Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Flick International Senate hearing room featuring empty chairs and gavel symbolizing authority

Senator Hawley Critiques Liberal Attorney During Senate Hearing on Campus Antisemitism

Senator Josh Hawley from Missouri strongly criticized Kenneth S. Stern, an attorney and director at the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, during a recent Senate committee hearing. The hearing focused on issues surrounding antisemitism on campus and arose from Stern’s comments made in an NPR interview. In his remarks, he claimed that the Trump administration’s decision to revoke federal grants to Columbia University has made Jewish students “less safe.”

Hawley asked Stern pointedly, “You stated just five or six days ago in an interview that the removal of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Hamas foreign national, is essentially a form of McCarthyism that jeopardizes the safety of Jewish students. How can you regard someone who has been accused of endorsing terrorist activities as a victim of oppression?”

Stern attempted to clarify that he acknowledges the need for the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to address relevant complaints and ensure proper procedures are followed. However, Hawley interrupted Stern, pressing him further on his stance towards investigations into Columbia University for antisemitism.

“Let me ensure this is on the record: Are you against investigating Columbia University and its handling of antisemitism claims?” Hawley repeated. Stern contested this interpretation but faced Hawley’s insistence.

Stern stated, “I am not opposed to those investigations, but they must be conducted properly.” Nevertheless, Hawley revisited Stern’s past statements, arguing that he had previously described such investigations as “weaponizing antisemitism,” which could ultimately make Jewish students feel less secure in educational environments.

The exchange took a more intense turn as Hawley referred to a comment made by Senator Edward Markey, a Democrat from Massachusetts. Markey suggested that authoritarian measures would not be the solution to antisemitism. Hawley deemed those comments as “insane,” expressing his disbelief over such a perspective.

“I heard his entire statement and found it utterly irrational. For me, the idea that we should be lenient towards someone who supports Hamas is absolutely ludicrous. To argue that such lenience ensures safety for Jewish students is simply not credible,” Hawley declared.

Amidst the hearing, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and recognized anti-Israel activist, has been under scrutiny for his immigration status. The Trump administration initiated visa revocation proceedings against Khalil, accusing him of omitting critical information on his green card application.

Specific allegations include Khalil’s failure to disclose his role as a political affairs officer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, which he held from June to November of 2023, in addition to an extended position at the British Embassy’s Syria office beyond 2022.

As a repercussion of Columbia University’s management during anti-Israel protests last year, the Trump administration withdrew $400 million in federal funding. Subsequently, Columbia announced that it would revise its student policies to align with the administration’s expectations.

In parallel, a group of Ivy League students, currently holding visas or green cards, have responded by filing lawsuits against the Trump administration for alleged First Amendment violations. These developments highlight an emerging legal battle over free speech and campus safety.

Hawley’s exchange with Stern illustrates the ongoing tensions regarding antisemitism and free speech on college campuses. As these issues continue to unfold, they are likely to generate significant discourse and scrutiny in educational circles and beyond.

This hearing and its contentious dialogue spotlight the complexities surrounding the intersection of campus policies, national security, and the protection of minority rights. Observers will be watching closely to see how this situation evolves, both within Columbia University and across other institutions facing similar challenges.