Penn president Liz Magill got grilled by Congressional committee over the university’s response to antisemitism

For more than four hours Tuesday, members of Congress grilled — and in some cases berated — three college presidents, including the University of Pennsylvania’s Liz Magill, over their handling of antisemitism on campus following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel.

The 40-plus-member House Committee on Education and the Workforce peppered Magill, Harvard president Claudine Gay, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Sally Kornbluth — all relative newcomers to their presidencies — with questions that sometimes barely allowed for a chance to answer. In one case, U.S. Rep. Glenn Grothman, (R., Wis.) cut off Gay because he said he wanted to hear from the “gal from Penn,” referring to Magill.

When given the chance, though, the presidents at times didn’t directly answer, struggling to explain the point at which hate speech rises to the level of incitement of violence — or, when students or faculty should be disciplined for it.

» READ MORE: Penn students who screened film on Israel face possible discipline

“It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman,” Magill said when asked repeatedly if calling for the genocide of Jews violates Penn’s rules or code of conduct.

“That is not bullying or harassment?” Republican Rep. Elise M. Stefanik of New York shot back. “That is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill.”

“If the speech becomes conduct,” Magill said, “it can be harassment.”

“Conduct, meaning committing the act of genocide?” Stefanik asked. “The speech is not harassment?

Repeatedly pressed, Magill answered, “It can be harassment.”

Meanwhile, two Penn students, including senior Eyal Yakoby, a political science and modern Middle East Studies major from Princeton — who attended the hearing — sued Penn Tuesday in federal court in Philadelphia, claiming the school had become “an incubation lab for virulent- anti-Jewish hatred, harassment and discrimination.”

The university has failed to protect its Jewish students against that hate, the lawsuit alleges.

“Penn enforces its own rules of conduct selectively to avoid protecting Jewish students from hatred and harassment, hires rabidly antisemitic professors who call for anti-Jewish violence and spread terrorist propaganda, and ignore Jewish students’ pleas for protection,” the suit said.

Penn declined to comment.

» READ MORE: Critics in an uproar over speakers at this weekend’s Palestine Writes literature festival held at Penn

In Penn’s case, committee members scrutinized the handling of the Palestine Writes literature festival, held on campus in late September and criticized by some for including speakers with a history of making antisemitic remarks, including Pink Floyd’s Roger Waters.

Powerful donors have withdrawn financial support over the university’s handling of the festival and its response to antisemitism, and called for Magill’s and board chair Scott L. Bok’s resignations.

“Why in the world would you host someone like that on your campus?” Republican Rep. Jim Banks of Indiana asked Magill, referring to Waters.

“Antisemitism has no place at Penn,” Magill began to answer.

Banks cut her off: “Why did you invite Roger Waters?”

» READ MORE: Under pressure from Jewish community, Penn president unveils plan to combat antisemitism

“Antisemitism has no place at Penn, and our free speech policies are guided by the United States Constitution,” Magill answered.

He also questioned if Penn had disciplined professors who he said were seen clapping at a post-Oct. 7 rally when someone said Jews should go back to Berlin and Moscow.

“You create a safe haven for this kind of antisemitic behavior,” he charged. “... Your university is a hotbed of it.”

Much of the harsh criticism came from Republicans, but not in all cases. Donald Norcross, a New Jersey congressman, confronted Magill, too.

“Did you have the power to stop this event?” he asked, referring to the festival.

She said she would not stop speakers unless the event posed a security risk.

“We believe we were ready for any security concerns that might arise,” she said. “So yes, it went ahead.”

He asked if she thought it was the right decision in hindsight.

“I think canceling that conference would have been very inconsistent with academic freedom and free expression despite the fact that the views of some of the people who came to that conference I find very, very objectionable because of their antisemitism,” Magill said.

Democrats, in some cases, defended the presidents, noting the importance of free speech and free expression and highlighting that the rise in antisemitism is nothing new.

“I so wish that this hearing was one where we were having a robust intellectual discussion, taking advantage of the brilliant minds we have in front of us about free speech, the limits of free speech,” said Susan Wild of Pennsylvania. “I fear that we have gotten away from that.”

Republicans, said Democratic U.S. Rep. Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, wouldn’t agree to hold a hearing in 2017 on campus discrimination when white supremacists marched through the University of Virginia shouting, “Jews will not replace us,” he said. And House Republicans, he said, are now trying to cut funding for the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, which recently has launched investigations into antisemitism on some college campuses, including Penn.

“You can’t have it both ways,” he asserted. “You can’t call for action and then hamstring the agency charged with taking action to protect students’ civil rights.”

All three presidents highlighted their efforts to combat antisemitism, and spoke ardently against the Hamas attack. Penn rolled out a plan on Nov. 1 including a task force that is expected to issue its report this spring and a student advisory group on the Jewish student experience — while also citing a rise in Islamophobia and their efforts to deal with those incidents.

That brought condemnation from Rep. Bob Good of Virginia.

“It’s wrong to suggest that antisemitism and Islamophobia are equivalent problems in this country,” he said.

He asked Magill if there were cases of large groups rallying in support of killing Arabs or Muslims or eliminating an Arab or predominantly Muslim state.

“Not that I am aware of,” Magill said.

He asked her if she thought it would be “immoral” to equate the two.

“I abhor all acts of hate,” Magill responded.

Penn has experienced several antisemitic acts this semester, including the drawing of a swastika inside Meyerson Hall and vandalism at Penn Hillel. Complaints also surfaced after messages the university called antisemitic were light-projected on several Penn buildings, including Penn Commons, Huntsman Hall and Irvine Auditorium.

Meanwhile, a petition signed by more than 500 academics and writers from inside and outside the United States has called on Penn to defend its students, faculty, and staff against targeted harassment for speaking in support of Palestinians.

Wild, the Pennsylvania congresswoman, noted that while all students deserve a safe campus, college is supposed to be a place where students learn to think critically.

“So here we are in this strange balancing act,” she said, of trying to determine when speech incites violence.

She asked Magill if a video shown early in the hearing of a rally on Penn’s campus would rise to that level. Magill acknowledged the video was very hard to watch.

“The chanting, I think, calling for Intifada global revolution, very disturbing,” she said, “and I can imagine many people’s reaction to that would be one of fear. So I believe at a minimum, that is hateful speech that has been and should be condemned. Whether it rises to the level of incitement to violence ... is a much more difficult question. The incitement to violence is a very narrow category.”

In her opening statement, Magill said the university was working with the Anti-Defamation League office in Philadelphia, as well as local, state, and federal law enforcement to “promptly report and investigate antisemitic acts against any member of the Penn community.

“Where we have been able to identify individuals who committed these acts in violation of existing University policy or law, we have initiated disciplinary proceedings and referred these matters to law enforcement where appropriate,” she testified.

She said she is committed to the safety and support of the Penn community, noting that security has been enhanced at every event, rally, protest, and vigil on campus. She said she also is committed to ensuring academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas.

“University leadership,” she continued, “must provide guardrails that encourage free and open expression while also ensuring a secure environment, and that is what I am seeking to do.”

Staff writer Jeremy Roebuck contributed to this article.