Department of Education official explains why colleges haven’t lost federal funding over antisemitic activity

Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights, told lawmakers on Friday that existing federal law and procedures make it unlikely that any schools will lose their federal funding over antisemitic activity on their college campuses in the near term.

Some lawmakers have honed in on threats to colleges and universities’ federal funding as a method of pressuring or penalizing them over their failure to protect Jewish students. But Lhamon explained at a roundtable with congressional Democrats that pulling funding requires a yearslong litigation process under current federal statute.

Before seeking to revoke funding, Lhamon said that her department, the Office of Civil Rights, must first investigate and communicate a finding that the subject of an investigation has violated civil rights law, at which point she’s required to give schools the opportunity to voluntarily come into compliance.

If a school refuses, then the DOJ can take the matter to an administrative law judge. If the judge rules that the school is in violation, the subject can still appeal the ruling all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Only at the end of that process — which Lhamon acknowledged could take years — can funds actually be revoked, Lhamon said.

But, she added, most schools will agree to voluntarily take action — OCR is currently taking a discrimination case, related to disability issues, to a judge for the first time in 27 years.

Lhamon also acknowledged another gap in her office’s enforcement ability — she does not have the authority to require schools to dismiss problematic faculty.

Addressing the antisemitism that has pervaded campuses across the country over the past 11 months, Lhamon described herself as “shocked” by the comments she hears from school leaders professing to be unaware of their responsibilities to protect Jewish students from discrimination under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, a situation she described as unacceptable.

“We are seeing kids assaulted. We are seeing kids stopped from going to class,” Lhamon said. “These are not close calls about whether a university should be responding to them, and yet our universities are treating them like there’s maybe something they don’t need to do, or there’s a byzantine process that a student needs to follow before they can get a university response. That’s not the law.”

Lhamon’s presentation to the lawmakers focused heavily on her office’s need for additional funding; she said that Congress “has never” provided sufficient funding.

The lawmakers who attended the event, Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Kathy Manning (D-NC), Grace Meng (D-NY), Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Wiley Nickel (D-NC) and Kim Schrier (D-WA), are supporting a Goldman-sponsored bill that pushes for increased funding for OCR.

Lhamon said her office has around 400 investigative staff, the same number it has since the Bush administration. Complaints, especially in the wake of Oct. 7, have surged, however, from 6,000 per year to 19,201 in 2023, a record it is set to easily surpass this year, with around 24,000 so far.

Four hundred of those complaints were related to discrimination based on shared ancestry or national origin, some of those being antisemitism complaints. OCR currently has 162 such cases under investigation and many more go unreported, Lhamon said.

“I cannot manage that complaint volume with the staff that I have,” Lhamon emphasized, warning that talented and experienced investigators could leave the office. “Our staff are now carrying about 51 cases per person, and you cannot do civil rights work effectively with a caseload that is that high.”

Lhamon said that staff shortages are causing cases to drag on, leaving students to wait, in some cases until after they’ve graduated, for their cases to be resolved.

“That’s not protecting civil rights in the way Congress intended,” Lhamon said.

Lhamon said that the administration’s requested budget increase would allow the office to add 77 new investigators. She said that the ideal target would be 20 or fewer active cases per investigator. But it appears unlikely that Congress will fulfill the administration’s request.

“We don’t have any more efficiencies we can bring to this problem,” Lhamon added. Some lawmakers have argued the case backlog is an issue of improper procedures or prioritization at OCR.

She explained that there is a low bar to opening a formal investigation, which includes extensive document requests and interviews and often surfaces additional instances of examples of discrimination.

Even once cases are resolved, OCR staff are responsible for continued monitoring of schools that have settled with the office. For instance, schools entering into agreements relating to antisemitism are now being required to report every complaint of antisemitism they receive to OCR, so that federal officials can monitor how the schools respond.

Pressed by lawmakers on why her office does not provide specific detail about the nature of the shared ancestry cases it is investigating — such as how many relate to antisemitism — Lhamon said that most antisemitism cases ultimately grow to involve other areas of discrimination as well.

“Here’s maybe an ugly answer to that, but if a university is not handling antisemitism, it’s also not handling anti-Islam,” Lhamon said. “What we’re finding is, if a school doesn’t know or isn’t fulfilling its obligations under Title VI, it’s not doing it for people in general.”

Lhamon also lamented what she characterized as a failure on behalf of schools to take steps to inform students of the rights and protections they are entitled to and how to report cases of discrimination.

She offered, as an example, that she frequently sees information sheets inside bathrooms on campuses about how students can report sexual harassment and sex discrimination, but not similar information sheets about other forms of discrimination.

Lhamon suggested Congress could consider legal changes to address such gaps.

House Democrats split again over calling for Harvard, MIT presidents to resign

The House voted 303-126-3 on Wednesday for a resolution condemning the testimony by three college presidents before the House of Representatives last week and calling for Harvard President Claudine Gay and Massachusetts Institute of Technology President Sally Kornbluth to immediately resign.

The resolution was the second time in two weeks that the House Democratic caucus has split nearly down the middle over a resolution relating to antisemitism. Eighty-four Democrats voted to support the resolution and 125 voted against it, with three Democrats voting present. Republican Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) also voted against the resolution.

The resolution focuses specifically on responses by Gay, Kornbluth and former University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill l — who already tendered her resignation in the hearing’s fallout —equivocating on whether calls for the genocide of Jews would violate their campuses’ policies on bullying and harassment.

Some of the Democratic votes against the resolution came in spite of concerns about the university presidents’ comments. Some also came from lawmakers who prominently opposed last week’s resolution describing anti-Zionism as antisemitic. A majority of the votes for the resolution came from more moderate-leaning members of the Democratic caucus but some progressives also supported it.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), in a speech on the House floor, called the presidents’ answers to the question about genocide “overly legalistic” and “tone deaf.” He said they also lacked the  “common sense” that anyone calling for genocide could pose a physical threat to Jewish students and would also create a “hostile learning environment and deserves disciplinary action.”

But, he argued, using the power of Congress to call on the presidents of private colleges to resign was unprecedented, inappropriate and borderline unconstitutional. And he noted Congress had already voted numerous times since Oct. 7 to condemn antisemitism, including on college campuses.

Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), the ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, went further in defending the university leaders.

Scott argued that, while calls for genocide of Jewish people are “reprehensible” and have “no place in reasonable discourse,” the presidents’ answers had been taken out of context and that the presidents had made clear their commitment to fighting antisemitism. He said that their answers were correct, in light of free expression protections, accusing Republicans of acting in bad faith.

Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC) lambasted the resolution in a speech on the House floor but voted for it anyway.

“I was appalled by the failure of the three college presidents to simply say ‘yes, a call for the genocide of Jews is wrong. Period,’” Manning said. “But I have no interest in meaningless resolutions that do nothing to address the underlying issue of antisemitism… Nonbinding, politically motivated resolutions are not worth the paper they’re written on.”

House to vote on Wednesday on resolution calling on Harvard, MIT presidents to resign

The House is set to vote on Wednesday on a resolution calling for the presidents of Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to resign in the wake of their controversial testimonies during a hearing on campus antisemitism last week, a spokesperson for House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) told Jewish Insider.

The bipartisan resolution is being sponsored by Scalise along with Reps. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ). The resolution could prompt another divide among Democrats, a week after the House — including 95 Democrats — voted in favor of a resolution linking antisemitism and anti-Zionism, while a nearly equal number voted present.

The nonbinding resolution was announced hours after Harvard’s leadership announced it stood behind its president, Claudine Gay, and rejected calls for her resignation.

The resolution “strongly condemns the rise of antisemitism on university campuses” and “strongly condemns the testimony” by the presidents of Harvard, MIT and the University of Pennsylvania on whether calls for Jewish genocide violate their schools’ codes of conduct.

Language in the preamble of the resolution says that Gay and MIT’s president, Sally Kornbluth, should “follow” former Penn President Elizabeth Magill in tendering her resignation.

“When the Presidents of the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Massachusetts Institute of Technology were asked if calling for the genocide of Jews violates university policies on bullying and harassment, Presidents Elizabeth Magill, Claudine Gay, and Sally Kornbluth were evasive and dismissive, failing to simply condemn such action,” the legislation reads.

The resolution could once again split the Democratic caucus. Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), a Jewish Democrat who chairs the House’s antisemitism task force, split with Stefanik last week over whether to call for the university presidents to resign in a letter to the schools’ leaders on antisemitism.

“All [Stefanik] cared about was calling for the resignation of university presidents to score political points,” Manning said on X yesterday. “I am working to make real changes to university codes of conduct so Jewish students and faculty are protected from hate. Rep. Stefanik is trying to get a soundbite & media hits.”

Manning ultimately sent a letter calling for changes to campus policies to combat antisemitism, along with a dozen Democrats, while Stefanik sent a similar letter with 73 other lawmakers, including Democrats Moskowitz and Gottheimer. 

Other Democrats have also accused Stefanik of being insincere in her concerns about antisemitism, in light of her support of former President Donald Trump.

The resolution will require support from two-thirds of the House to pass.

House lawmakers demand Harvard, MIT, Penn fire their presidents over antisemitism testimony

Seventy-four House lawmakers  wrote to the boards of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania on Friday demanding that they immediately fire their presidents in response to widely criticized congressional testimony they delivered on antisemitism on their campuses earlier this week.

The presidents of the three schools have come under increasing scrutiny this week amid growing speculation that their jobs could be on the line following their refusal to say earlier this week that calls for Jewish genocide would violate their schools’ codes of conduct.

“Testimony provided by presidents of your institutions showed a complete absence of moral clarity and illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities that your university presidents enabled,” the letter reads. “Given this moment of crisis, we demand that your boards immediately remove each of these presidents from their positions and that you provide an actionable plan” to ensure the safety of the Jewish community on campus.

“Anything less,” than the steps they requested, the lawmakers continued, “will be seen as your endorsement… and an act of complicity in their antisemitic posture.”

The letter was led by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who questioned the presidents on the genocide issue, and Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) is the only other Democrat who signed the letter; the rest are Republicans.

The lawmakers said that the testimony makes it “hard to imagine” any Jewish or Israeli person feeling safe on their campuses when the presidents “could not say that calls for the genocide of Jews would have clear consequences on your campus.”

It adds that subsequent social media statements seeking to clarify or walk back those comments “offered little clarification on your campus’ true commitment to protecting vulnerable students in this moment of crisis,” describing them instead as “desperate attempts to try and save their jobs” and “too little too late.”

Shortly before the Stefanik-Moskowitz letter was released, a group of thirteen House Democrats wrote to the boards of the three schools urging them to re-examine their codes of conduct to make clear that calls for the genocide of Jews are not acceptable.

This second letter, led by Reps. Kathy Manning (D-NC), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Susan Wild (D-PA), includes similar language to the bipartisan letter regarding the presidents’ testimony and how it would make Jewish campus members feel unsafe, but stops short of directly calling for the presidents to be fired.

The lawmakers wrote that they felt “compelled to ask” if the presidents’ responses “align with the values and policies of your respective institutions.”

“The presidents’ unwillingness to answer questions clearly or fully acknowledge appalling and unacceptable behavior — behavior that would not have been tolerated against other groups — illuminated the problematic double standards and dehumanization of the Jewish communities at your universities,” the letter continues. “The lack of moral clarity these presidents displayed is simply unacceptable.”

The lawmakers requested that the schools update their policies to “ensure that they protect students from hate” and describe their plans for protecting Jewish and Israeli community members.

“There is no context in which calls for the genocide of Jews is acceptable rhetoric,” the letter reads. “While Harvard and Penn subsequently issued clarifying statements which were appreciated, their failure to unequivocally condemn calls for the systematic murder of Jews during the public hearing is deeply alarming and stands in stark contrast to the principles we expect leaders of top academic institutions to uphold.”

The letter notes that federal civil rights law prohibits discrimination against Jews on campus, and that criminal law bans hate crimes, violence and incitement to violence.

“Students and faculty who threaten, harass, or incite violence towards Jews must be held accountable for their actions,” the lawmakers wrote. “If calls for genocide of the Jewish people are not in violation of your universities’ policies, then it is time for you to reexamine your policies and codes of conduct.”

Signatories to the Democratic letter include Manning, Wild, Auchincloss, Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Lois Frankel (D-FL), Haley Stevens (D-MI), Greg Landsman (D-OH), Grace Meng (D-NY), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Elissa Slotkin (D-MI).

All of the signatories to the Democratic letter are either Jewish or deeply involved with Jewish community issues on the Hill. 

Earlier this week, a third letter by six House Republicans from Pennsylvania — Reps. Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), alongside Congressmen John Joyce, M.D. (R-PA), Mike Kelly (R-PA), Lloyd Smucker (R-PA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Dan Meuser (R-PA) — called for University of Pennsylvania President Liz Magill specifically to be fired.