On July 15, 2025, the Committee on Education and the Workforce of the U.S. House of Representatives (the “Committee”) held a hearing titled, “Antisemitism in Higher Education: Examining the Role of Faculty, Funding, and Ideology.” The hearing lasted approximately three hours and featured four witnesses: (1) Dr. Robert M. Groves, Interim President, Georgetown University; (2) Dr. Felix V. Matos Rodriguez, Chancellor, the City University of New York; (3) Dr. Rich Lyons, Chancellor, University of California, Berkeley; and (4) Mathew Nosanchuk, former Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations and Outreach, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education (Minority witness).

Below are the key takeaways from the hearing:

• Majority members focused on the alleged lack of consequences for students and faculty engaged in antisemitic conduct. Representatives raised specific instances of antisemitic conduct and expressed frustration when witnesses testified about investigations but not the resulting discipline. Majority members criticized universities for hiring and giving academic recognition to faculty who have allegedly espoused antisemitic viewpoints.

• Majority members criticized universities for an alleged lack of ideological diversity among faculty, arguing that the progressive bias on many campuses fosters antisemitism. Witnesses testified that their respective institutions do not base hiring decisions on ideology and stressed their commitment to promoting dialogue across differing viewpoints.

• Majority members asked witnesses about support for boycott, divest, and sanction (“BDS”) initiatives among faculty unions and whether their universities would resist demands to boycott and divest from Israel. Majority members also asked witnesses if they would make policy concessions to pro-Palestinian protesters, criticizing previous negotiations by universities to resolve encampments.

• Majority members, including Chairman Walberg, voiced concerns that foreign funding is influencing universities, particularly those with overseas campuses, tying such funding to influence on research priorities, faculty appointments, public statements, and events on campus.

• Majority members advocated for the DETERRENT Act, which would broaden institutions’ reporting obligations under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act. Majority members asked witnesses whether they “fully account” for, and are “fully transparent” with, foreign funds, and whether they would commit to being transparent with “every dollar of foreign spending.”

• Minority members emphasized the benefits of universities’ foreign partnerships, including in the Middle East. One of the witnesses highlighted the positive impact of the university’s presence in the region, especially in expanding educational opportunities for women.

• Minority members criticized the administration’s decision to defund the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and accused the Majority of exploiting the issue of antisemitism to target universities.

This publication is for general information purposes only. It is not intended to provide, nor is it to be used as, a substitute for legal advice. In some jurisdictions it may be considered attorney advertising.