy she's going to have to go and sign up for because right now there is absolutely no price to pay. there's no red line. nothing. about someone in the position of responsibility who openly expresses such vile hate. and there's nothing to protect

that freshman from pursuing her course. >> am i so off base here? have we been going down the wrong path worrying ab the 118 cases so far this year? >> you're dead on. i know some people teach courses over the course of 15 weeks the adl has been tracking this for 100 years and data doesn't lie. what you pointed out about the definition is correct. this doesn't inhibit ability of an individual. student accident faculty or otherwise to criticize israel policy. it does acknowledge that definition by the way that was done in consultation with leading experts. and it's used by our embassies around the world to track antisemitic incidents. so some might not like it. the practicality it has been vital doing its work to protect

jewish communities around the world. >> before i yield back, i would finally make a last point. again, criticism of israel is israel gvt and policy are more than fair. they're welcomed here just as they are in israel. but when you take the position it's one thing to criticize the policies but when you take as your position the very suggestion that israel as a nation does not have a right to exist, and you then try to impose that to shut down others, that is not a student finding his or her voice. that is students or others on a college campus using their voices to silence others in a way that is wholly unacceptable. which this definition is trying to address. i yield back, thank you. >> i recognize myself. for five minutes. it was my turn.

for the record. this is obviously been a very compelling hearing here today for me. as it happens a very good friend of mine is in the audience. the head of the christian united for israel. which i have been involved in. and i think he is perhaps the greatest friend of israel and in the western world. so the opinion is high there. certainly i identify with so many of the comments here today. some of us are deeply committed to the state of israel and the jewish peach. and consequently when we're dealing with the area of antisemitism which is obvious to any observer has grown in a profrounds way in recent days. i would suggest whether it's from the hard right or the militant left there are things that have come forward in recent days that are very disturbing.

and cry out for a response. and rabbi cooper comments related to the necessity to that there's someone just nooepeeds here. i embrace that. the great challenge for those of of us that deeply care about israel of course is the more deeply we care, the more desperate we are to dwet the policy right. i'm i want to try to refer to the old medical term, first do not harm. the challenge before policy makers is to come up with the right policy. and so with that my first question would be to miss. traditionally our federal civil rights laws have not codified definitions or lists of

discriminate. for race or sex for example. without specifying exactly what a discriminatory motivation would be considered to be. leaving that question to the court and case by case determination of the unique factual situations in context by judges and jury. you see that's we have struggled with this for sometime. if any particular definition of antisemitic motivation were codified in the u.s. code, what definitions would be proposed constituting a potential civil rights violation in relation to other protected classes? i hope the question came across clearly. >> what definitions -- >> if a particular definition of antisemitic motivation were codified in the u.s. code, what kinds of definitions might be proposed for consideration as

constituting a potential civil right violation. >> it's hard to say. i certainly think this will give rise to efforts boir groups to think about defining discrimination against them. as broadly as possible. so that manifestation of that discrimination are not ignored. one example that i i have worked on is with respect to muslims around the world. and effort they made to try to secure an international legal ban on the so called defamation of religion. which related to cartoons depicting the prophet mu ha mad. they went to the un and sought an international treaty banning the so called defamation of religion. which they view as a form of anti, very antimuslim sentiment. and the worl didn't see it that

way. it's one area. it's offensive. it's not universally recognized as it being offensive. i think that's one manifestation. and ken brought up others. what about the palestinian americans and calling into question the validity of a palestine state. would they seek to define that. and that could be construed as calling into question the validity of students on a campus. so i think it's hard to know where it would end. opening it up does give rise to serious concern. >> thank you. sometimes one of the challenges here is when there is a complete lack of common dean decent si sometimes. mr. stern i'll direct my final question to you.

i understand you wrote the guidelines for the state department essentially that we have, you were the lead writer. >> i work very closely with my colleague. who did the politicking and negotiating. i was the lead drafter and probably wrote 75 to 80%. >> given that. do you think that that guideline should be something we should consider to codify and statute. but do you think that something like that would be appropriate in statute given the discussion today? >> for a campus, absolutely not. that was not the purpose it was designed for. i encourage the state department to use it in its report and buy lateral relations. i work with rabbi baker on a hate crime training program. a campus is a different venue. it's about ideas and given students and faculty the opportunity to think outside the

box to be wrong. and not to measure what they're saying against some definition that's constitutional insined. particularly for this venue it would be an atrocity. >> thank you all. >> can i comment? >> i'll have to go to the next guy. i want to thank you and god bless israel. >> thank you to all the witnesses for this really thoughtful discussion. i think it's important to say that it is my view that this spike in antisemitism should be grave concern to all of us and determine the best way to respond to it to eliminate it in this can you want ri and around the world. it is important to consider the context. and that is we have an administration that i think in many ways has stoked this environment by refusing to speak out against antisemitism. white supremacy.

trump unapologetically came to the defense of white nationalists in charlottesville. from steve bannon made a career out of racist and antiimmigrant ideas. sebastian gorka. through which the u.s. encouraging foreign governments to protect. so i think we would be ignoring this sort of elephant in the room. to not understand the context of the spike and the gravity of it. i also find it kind of ironic in a lot of ways where in our tradition, it is by the way a free and unhindered exchange of ideas that humanity seeks truth. so this idea of respecting and

honoring the free tengts of ideas is an important value. and american value. so i guess my simple question is, i think rabbi cooper said you don't belong here -- there's something that says you don't belong here because you are a jew. that seems obviously antisemitic. that criticism of israel and policy of israel and disagreement is not antisemitic. so if we could have a definition which attempted to at least identify antisemitic activity. and in the way that rabbi cooper described it but protected the legitimate policy criticism. is that something we can do successfully? i recognize that it would open the same kind of discussion with other categories. assuming we were prepared to accept the risk. the fact that we just consult

it. we ought to get the definition right. my question is am i over simplifying this. koud we craft a definition that strictly attempts to identify antisemitism free from criticism or disagreement on policy. or is that impossible to achieve? >> i think it's impossible task. if we asked all nine of us for the definition of antisemitism we would have nine variances. the core of antisemitism is hating jews for being jewish. if you go much beyond that you'll enter into contested territory. within the jewish community itself among scholars of antisemitism. so if you want to have the most narrow definition i think it's a baseline.

once you go beyond that we'll enter into contested waters. and the fact it's contested means we should allow people who study this issue to have the opportunity to have all the debates and conversations they need. in order to keep flushing this out. turning it over and turning it over again to discover the truths and everything we can identify within it. >> i would submit that it is not impossible. that my professionals do it every day. and to clarify, the adl was involved in writing that definition that the state department uses and we think it works. but ultimately who are the ash tors of this. let me introduce you to the families whose children have been bullied. let me introduce you to the parents who children had their lockers defaced. let me introduce you to the families themselves who have been harassed because of their religious garb out of a

synagogue. you can have them whether indeed there are nine different definitions or there's one. if you look at the definition, that our public servants use every day, mr. congressman, it doesn't say criticism israel is antisemitism. that's not what it says. period. >> i was going say the examples that mr. greenblatt gives. you don't need a definition to get there. what you need in the situations is a clear understanding that jews are selected to be victim of harassment because they are jewish. it doesn't matter whether that person is thinking this definition or that definition, or just wants to do it because it's fun. if a jewish person in a campus is being harassed because they are selected because they are jewish this is sufficient. and you don't need to open up a can of worms. >> could that be the definition? >> in the case that i brought in the vessel district nobody

talked about a definition. clear these kids were picked upon because they were jewish. i would add that we again we talk about the prosinist pro-israel students. i have seen examples that break my heart where a kid is trying to figure out where they think about israel and should it exist and what's happening with the pal stinen are being called traitors and saying take that thing off. that offends me just as much. >> thank you. i yield back. >> i am left wondering how being the first president to stand in front of the western wall and pray projects antisemitic sentiment. >> would you loik like me to answer that? >> i can help you out. any time a conservative jewish person cares to speak on a college campus, they stand a

much greater chance of being banned or being labeled as a hater. but the haters. and it's just amazes me that -- my friend she believes what the bible indicates was the promise land. to the children of israel. and because that, she cancelled at university of texas. my home state. it wasn't because she was jewish it was because she's a conservative jewish. person. and so jornl george sorrow came and do as he often does and beat up on israel or.

we're talking about particularly conservative jewish people. now. when it comes to school children, when it comes to people that get swats kas put on their lockers and things like that. or vile thipgs said about them. that's seems to be just because they are jewish. i have to tell you, i majored in history in college, i never dreamed we would get back to the level of antisemitism that we're seeing in europe today. in germany today. and i brought up to some german ministers back in august when some of us were visiting over there, how ironic it seemed to be to me that you had germany that wanted today show and i'm speaking to ministers so i'm being respectful. how germany since world war ii since the holocaust is out of the way to try to show how open and loving they are to all peoples. so they bend over backwards to

bring in what they think are muslim refugees. some are not. they're there to bring down europe as the battle of the prevented previously. so you're bringing in people who are raised to hate israel, to hate jewish people, and by virtue of your act to show how loving and open you are, you're bringing in people that make you appear to be antisemitic again. and of course that raised some hackle and got people upset. it certainly the way it appears. there are college campuses that are going out of their way to try to appear so embracive of islam, that they become antisemitic. my colleague condemns my friend.

bannen and sebastian gorka. these guys are not antisemitic. and they are not antimuslim. but they certainly recognize that there is a portion of muslims who believe the united states in the western civilization must be brought down. and there's nothing wrong with saying that and believing that and nobody should have rules pulled out to prevent them from speaking for saying that. for heavens sake, brandize university withdraws their offer of a doctor at. what a courageous person. what happened to brandize? did they forget why they were founded? i know harvard and yale forgot. they don't want conservative christians or con seshtive jew

ts coming in and speaking. but they will welcome anybody that will come in and bash israel. so i welcome all the comments i have been hearing from people across the aisle condemning antisemitism. i would hope my friend will be just as upset when it's a conservative jew. and as far as the boycott that seems to be growing across the world and particularly in europe, of anything made in israel. it's another effort to slam israel. but i have stood there at the tomb of king david's father. in heb rin. where sarah and i sack and jacob are buried right there. i'm supposed to say that's absolutely not israel territory? and we should ban anything coming from that area? that is ridiculous. with need to be more realistic and our assessment of what truly

is antisemitism. it applies when it's a con seshtive jew. thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. the very first thing that di is as a newly elected member of the house was organize a tour of the freshman class. the democrats and republicans both to the holocaust museum. we spent two hours there. i believe strongly that the touch stone of our politics has to be an opposition to antisemitism and racism and other hatreds that made the last century such a nightmare for so many people. i'm a professor of constitutional law. i'm very sensitive to the free speech concerns that have been raised. but i want to try it look for common ground coming out of the panel. i want to start with this. title six prohibits discrimination based on race,

color and national origin. not only religion. does everyone on the panel aglee religion generally should be covered under title six? forgive i have so few minutes and so many of you. does everybody agree religion should be covered? yes, no or no comment will suffice. >> my focus is europe and not here. i think that you open an entirely new avenue of debate when you say it should cover religion. >> yeah. okay. i was hoping for yes or no. i have so little time. >> yes. >> yeah i'm not sure i would address the issues here today. it would expand properly so. it would be a whole another discussion to come back to. >> okay. >> actually agree with the rabbi here. this is opened up a larger set of issues that we need to address.

not a simple yes or no. >> i would agree it's complicated. you have the free exercise clause and religious freedom restoration act. there's things that make it complicated. >> like wise. it's outside the scope of our organization and its mission. >> it's complicated. religion should be protected. >> i think religion should be protected but in ways that are careful to be compliant with other constitutional and legal provisions. >> i would agree with that. it's about harassment. >> it seems like there's a category of speech that's heavily contested here. which is relating to the israel government or state in terms of antisemitic content. would everybody agree that for example what took place in charlottesville is antisemitic. does anybody believe that for example richard spencer who is seems to be an a nationwide speaking tour, does everybody

agree that he does have a first amendment right to appear at least in public campus? does anybody think he does not enjoy the first amendment right to speak on public university campus? everybody seems to agree he does. okay. >> unless he incites violence. >> yeah. in terms of the content of the speech. he should not be banned for that reason. so i want to go to the question that has tormented the country about statues of confederate soldiers and so on. i have no doubt that the vast majority or dare say all racist support continuing keeping those there. but a will the of people who support keeping those statues are not racist. would it not be a problem to use

as indicia of racism whether or not someone supports having the statues present there? >> i would agree with that. my view is not exactly. if you remove all the statues people don't see the history. i would rather put them in context and explain why they were put up. to for support segregation and so forth. that wouldn't be a hateful view. >> okay. so my dear colleague read the operative definition that he had. i might broaden it a bit. it seems like what's getting everybody into this sering controversy is the illustration are the examples that were offered in the state the president of policy. does anybody know of a

antidiscrimination passed by congress that includes illustration or example? to my knowledge there's not one. does anybody think the illustrations or examples are necessary to the definition? can you explain? >> the whole idea of the examples was to show how it plays out in a practical way. so people who have a responsibility to address the problem will understand it. >> let me cut you off for a second. when we wrote the title seven statute. and talk about race discrimination or sex discrimination. we leave it broad and let the court work it out. whether or not there's a discrimination motive. i'm thinking in terms of trying to keep civilization together here and keep our unity together. why would we get into a series of controverted examples that divide people. opposed to stating what the principles are and allow toez to be worked out.

>> because in 2004, in the global antisemitism review act congress said that antisemitism has at times i quote taken the form of vilification of zionism. >> the time has expired. you can answer. >> examples in particular are, the examples are particularly problematic. against the idea of having a definition which is going to box us in in terms of what antisemitism is is at the root of the discussion. >> i yield back. thank you. >> now the gentleman from texas. mr. radcliffe. >> i appreciate all the witnesses being here. your nations college campuses are supposed to be a marketplace of ideas where students from all kind of different background can

learn new perspective. based on everything i have heard. seemed like a lot of college campuses have become self-proclaimed political collectness and that in turn led to the out right harassment of some students based on believes. that's apparent in the treatment of jewish students across the country. i refer to the report i think it was in the mr. clemt in your testimony about just this year 1299 antisemitic incidents from january to september. i think again it's troubling that a political correctness seems to have allowed antisemitism to flourish. but again, i appreciate the thoughtful discussion here from all the witnesses. and as we try to get back to

this having oir institutions of higher education be that marketplace for ideas while also stemming the rising tide of antisemitism. i appreciate all of your perspective today. let me -- i know one thing you focus on in this antisemitism awareness act and i read your anticipated responses to the first amendment concerns and regulations of speech. is it over simplification saying that having a definition as proposed within the act is trying to find the line between speech that is antizionist, versus speech that's antisemitic? >> i think that's what the definition is trying to get at.

i think it is -- there's a particular concern in the context of antisemitism that i'm not sure present in some of the other discrimination prohibited by title six which is you have the ability for people to essentially cloak it. and say it's not antisemitic it's antizionist chlts i think the definition is trying to get at that. the other thing and i know a couple of questions have sort of kind of gotten to the question of do we really need a definition here? and what i would say is, it in the abstract it might be fine to have antisemitism defined on a days by case basis over tichl. to have a case by case definition you need cases. and one of the things think everybody is seeing here is that it's not there aren't

antisemitic incidents on campus, and yet there are no enforcement actions. and so i don't think we have sort of the luxury of just letting the education department sort of develop the definition over the course of a number of ep forcement actions. i think in a sense we need to jump start the process. and i think the definition is designed in part to do that. and in part to guide the discretion of the education department officials. >> i this i agree. there needs to be a specific point where we can point and have a determination of where criticism of israel cross over into antisemitism. and i go back to the report that's referenced in your testimony about the 1299 incidents and i go to rabbi coopers written testimony that the department of education office of civil rights has never found a civil rights violation

in any claim full-timed on behalf of jewish students. if you were making this argument is that to a court is the fact that you have all the reported incidents yet no violations found. would seem like that is a violation of equal protection under the law. for jewish students based on that type of evidence. >> i think it would be a difficult thing for any solicitor general to explain. it's the kind of thing that would give rise to an inference that something other than just looking for the exact right case and prosecutor discretion going on. >> rabbi, i want to let you weigh in. >> two points very quickly. this definition had an evolution starting with the 56 out of 57 counted ris minus russia agreeing on the evolution down

to the discussion this morning. it's probably the best definition that we're going to get. and it's the most relevant. to really summarize and i'm pleased that both mr. frank and chairman. you have the wall to wall leadership of the american jewish community here. we came i would say hat in hand. we have a problem we need your help. and i think what we would respectfully ask for is after the appropriate deliberations, that with all of congressman former professor. all of these important questions that have been raised, we need to move the ball forward. we hope you'll send this to the floor of the house for further deliberation. i have no doubt that if it's passed it will be many challenges. just by virtue of the testimony today. but you have lt entire jewish leadership of the american jewish community coming together

united. something that apparently nothing less than this grate committee has been able to achieve. and we really hope that after the appropriate deliberation it will be move ded forward for a vote on the floor. >> my time expired. i will tell you i agree with the sentiment and if i was on the top row i might have influence in making that happen. appreciate you being here. >> recognize the gentleman from illinois. >> thank you for calling this important hearing. i thank the witnesses today for sharing your perspective. i want to take a prerogative and welcome in the gallery lisa sugar. the jewish federation of chicago. as i have listened to the testimony today the question i can't help but listen as a jew. as the parent of jewish college students, i represent a state in which at least six of the universities have roently experienced incidents.

i am personally gravely concerned about the recent significant rise in antisemitism on campuses and communities in fact around the world. as groan blat said, we must count each and every one of the stint incidents and lever none unanswered. what we're seeing is i fear an increaseingly organized concerted and well funded effort to create a hostile environment for jewish students to publicly express their judaism as well as support for the jewish state. this doesn't take a lot of events or incidents to make it difficult for jews to feel comfortable in the academic environment where they are. as we have agreed. seeking the opportunity as every student should have to explore new ideas, to find their voice and reach their own conclusion. that's what the university is for. i do worry about this

difference. maybe i'll start with you mr. greenblatt. is there a difference between free speech and concert effort to create a hostile environment? >> as a former resident of the chicago area it's nice to see you here. it is safe to say there are challenges again as i stated in my oral testimony from both what the congressman franks called the hard right. and sort of elements of the militant left. we have it on neither side of the spectrum is exempt from intolerance. whether they are organized campaigns or spontaneous actions, we need to be clear about the fact that again title six doesn't protect the jewish students. and considering the number of cases we are dealing with on campus today, the staff stat is correct. investigations led by the aus of civil rights department of education. cases of antisemitism. zero. the number is zero.

having a definition is easier for who ever is administering the office to do their job. and make sure jewish students have the same protection. it doesn't procollude political speech. it doesn't limit freedom of expression. it ensures a definition that we also worked on is utilized by policy pmakers and campus add mt tors. >> i want to share a short ant dote. we started at seven we were talking at eleven. this is the first time they felt open speaking about israel. that's interesting. is this the only issue you have trouble speaking about openly? no. your friends have problems too? yes. what i worry about this legislation is it feeds into that rather than breaks it down.

the answers are not with legislation that's going to create an additional sense of these are voeks here and there. efficientives that campuses are lacking on on how to have the difficult discussions. there are very few classes on antisemitism. if you have more classes, students will understand the issues that combine us and divide us here today. much more deeply and will affect the campus environment. those need to be done. not this type of legislation. >> i appreciate that. i agree we need more classes. that would be a beneficial step forward. that doesn't change the fact that there are efforts to make the jewish students feel profoundly uncomfortable. unwelcome. putting out a sign whoever you are saying you are not welcome here. i have been to campuses where the signs say hate is not welcome here. >> the question is how do you help administrators them through

cultivating that environment. in which you have the capacity for students to be wrong to say what they think but others identify what's hateful and teach about it. there should be no question that israel and palestine should be an ideal subject for get lg students to think about how do you deal with a competing narrative and history. identity and the equity and so forth. rather than feed them into something said about israel that's antizionist and antisemitism. it should be the beginning of the question. not the end. >> very quickly. classes alone and dialogue is welcome as they are. will not protect your kids. on campus. when there is an incident and we have now heard over the last few hours there are many, we need the help of our government to ensure that jewish students are afforded the same protection as

everyone else on campus. >> i will yield. >> i want to make clear for the record. that a mistake was made. not every jewish group supports this bill. i have a lady for instance you opposing it. and there are groups that do not support the group. and groups that are. i want to clear that up for the record. >> i wish i had more time. i yield back. >> gentleman from colorado. mr. buck for five minutes. >> thank you. dr. chalken burg. a quick question. in 2013 did you sign a petition to boycott a conference at the he brew university. is deeply in the occupation settler and apar tide. >> yes. >> and did you also vote for modern hang waj association to

boycott israel. >> i'm not a member of the association. >> did you vote for a boy account of israel. >> i wouldn't have had the capacity. i'm not a member. >> that's a no. >> no. >> and mr. clemt i want to ask a question. i want to respectfully point out something that my colleague mr. ras kin said. that all racists are in favor of keeping the civil war monuments to paraphrase. and that indicates something to me that's deeply troubling. that what he's really saying is that all racists have to be white in the country. no such thing as a black racist that may want to take down the monuments. when we look at the issue we look at it through our own lens. that's what we're struggling with. how do wu represent the constitution at the same time deal with a deeply troubling issue on college campus and that

is the issue of antisemitism. and bigotry and hatred. and my understanding is there is a supreme court case in 1999 that gave us a definition. the davis case. and just want to quote that. it found that peer on peer heartsment in the educational conduct in the educational context is so severe, pervasive and offensive and so under mines and trakts from the victims educational experience that the victim students are denied equal access to an institution resources and opportunity. if that is the supreme court definition why don't we use that in this bill and instruct the department of education to proceed in that way? >> that's a very fair question. i think that what i would say is that right now i assume that

administering slightly different context. title six vs. title nine. i would assume that is in fact the standard that the education department is using right now. in administering title six. >> it sound like it isn't using any standard. because it hasn't done any work in the area. a needed area. >> there's two issues to keep separate. one is what is the level of conduct that rises to the level of harassment? and the second question is if there is harassment, then title six still doesn't prohibit it if it's not on the basis of race, national origin and the like. and so what we're really struggling with in this particular context is to try to get a definition of antisemitism. that will work for the motive part of the inquiry. i don't think this bill is designed to really move the needle on what level of

harassment is necessary to sort of bring a title six action. i think as i have tried to suggest that that question probably has much more to do with the first amendment than the question of how we define antisemitism. i would say from a first amendment perspective, we are much better off having government officials with a definition than without a definition. just to refer to just for a second the statistics we have heard about. zero cases currently being brought. now, in the event that the reason zero cases have been brought is because not one of the cases that they investigated rose to the level of harassment, under the davis case. then that would be an acceptable result from a first amendment standpoint. that would be the reason these cases aren't being brought is they don't rise to the level of harassment. i doubt that's what's going on. if the question is if some

subset of the hundred of cases rose to the level of harassment accident and weren't being brought because of some which is it? he just gave you two options. >> i can't say definitively because i'm not familiar -- >> sure, you can. >> i don't know all the cases they're looking at. but i can say indeed it is -- it would be reasonable to look at those cases and determine whether or not the lack of a definition prevented the office from doing their job effectively with respect to the specific instances where jewish students are affected. >> my time is up and i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia mr. collins for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think this has been an interesting discussion. putting nine people on a panel

and all going at it while this is like throwing the ball and having a scrum and seeing who wins at the end of the day. but it has been good to discuss this. anti-semitism and other forms of discrimination are abhorrent everywhere. it doesn't matter where they're located. and this is an issue that is particularly troubling when bigoted acts and harassing prevent students from education. i'm probably the last one here. to go back to one of the arguments i've heard about against this in many ways is the first amendment issue, this is a first amendment issue. mr. clement, you've been in front of the supreme court than any of us here and also by the way my legislative director, sally rose larson who took constitutional law for undergrads, she says hello but she's also glad she's not here, she didn't want to be tested on this. we appreciate that. you've argued these cases. i want to discuss it from this level. the title 4 civil rights act

prohibits discriminatory conduct, not speech, right? >> title 6, that's right. it's directed at the harassment as we were discussing. >> what role does the evidence of discriminatory speech play in analyzing allegations of a violation of the civil rights act? >> and that's where the wisconsin against mitchell case makes quite clear that evidence of -- including speech can be used for an evidentiary purpose. so even though i think in wisconsin against mitchell you had nine supreme court justices that are very protective of the first amendment they unanimously held that you can use speech in that kind of evidentiary way. are. >> to show the intent we're talking about here. >> exactly. >> let's continue on this process. in consideration of violations from title 6 stemming from harassment how does one distinguish between the protected speech and the non-protected conduct? >> i think that's where it's really the harassment test that has to do the work because the supreme court has basically said that, you know, we can -- that

there's a different level of protection for conduct as opposed to speech and when you have conduct that rises to the level of harassment i think it's common ground that it's perfectly permissible to say that we are going to prohibit the harassment if it's motivated by race, national origin and/or anti-semitism and then it's just a matter of trying to figure out whether that's in fact what motivated the harasser. and in that inquiry you can take into account speech. it doesn't raise a first amendment problem by virtue of a unanimous supreme court. and it just seems that in figuring out whether the speech, the conduct, sometimes it could be a combination of both. if somebody spray-paints a swastika on somebody's dorm room, that's probably more conduct than speech but all of that can then be used in order to make a determination whether the harassing conduct was anti-semitic and therefore violates title 6. >> many times in looking at this

you're not -- there is a concern in many circles of are you crossing over this area, especially in height claims or other things, are you crimin criminalizing the thought, are you criminalizing that thought? i'm be sure if a definition in the sense of this act goes that far. in what you're saying, would this definition impinge on this free -- first amendment rights or some of the list of horribles that came from the panel today? >> i don't think it would. and i think maybe one way to think about the difference is this wrob a very different situation if this was a proposal to, say -- that the following -- anti-semitic speech will be prohibited and here's the definition. but that's not what this law does. it takes an existing framework that only reaches conduct that rises to the level of harassment based on a certain level of motivation and uses this as a way of figuring out what motivation koubts.

>> since we're not seeing this brought forward. although we're seeing it in the world very evidently we're not seeing it in these cases. >> that's exactly right. in the abstract one could say that maybe we don't want a definition written into the statute, we'd prefer to do it case by case and have courts develop it. but you need cases. and i think what you're seeing here is there are no cases that are allowing us to develop a definition through the judicial process, so it makes sense why congress would want to step in here even if it wouldn't necessarily feel like it needed to step in in some other contexts. >> i have one last question. it was brought up earlier concerning your testimony concerning this. what was put into this. the anti-semitism awareness act includes a savings clause. and hypothetically without the savings clause in your opinion would this violate the first amendment and if so why? >> i think this would be perfectly constitutional without the savings clause for the two principal reasons that i've

given. one is that it essentially is not a direct regulation speech but only essentially an evidentiary test for the motivation for harassment and second because the definition actually serves first amendment values. i just think the savings clause -- to the extent that somebody -- with any statute someone may come in and say even though it's not constitutional on its face maybe it will be applied in the wrong way and i think the savings clause gives some additional sort of comfort that that's not the way that the statute would be applied. >> i thank the panel today and all nine opinions have served well. to know you can apply it pretty much any way from any angle that you want. but i think it's been a good discussion. i agree with my friend from texas just a few minutes ago, this is something i think we can move forward on without infringing on the first amendment rights, which was the overall issue, and bring some clarity that may be lacking today. but that is the reason we move forward. it is not simply because we have questions that we should not move forward. it is the very fact that we have questions that i believe should

move this forward. with that mr. chairman i yield back. >> i want to thank all the witnesses. this has been an excellent hearing. i think we have helped to shed a lot of light on a very important issue. i am deeply concerned about what is happening to jewish students on college campuses. and i think that we need to work together to find the right approach to make sure that the forces are brought to bear including the u.s. department of education to solve this problem, and i'm sure this dialogue will continue. but all of you have made a great contribution today and i think you've helped to educate the members of the committee. this concludes today's hearing, and i again thank all of you for your participation. and without objection all members will have five ledge legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness or additional materials for the record. and with that this hearing is adjourned.

[ room noise ]

[ room noise ]

c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, we'll talk about president trump's trip to asia and get the latest on republican tax reform efforts with california democratic congressman john garamendi. and then we'll look at the results of governor's races in virginia and new jersey with john crosshar, political editor for "washington journal." and virginia republican congressman rob whitman will offer his perspective on president trump's trip to asia and u.s. national security interests in the region. be sure to watch c-span's

"washington journal" live at 7:00 eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. the house ways and means committee continues work on the gop tax reform bill. watch live coverage wednesday at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, c-span.org, or listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> now we take you to the krcat institute in washington. we'll hear from two combat veterans and two national security scholars. they talk for about an hour and a half. good morning. i'm christopher