the house judiciary committee held a hearing examining free speech rights on college campuses. witnesses include former bush administration solicitor general. and jewish studies professors and advocacy group leaders. the committee debated potential impact of proposed legislation on free speech rights. the senate passed legislation in december last year. this runs just under three hours. good morning. woud objection we welcome to this morning's hearing on examining anti-semitism on

college campuses. i will yield so he can say a word about the tragedy that occurred in texas. >> i thank you, mr. chairman. welcome. let me just say briefly that before discussing the important topic of today's hearing on sunday a gunman shot and killed 26 church goers in texas.

we now know that information concerning his court-martial for domestic abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the instant criminal background check system. 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 directly. 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. i think we have to identify 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 the 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 campuses. while our civil rights laws have addressed this. this hearing will examine that question among others. there is widespread bipartisan

con demnation that does not reflect core -- i'm concerned about the movement that through boycott and sanctions seeks to end international support for israel. it took just 11 minutes for the united states to recognize israel after it formally declared independence in 1948. ever since then the united states and israel have had a strong relationship based on shared democratic values and common security interests. i will do everything i can to ensure that relationship remains strong. there are those who disagree in various ways, of course, including student, faculty and administrators. i will also do everything i can to ensure their right to speak is protected under first amendment, united states constitution and free speech principles. it's in that spirit of welcoming all perspectives that i have convened this hearing today. when do speakers, scholarship or

student protesters that are harshly critical of israel institute anti-semitism. what is the nature on college campuses today? has the department of education in the past or today adequately examined allegations of anti-semitism on college campuses. what impact would other approaches have on freedom of speech and academic freedom and what precedents would they set good or bad? those are just some of the questions i look forward to discussing with today's witnesses. it is my pleasure to recognize the ranking member of the judiciary committee for 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 institutions of higher 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 resurgeance in recent years. 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 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 foregoing 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 environment free from discrimination we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate and even offensive

political debate on controversial topics. it vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a fundamental hallmark of a democracy 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 other 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 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 first 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 social action agenda. our fourth witness is michael r and deborah k reuben presidential chair of jewish history 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 the light switches from green to yellow we have one minute to conclude. when the light turns red time is up and signals five minutes have expired. rabbi baker, welcome. you can begin. >> thank you mr. 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 understanding 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 demenized where the basic 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 social intimidation and 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 invited 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 was 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 watt not just to assist monitors in filing reports, it was to make a difference in the day to day safety and security of jews and of all europeans. it was to raise awareness by law enforcement, justice officials and educators. references with regard to the state of israel were both 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. the extreme verbal attacks had their own corrosive impact on security. the examples were designed to bring clarity to the new form of

anti-semitism. for those who feared the definition also stated one should take into account the overall context and also that criticism of israel similar to that level cannot be regarded as anti-semit anti-semitic. over a decade has passed and we 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 cadet training in the uk and it's now included in a newly published on jewish security. an arson attack on the synagogue in germany was determined not to be antisimettic because of the political views and religious affiliation of the attacker. in austria a call to kill jews was deemed not anti-semitic for

the same reason. thus they include the definition in training police and prosecutors and judges. in may 2016 ira, the 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 u.s. 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 vilification of zionism, 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 intolerance 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 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 inviting 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 landed in new amsterdam and its governor tried to expel

what he called this deceitful race of hafl enemies and blasphemers. had he succeeded perhaps we would not be here this morning but he failed and since then jewish immigrants have 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. anti-semitism, 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 about rising numbers is indisputable but today's 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 jews? when handed a list of statements nearly three quarters confess

that they were exposed to one of those statements in the past year. they do not characterize their campuses as anti-semitic. instead they report they feel safe. when they 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 anti-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.

their research confirms my own impressions and also what i hear from my association for jewish studies colleagues, teaching around the country. unquestionablebly there are explosive incidents, death to israel posted on a jewish student organization's facebook page but deplorable incidents do not prove that campus is rife with anti-semitism. you may have heard recently on my own campus confederate flags affixed with cotton stems were posted on bulletin boards as we were launching our new antiracism research and policy center but you may not know many were fixed to the bulletin board of center for jewish studies. when such incidents occur, the response is forceful and swift. we hold town halls, issue statements of con demnation, we

offer students counseling and opportunities for healing. we launch investigations. perhaps there are campuses where they respond differently 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. is anti-semitism the epicenter as one report claims has it created a climate of fear that impings upon jewish students' ability to learn and experience college 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, mr. chairman, mr. conyers, good 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.

leading many to feel uncomfortable participating in jewish campus life 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 extremist 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 years 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 incidents of hate and intimidation are widespread and impacts on campuses with large

and small constituencies. the impact on jewish support groups and jewish members like -- this even led them to create an act to ensure 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 administrators have been tolerating a level of harassment and intimidation that they would never dream of allowing against other demographic groups 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. that is why the center and every

mainstream credible jewish organization in the nation 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, destruction of property, suppression of speech. often takes place regardless of the victim's personal feelings on israel. jewish students report fearing displaying their jewish star necklaces, wearing their jewish fraternity letters or sometimes walking for dinner. the problem had become so severe that university of california then president commissioned a fact-finding team to interview jewish students on seven campuses in order to objectively assess the campus climate for them. according to the report jewish students were indeed quote

confronting significant and difficult climate issues as a result of activities on campus which focussed on israel, its right to exist and treatment of palestinians. 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, santa cruz and berkeley were unceremoniously dismissed on the same day in 2013. 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 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 to express is precisely what is at stake in the current attempt to limit speech anti-semitism threatens to injentder students on a scale not seen since the holocaust. studies have sounded the alarm that anti-semitism is a clear and present danger. while others have argued that another war of it jews is upon us. they are motivated less by threat facing american than they are part of a persistent campaign to thwart political activism. 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 united states and requires vigilant and persistent resistance. legislation is not a genuine

attempt to contend with but to quell what are protected acts of speech that are vite skal and necessary and to functioning of democratic societies. it is distortion to characterize as hot beds of new anti-semitism. a recent study reported that while depictions are widely reported in the press they do not represent the actual experiences of jewish students at the campus level. they discovered that campus life is neither threatening nor alarmist. more specifically feeling comfortable as jews on their campuses. much of the testimony you will hear today is likely to argue that it is at crisis levels. i urge you to be skeptical of such claims. many stories that get wide circulation contain factual distortions and are misrepresented. many studies are based on definition that defines racism as anti-semitic.

students who engage in speech critical are largely motivated by concern for palestinian human rights. they are not motivated by anti-semitic speech but opposite. it is profoundly difficult to create a definition of anti-semitic for legislative purposes. the root lie in a seemingly problem how to critique jewish collective power in a way that does not immediately resonate. throughout the last thousand years of european history jews were characterized as exceptional element to undermine established political and economic order. in each of those moments jews were imagined as a united group that possess power and authority far beyond numbers. in 1948 with the founding of israel as a solution of anti-semitic the situation changed dramatically. a significant enough of jews gained actual power.

today the state of israel has borders, political parties mostly represented in somewhat system of government. the problem is we are learning how to talk about actual political power in ways that do not -- this is not only on account of a long history in the west, it is also because as we see in legislative initiative to characterize any speech critical of israel as intrinsically has been highly effective tool employed by those who support every action of israel and seek to stigmatize all critics. ill-advised to establish legal authority on definition on anti-semitic that is so contested.

to insist that israel cannot be objected to, to mandate that it cannot be analyzed or to conclude that jews because they were once victims are somehow immune from becoming perpetrators reinforces the belief that jews are fundamentally different people. most dangerously attempts to broaden the definition to encompass phenomenon that are clearly not anti-jewish can only make it more difficult to recognize and oppose when it does appear. thank you. >> thank you. welcome. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it's a pleasure to be here. it is a particular privilege to be here representing the adl and jewish federations of north america. there are at least three kinds of issues floating around the room. one is the extent of the problem. two is the policy wisdom of addressing it with a clarifying definition of anti-semitic and

the third is whether providing that definition raises problems under the first amendment. the others on this panel are much better situated to address the first two issues so i will direct my remarks only to the third issue and to say that providing a definition along the lines that the anti-semitic 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 evidentiary purposes in evaluating whether or not harassment is motivated by anti-semitic. second, that is definition here serves first amendment values. one way or another government officials are going to be looking into this question and i think it serves first amendment values for them to have a

definition that guides their mission. and third, but i think least importantly the fact that the act has a savings clause. on the first of these points that it's not a speech code, i think it is very important to understand that this act does not take any speech and make it illegal or impermissible. somebody just like they can do today can engage on campus in the most anti-semitic speech and the education department will not take action against them just for that. but if they couple that abhorrent speech with say a physical attack on a jewish student then this act and the constitution allowed the use of that anti-semitic speech to demonstrate the motive of the person engaged in the harassment. the first amendment clear lly permits that which is to say that this isn't even controversial in the sense that when speech is not prohibited but only is used for evidentiary

purposes the first amendment is not offended. the supreme court laid down that rule in wisconsin against mitchell which was a unanimous decision. there weren't that many things agreed on but this was one of them, no first amendment problem. that is just what the definition does here. it guides the education department in the use of speech to allow them to decide whether or not something is anti-semitic. the second major reason i don't think there is a first amendment problem here is that what we have here is a clarifying definition. to provide with who are looking at speech providing definition serves first amendment values. the first amendment generally abhors government officials looking at speech with unfettered discretion. that is essentially the status quo. whatever congress does here, if congress does nothing it is still going to be the education

department's position that title 6 forbits harassment motivated by anti-semitic. 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 government officials had no guidance was the obscenity area where the supreme court at least for a while famously had the we know it when we see it test. i don't think anybody thinks that was the finest chapter in the supreme court's first amendment juris prudence. really right now the status quo is anti-semitic, 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 is what this law can change. you made the point about being

concerned about first amendment values in this area and i certainly share that concern. i do think, though, that the first amendment issue in this area is largely what's the standard for harassment? if that is a trigger and anything that offends anyone is harassment then i think there will be first amendment problems. i take the current law to be that the harassment standard is the same laid down in title nine context. one way or another this law doesn't change it. if you want to make that more demanding you can do that. if you want to make it slightly less demanding you can do that. all this law does is take whatever the existing standard is and provide a definition. i know the chairman raised a question of why a definition here when you don't have one in other context. i think if there were a real doubt about what constituted racist speech or there was some argument people were using to

cover racist speech we would want to have a definition. and in the same way yuniquely someone can say somethingan anti-semitic don't worry about it. the last thing i will say is we have a clause in this law. i think that is frankly the least important reason that there is not a first amendment problem. ms. parker, welcome. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member conyers and distinguished members. 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 and understanding among divergent groups. despite this with increasing regularity jewish students and jewish groups and those who support them find themselves having these sacred rights abridged. this past summer a group of students filed a lawsuit alleging the school knowingly fostered anti-semitic discrimination and a hostile environment which had been marked by violent threats to safety. student jacob men dell experienced hostile behavior which was ignored by the university despite a complaint being filed. i felt as if the university did not want me there because i was jewish.

and as if we weren't allowed the same rights as other organizations. i felt like a second class citizen because i was jewish. a student wrote the following in the california newspaper. as a jewish student i have seen my fair share of anti-semitic actions on campus. i have had foul and intolerable words yelled at me while studying. when george dete came to speak on campus anti-semitic 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 is more frustrating is that due to the lack of exposure and punishment for the acts other students don't know it happened, end quote. we cannot change what we are not willing to confront. infiltration of this behavior without confrontation has led to its normalization. so much so that those who

experience this discrimination often feel reporting it is a waste of time due to the regularity at which it occurs. so pervasive is the harassing behavior that spills over to nonjewish individuals. many of our students have personally experienced that mere standing with jews or the jewish state has resulted in the same hostility. for instance, at the university of new mexico a student had rocks thrown at them while tabling with an israeli flag and were spit upon. at george mason a student wearing cufit shirt was cursed and yelled at and told she was disgusting and a baby killer. that student is now too frightened to wear the shirt again. this behavior is not meant to provide legitimate critique. it is harassment aimed to silence and shut down perspective of jewish students. allowing this behavior to shut

down free speech is at odds with free thinking and safe environment our nation's colleges strive to create. students and administrators should be able to distinguish between valid critique of a nation and anti-semitic behavior. providing a standard by which to judge the acts no more chills free speech than presence of a thermometer prevents temperature from rising. both sides of the argument deserve to be heard. at present one side is using first amendment as a sword to inflict harm and a shield to protect itself from the consequences of its actions. valid intellectual discourse and equal access to education should not be exclusive and the exercise of free speech is not an affirmative defense for harassment. the first amendment does not relieve schools of obligation to ensure students receive equal protection under the law. as the nominee stated the u.s. department of state has developed excellent tools for

addressing anti-semitic in every country other than the united states. why not hold ourselves to the same standard? despite the 2017 study concluding it was not a problem anti-semitic was problematic enough at stanford that its student body took it upon itself to pass a resolution and within it included the same definition used by the state department for guidance. anti-semitic is not a jewish issue. it is a human issue. jewish identity continue to be a target whether male or female, religious or ag nostic. 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, ms. parker. good morning. i am ceo and director of antidefinition league.

i appreciate the opportunity. i would like to highlight the trends we are seeing including rise of anti-semitic instances on campuses and the impact of unprecedented outreach and recruitment by organized hate groups and provide suggestions and some potential responses. as congressman conyers noted tracking instances since the 1970s. our annual audit which we are doing on a quarterly basis provides a snapshot and helps our professionals in our headquarters in new york and field offices identify trends and craft responses. data drives policy and our audit has led us to draft first model hate crime law in the u.s. today that has been adopted by the federal government and 45 states around the country including district of columbia. and the hate crime statistic act of 1990 is based on the idea

that we must count each and every bias motivated crime and teach policing communities how to respond to them. new audit data released last week as congressman conyers noted detailed increase in the first three quarters of this year over the same time period last year. we have already recorded more anti-semit anti-semitic incidents in 2017 than we saw in their entirety of 2016. i'm talking about acts of harassment, vandalism and violence directed against jewish individuals and institutions. these numbers are compiled by my team of professionals. this is not about rumors or rhetoric. this is about hard facts. anti-semitic incidents spiked after the unite the right rally in charlottesville. until late 2016 such white supremacists were not active on college campuses.

starting in fall of last year they began a much more open effort to spread their message and recruit. last year at this time the adl had tracked niens incidents of white supremacist activity. this year for the same time period we tracked 80 such incidents. nearly ten fold increase year over year. anti-semitic cannot be attributed solely to extremists on the right. neither side of the political spectrum is exempt. we have seen a rise in anti-semitic rhetoric from radical left wing view points one often rooted in hostile views on israel that can cross the line. there is nothing wrong with criticizing particular policies of a specific elected government in israel. that happens all the time and it is not anti-semitic.

that is not what we are talking about. whether it originates on the fringes of the left or the extremes on the right we have seen real cases of anti-semit m anti-semitism. our caudit documented 118 compared to 74 in the same period last year. that is nearly 60% increase. our written statement outlines a number of those incidents. i don't have times to get into them this morning. when we identify a problem we believe we have a responsibility to propose solutions. our statement highlights an effective response on anti-semitism that we saw at university of california system. we believe the enactment of this act would be an important step forward to address discrimination against jews. it would also have positive implications for muslims, members of other religious groups when discrimination is

based on the group's actual and perceived characteristics. as an agency that serves as a fierce advocate for the first amendment let me reinforce the claim this would not compromise freedom of speech period. it would provide guidance to the department of education and the department of justice on whether to investigate anti-jewish discrimination and instances in which it crosses the line into targeted intentional and unlawful intimidation and harassment of jewish students. our statement provides several additional policy recommendations. first we recommend training and outreach programs for administrators, faculty, staff and students on best practices and protocols to respond to hate speech, extremism, anti-semitism and bigotry. we recommend that education on the parameters of first

amendment free speech rights. hate speech may be protected but student leaders have a moral responsibility to address the accompanying impact. while the first amendment protect hateful speech it does not allow for harmful speech to incite violence. there are no simple solutions to this problem. the solution must be addressed long before the college years. the government has responsibility to provide funding for anti-bias, anti-racism, to inoculate our children from intolerance before they ever get to the university. in closing, i need -- i deeply respect the opinions of the experts at the table, but let me just say because this legislation balances free speech considerations with the surge of discrimination, the adl in all other major jewish organizations, the co mun mal

leadership are unified in their support of this act. thank you for your leadership. i look forward to your questionings. >> thank you. ms. mass sell, welcome. >> members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to -- >> you may want to turn the microphone on. >> thank you for the opportunity to testify today on anti-semitism on campus. america stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect open expression in the u.s. and worldwide. our mission to unite writers and their allies to defend the liberties that make it possible. we work on issues related to campus free speech. our fall of 2016 report on campus for all, freedom of speech at u.s. universities sets out an analysis of tensions that rise from colleges to make campuses hospitalable learning environments while maintaining uncompromising protections of freedom of speech. these two missions can and must co exist. we're now working with

university leaders, faculty and students around the country to help address these strains by facilitating dialogues among sta stakeholders and make the campus an open environment for all people and for all ideas. we are alarmed at the rise in anti-semitic speech action that participates have documented. we aplaplaud the committee for s leadership on this issue. disspelling hatred and the transmission of thought, we are firm that the spread of hatred must not impair -- consistent with that commitment we have several related concerns with the act. this hearing takes place in a moment of pressing threats to free speech on campus including efforts to shout down speakers, hateful speech that intimidates members of historically vulnerable groups and efforts to deter silence and punish speech. amid these, it's imperative to avowed allowing even

well-intended measures to legitimize parameters for expression. it's not difficult to deceive of scenarios, debate targeting isreal, speeches by leftists or breaking the silence, a group of former israeli soldiers who oppose their government policies. while such speech alone might not amount to a civil rights violation, alongside other incidents and expression it could form part of a claim of harassment. thus subjecting the speaker to investigation and potential disciplinary action. many college students are finding their political voice for the first time. exploring modes of activism and feeling their way to causes that they will champion throughout their lives. students are supposed to experiment and should not live in peril that a chant, speaker ini have tag invitation or remark. would ensure that it would only be applied where the speech bore

sig n signifiers. the campus is highly charged. the expression that may seem artistic or academic can trigger an intense reaction in the hot house environment of a polarized campus. the palestine conflict is among the most contentious. in this environment it is subject to misuse. can pose enormous strain on witnesses, responsible admain straight ors and the campus as a whole. other forms of hateful speech are also surging. many groups have identified slurs and insults that they believe are not fully recognized for their derogatory character. these include cartoon images of religious figures, groups by those outside of the group, and the invocation of lesser known stereotypes or slurs. if this act is passed, we should not be surprised if other

historically vulnerable groups ask for similar protections. the cat pmpus is already a mind field when it comes to speech. finally, having reviewed the very thoughtful testimony of my fellow witnesses, we submit that we do not see evidence that the problem of rising anti-semitism derives from the current confusion nor the -- that an expanded definition will address the concerns we all share. while many witnesses cite similar practice measures, i'm not sure any of us can be confident this will help solve the problem we are confronting. finally, the u.s.'s approach to free expression is the most protective in the world. a proud distinction. whereas holocaust is banned in europe, it is considered protective speech here. best answered not by

prohibitions, but by counter speech. if the act torp pawere to pass, viewpoint based restrictions on speech would be blunted. pen america is eager to work with the committee to advance steps to help address anti-semitism and bigotry while holding protections on free speech. we've also included in our written testimony a copy of wrong answer. how good faith attempts to address good speech -- a paper that analyzes the anti-semitism awareness act. thank you again for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. mr. stern wewell. >> thank you. it's my pleasure to be here. my honor representing the foundation which works to combat hatred and anti-semitism. i was the jewish expert on anti-semitism and i've worked with many college presidents and

on a variety of initiatives about bigotry, anti-semitism. one project was to train over 2 200 college presidents on how to handle campus bigotry. every one of these projects stressed that approaches would promote academic freedom are more likely to work on campus that those that explain it away or harm it will actually make the problem worse. let me give you one quick example. in 2007 when the british university axe dodopted a resol, some in of the jewish community said americans should boy -- ideas should be vaulevaluated o their merits. i worked with over 400 university presidents who essentially said if they're intent on violating fundamental academic principles and dividing the academic world into two, then count their universities as

isra israelis too. that underscored the academic freedom of free speech. that's one of my main concerns about the anti-semitism awareness act. by undercutting academic freedom and free speech, it too would do great harm to the academy and to jewish students and to faculty teaching jewish and isreal studies. i was the lead drafter who did the great politicking of the working definition of anti-semitism in which the state department definition is based. it was drafted as rabbi baker said with data collectors in mind and not to chill or regulate speech on american campuses. in recent years they gone filing title 6 complaints. when all those cases lost they tried to get the university of california system to adopt a

definition. when they failed they turned to lawmakers. as a jewish official acknowledged thr acknowledged, this type of legislation would offer for them to seek other definitions too. let's imagine african-american groups asking for a definition of racism for consideration under title six targeting political expression deemed racist. would it include opposition to removi removing statues of confederate leaders? shouldn't denying the palestinian the people the right to self -- furthermore, there's an internal and frequently distasteful debate in the jewish community as to who is included in the family and who is not. we know for sure and we've heard today of jewish students who are zionists who have suffered, but jewish students who are anti-zionists are called traders by pro-isreal jews and told

they're really not jewish at all. whether you can be an 18 year-old anti-zionist and inside the jewish community is not a debate that congress should decide. by adopting this definition, congress would do so by labeling them anti-semites. we have seen students -- support for isreal is seen on some campuses in a similar vein. congress should not be creating something akin to presumption. the focus on isreal also ignores other challenges to jewish students today such as alt-right campus organizing and the view that because jews are largely white they cannot be victims of hatred. some groups empowered by the definition of campus application will hunt speech they believe trans congresses it and press

admin straig admin -- we want admin straight ors and other officials to conduct surveys, to offer full semest classes. feel comfortable saying what they think even if their ideas are not fully formed and they might be wrong. when an administrator is told as they will be by the general counsel that they should -- they will be evaluated on how well they react to anti-isreal political speech, that will be their only focus. isreal -- a holocaust survivor had to change the title of a campus talk after an israeli diplomat complained. and an off campus group got to get a university to

investigate -- the university found no basis to discipline her, but the exercise itself was chilling like. my fear is we similarly enshrine this definition to law outside groups and try to suppress rather than answer political speech they don't like. the academy, jewish students and faculty teaching about jewish issues will all offer. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. stern. we'll now begin with the questioning of the witness. i recognize myself. rabbi baker, you write in your written testimony that if we are to be successful in combatting anti-semitism we must first understand it. we must define it. it has changed over time . it presents itself in new and traditional forms. the phenom na of an tie semitism changes over time, presents itself in different forms over time, with counsel against cod

diifying -- how is that approach compatible with the concept of discrimination that changes over time? >> thank you, mr. chairman, for the opportunity to expand on this. the fact is that there is i think a core understanding of what anti-semitism is about. but 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 is working definition, it was developed first with great difficulty to achieve consensus among jewish experts and organizations around the world and then defined its use in the eumc and in other bodies in europe really began with acknowledging those traditional aspects of anti-semitism. they may as the doctor said wax

and wane over time. we understand that. but we should explain and define them for people to be clear on this. the idea of conspiracy theories against jews, what other elements motivate this hatred. but also to recognize as we've seen in more recent times. for example, hollocaust denial s a form. finally, when we speak about anti-semitism as it relates to isreal, and i think that is something more and more people have come to recognize not just jews who have experienced it in europe or now here in the u.s. and on college campuses. >> let me interrupt since i only have five minutes. thank you for that. dr. nadell, i was pleased to see that an advocate for 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 expect that mr. marcus if he's confirmed to that position would use the state department's definition of anti-semitism in addressing anti-semitism under title 6 and if so, might it be best to wait and see the results of using such a definition before congress were to codify it in the statutory law? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i very much agree that 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 that 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 that the attempt to ensure

that mr. walker or mr. marcus, excuse me, or other officials simply can consult the definition would make it easier for them to do their job effectively. so rather than having congress wait, i would encourage you to proceed expeditiously with this process so that mr. marcus can be an effective advocate and public servant at the department of education. >> dr. trachtenberg, rabbi baker wrote in his written testimony that 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 encompass any particular act without any real regard for context, although it pretends that it does. for example, the state department definition claims that stating that a particular jewish person has more loyalty to the state of isreal than they do to their own country is necessarily an example of anti-semitism. where the truth is that's one of the fundamental premises of zionism. if you go back and look at the statements who wrote what's considering the founding text of zionism, he argued very clearly that jews are one people and therefore it's useless for them to be patriots to the countries in which they reside. so there's times when a statement like that gets contained in the definition of the state department would actually undermine the premise itself. >> mr. stern, i was intrigued by

a portion of your testimony i don't think you talked about in your oral testimony and that is would you elaborate on the point that you make with regard to something you call pandora's box? >> thank you, chairman. the issue is that once you open up this capacity for having an official definition, then i suspect any organization that represents other groups that are concerned with things on campus would want a definition too. again, to 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 really belong here. that's something the university should take responsibility for in look at the campus culture. but you'd have groups i would think at that point saying wait a minute, this is an indish sha of something that makes students uncomfortable. we want to codify that to under

title 6. i think you could find other types of examples with other types of groups. >> my time is expired, soy don't think we'll do it now but i get your point. >> mr. chairman, if i may, i just want to bring back to 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 an t anti-semitism. we're here because we need your help to address that. i think that needs to be a focus. with permission, the idea that dual loyalty or being more loyal to a state other than the nation that 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.

it is fodder for anti-semites. >> thank you. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from michigan, mr. con yers f -- 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 mentioned, mr. conyers in the 2010 guidance that potentially can be changed in a new administration that would underscore the fact that title 6 should be used to address anti-semitism on college campuses. >> dr. nadell. >> 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-isreal actions on campus as anti-semitic and it will quarterback free speech and that's a mistake. >> thank you. rabbi cooper. >> congressman conyers, we know each other for a few decades. just to sum myself, the american jewish community wall to wall 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. what's happening here is happening in real time. those who refuse to recognize the problem of anti-semitism, well, it's kind of like inviting people from the flat earth society to a hearing about nasa.

>> thank you. dr. trachtenberg. >> 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. what you've heard from the president of the association for jewish studies that sits to my right, also from myself, and from many, many other faculty member whose have studied this issue very, very careful using rigorous scientific methods, the issue of anti-semitism is a highly contested one. it's a topic we do not believe should be addressed with the an tie semitism awareness act. i think you should trust professors and universities to contend with these issues as they arise on our campus. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. conyers, i would follow-up on your analogy to the

race context and i would fthink if we felt like the title 6 prohibitions on harassment on the rabasis of race were being accused -- that they had some white sprupremacy, and it was a in service of the symbol, then we had a consensus that that was wrong, that we could amend the definition and restore an adequate prohibition, 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. >> thank you, ranking member. i would just like to underscore that while i understand and appreciate that academics study the problem, it's our students who are living the problem. they're the ones that are having the rocks thrown at them. they're the ones that are having

the vitriol spoking to them. stanford did a stad thudy that for the most part the jews felt safe. the students took it upon themselves to pass a resolution doing large in part what we're advocating for here today. >> thank you. attorney greenblatt. >> i'm not an attorney, mr. conyers. let me disspell that. >> director greenblatt. >> what i would say is the anti-semitism awareness act from a first amendment perspective will not squash free speech. but 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, the american jewish committee, apac, jewish federation of north america, all the major jewish organizations

support this legislation. >> that we agree there is a problem doesn't mean the solution in front of us is the correct one. i think we have to keep in mine the law of unintended consequences. we risk fueling the fire to 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 would suggest that we focus. >> thank you. director stern. >> thank you. five quick points. one is i agree with mr. trachtenberg that -- dr. trachtenberg that you should listen closely to the people that are teaching on the campus. especially on these issues. they're the ones that 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 the -- all the other things that we really want campuses to do to deal with their environment, to deal with

their teaching. this will be the preferred answer and the focus rather than all those other things. third, i think jewish students are suffering in many places around the conflict because there's a great binary. legislation like this rather than breaking down that binary will add to it to the detriment of jewish students. fourth, i disagree with something in rabbi cooper's written statement about protecting vulnerable jewish students. i've taught a class on an t anti-semitism. they want to be engaged and have their thinking shaken up by having the capacity to look at these issues from every way. fifth, i really worry about the instinct to monitor speech. we've seen outside groups creating dossiers online. if i'm a jewish studies professor and i'm going to be

monitored for whether i teach something that transgresses this definition -- >> thank you all. i'll examine this conversation we've had very kiflcarefully. >> chair now recognizes mr. issa. >> rabbi cooper n yo, in your experience, have you had, i'm assuming you have, had experience discussing with college administrators a response to these anti-semitic incidents and what have you learned? >> we've had a lot of interaction with primarily california based uc and cal state administrators, people up and down the line including some of the campus police. there's been a lot of exchange. there have been, you know, seminars and discussions.

what has been lacking and what we hear back from people who have let's say been burned once or twice by incidents that 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 has spoken to some length about the president, when he was the head of the uc system, spend an enormous amount of time on this problem not because it was theoretical, but because the students at the bottom were not being protected by the system. and he tried, i i think mightily, to come up with ways to begin to correct that situation. but the fact that we're here today before this important group of legislate ors here in the house indicates that we do need help. that context as mr. clement to

so brilliantly presented it, simply is that. it's a definition that will help train college administrators, chancellors and the rest, to apply the existing context in the rules to a situation in which jewish kids have been subjected to the kinds of behaviors that brought us here today. >> so you don't -- you wouldn't say that there's an unwillingness to protect, but a lack of training? is that a fair assessment? because you see it as most of the administrators are not taking measures to protect. >> i think that a lot of administrators in their own training never heard the introduction of the term anti-semitism among all the other areas prof tetected group minority groups. it simply never entered their lexicon until these incidents

came forward. it was clear from our interaction with the people and let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they were well-meaning and wanted to address it. they didn't really know where to begin. in addition, there are in many individuals on campuses, on various levels, who actually, you know, believe that isreal is an exceptional state. an apartheid state, guilty of all sorts of crimes in which their own personal biases -- i don't think it's ideological driven. i think it's something relatively new. they're not sure how to proceed. >> it's been a long time since i went to college, but in those days, it was a simpler time. this would have been a very -- don't look at me as how much

simpler. 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 less we begin a process and end up caught up in the doz ens of othr politically correct things that we sometimes talk about how people refer to people. you know, somebody can refer to a woman in an incorrect way. another race or religion incorrect way. and they're often categorized as though all of them are equals. and 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 beg two points and perhaps also, mr. clement would want to -- the two points i would make is, number one, we're not making to look 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 is -- that ever handed the state of isreal a moral blank check for a specific action or policies that its taken. so i think that's simply a false issue. it is a more complex time. a lot of these controversies are part of global campaigns against the state of isreal, 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 about how to deal with t. but when you have god forbid the next outbreak and we pray it won't come, in the middle east, especially now with social media, but even before, the same mantra that you'll hear on the streets you will hear on the campuses. and those attacks won't be about isreal. they'll be talking about hitler was right and death to the jews. >> thank you. >> chair recognizes the gentleman from new york mr. nadler for five minutes. >> thank you. mr. stern, it is clear to me, i've been following this for a good long time, but there's a real problem on some campuses. i think most people would agree with that. the anti-semitism awareness

act -- it says the department of education shall take into consideration the definition of anti-semitism as part of the assessment of whatever was going on was motivated by going on by anti-semitism intent. it is not dispositive of whether title six has been violated and that should eliminate any concerns about a chilling effect on free speech. what is your response to that? >> my response is that it is disingenuous. when you prioritize a certain definition, it has the weight of having congress behind it compared to any other definition you consult. i'm really not as concerned although i am about the two, three, or four 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 that administrators will be toll to look at this and monitor speech as they have with

these early title six cases and with the website focusing on dossiers that will say huntless speech. if you can't suppress it like the isreal type of thing, you ought to at least condemn it. you will give incentives to chill speech when i think on campus what you really need is to cultivate an environment that does exactly the opposite. that brings out all the different sides. 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 6? >> i don't think so. >> so not that the definition is too brad. >> i've got problems with the definition of using it for campus because, again, denying isreal 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 who is trying to figure out a jewish student, whether

i'm -- they have to have the right to explore those ideas. >> now, without referencing a definition in the law, how should the department of education identify and investigate anti-semitism and then force title six? >> well, i actually brought a case when i was at ajc for high school students in new york. where the kids were being harassed. it had nothing to do with isreal. but i can tell you nobody asked me to look at the motivation of what these people really thought about jews. nobody looked at the definition. what they looked at was whether the kids were being identified as jus a as jews. wisconsin v. mitchell says the same thing. not the mode of the problem. it's the circumstance. >> in the last seven years, how would you vaevaluate the

department's enforcement efforts regarding anti-semitism. >> you're talking about specific cases. the cases i was aware of had problems. they had some indish sha of actions. i have no capacity at this point to say at a particular case they should have done something differently on those cases. those cases that were brought, again, contained complaints about classes, about text, about campus speakers and other programs. >> thank you. if enacted what would it provide for students to campus that aren't already provided for under current law? >> i think they would provide the protection of having the enforcement agency empowered with the definition. so i don't know that this -- >> the enforcement agency could do what it could already do but would be guided by definition?

>> that's right. and i think it would facilitate -- >> thank you. let me go on to the next question. critics of the anti-semitism awareness argue even if you're correct that the act does not violate the first amendment. it could have a chilling effect on speech on campus. >> i would respond by saying that the key to ensure that title six, 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 the test for harassment is sufficiently robust and consistent with our first amendment values. but the rest of it i think is mistaken. when you say that this is going to stop. when someone suggests that this is going to stop a professor from lecturing on a topic in class, that just mistakes what the standard is for finding harassment under title six. >> lastly, mr. stern, mr. clement argues that the anti-semitism awareness act does

not raise constitutional concerns because it contains a saving clause and it addresses the harassment rather than protect the speech and simply adds the definition to an existing prohibition of the law. how would you respond? >> two things. first, i disagree because in the application of it and in particular it will be problematic. he has also said the saving clause are pretty much useless. and i would encourage, i know the foundation for individual rights and education has also done a very thorough analysis of this. in my view they're the experts and they've concluded this would be unconstitutional. >> my time is expired. i thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> i'd like to begin by bragging by my state of florida. i'm so proud in response to some of the student government associations endorsing the bds move florida passed legislation

that divests our state of any entities that are participating in the bds movement. that legislation built on the landmark work of my colleagues mr. deutsch when he said that our state die vestdivested -- w you mentioned student government associations, are there come commonalities, methods, tactics, practices, that groups are using to influence student government associations to pass bds resolutions and to what extent would those methods or tactics be impacted? >> 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 who are

anti-isreal, have a pro palestinian jan palestinian agenda, they get involved with student government and stay involved. in many times they have leadership roles. where the -- this act would help is when jewish students are call out at meetings of the government, of the student government including at ucla. not small colleges. up in canada as well. when jewish students are called out and it's -- 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 isreal and you should be booted off the board. there are other kinds of actions that can be taken in terms of funding. certain kinds of speakers will get it. certain activities will get it.

but i would say overall if it was just a matter of student activism then the most important message we can send through all the groups is make sure jewish kids stay involved in student government. but when you have as we have now had numerous examples where jewish kids are called out and say you don't belong here because you're a jew, that's exactly why that student would be able to go to an administrator and if necessary to the department of education to get redress. >> mr. greenblatt, how do you parse that distinction between legitimate advocacy that 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 that 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 that they consult the definition. again, i think as stated by another one of the witnesses, they would need to determine there is indeed harassment taking place. but having a definition that codifies what is indeed a very complex problem wouldn't in any way, shape, or form prohibit or handcuff an administrator to prevent free speech. >> i foun td the data that you' provided in your testimony requiredi -- 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 day anti-semitism at the high school level. are you able to draw a nexus there? >> i think that's a very good and important question. there are two parts to it. to the first part f , if we try understand what's the causal tee, i think both sides -- it's creating the conditions that we're seeing an untick of activity. it's the reality of what we're seeing all around the country. to your point i would gray that anti-bias, anti-hate content in schools, particularly at the high school level can be an anecdote to intolerance and that is an area we should erxplore. >> recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you very much. to the ranking member, this is a very, very important hearing and

i clearly, rabbi, i think it's cooper, important that students are young people and that any language that particularly suggests they don't belong here i believe we're obligated to protect them and to protect their space of learning. so you have me committed on the idea that our young people must be protected. so as i kwquery, i'm trying to find the comfort level on the idea prof protected speech. 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 know the structure of the university of virginia, in complete horror and fear. i imagine among those students might have been jewish students, african-american students, hispanic students and others. and how -- 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 american university who became the first african-american american student happened to be a woman. president of student government. then there was a series of hanging nooses to intimidate. so i think the question in this day and time is how do we educate and protect our students and provide free space and free speech -- free space and free speech for our academics? so let me go to mr. clement who is raising the legal arguments here. mr. stern made a valid point of the hunt. so i would not want to have a professor feeling that they were hunted if they had several viewpoints that i don't agree with, but several viewpoints of

the issues dealing with isreal, ie denying the jewish people the right to self-determination and saying they should not have their own land and as well other criticisms that would be waged against isreal but could be waged against others. how would i protect that professor who wants to engage in a deliberate and maybe provocative lecture and who may be either overtly or hidden, have some negative views, conspicuous or nonconspicuous views about isreal? >> well, i think that there is no fundamental incompatibility 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 title six as harassment. but under title six there's two questions. a, is there harassment that rises to that level. and then second, even if there is, was it motivated by one of the forbidden bases under title six, race, sex, national origin, and the department's taken the position that anti-semitism is a forbidden motive and really all this legislation -- >> that's tied to criticism of a country. you don't have to right to exist. you don't have a right to your own land. isreal shouldn't exist. >> and there's a variety of ways to try to define that term. this is the same definition obviously that the state department has already approved. and i think, i don't mean to damage the question, but i think the way to protect free speech

is in part to make sure we have the right definition for harassment. but once we have that, boy, it seems hard at least from a first amendment standpoint to think that it's better to not have any definition of anti-semitism. 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 label labeled anti-semitic. >> mr. greenblatt, i have participated in our anti-hate out reach. i think they're some of the best in the country. i also believe very quickly -- very keenly and i'm going to ask mr. stern questions, so i'm going to end quickly. i thank the chairman for his indulgence, but i truly believe the investment in k to 12 is crucial and that the crisis of america is that we're not

teaching anti-hate in early years as told to me by an african-american family that went to mcdonald's and another child that happened to be white looked at them in horror and was afraid of them as they came into the mcdonald's. how can we deal with that? finally, if you can finish by your answer to the hunt question in how do we protect these students by dealing with the legislation i hope to consider. >> thank you for the question. let's are clear. this definition does not prevent students or faculty or administrators from criticize policies of the american government. it zdoesn't do it. with respect to training and education, i couldn't agree

moore. we need to ensure or kids are immu immunized. an ounce can go a long way towards dealing with bigotry. >> your time is expired. >> mr. chairman, i'd appreciate to be -- >> the gentleman -- mr. stern can answer the question. >> thank you. i abhor anti-semitism. i don't want to foster it. i want to stop it. >> briefly, what one thing i put in my written testimony. the first manual that we put out that was a situation that came up hypothetical, a banner is put out of a window that says so and so you fill in the blanks, not welcome here. no policy out of dorm windows. what do you do. the president said i would put out a larger banner from my office saying everybody welcome here. we want in those situations, we want anti-semitism classes so student students can understand what we're talking about. we want programs that give

students the capacity to discuss these difficult issues when their senses of identity are wrapped up in perceived social justice. we want to use education as much as possible. what i worry about the hunting situation is it's going to chill speech. faculty members, but also think about students. i was working at a national organization, i'm a zionist, i was mostly concerned with those students who were supporters of isreal. as a college professor, i'm also concerned about jews that are anti-zionists. they're left in the cold. we have websites that hunt them. i think this will only encourage that type of activity. >> the i now recognize mr. bigs. >> appreciate the panelists being here. this has been an interesting and important topic. dr. trachtenberg talked about the potential for this

definition to be interpreted overbroadly. mr. greenblatt talked about this is a consulted definition. and so i would like to talk specifically about the definition or ask -- inquire about the definition and i'll go to you, mr. clement. providing a definition may be a good idea. it may be consistent with the first amendment as you've argued and testified to today. my question is, is this the right definition? is it potentially as some have indicated earlier in their testimony, is it potentially vague or overly -- can be interpreted overly broadly or is it clearly -- clear and concise enough? could it be worded better? if so, how? if you could opine on that, please. >> thank you for the question, representative bigs. i would say that there are 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, you know, that it's necessarily the p platonic definition. i did think it has the virtue of being a definition that the government is already using. as one of my co-panelists said, it's a bit ironic and we're essentially willing to use this definition with every country on the planet except ours. but i guess the one thing i really have uniquely perhaps to contribute from's first amendment perspective is especially given that it's just a consulted definition and doesn't purport to be the definitive definition. in the law sometimes you have the definition that says the following term is and sometimes definitions says the following term includes. this is more in the softer 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. >> and i appreciate that. and i guess that's my question. does anybody on the panel think they have a better definition than this definition? i'm inquiring of the entire panel. by your silence, dr. trachtenberg. >> it's not clear to me that a definition is required in this way. i teach entire courses on anti-semitism. they go on for 15 weeks. we talk about this shifting definition of anti-semitism. 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 all sorts of different methods. and it led to anti-semitic caricatures of jews. in the modern period we saw it

as a racial distinction of jews. are jews fundamentally different. there are questions of jews as capital schemers or revolutionary subversives. this is what we teach to our students. settling on one definition that's going to apply to all circumstances is just too broad and too vague and should not be the basis of legislation. >> but i mean, i don't want to get in a debate with you because i have other questions, but one of the things you've said previously today is that this is a very broad definition f. you're going to make a definition it would seem to me that's consultive in nature it would become a broader definition that would allow for the movement of society as it -- as we see the impact of that definition as they're using it as a consultative idea as a

strict binding concise definition which is why i was asking if there's any better definition that may be out there. goes by fast in five minutes. i was going to come back and ask, and i'll ask mr. clement and anyone else, do you know of any judicial opinion that provides the definition of anti-semitism even if not in the holding, in its dicta? >> i have come across such a definition. >> i guess i'm going to go ahead and yield back the balance of my time since i'm down to ten seconds. >> thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman mr. deutsch from florida. >> i introduced this bill because i met with the assistant secretary of education for civil rights and asked how many investigations, ongoing investigations in the cases of

anti-semitism were they pursuing and the answer was answer. number two, i appreciate all of the academic discussion and the references to the definition. let me just read it for the anti semitism is a certain perception of jews which may be expressed as hatred toward jews, historical manifestations of anti-semitism is perpetrated by nonjewish people. then it goes on to include contemporary issues and a facts sheet. let me address some of what we have heard today. one, any criticism of israel would be anti semitic, everybody understands that the case, that's number one. jews while they are -- while i am offended by that, this has

nothing to do with this piece of legislation. somehow, this is really an effort to go after jewish anti zionists is the reddest of red herrings, and fourth, the suggestion was made that we have to look at all different sides, there aren't four different sides to anti semitism. a college campus is where students are trying to find their voice. i could not agree more. but here's the question. in all of this talk about free speech, which we hold dear, and which we have to be careful any legislation would not violate or curtail. in all of that discussion, what's 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 to talk about their involvement in their jewish community, and there are examples, time and time again, one last thing about this, is that i understand, if you look only in terms of numbers across all campuses, that while some of your academics here say, it's not a problem, i don't see it in my classes, i don't hear about it on my campus. and then 100 anti-sem mitic act may not be that great. what about their ability to fight back and have a bureau that that's going to investigate those attacks? we know what's happening on

college campuses. and i'm concerned about professors being able to teach. but i also know that college students, like my own and their friends who are on college campuses, who see what happens, will avoid parts of campus, i have heard from their friends, because they're afraid if they're wearing a jewish star that they're going to be shouted down. that's not students finding their voice, that's one student using his or her voice to stifle the free speech of that other student. yes, rabbi cooper. >> i just want to come back again to this visual, because this is real time, this was posted by a professor of a university on his facebook page. we have a young girl, 19 years old, who went to rutgers because she wanted to get a degree in food science, here is the guy

she's going to have to go and sign up for. because there's no price to pay, there's no red line about nothing in the position of responsibility who openly expresses such vile hate, and there's nothing to protect that freshman from pur suing her course. >> you're going down the wrong path about 118 cases of hate this year? >> congressman, you're dead on. i know some professors teach courses for a few weeks, and these numbers have been tracked for 100 years, and data doesn't lie. this doesn't inhibit the ability of an individual student, faculty or otherwise, but that definition, by the way, that was done by leading experts in academia and communal

organizations and it's used around the world to track anti semit semit semitic. >> mr. chairman, before i yield back, i would finally make one last point. again, criticism of israel, israel's government, israel's policies are more than fair, they're welcome here just as they are in israel. but when you take the position -- it's one thing to criticize those 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 simply

trying to address, and i yield back, thank you. >> and i thank you, gentlemen, and i now recognize myself for five minutes. it was my turn. just 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, dr. gary bauer, who's the head of the christians united for israel who i have been a member of for a long time. and he is perhaps the greatest friend of israel in the western world. so, i mean, the opinion is pretty high there. and certainly, identified with so many of the comments here today, some of us are deeply committed to the state of israel and to the jewish people. and subsequently, when we're dealing with the area of anti semitism, which is obvious to any observer, has grown in a

profound way in recent days, i suggest to you that whether it's from the hard, 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's comments related to the necessity, that someone just needs help here. and i understand that. i embrace that completely. the great challenge for those of us that deeply care about israel, of course, the more deeply we care, the more desperate we are to get the policy right. and i'm want to try to refer to the old medical term, you know. first do no harm. so the challenge before policymakers right now is to come up with the right policy. and to that, my first question would be, traditionally our federal civil rights laws have

not codified definitions or ill lust traive lists of discriminatory motivations. that is our civil rights law prohibiting discrimination based on race or sex or -- without identifying exactly what a discriminating motivation would be considered to be. leaving that question to the courts and a case by case determination of the unique factual situations in context by judges and juries. you see, we have struggled with this for some time. if any particular definition of anti semitic information were codified in the u.s. code, what definitions might be proposed for a code for civil rights violations as related to other classes. i hope it came across clearly. let me say it one more time.

if a particular definition of anti semitic might -- might be proposed for consideration for potential civil rights violation in relation to other protective classes. >> i think it's hard to say, but i certainly think this will give rise to efforts by other groups to think about defining discrimination against them as broadly as possible so that manifestations of that discrimination is not ignored. one of the things i worked on during my career, related to muslims when they wanted a legal ban on cartoons depicting mohammad. which is a very particular offense to them. they went to the u.n. and sought

a treaty, banning the so-called defamation of religion. so they were concerned that the rest of the world didn't see it that way. so that's one obvious area, it's offensive, it's not universally recognized to be as offensive as some muslims regard it to be. there are some others who take grave exception of that effort. that's one manifestation, ken brought up others, there were palestinian-americans, and they want to seek to form a palestinian state. not to form that would that be discriminative against them. or arguments against affirmative action, so that could be called into question the validity of a certain group of students on campus. it's hard to know where it would end, but opening it up does give

areas of concern. >> when there is a complete lack of common decency sometimes in these situations it's hard to know how to respond to that legislatively. so, i understand from your testimony that you wrote the guidelines for the state department, essentially, or you were the lead writer on it. >> i worked very close with my colleague mr. baker. i probably wrote 75% to 80% of it and got the other experts and negotiated which parts to put in. >> given that, do you think that that guideline should be something we should consider to codify in statute? and i'm asking a pretty hard question here, 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. and i encourage the state department to use it in its

reports and bilateral relations. i work with rabbi baker on a hate crime training program. that's fine. a campus is a different venue, it's about ideas and giving students and faculty the opportunity to think outside the box, not to be wrong and not to measure what they're saying against a definition that's constitutionally enshrined, so particularly for this venue, i think it would be an atrocity. >> i'm going to have to go to the next guy here, and thank you all and god bless israel. mr. scisilini? >> i think it's important to say at the outset to say that this spike in anti semitism should be something that's offensive to all of us and decide what's the most effective way to respond to it in the united states and around the world. i think it's important to

consider the con tebs of this and that is that we have an administration that has in many ways stoked this environment by not speaking out against anti semitism. president trump came to the defense of white nationalist protesters in charlottesville who chanted anti semitic slogans. another trump advisor was found to have ties to a nazi group. and this committee has failed to appoint a monitor to combat anti-semitism. i think we would be ignoring this sort of elephant in the room to not acknowledge the context of this spike and the gravity of it. i also find it very ironic in a lot of ways where in our tradition, it is by the way a

free and unhindered way that humanity seeks the exchange of truth. so this idea of respecting and honoring the free exchange of ideas is an important jewish value and obviously an important american value. so i guess my kind of simple question is, i think rabbi cooper said, you don't belong here -- if there it's something that says you don't belong here because you're a jew, i think that's an obvious anti-semitic statement. a policy and an agreement as a principle is not anti-semitic. so we need to have a definition that at least attempts to identify anti-semitic activity, in the way that rabbi cooper described it, but reject a policy of criticism. is that something we could do

successfully? i recognize that it would open the same kind of discussion with other categories, i also accept the negotiation with all due respect to mr. green, was the fact that we just consulted. so my question for the panel really is, am i oversimplifying this? could we craft a definition that strictly attempts to identify anti-semitism, free from criticism or disagreement on policy? or is that impossible to achieve. doctor, i'll start with you. >> i think it's an impossible task. i think if you asked all nine of us for our definition of anti-semiti anti-semitism, all on the same themes, obviously, we all agree that the core of anti-semitism is hating jews for being jewish. if you go much beyond that,

you're going to get into contested territory. contested territory among the jews themselves, with the scholars of anti-semitism. if you want to have the most narrow definition, it's a baseline where everyone can agree. but if you go beyond that, it's contested waters and the fact that it's contested we should allow those who study the issue to have all the debates and conversation they need to keep fleshing this out, and that means turning it over and turning it over again and again. >> i would submit mr. congressman, that it's not impossible, that my professionals do it every single day. and the edl was also involved in writing that definition that the state department uses, and we think it works. but who are the arbiters of this? let me introduce you to the family have been bullied and had

people throw pennies at them. let me introduce you to the parents whose childrens have had lockers painted with statwastik let me introduce you to those people and you can ask them, whether indeed there are nine different definitions, or there's once. so if you look at the definition that our public servants use every day. it doesn't say criticizing israel is anti-semitism. that is not what it says, period. >> i was going to say the examples that mr. greenblack says, but you don't need a definition to get there. you just need a clear understanding that jews are selected as victims of harassment because they're jewish. it doesn't matter whether it's this definition or that definition, or just want to do it because it's fun.

if a jewish person on campus is being harassed because they're jewish, that's sufficient, and you don't need to open up this whole can of worms. >> could that be the definition? >> nobody talked about a definition. nobody talked about that a s swastika was anti-semitic. and we talk about the pro-zionist students. i have also seen examples on campus where kids are trying to figure out what's happening, and some are being called traitors, and some are saying take that yamika off. >> i wonder if someone who wants to stand on the wall gets

subjected to anti-semitic treatment? >> any time a conservative jewish person cares to speak on a college campus, they stand a much greater chance of being banned or being labelled as a hater by the haters. and it just amazes me that, well, my friend carolyn delick, she believes what the bible indicates was the promised land to the children of israel. and because that, she cancelled at university of texas, right in my home state, it wasn't because she was jewish, it was because she was a conservative jewish person. and say george soros were to come and do as he often does and

beat up on israel, or netanyahu, he would never be banned from a college campus, he would be welcomed with open arms. so let's be real here, we're talking about particularly conservative jewish people. when it comes to school children, when it comes to people that get swastikas put onary loon a their lockers and things like that or vile things being said about them, just particularly because they're jewish. when i was in college, i never dreamed we would get back to the level of anti-semitism 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 inronic it seemed to me that you had -- and i'm

speaking of ministers of another country so i want to be respectful. but since germany was in world war ii, the people have gone above and beyond to show how open they are to all peoples, so they bend over backwards to bring in what they think are muslim refugees, and some of them are refugees and some are not. some are ready to do battle with -- so you're bringing in people who are raised to hate israelis, to hate jewish people, and by virtue of your act to show how loving and open you are, you're bringing in people who make you appear to be anti-semitic again, and that raised some hackles and got some people upset, but it's 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 anti-semitic. and i mention my two friends, bannon and gorka, they were called, these guys are not anti-semitic, and they are not anti-muslim, but they certainly recognize that there is a portion of muslims who believe the united states and 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. i mean for heaven's sake, branice university decline to give a degree to -- what a

courageous person. i mean what happened to brandice, have they forgotten how they were founded? they don't want conservative christians or conservative jews coming in and speaking, but they welcome anybody that will come in and bash israel. so i welcome all the comments i've been hearing from people across the aisle condemning anti-semitism, but i would hope my friends will be just as upset when it's a conservative jew, and as far as a boycott that seems to be growing across the world, and particularly in europe, of anything made -- and it's just another effort to slam israel, but i have stood there at the tomb of king david's father, jesse, in hebron, hebron also is where sarah and isaac and jacob and their wives are buried right there. and i'm supposed to say that

that is not absolutely israeli territory, and we should ban anything coming from that area? that is ridiculous and we need to be more realistic in our assessment of what truly is anti-semitism, it applies when it's a conservative jew, thank you. i yield back, i see my time is up. >> i thank the gentleman, and now recognize mr. raskin for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, thank you very much. the very first thing that i did as a newly elected member of the house of representatives was to organize a tour of the freshman class, the democrats and the republicans both to the holocaust museum and we spent two hours there and i believe very strongly the touch stone of our politics has got to be in opposition to anti-semitism and racism and other hatred that made the last century such a nightmare for so many people.

there's free speech concerns that have been raised by many of the people today. prohibits discrimination based on race, class but not religion. does everyone agree that religion should be covered under title. >> i think that you opened an entirely new avenue of debate when you say it should cover religion. >> okay, i was hoping for a yes or no.

>> i would like to address the issues we're discussing today. >> it i actually agree with rabbi cooper here, that this has opened up a larger set of issues we have to address, it's not just a yes or no. >> and i agree, you have other things like the freedom restore ration klaus. >> likewise, it's outside of the scope of our mission. >> it's complicated. >> i think it complicated as well. but religion should certainly be protected. >> i think religion should be protected but in ways that could be complied with other constitutional and legal provisions. >> and i would agree with that, it's particularly about harassment about one's religion. >> it seems like a category of speech which is that related to the israeli government or the israeli state, in terms of its

anti-semitic content. but would everyone agree that what took place in charlottesville is anti-semitic, but does everybody agree that mr. spencer does have a first amendment right to at least appear on public campuses? does anybody believe he does not have a free speech right to speak on public campuses? everybody seems to agree. >> unless he incites violence. >> but in terms of the content of his speech, he should not be banned for that reason. so i want to go to the question that has tormented the country for a while now about statutes of confederate soldiers, robert e. lee and so forth. i have got no doubt that the

vast majority, or dare say, all racists support in continuing keeping those there. but a lot of people who support keeping those statues there are not racist, right? so would it not be a problem to use, in addition of racism, whether or not someone supports having those statues present there? >> i would agree with that. my view is not jergermaine to t exactly. if you move the statues, people aren't able to remember history. you need to explain why they were put up to support segregation and so forth. but that wouldn't be a hateful view. >> let me come to this right now. my colleague mr. deutsch, read the operative definition that he had. i might even broaden it a bit, and say anti-semitism is

hostility against jews. it seems like whatever's getting into this searing controversy, are the examples that were offered in the state department policy. but does anyone know about a statute passed by congress that includes illustrations or examples? because to my knowledge there's not one. and does anyone think that those ill lusz traces are necessary. >> so. >> >> when we talk about race discrimination or race discriminati discrimination. i'm just thinking in terms of trying to keep civilization together here, and to keep our unity together.

why would we get into a series of complicated examples that would divide people instead of stating what the principles are. i'm happy to come back to you. >> in 2004, in the global anti-semitism review act, congress said, anti-semitism has at times taken the form of vilify indication of zionism. >> gentlemen's time has expired. but doctor, you can answer. >> thank you, examples in particular are -- well the examples are particularly problematic, but against the idea of having a definition which is going to box us in in terms of what anti-semitism is at the root of our discussion here. >> i thank the gentleman, now the gentleman from texas mr.

ratcliff is recognized for five minutes. >> i appreciate all the witnesses being here today. i think it readily apparent in the treatment of jewish students across the country. i refer to the report. i think it was in mr. clement, it was in your testimony about just this year, 1,299 anti-semitic incidents from january to september, i think, again, it's troubling that political correctness seems to

have allowed anti-semitism to flourish, but i appreciate the thoughtful discussions from all the witnesses as we try to get back to this, having our institutions of higher education be that marketplace for ideas, while also stemming the rising tide of anti-semitism. i appreciate all of your perspectives today. mr. clement, i know one of the things you focused on in this ant anti-semitism awareness act, i read your anticipated responses to the first amendment concerns and regulations of speech. is it an oversimplification to say that having a definition as proposed within the act is trying to find that line between

speech that is anti-zionist versus speech that is anti-semitic? >> i think that's what the definition is trying to get at, representative ratcliff. i think it is -- you know, there is a particular concern in the context of anti-semitism that i'm not sure is present in some of the other discrimination prohibited by title 6, in which you do have people that have the ability to quote, that's ant anti-zionist not anti-semitic. and it's gotten to the question of do we really need a definition here? what i would say to that is, in the abstract, it might be fine to have anti-semitism defined on

a case-by-case basis over time. but to have a case-by-case definition, you need cases. and i think what everybody is seeing here, is it's not that there aren't anti-semitic actions on campus, and there aren't enforcement actions. so i don't think we have the luxury of just letting the education department develop the definition over the course of a number of enforcement 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 then in part to guide the discretion of department officials. >> i agree there needs to be a specific point where we can point and have a determination of where criticisms of israel cross over into anti-semitism. and i go back to that report that's referenced in your

testimony about the 1,299 incidents and i also go to rabbi cooper's written testimony that the department of education's office of civil rights has never found a civil rights violation in any claim filed on behalf of jewish students. put on your solicitor general suit, and consider that you have all these 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 sure be a difficult thing solicitor general would try to explain. and it would give rise to an inference to something other than looking for the right case and prosecutorial discretions going on. >> i'm going to let you weigh in

on that as well. >> congressman, let me just take two points very quickly. this revolution started 56 out of 57 countries minus russia, eventually agreeing on and the evolution of our discussion this morning. it's probably the best definition that we're going to get, and it's the most relevant one. to really summarize, i'm pleased that both mr. franks, the chairmen here, you have the wall to wall of the american jewish community here. we came here, 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 raskin, 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 passed, it will be many challenges, just by virtue of the testimony you heard today. but you have the entire jewish leadership of the american jewish community coming together united, something that apparently nothing less than this great committee has been able to achieve. and we really hope that after the appropriate deliberation, it will be moved forward for a vote on the floor. >> my time is expired, rabbi, but i will tell you that i agree with that sentiment, and if i was sitting on the top row, i might have a little more influence in making that happen. but i appreciate you being here today. >> i recognize the gentleman from illinois for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman, i want to thank all the witnesses today for sharing your perspectives, i do want to take a prerogative and welcome in the gallery, lisa sugar who represents the jewish federation of chicago where i represent. as i listen to the testimony

today, i can't help but listen as a jew, as a parent of jewish college students, one student and one recent graduate. and at least six of our states have recently experienced anti-semitic incidents. i am greatly concerned about the significant rise of anti-semitism on our campus and in communities throughout the world. as mr. greenblatt you said -- what we're seeing is an increasingly create -- jewish students to publicly discuss their judaism as support for the jewish state. it doesn't take a lot for jews to feel comfortable in the academic environment where they are, i think we have all agreed,

seeking the opportunity as every student should have to explore new ideas, to find their voice and to reach their own conclusions. that's what the university is for. but i do worry about this difference. so maybe i'll start with you mr. greenblatt, do you see a difference between free speech and the effort to create a hostile environment? >> thank you, as a former resident of the north chicago area, it's nice to see you here today. i think it is safe to say that there are challenges again as i stated in my oral testimony in both what congressman france called hard right and sort of elements of the militant left. we have on neither side of the ideological spectrum is exempt from intolerance. but whether there are spontaneous campaigns or intentional actions. considering the number of cases we are dealing with on campus today, the staff that

congressman deutsch represented was correct, there were investigations led by the office of civil rights investigation. casings of anti-semitism, zero. let me repeat, that number is zero. we believe having a definition will make it easier for whoever's administering the office, whether it's indeed mr. marcus or someone else to ably do their job and ensure that jewish students have the same protection that other students have. it doesn't preclude political speech, its doesn't lirmt freedom of experience. it simply limits a definition that can be used by administrators. >> we started at 7:00, we were still talking at 11:00. 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, do your friends and other cam putses have problem, yes, everybody's worried that they're going to step in the land mine in the context of the environment today. i think the answers are not with legislation that's going to create an additional sense of, you know, these are folks here, and those are folks there, but initiatives that campuses are lacking on to how do we have these difficult discussions. there are very few classes on aity semitisa aity anti-semitism, students are going to understand what divides us and will unite us. those are the kinds of things. >> i agree withat we need more classes on anti-semitism, that would be a great step forward. but there nee's an effort on

campuses trying to make these jewish students saying jews are not welcome here. >> how do you help administrators, mr. green blat has said that too in his testimony. how do you go about cultivating that environment, in which you have the capacity for students to be wrong, to say what they think, but then to identify what's hateful and to teach about it. there should be no question that israel and palestine, as contentious as that is, should be an ideal subject for getting students to think about how do you deal with the competing narratives and competing testimony. how do you look at the equities and so forth. rather than if someone feeds them something that's anti-s anti-zionist, that's not the end of the discussion. >> classes alone and dialogue as welcome as they are, will not protect your kids on campus.

and 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 protections as everyone else on campus. >> would the gentleman yield for a second? >> i will yield. >> it i just want to make clear for the record, that a mistake was made a moment ago. not every jewish group supports this bill. i have a letter here from j-street, you opposing it and there are groups that do not support the bill and there are groups that do. so i just wanted to clear that up. >> my time is expired. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. dr. troughenburg, in 2002, did you -- petition that hebrewism

is the center of colonial and -- did you also vote for the modern language association to boycott israel? >> i'm not a member of that association. >> did you vote for it? >> i would not have the capacity to volt for it because i am not a member. >> i guess i want to specifically point out something that my colleague mr. raskin said, he 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. what he's really saying is that racists have to be white in this country. there's no such thing as a black racist that may want to take down those monuments.

when we look at this issue, we look at it through our own lens, through our own bias. that's what we're struggling with, how do we respect the constitution, while at the same time deal with a deeply troubling issue on college campuses and that is the issue of anti-semitism and bigotry and hatred. it and my understanding is that there is a supreme court case in 1999 that gave us a definition. the davis case. and i just want to quote that and then ask you a question. it found that peer on peer harassment in the educational context is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive and so undermines and detracts from the victim's educational experience that the victim students are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities. if that is the supreme court definition, why don't we use that definition in this bill and

instruct the department of education to proceed in that way? >> well, so, representative buck, i think that's a very fair question. and i think that what i would say is that right now i assume in administering -- slightly different context, title 6 versus title 9, but i would assume that that is the standard that the education department is using right now in administering title 6. >> it sounds like it isn't using any standard, because it hasn't done any work in this area, a desperately needed area. >> there's two issues to keep separate. and one is, what is the level of conduct that rises to level of harassment. and the second question is, if there is harassment, then title 6 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 anti-semitism 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 6 action. and i think, though, 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 anti-semitism. and i would say from a first amendment perspective, we are much better off having government officials with a definition than without a definition. and just to, you know, refer to just for a second, the statistics we have heard a lot about. zero cases currently being brought. now in the event that the reason zero cases have been brought is because not one of the indications 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. now i strongly doubt that's what's going on. and the question is if some subset of these hundreds of cases rose to the level of harassment and they weren't being brought because of some confusion about what constitutes anti-semitism. >> i want to get mr. greenblats view on that, which is it? he just gave you two options. >> i can't say definitively because i don't know noknow all cases, but i can say indeed, 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. >> 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 issue in discussion listening to putting nine people on a panel and all going at it, this is like throwing the ball and see who gets it. this is one of the things anti-semitism and every form of discrimination is hard, it doesn't matter where they're located. and this is particularly troubling when harassment prevents students from basically accessing education. going back to one of the arguments that i have heard against this in many ways is this is a first amendment issue. so i wanted, mr. clement, you have been before the supreme court more than any of us. and my legislative director, sally rose larsen who took congressional law for undergrads, she says hello, but

she's glad she's not here because she didn't want to be tested on this. but mr. clement, you've argued these cases and you feel the need to discuss this. title 4 of the civil rights act prohibits discriminatory conduct, not speech, correct? >> it's directed at harassment as we were discussing. >> what role does the evidence of discriminatory speech present evidence of a violation of the civil rights act. >> that's when the mitchell case makes quite clear that evidence of, including speech can be used for an evidentiary purpose. so i think in wisconsin versus mitchell, you had nine supreme court justices who are very protective in the first amendment, they held that you can use speech in that elementary way. >> so let's consider on, consideration of potential violations of title 6, stemming from discriminatory harassment.

how does one distinguish between the protected speech and the nonprotected conduct. >> that's where it is the harassment test that has to do the work. because the supreme court has basically said, you know, we can -- 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 or anti-semitism. and then it's just a matter of trying to figure out what motivated the harasser. then in that inquiry, you can take into account speech, it doesn't raise a first amendment problem, by virtue of a unanimous decision of the supreme court. and it seems that in figuring out, whether the speech, the conduct, sometimes it can be a combination of both. somebody paints a swastika on

somebody's dorm room, that's probably more conduct than speech. but all of that can be used to determine whether the harassing conduct was violates title 6. >> many times there is concern in many circles, are you, in crossing over this area, especially in hate crimes and other things, are you criminalizing the thought? i'm not sure if a definition in the sense we're talking about here with this act actually goes that far. in what you're saying, would this definition impinge on the first amendment rights or the list of horribles that have came from some on the panel here today? >> i don't think that it would, and i think one way to look at the difference is this would be a very different situation if this was a proposal to say 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 frame

work and only reaches conduct on the level of harassment based on a certain level of motivation and uses this to determine what motivation counts. >> and it's not working at all, because it's not being brought forward, although we're seeing it all over the word, we're not seeing it brought in these cases. >> that's absolutely right. and in the abstract, may we could say, we don't want a definition written into the statute, we would prefer to do it case by case and have courts to develop it but you need cases. and what we're seeing here is there are no cases being allowed to develop through the judicial process. >> i appreciate the other witnesses, i do have one last question. because it was brought up earlier concerning your testimony concerning this. and then what was put into this. it's a shifting to this legislation includes a savings

clause, and 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 reasons that i have given, one is that it is not a direct regulation speech, but only an evidentiary test for the motivation for harassment and secondly because the definition actually serves the -- with any statute somebody can come in and say, even though it's not constitutional on its face, maybe it will be i applied in the wrong way, and i think is savings clause gives some additional comfort that that's not the way the statute would be applied. >> i thank the opinions of all members of the panel. i think it's been a good discussion, this is something, i agree with my friend from texas a minute ago, i think this is something we can move forward on without infringing on first

amendment rights and bring some clarity that may be lacking on this point today, but that is the reason we move forward, it is not simply because we have questions that we should not move forward, it's that we have questions that should move this forward. >> 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 have helped to educate the members of the committee. so this concludes today's hearing and i, again, thank all of you for your participation.

and all members will have five legislative days to submit questions or additional materials to the record. and with that this hearing is adjourned.

here's a look at tax reform efforts in congress this week. the senate budget committee is expected to meet early this week to combine the finance senate committee tax reform bill and the senate energy committee's provision for oil drilling in the national wildlife refuge, a simple majority needed for passage. if it's approved, majority

leaders will start working on a compromise bill between the house and the senate versions, once an agreement is reached the bill goes back to the house for a final vote, and then it goes to the president for his signature. republicans say they hope that will happen before christmas. tonight on "the communicators," the newest member of the federal communications center discusses net neutrality, and media ownership rules. mr. carr is interviewed by politico technology reporter john hendel. >> how do you see that overall, given that it is a pretty big situation unfolding right now? >> again, my view is that the sec has a pretty limited role in mergers. which is to say, a transaction comes before us, and we take a look and say is there a

transaction specific harm? and if there is, we try to address that harm. and then if identified, then we can move forward with view merg christmas tree where you could hang whatever regulatory agenda you want on it. that's not my approach and i think that's not the laugh arope the fcc should take. >> watch the communicators tonight at 8 eastern on c-span2. with a busy week ahead for congress our live coverage includes the senate banking committee tomorrow considering jeer roam powell to be the next federal reserve chair and that will be live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on cspan. also tomorrow the senate bud yet committee reviews its tax reform bill. see that live at 2:30 p.m. on eastern c-span3. on wednesday, the senate health committee considers the nomination of alex azar, president trump's pick to

replace tom price as health and human services. live coverage 9:30 eastern on c-span3. also on wednesday the house takes up a bill requiring members of congress and staff to take antiharassment and antidiscrimination training. live coverage of congress this week on the cspan networks, online at cspan.org or with the free cspan radio app. cspan, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, cspan was created as a public service by america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. the house subcommittee held a hearing to look at nasa's space exploration plans including the space launch system and the orion spacecraft. the project's aim to help facilitate human exploration of the moon, astroids and eventually mars and would be