Two days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack, Harvard administrators had drafted a statement condemning the terror group and expressing condolences for those taken hostage. Those key elements of the statement were softened or removed.

At Columbia, the current and past board chairs said in private messages that they hoped that Democrats would win back the House of Representatives to avoid continued investigations.

And at Northwestern University, a professor told a colleague he was hoping to secure “some amazing wins” for the student demonstrators in his role as a negotiator for Northwestern.

The above examples, culled from the just-released House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s more than 100-page report on its year-long probe of antisemitism on U.S. college campuses, paint a vivid portrait of missteps at some of the country’s leading universities as antisemitism and anti-Zionism mounted.

The report comes after months of hearings, transcribed interviews, document requests and unprecedented subpoenas targeting some of the country’s most prestigious colleges and universities.

The committee said that the incidents investigated reflect “a broader environment on these campuses that is hostile to Jewish students,” in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

“Instead of fulfilling these legal obligations, in numerous cases, university leaders turned their backs on their campuses’ Jewish communities, intentionally withholding support in a time of need,” the report states. “And while university leaders publicly projected a commitment toward combating antisemitism and respect for congressional efforts on the subject, in their private communications they viewed antisemitism as a PR issue rather than a campus problem.”

The report also accuses the Department of Education of failing to adequately respond to these violations.

“The Committee’s findings indicate the need for a fundamental reassessment of federal support for postsecondary institutions that have failed to meet their obligations to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff, and to maintain a safe and uninterrupted learning environment for all students,” the report concludes.

The report summarizes that the “overwhelming majority” of students involved in antisemitic activity at each of the schools the committee investigated faced minimal, if any, discipline. Of the 11 schools investigated, six have so far imposed no penalties for antisemitic conduct and none have expelled any students.

The committee’s report also addresses some of the measures schools have taken in response to such events, including new policies on institutional neutrality, which the committee said are being used as excuses to avoid speaking out on matters on their campuses.

“While it is sensible that universities maintain institutional neutrality, these policies should not serve as excuses for academic leaders to remain silent in the face of antisemitic harassment, discrimination, or support for terrorism on their campuses,” the report declares.

At Harvard, the committee’s report reveals new details about an Oct. 9 statement in which the school failed to explicitly condemn the Hamas attack and drew equivalences between the attack and Israel’s response.

Internal communications and draft versions of the statement show that school leaders considered, and ultimately removed, language specifically condemning Hamas’ attack on Israel and expressing condolences for those taken hostage.

Administrators also decided not to include language disavowing a statement by Harvard student groups blaming Israel for the Hamas attack.

One leader, Medical School Dean George Q. Daley, objected to a reference to the Hamas attack as “violent” because it “sounded like assigning blame when it’s best we express horror at the carnage that is unfolding.”

Former Harvard President Claudine Gay and current President Alan Garber (who was then serving as provost) both agreed to remove the word, with Garber expressing concern that Daley would issue his own comment that drew moral equivalence between Israel and Hamas if they did not agree.

In a transcribed interview with the committee in August, Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker called the Harvard administration’s statement, “massively inappropriate at the time and insufficient.”

Internal communications show that Pritzker also pressed Gay on the use of the “river to the sea” slogan on a sign at a campus protest, calling it “clearly an anti Semitic sign which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state and the Jews,” comparing it to “signage calling for Lynchings by the KKK.”

Garber responded that it’s “not as simple as some of our friends would have it,” and that there is “not consensus that the phrase itself is always antisemitic.”

Pritzker pushed back, saying that she was “struggling with why it isn’t hate speech and why that is acceptable on our campus and why we don’t condemn it.”

Gay later weighed in, saying that Pritzker should not concede, in an email to a fellow alumnus, that the phrase is inherently antisemitic because “it then prompts the question of what we’re doing about it, i.e. discipline.” 

Her response came despite texts to her from Rabbi David Wolpe describing the phrase as antisemitic and a call for a “Judenrein future.”

Pritzker told the committee that Harvard has now clarified its rules such that use of the phrase would prompt discipline.

No Harvard students have been suspended for antisemitic activity; in some cases, students who were initially suspended had their suspensions downgraded to probation. 

And the vast majority of students placed on probation for their involvement with an encampment at Harvard had their probation periods shortened. Harvard’s Graduate School of Education refused to discipline any of the students, instead praising them for participating in “civic activities” and “encourag[ing] [them] to continue engaging meaningful discourse.”

Students who occupied Harvard’s University Hall and interrupted classes with bullhorns received no formal punishment.

Internal communications indicate that the lax penalties are due to administrative boards responsible for assigning penalties at Harvard, which repeatedly downgraded the punishments assigned to students, or assigned punishments less than those which administrators expected and thought appropriate.

Pritzker said in her interview with the committee that the Harvard Corporation had found “uneven” enforcement by administrative boards to be a “very serious issue,” which had not yet fully been resolved. She said that administrators understand, however, that they need to address the situation.

The report also details how some faculty effectively hijacked a meeting of the Faculty Council at Harvard’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences in an attempt to override punishments for some students involved in the encampment, and later intervened to demand more lenient punishments for some students.

The report also includes official notes from a Harvard meeting during which Harvard President Claudine Gay allegedly personally attacked Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who had questioned her at a disastrous December hearing.

At Columbia, then-President Minouche Shafik revealed in internal communications with the chairs of the Board of Trustees that she had spoken with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who, according to Shafik, said that “the universities[‘] political problems are really only among Republicans.”

Schumer’s staff had advised that “the best strategy is to keep heads down” and the senator and his staff suggested that the school’s leaders did not need to meet with Republicans, Shafik added.

Schumer spokesperson Angelo Roefaro denied this characterization of his conversations with Columbia leaders.

“The report is not accurate. Senator Schumer regularly and forcefully condemned anti-Semitic acts at Columbia and elsewhere saying ‘when protests shift to antisemitism, verbal abuse, intimidation, or glorification of Oct. 7 violence against Jewish people, that crosses the line,’” Roefaro said. “He conveyed this point publicly and to administrators privately.”

David Greenwald and Jonathan Lavine, the current and past board chairs, said in private messages that they hoped that Democrats would win back the House of Representatives, responding to a report that the committee was expanding its investigation.

The report also lambastes Columbia’s handling of an anti-Israel encampment and occupation of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall.

Of the 22 students the school arrested for occupying the building, none have been expelled, despite previous statements from the school saying that they likely would be. Instead, the majority were allowed to graduate or remain in good standing, with just one on probation and three suspended. All of the other students arrested in connection to the Hamilton Hall incident received no punishment.

The report largely blames the University Senate, made up of faculty, students, administrators, staff and alumni, for pressuring administrators to agree to an alternative adjudication process known to be more lenient, in spite of initial pressure from Greenwald and other trustees for strict penalties.

Private communications suggest that a key University Senate leader who acted as a liaison to the administration repeatedly sided with and assisted antisemitic demonstrators while silencing Jewish and pro-Israel voices on the Senate.

Lax punishments were not limited to the Hamilton Hall occupation: a student who infamously declared that “Zionists don’t deserve to live” received only probation for those comments. Two students who organized an event at which members of terrorist groups spoke received conditional probation — a low-level punishment — and three others received only warnings.

The University Senate also compelled Columbia to abandon new rules on campus protest, instead approving a more permissive set of policies, with fewer restrictions and penalties, overruling the previous ones instituted in response to demonstrations in the previous academic year.

In private communications, Lavine described Senate members as “antisemites” and warned Greenwald that they could undermine efforts to impose a new protest policy.

A Columbia University spokesperson said in a statement to JI: “Columbia strongly condemns antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and we are resolute that calls for violence or harm have no place at our University. Since assuming her role in August, Interim President Armstrong and her leadership team have taken decisive actions to reinforce Columbia’s academic mission, make our community safe, and address the Committee’s concerns, including by strengthening and clarifying our disciplinary processes.”

“Under the University’s new leadership, we have established a centralized Office of Institutional Equity to address all reports of discrimination and harassment, appointed a new Rules Administrator, and strengthened the capabilities of our Public Safety Office,” the statement continued. “We are committed to applying the rules fairly, consistently, and efficiently.”

Though Columbia did not ultimately reach a deal with members of the campus encampment, internal documents show that it considered doing so and proposed to the demonstrators a “menu” of potential concessions.

Those included reviewing divestment proposals, considering a joint program with a West Bank university that has been the site of repeated pro-Hamas activity, granting amnesty and/or favorable judicial procedures to those involved with the encampment and reinstating banned anti-Israel student groups.

The report also condemns Columbia for failing to correct its own public statements about an incident in which pro-Israel demonstrators sprayed non-toxic fart spray toward anti-Israel demonstrators. Anti-Israel demonstrators characterized this as an attack using a military-grade chemical, and a Columbia administrator said it was potentially a serious crime and a hate crime.

The school later suspended the Jewish students responsible for the incident for a year and a half, longer than any student was suspended for antisemitic activity; it was forced to reduce the punishment, issue a public statement and pay nearly $400,000 in compensation when one student sued.

Shafik also rejected repeated requests from Jewish leaders and fellow administrators to express public support for students in Colubmia’s dual degree program with Tel Aviv University, who were harassed by anti-Israel demonstrators.

In internal communications, Columbia Board of Trustees co-chair Claire Shipman derided congressional scrutiny of campus antisemitism as “nonsense.” Shipman also pushed to unsuspend anti-Israel groups and proposed holding events with a prominent anti-Israel professor.

At Northwestern University, the committee focused on the school’s negotiations and deal with anti-Israel demonstrators to disband their encampment.

The report names two Northwestern professors as particular concerns, Jessica Winegar and Nour Kteily, who were part of negotiations with the encampment, as well as members of Northwestern’s antisemitism task force — despite being openly critical of the idea of such a task force.

Text messages obtained by the committee show that Kteily told a colleague he was hoping to secure “some amazing wins” for the student demonstrators in his role as a Northwestern negotiator.

Northwestern Provost Kathleen Hagerty said in another text message she was trying to “help” the students and supported Kteily proposing to the demonstrators methods for pressuring school trustees.

Hagerty told another colleague that Kteily had “spent an incredible number of hours teaching a very disorganized and upset groups of students how to organize themselves.”

Kteily later celebrated that Northwestern’s agreement with protesters had inspired similar agreements elsewhere.

In text messages between Kteily and Hagerty, they discussed the possibility of conceding to demonstrators’ demand that they boycott Sabra, as a bargaining chip to avoid having to address issues like the school’s investments.

Citing text messages, vague language in the final deal between Northwestern and the encampment members and comments from members of the encampment, the report accuses Northwestern President Michael Schill of considering hiring an anti-Zionist rabbi, something Schill denied was on the table. The committee called his testimony on this question to Congress “misleading at best.”

Northwestern has not suspended any students for antisemitic activity since Oct. 7, issued disciplinary probation to seven and a warning to one. No students have been penalized for their involvement in the campus encampment.

At the University of Pennsylvania, only three students have been suspended, for a semester each, and 14 were placed on probation, despite a range of incidents including theft, an encampment that resulted in 21 arrests, a break-in at the Penn president’s house and other disruptions of campus business.

In emails, Penn leaders largely brushed off pressure and criticism of Penn’s response to antisemitism, with then-Board of Trustees Chairman Scott Bok dismissing former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and other critics of antisemitism at Penn as “so easily purchased” in an email to then-President Liz Magill.

Penn leaders also coordinated with a local media outlet to arrange for sympathetic coverage of Magill’s testimony before Congress, deriding lawmakers’questioning in private messages as “bullying and grandstanding.”

At the University of California, Los Angeles, the report states that university police were instructed not to intervene as demonstrators assembled an encampment, and that leadership was aware of, but failed to intervene, in response to a series of violations as well as sent misleading or inaccurate messages to the school community about the encampment.

Ultimately, 96 students were arrested at the encampment, 92 of whom signed “resolution agreements” and were not punished by UCLA. Three others are being held back from graduation and one is still enrolled.

The school said it was not able to identify or punish anyone who blocked Jewish students from accessing parts of UCLA’s campus.

At Rutgers University, just three students were suspended for their involvement in encampments across two Rutgers campuses, with an additional four placed on probation and two facing other reprimands. And a student who encouraged others to murder an Israeli student was allowed to remain on campus during disciplinary proceedings and was suspended for just one semester.

Meanwhile, several Jewish students were disciplined for speaking out publicly and filing campus reports about antisemitism.

The University of California, Berkeley, has placed just one student on probation, with two other cases in progress, and no suspensions issued, in relation to antisemitic activity including an encampment, occupation of a building and a break-in at an event which forced students to evacuate under police protection.

Yale has also not suspended any students, placed two on probation and reprimanded 23 individuals. Some cases are ongoing, but only one student of 45 has been placed on probation after being arrested at an encampment. A student who Yale found attempted to incite violence was placed on probation, while students who raised money for “Palestinian anarchist fighters” were not penalized.

George Washington University has suspended one student, placed 16 on probation and issued formal admonishments to three.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology has placed 29 students on probation and issued warnings to another 18, with three cases pending and no suspensions issued.