Lou’s Views: Antisemitism on Campus: The Cluelessness Continues

On July 15, 2025, the House Education and Workforce Committee held a high-profile hearing to examine the root causes of antisemitism on American college campuses. At the center of the discussion were policies surrounding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); foreign funding; faculty unions; and university leaders who continue to tolerate antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of academic freedom.

In opening remarks, Committee Chairman Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) offered a blunt assessment: “Last Congress, the Committee on Education and Workforce conducted vital, rigorous oversight of the antisemitic violence that spiraled out of control on college campuses after October 7, 2023... Today’s hearing marks the next phase of the Committee’s work, an effort to understand why this wave of antisemitism was able to so easily consume the nation’s universities in the first place.” 

Walberg cited five areas of concern, including the proliferation of Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine chapters, which he argued have injected antisemitic rhetoric directly into the classroom. He also condemned faculty unions for using labor activism to advance antisemitic causes, and criticized Middle East Studies centers as ideological beachheads for extremism. Walberg warned that foreign funding, especially when unreported or anonymous, can unduly influence campus culture and policy. 

Finally, he denounced the way DEI bureaucracies often frame Jews as privileged oppressors, thereby excusing or legitimizing antisemitic harassment. “Universities can choose to hire antisemitic faculty, welcome students with a history of antisemitism, accept certain foreign funding, and let the behavior of antisemitic unions go unchecked. But... they do so at their own risk,” he said.

Unfortunately, the responses from university leaders did little to reassure lawmakers—or the public. Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) questioned Georgetown University’s Interim President Dr. Robert M. Groves about antisemitic speakers welcomed on campus. When asked if the university would allow members of the Ku Klux Klan to speak, Groves hesitated: “I don’t think we would.” Owens followed up: “If Georgetown would prevent white KKK bigots on campus, why would the university allow faculty and students to invite antisemitic bigots?”

Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) confronted University of California, Berkeley Chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons for employing a professor who publicly justified Hamas’s October 7 attack, quoting Lyons’ defense that the individual was “a fine scholar.” Lyons offered no further justification. On the issue of foreign influence, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R-WA) pressed Lyons to commit to transparency regarding foreign funding. Lyons declined, citing donor privacy. “What do you think that says to the American people when you want to hide foreign influence on your college campus?” Baumgartner asked.

At the City University of New York (CUNY), Chancellor Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodríguez acknowledged that two faculty members had made deeply antisemitic remarks, including comparing Zionists to Nazis and voicing support for Hamas. Yet when asked by Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) whether those faculty were reprimanded or dismissed, he offered no answer—only vague condemnations of terrorism. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-WI) highlighted the ideological imbalance on most campuses: “Universities are just overwhelmingly Democrat, which is a breeding ground for this antisemitism because right now the progressive wing of the Democrat Party... this anti-Israel feeling has become the norm.”

In one of the most disturbing exchanges, Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI) asked Chancellor Lyons why Jewish students at Berkeley might not feel safe. Lyons replied, “Well, I think there are Jewish people that don’t feel safe in lots of parts,” brushing aside the specific threat on his own campus. When pressed further, he said, “I think there is antisemitism in society,” appearing unwilling—or unable—to acknowledge what Jewish students are facing on the ground.

Nearly three years after the October 7 massacre, many universities still refuse to confront the ideologies that justify antisemitic violence. If anything, this hearing confirmed that too many academic leaders are more comfortable defending the reputations of their faculty than protecting the rights of their Jewish students. They may have assumed that public outrage would fade and the government would move on. That assumption was clearly wrong.

This hearing was not just about past failures—it was a warning shot. University leaders can no longer hide behind platitudes, academic freedom, or bureaucratic red tape. The message from Congress was unmistakable: if universities continue to tolerate or enable antisemitism under the guise of activism, diversity, or free expression, they will face real consequences. That includes the potential loss of federal funding under Title VI, civil rights investigations by the Department of Education, lawsuits from students who no longer feel safe, and growing demands for transparency around foreign donations. State legislatures are also stepping in. Donors are walking away. This is not just a political moment—it’s a legal, moral, and institutional reckoning.

For colleges and universities that continue to look the other way, that reckoning has arrived.

Lou Shapiro is a criminal defense attorney-certified specialist and legal analyst, but most importantly, makes the end-of-shul announcements at Adas Torah. He can be reached at LouisJShapiro@gmail.com.