A congressional committee trying to root out antisemitism in higher education across the country is continuing to scrutinize California universities. On June 26, the committee sent a letter to the president of Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, following up on his recent testimony about actions he said the campus is taking in response to antisemitic acts that occurred there. Soon, the president of UC Berkeley will answer to the committee in its next hearing, which has been postponed from July 9.
University presidents are under increasing pressure to answer for what lawmakers are calling hate and discrimination toward Jewish students and faculty. While both Republican and Democratic committee members have denounced antisemitism during the hearings, some question where the line gets drawn between free speech and hate speech.
Many of the universities that have been called to testify before the House Committee on Education and Workforce are among the nation’s most elite schools. However, the Republican chair of the committee, Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, told CalMatters in a written statement that “antisemitism is a widespread problem across the country,” which is why the committee specifically chose Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo’s president Jeffrey Armstrong to testify on May 7.
“We sought out colleges that fit this criteria and offered diverse school settings across the country. We also sought out a balance of public and private schools. Cal Poly also had several incidents of antisemitism that stood out and were a concern to the Committee,” according to the statement attributed to Walberg, who his press team said did not have time for an interview.
The hearing placed Cal Poly in the national spotlight amid concerns over antisemitism on college campuses and heightened political scrutiny of higher education. Under former President Joe Biden, the House committee last year questioned university leaders across the country, including UCLA, about campus policies and safety after the Israel-Hamas war sparked protests on both sides of the issue. Three university presidents, from Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and Columbia, resigned from their positions after testifying last year.
So far this year, during President Donald Trump’s second term, the Department of Justice has formed a task force to investigate antisemitism on campuses, including UCLA, UC Berkeley and University of Southern California, and the House committee has announced investigations into at least nine universities.
While no university leaders who have testified before the committee have resigned this year, the Trump administration has frozen federal funding to institutions for alleged antisemitism. Following the administration’s policy to deny research grants to universities that allow the boycott of Israel, UC President Michael Drake sent a letter to all campus officials on July 2 affirming that boycotts of businesses based on affiliations with any country are against UC policy.
In May, Armstrong spoke before the House committee alongside officials from Haverford College and DePaul University. All three universities received “F” scores in March from the Anti-Defamation League, an international non-governmental, non-partisan organization that combats antisemitism. While other presidents in that hearing faced intense questioning, Armstrong talked for less than eight minutes of the three-hour hearing and did not receive the grilling his counterparts did.
In a letter to Armstrong prior to the hearing, the House committee referenced the Anti-Defamation League’s report card, reports of Jewish students being verbally harassed, and graffiti on school buildings with phrases such as “From Gaza to Cal Poly, let the intifada spread.”
The committee questioned Armstrong mostly about the extent of disciplinary action on his campus, while the other presidents were questioned deeper about what lawmakers described as the schools’ inaction as they received antisemitism complaints.
“Calling for the death of any group or harassing or discriminating would be subject to discipline,” Armstrong said at the hearing. “For students, it could be suspension. If repeated, expulsion. We also have procedures for our faculty and staff that could result in discipline.”
Armstrong reported during the hearing that, as a result of acts the university deemed antisemitic in 2024, six students were disciplined ranging from suspension for two quarters to deferred suspension to probation.
Cal Poly’s report card was changed to “D” on April 4 after the university enacted policy changes. In a campuswide email on April 2, Armstrong announced the formation of an antisemitism task force, which will have its first meeting this fall. The task force will use data from a Jewish climate survey to draft a plan supporting Jewish life, antisemitism education and cultural awareness, according to the email.
The university will also require mandatory student training on antisemitism awareness and endow a chair of Jewish studies. Armstrong reported during the testimony that the number of Jewish students at the campus has doubled since 2011.
In his written statement to CalMatters, Walberg noted the follow-up letter the committee sent to Armstrong on June 26 asking for more details on these plans. “I will be curious to see whether these efforts help improve the well-being of Jewish students at Cal Poly,” Walberg wrote to CalMatters.
Cal Poly students speak up about antisemitism
Vandals spray-painted several phrases, including “divest from genocide,” on Cal Poly buildings on Halloween 2024. Avi Shapiro, a materials engineering senior, reported the graffiti to campus police after he heard about it from another student. The Cal Poly Police Department investigated the vandalism, but the case is not moving forward because of insufficient evidence, according to university spokesperson Matt Lazier.
“I think the university did a wonderful job with the incident,” said Shapiro, who is Jewish. “They were able to clean everything that night. The people that vandalized clearly wanted to get a message across.”
Shapiro co-wrote a letter with another student to the House committee in support of Armstrong’s testimony. The local Chabad and Hillel groups also wrote a letter of support.
“Many campuses have faced significant antisemitism, including Cal Poly,” San Luis Obispo Hillel Executive Director Lauren Bandari wrote in an email to CalMatters. “While it is deeply disappointing that this climate has necessitated congressional hearings, we look forward to continuing to work with the Cal Poly administration to ensure Jewish students feel as safe and welcome as any other student.”
Leora Feinsmith, a junior at Cal Poly studying public health, supports Armstrong’s efforts. As a Jewish student, she said she has not always felt comfortable sharing her identity with people around campus. She believes new campuswide initiatives could make a difference but it’s too soon to tell.
“I think we’ll have to do a progress report and see if things are all talk or if things actually create action,” Feinsmith told CalMatters.
Feinsmith shared her concerns about antisemitism during the public comment session of the Cal State Board of Trustees meeting on May 20.
“I expect better from the CSU system,” Feinsmith told the trustees. “Antisemitism is not a political issue. It’s about our basic dignity and right to feel safe on campus. So, look at us, listen to us. We are your students, and we’re hurting.”
The subpoena letter to Armstrong included a reference to one event in which an unnamed Cal Poly professor allegedly verbally harassed Jewish students on April 4, 2024 at a community Hillel and Mustangs United for Israel event. Adira Fogelman, a business sophomore at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo, did not want to be interviewed for this story but sent a statement to CalMatters recalling the event.
“[The professor] identified me as a Zionist and equated me to a member of the KKK,” Fogelman, who is Jewish, wrote to CalMatters, adding that the same professor – who she did not name – used profanity in reference to Israel and shoved a Palestinian flag in student’s faces. She reported the incident to the campus Civil Rights and Compliance Office. However, she said the process of reporting harassment is long and burdensome, which she believes discourages students from formally reporting incidents.
When asked for confirmation of this incident and whether the faculty member faced consequences, university spokesperson Lazier emailed this response: “Employee privacy concerns prevent the university from acknowledging or offering comment on specific pending personnel matters.”
Last year, universities including USC and UC San Diego had large pro-Palestinian encampments and protests that resulted in dozens of arrests. Both institutions have “C” scores from the Anti-Defamation League. UCLA had more than 200 arrests and received a “D.” Pro-Palestinian Cal Poly students and faculty protested the war in Gaza with demonstrations on campus that resulted in eight arrests last spring.
Pro-Palestinian students in California have also reported violence, harassment and intimidation. Notably, counterprotesters attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA in May 2024, resulting in injuries and national scrutiny about how the melee unfolded. Islamophobia has also affected college campuses since the Israel-Hamas war began in October 2023. One study out of The University of Chicago showed that within three months of the start of the war, 56% of Jewish college students and 52% of Muslim college students felt personally in danger.
Defining antisemitism complicates campus policies
Questioning Israel’s right to exist may be considered antisemitism under the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order federally defining antisemitism to include certain forms of anti-Zionist expression, aligning with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s examples of antisemitism. One example includes criticism that denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
Trump’s executive order says antisemitism may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, but does not cover discrimination based solely on religious belief. While the Department of Education has “interpreted Title VI to reach religious discrimination when it overlaps with race or national origin discrimination,” case law is sparse and inconsistent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Violating the Title VI anti-discrimination law can result in loss of federal funding or legal action, according to the Library of Congress.
But executive orders aren’t law, said Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education, at a journalism conference in May. “Executive orders bind federal agencies about what the president directs those federal agencies to do. They don’t create law.” When asked about Trump’s antisemitism executive order, she added that schools and colleges “have an opportunity to challenge that in court, and they are not bound by the administration’s interpretation.” Llamon was recently named executive director of the Edley Center on Law & Democracy at UC Berkeley Law.
David Cole, a Georgetown Law professor, spoke at the May 7 House committee hearing by invitation from the Democratic representatives. He said members of the committee throughout the hearings repeatedly conflate any criticism of Israel or Zionism as discrimination, both of which are constitutionally protected.
He told the committee antisemitism only violates Title VI in narrow circumstances: when the speech is targeting an individual’s Jewish identity and when the speech is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies equal access to an education.
“That’s a very high standard,” Cole said in the hearing. “It’s almost never been met in the case law.”
Even within non-profit organizations that combat antisemitism, Jewish scholars debate whether criticism of Israel is antisemitic. The Nexus Project holds that criticism of Israel should not be seen as necessarily antisemitic, while Stand With Us believes much of what is labeled “criticism of Israel” is actually rooted in antisemitism.
The Nexus Project’s campus guide for identifying antisemitism deems the term “intifada,” which means “shaking off” in Arabic, as not antisemitic on its face. The guide explains that the term has come to mean “resistance to oppression and especially Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation.” Further, if the term intifada is referring to the removal of all Jews in Israel, then it would be antisemitic.
UC Berkeley associate professor of history and Jewish studies Ethan Katz was on the task force that created the Nexus guide, and he says that slogans like “let the intifada spread” will disproportionately impact Jewish community members. Katz acknowledged the emotional impact such language can have on Jewish communities. At the same time, he expressed concern that some efforts to address antisemitism are being politicized.
“I am sure that there are people involved in holding these hearings who care about antisemitism on campus and are understandably enraged by things that they’ve seen happen over the last 18 months,” Katz said. However, he thinks that “the overarching motivation for many of these people is to use this as a way of attacking higher education. This means that they are using Jews as a kind of pawn to play a political game.”
The American Jewish Committee recently released a statement in support of the federal government investigating antisemitism on college campuses. Still, the committee warns that actions against campuses, like canceling research grants and shutting down academic freedom, have become too broad and could imperil innovation and detract from the fight against antisemitism.
During the May 7 congressional hearing, many of the Democratic representatives on the House committee questioned whether the federal administration could effectively address antisemitism and other forms of discrimination on campus if the Office of Civil Rights is closed. The office operates under the U.S. Department of Education, which Trump has called for dismantling. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said of the 12,000 current Office of Civil Rights complaints, only 144 relate to discrimination based on national origin involving religion, which includes antisemitism.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on May 22 from firing Department of Education employees, saying this is an act only Congress can do, and called for hiring back over 2,000 employees.
Universities navigate federal scrutiny
Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding for Harvard and other institutions due to their handling of campus activism and antisemitism. The Department of Education is investigating dozens of universities for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
Leaders from over 600 universities around the country have signed a joint statement from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences condemning “unprecedented government overreach and political interference,” including nine of 10 UC chancellors and 14 of 23 Cal State presidents. The UC system President Michael Drake signed, but the Cal State system Chancellor Mildred Garcia did not.
Armstrong declined to sign the statement because Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo has no role in determining public policy, according to Lazier, the university spokesperson. A letter signed by 284 faculty members urged Armstrong to publicly support Harvard and sign the statement.
UC Berkeley’s chancellor did sign the statement. When Richard Lyons testifies before the House committee, he will appear alongside top officials from Georgetown University and The City University of New York. Both UC Berkeley and the House committee denied CalMatters’ request for the letter sent to Lyons requesting his appearance and outlining key concerns.
In his statement to CalMatters, the committee chair Walberg noted only that the next hearing “will focus on the factors underlying antisemitic upheaval and hatred on campus. Until these factors—such as foreign funding and antisemitic student and faculty groups—are addressed, antisemitism will persist. Several of these factors have long been present at Berkeley, and Berkeley has failed to effectively respond.”
UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof sent a written response to CalMatters acknowledging the campus is dealing with antisemitism and needs to combat it. He wrote, “Chancellor Lyons looks forward to testifying before the committee to share how the campus has been investing, and continues to invest, in resources and programs designed to prevent and address antisemitism on the Berkeley campus.”
For the record: This story has been updated to add that the next hearing of the House Committee on Education and Workforce where UC Berkeley Chancellor Richard Lyons was expected to testify has been postponed from July 9. A new date has not been set.
Jennifer Burger and Mikhail Zinshteyn contributed to this story. Jeremy Garza is a fellow with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.
Originally Published:
