Former Rep. Kathy Manning (D-NC), now the board chair of Democratic Majority for Israel, blasted the North Carolina Democratic Party (NCDP) leadership for what she described as allowing anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism within the state party, in a statement first shared with Jewish Insider.

Manning’s statement comes ahead of anticipated North Carolina Democratic Party Executive Committee votes this weekend on a resolution calling for an arms embargo on Israel and accusing it of apartheid and genocide — along with a resolution drawing equivalence between Israel and Hamas, saying both committed “terrorism” and have taken “hostages” and calling for the U.S. to exert influence to remove Israeli officials from power, among several others.

“Time and time again, the Jewish Caucus of North Carolina has attempted to unify and collaborate with the leadership of the North Carolina Democratic Party, which seems unwilling or unable to reciprocate. Instead, Party Chair Anderson Clayton and First Vice Chair Jonah Garson have continued to tolerate extreme anti-Israel rhetoric and antisemitism from within the party on social media, in executive committee meetings, and even in the exclusion of Jewish members from Interfaith Caucus meetings,” Manning said in her statement.

“DMFI condemns the continued tolerance of bad faith actors within the NCDP, and we stand with the Jewish Caucus in urging all members of the NCDP State Executive Committee to vote for unity tomorrow,” she continued.

Clayton responded in a statement, “Running a big tent party means having many different view points. I have long maintained that there is a big difference between valid criticisms of the Israeli Government and antisemitism and have made abundantly clear that there is no place for antisemitism in our party.”

State party resolutions are generated at the local level, and voted up from precincts, to county to congressional district party groups, before being considered by the party’s Resolutions Committee, which votes on sending resolutions to the State Executive Committee for a final vote.

The resolution votes are the latest development in the ongoing tensions between Jewish Democrats in North Carolina and the state party. The state party, in 2023, voted against recognizing the NCDP Jewish Caucus, a vote condemned by senior leaders in the state, including now-Gov. Josh Stein.

The party has also repeatedly been roiled by heated fights over Israel policy in its state party platform. Party leadership members, including the chair of the NCDP’s Interfaith Caucus, expressed support for the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel in the days following those atrocities.

The NC Jewish Caucus said in a statement that it has been trying for months to work “in good faith with party leaders to promote a balanced, inclusive approach to complex international issues” but “those efforts have been met with resistance throughout the party’s resolutions process.”

The statement called the resolutions, particularly the Israel arms embargo, “troubling” and accused the party’s Resolutions Committee of focusing “on only a select few issues, chief among them matters regarding Israel.”

“I’m deeply disappointed that a vocal minority within our party continues to sow division,” Caucus President Lisa Jewel said. “At a time when antisemitic incidents are on the rise across the state, double the national average according to recent data, the Jewish Caucus has repeatedly called for unity, yet the Resolutions Committee chose to focus on wedge issues that, ultimately, would result in harm to our friends and family.”

She urged the party leadership to “reaffirm party unity, refocus on electability, and reject virtue signaling distractions that divide us at the expense of progress,” and pointed blame toward the Interfaith Caucus as the driving force behind anti-Israel advocacy within the state party.

Though the issues at play in the upcoming votes aren’t new for the NCDP, the votes come at a time when Jewish Democrats nationwide are feeling politically homeless and alarmed by the growing acceptance of antisemitism and anti-Israel extremism — trends underscored by Zohran Mamdani’s nomination as the Democratic standard bearer in the New York City mayoral race. 

The North Carolina Democratic Party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

When voters in North Carolina’s newly redrawn sixth district head to the polls on Tuesday, local Democratic Jewish activist Kathy Manning is hoping to win their votes. Manning, who ran unsuccessfully in 2018, launched her campaign in December following a state-wide redistricting that captured national attention and reshaped the state’s political landscape. 

Manning’s prolific career includes serving as the first female chair of the board at the Jewish Federations of North America, sitting on the Jewish Agency’s board of governors, and working as an immigration attorney and a community activist in the district — which includes Greensboro and its suburbs. She is a current board member of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

Background: North Carolina’s electoral map was redrawn last year after state courts ruled that the former map was illegally drawn. Manning told Jewish Insider that the redistricting, which created a more heavily Democratic district, was a major factor in her choice to mount another run. “I think I have a much better chance of winning in this district,” Manning said. “Although I enjoyed running in the last district, only 45% of the voters were in Guilford County where I live. The rest of the voters — 55% — were in four rural areas that are very, very conservative and have much different issues than… the people in Guilford County.” In 2018, Manning handily won her Democratic primary, but lost to incumbent Rep. Ted Budd (R-NC), 51-45%.

Manning’s competition: Four other candidates are vying for the Democratic nomination. Manning has raised more than $870,000, over six times the amount brought in by her next closest Democratic competitor. Republican Rep. Mark Walker, who has held the seat since 2015, announced in December that he would not seek re-election.

Why she’s running: Manning has lived in the district for more than three decades and has established deep roots in the community. “I think I’m the one with the experience and leadership skills to be a great representative for this district.”

Focus on healthcare: She said her top priority in Congress would be healthcare and prescription drug pricing, a personal issue for Manning, who has battled with her insurance company over medication for her daughter’s chronic illness. “I was just astonished at how hard I had to fight to get the medication approved, and it really started me thinking about what people go through every day to get the healthcare they need and to get the the prescription drugs that they need,” she said. Manning wants to build on the Affordable Care Act, including adding a “robust” public option, permitting people to buy into Medicare at a younger age and allowing the government to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies.

Immigration reform: Manning said the country needs to update its immigration policies because the last major reforms, from 1986, are severely outdated. “The world has changed,” Manning said. “And our immigration laws need to change to meet the current dynamics of our economy. She added that the U.S. should establish a pathway to citizenship for children in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, as well as their parents, and called for an end to the policy of separating families at the border. “That is the kind of horrific thing I never thought I would see in this country,” she said.

Israel: Manning, who has traveled extensively in Israel, expressed strong support for the U.S.-Israel alliance. “It is critically important for the state of Israel to have secure borders. It is critically important for the state of Israel to always maintain a qualitative military edge,” Manning said. “And I strongly believe that Israel is the best ally the United States could ever have in that region, because we share values.”

Trump’s Mideast peace proposal: The congressional hopeful is critical of the peace plan announced by the White House last month, calling it “an aspirational goal that represents what many Israelis would like.” Manning told JI that she doesn’t “quite understand how it will get the Palestinians to the table.” Manning was wary of a proposal that is not a result of direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. “I think that we need a plan that is negotiated by the parties themselves and not imposed from an outside country or organization,” she said.

Jewish upbringing: Manning said the lessons she learned growing up have helped shape her life and priorities. “I think it all goes in part to what I learned growing up Jewish, both in our history and in the teachings, those things that impacted me from the beginning,” she said, listing among her inspirations Hillel the Elder’s statement, “What is hateful to you, do not to your neighbor”; teachings about justice in Deuteronomy, and the lessons of the Exodus and Passover.