What to know about the congressional investigation into antisemitism at Penn and other universities

Even though Liz Magill has resigned as University of Pennsylvania president, the school is still facing a congressional investigation prompted by her testimony before a House committee last week.

The probe will specifically look into hate speech policies and disciplinary procedures at Penn, Harvard, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, along with other so-far unidentified universities.

At a Dec. 5 congressional hearing on antisemitism on college campuses that drew national attention, Magill and the Harvard and MIT presidents struggled to answer whether a call for the genocide of Jewish people would violate their schools’ codes of conduct.

Magill later walked back her answer, but mounting pressures led her to resign Saturday. The leaders of Harvard and MIT remain in their positions.

Two days after the hearing, the House Committee on Education and Workforce announced that it would begin an investigation into the schools.

Here’s what we know now about the timing, scope and format of the investigation.

U.S. Rep. Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, called for the investigation. House committees do not need to vote on whether to launch investigations; they can be opened at the discretion of the chair.

Rep. Susan Wild (D., Pa.), who is a member of the committee, said she wasn’t even aware of the investigation plan until she saw a news release about it, though she said she supports an inquiry so long as it doesn’t become “highly politicized.”

Rep. Lloyd Smucker, one of two Pennsylvania Republicans on the committee, said the goal is to learn about how the policies, disciplinary procedures, and learning environments have led to the rise of antisemitic actions on college campuses. He called it “wide ranging,” and criticized the Department of Education under President Joe Biden’s administration, which he alleged “has demonstrated that it is not fulfilling its duties.”

Typically, a committee starts by sending out letters and requests for information. In this case, lawmakers will seek information from various universities. The requests could take some time to compile and the committee will likely give schools a month or two to respond.

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to initiate investigations and, in situations in which a party is not forthcoming, compel their compliance through subpoenas. So if schools don’t send certain information or answer requests, that information could be subpoenaed.

The committee has created an email account dedicated to collecting reports of antisemitism on college campuses. Reports can be filed at Report.antisemitism@mail.house.gov

Foxx said committee members have received dozens of messages since the hearing from people across the country interested in sharing cases of antisemitism at their institutions.

“Having a centralized reporting system allows the committee to more effectively review and act on credible cases of antisemitism,” she said in a statement. “I believe this resource will play an important role in helping the Committee conduct its investigation and bring real accountability to institutions that are failing their students and faculty.”

The committee said its intent is to make sure learning environments are safe for students and that universities are abiding by the law, particularly the First Amendment, which broadly protects inflammatory speech at public universities — except where it becomes abusive or violent — and Title VI, which applies to both public and private universities receiving federal funds and prohibits discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.”

The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights already investigates claims of antisemitism and is simultaneously conducting its own investigation into more than 20 universities over the issue.

Individuals can also sue under Title VI. That’s what prompted last year’s Supreme Court decision on affirmative action at colleges and universities.

Committee members on both sides of the aisle have said their goal is to come up with helpful solutions to the dangerous problem of rising antisemitism.

But congressional hearings and investigations can sometimes become a vehicle to push a political agenda.

Given the far-reaching scope of the probe, Risa L. Lieberwitz, a labor professor at Cornell University, dismissed it as “political theater.”

“There have been Title VI investigations, Title IX investigations, complaints filed with appropriate agencies for investigations to take place. Those structures are already in place, so any sort of investigation by Congress in this way really just seems to be fishing for political ends,” said Lieberwitz, who is also general counsel for American Association of University Professors (AAUP).

Republicans have increasingly attacked elite institutions’ “woke” policies in recent years, alleging an inconsistent application of free speech regulations depending on political ideology.

Rep. Elise Stefanik (R., N.Y.), who asked the college presidents the question about genocide that ignited last week’s firestorm, has become the face of the GOP charge against universities. After Magill resigned, Stefanik tweeted, “One down. Two to go,” and she also sponsored a House resolution this week condemning the speech of the three presidents. That resolution divided Democrats, including in Pennsylvania, and received near total support from Republicans.

“Conservatives have been beating up on some universities for not being committed enough to free speech for a long time,” Villanova University professor Michael Mooreland said. “I do think now — because of this hearing and mostly because of Elise Stefanik’s question, it’s emerged into public consciousness and even though the enforcement mechanism is within the Department of Education, House Republicans have a real chance to make hay while the sun shines.”

Past investigations by the Republican-controlled committee have involved such polarizing issues as parental rights and transgender locker room policies in schools.

Wild, who is on the committee, said the investigations tend to be more about drawing attention to a subject rather than changing policy.

“It really should be able to be free of partisan bias,” she said. “I hope that we will be able to get there but I, just knowing the history of this committee, I’m not so sure that I think that will happen.”

Smucker pressed back on accusations that it will become “political theater.”

“The Committee on Education and the Workforce is earnest in its desire to ensure that students have a safe learning environment, and we will follow the facts where they lead,” he said. “The stories that members have heard from students in their districts about antisemitism or hate they have dealt with are heartbreaking.”

The investigation could result in recommendations to the schools or in a proposal for legislation.

Although Penn, Harvard, and MIT are private institutions, they still receive federal money. The committee could require them to come into compliance with federal laws in order to continue receiving funding.

Lieberwitz said she hopes the investigation unites people against what she sees a potential assault on academic freedom.

“If people actually value higher education and what it does for people involved and people in society, this free-ranging witch hunt, inquisition could galvanize people to push back and stand up to Congress,” she said.

U.S. Rep. Susan Wild (D., Berks), Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R., Lancaster) and G.T. Thompson (R., Centre) are the three Pennsylvanians on the committee. Rep. Donald Norcross (D., Camden) is, as well.

Given that the the probe includes at least three major institutions and potential plans to look into other schools, it will likely play out over the course of months and continue well into 2024.