Spectacularly Televised: U.S. Congress Hearing on Campus Antisemitism Reveals Growing Interference in Educational Policy
A Guest Post by Joshua Synenko
For this edition of No More Abysses, No More Walls, my colleague at Trent University, Joshua Synenko, writes about the antisemitism hearings in the states, what it means for the academy both there and here in Canada, and how important it is to be critical of these media spectacles.
The House Education and Workforce Committee on “Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism,” held on December 5th, 2023, led two of the three participating university presidents to resign, namely Liz Magill (UPenn), and Claudine Gay (Harvard).
Framing the hearing as a media event is essential to understand both the debates that resulted and the implications overall, and most importantly, to separate fact from hype. Media events can be understood as involving any situation where communications play a significant role not simply to represent an occurrence in the “real world,” so much as to determine the outcome of such events, and ultimately to change the terms by which reality is evaluated and understood.
This definition aligns with the theoretical insights of Guy Debord in his 1967 book, Society of the Spectacle, in which he argued that “the spectacle is not a collection of images, but a social relation among people, mediated by images,” which implies that “spectacle” can be a vector of communications guiding material relationships. Media events further align with Jean Baudrillard’s concept of “simulation” as developed in Simulacra and Simulation from 1981, where he argues that, “it is no longer a question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is no longer real.”
As a media event, the U.S. Congress hearing on campus antisemitism bears more resemblances to the Army-McCarthy hearings or the trial of Adolf Eichmann – both spectacularly televised – than it does to any measured evaluation of antisemitism or its prevalence on university campuses. Despite suggestions to the contrary, the hearing contributes nothing to any factual account regarding the durability of First Amendment protections on the right to free speech, nor does it speak to the role of universities in upholding that right. Instead, the Congress hearing reveals an informing logic about how ideologically driven political actors have set their sights on neutralizing educational policies that supposedly protect “woke” university administrators.
As I argue below, a major problem with meting out the true implications of this hearing is that none of the actors – neither the Congress members nor the university administrators – have much integrity in their respective positions. Despite that, the impact of this hearing will be felt far beyond the halls of Congress, and providing a media analysis can introduce unique and important tools to combat its worst effects.
A show trial hearing
On the surface of it, the House Education and Workforce Committee hearing on campus antisemitism was attended by three university presidents and one professor of Jewish Studies – all women – who were subject to harsh criticism during an unbalanced (and at times, unhinged) 5-hour livestreamed spectacle.
U.S. Congress members, notably those on the Republican side, berated and attacked the witnesses. They implied that procedural decisions in faculty hiring are politically motivated. They questioned the merits of equity policy. They derided the pedagogical value of faculty across the universities that were represented at the hearing. They expressed doubt regarding the qualifications of the witnesses to do their jobs. And they threatened retaliation for policy decisions by withdrawing financial support to the broader public university system.
One notable feature of the hearing was its resemblance to the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, which were set up to investigate alleged Communist sympathies in the United States Army. In December’s hearing, Congress members interrogated the witnesses regarding their political affiliations and those they represent:
****
Mr. Grothman. Do you really feel that your faculty are ideologically diverse? You came out of what was it, a Political Science background at Stanford?
Ms. Gay. At Stanford as an undergraduate I was an Economics major, and then for my Ph.D. was a Ph.D. in Political Science.
Mr. Grothman. Political Science. That’s what I thought. Did you experience what you would say given America’s divided now 50/50 about 50/50 or was it 75/25 or 90/10 regarding a more Constitutional conservative perspective, or more of a left wing perspective? What is your experience both at Harvard and Stanford?
Ms. Gay. So here’s what I can say on the topic that you’re exploring. And it’s we want the most brilliant, talented faculty to come to Harvard, and to build their careers there. And then –
Mr. Grothman. Okay. They’re only giving me five – you’re not going to answer the question – they’re only giving me five minutes. Is it common at Harvard to ask faculty to submit a diversity statement?
Ms. Gay. That’s a practice that varies across schools at Harvard.
Mr. Grothman. So sometimes you do?
Ms. Gay. In some cases there are schools that ask for that.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Could a scientist ever get cut from consideration from a job because they had the wrong view of diversity?
Ms. Gay. What I would say is that we aim to draw to our faculty the broadest pool of talent.
Mr. Grothman. Okay, I’ll put it this way, when you hear that, and this is not the way I wanted this to go, but when you hear that 1 percent of your faculty voted for a Presidential candidate who got about 50 percent of the vote nationwide, does that concern you, or do you feel you’re not as diverse as you should be?
Ms. Gay. What I’m focused on is making sure that we’re bringing the most academically talented faculty to our campus, and that they are effective in the classroom.
Mr. Grothman. Okay. I’ll give you one more question because I want to go to the gal from Penn. Has Harvard ever made a faculty job contingent on a strong diversity statement?
****
Unsurprisingly, the Congress questioners focused their strongest ballast on the witnesses’ supposed acquiescence to “calls for genocide on campus” – cited as their most egregious of missteps by the mainstream press. Yet the questioner’s bias on this specific point is anchored both in a false and unspoken-for connection between advocating for genocide and legitimate campus antiwar protest.
By verbalizing this falsehood as a matter of fact, the Congress members’ suggestion that the university presidents are soft on calls for genocide on campuses, effectively vilifies the concerns raised by students over the unprecedented violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip by the State of Israel. In fact, this violence has reached a level of destruction so intense that South Africa has begun a legal process to identify the military campaign as genocidal.
Beyond exposing the reverberations of this military action through antiwar protest on U.S. campuses, the hearing provides a stage for Congress members to invert the very meaning of the word “genocide” in accordance with a narrow definition of the terms that describe Palestinian resistance:
****
Ms. Stefanik. Let me ask you this. You are President of Harvard, so I assume you're familiar with the term intifada, correct?
Ms. Gay. I've heard that term, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. And you understand that the use of the term intifada in the context of the Israeli Arab conflict is indeed a call for violent armed resistance against the State of Israel, including violence against civilians and the genocide of Jews. Are you aware of that?
Ms. Gay. That type of hateful speech is personally abhorrent to me.
Ms. Stefanik. And there have been multiple marches at Harvard with students chanting, “There is only one solution, an intifada revolution.” And “globalize the intifada.” Is that correct?
Ms. Gay. I've heard that thoughtless, reckless and hateful language on our campus, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. So based upon your testimony, you understand that this call for intifada is to commit genocide against the Jewish people in Israel and globally, correct?
****
Ms. Stefanik. Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's rules or code of conduct, yes, or no?
Ms. Magill. If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. I am asking specifically calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
Ms. Magill. If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
Ms. Stefanik. So the answer is yes?
Ms. Magill. It is a context-dependent decision, Congresswoman.
Ms. Stefanik. Calling for the genocide of Jews is dependent upon the context? That is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer, yes, Ms. Magill. So is your testimony that you will not answer yes.
Ms. Magill. If it -- if it is -- if the speech becomes --
Ms. Stefanik. Yes or no.
Ms. Magill. If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
Ms. Stefanik. This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I'm going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn's code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?
Ms. Magill. It can be harassment.
Ms. Stefanik. The answer is yes, and Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard's rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
Ms. Gay. It can be, depending on the context.
Ms. Stefanik. What's the context?
Ms. Gay. Targeted as an individual, targeted at an individual.
Ms. Stefanik. It's targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of antisemitism?
****
The responses from the witnesses have been widely criticized as disappointingly coached, calculated, and defensive, and no doubt encouraged by a team of legal consultants. But this, too, is symptomatic of a media event in which the witnesses have been assigned the role of perpetrators.
Despite the poor responses from the witnesses, the “context” that Gay and Magill appealed to in their answers on whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” is an actionable offence, is precisely the false and assumed link to antiwar protest as mentioned above. No matter how disappointing the witnesses’ responses, this fact was actively repressed by questioners at the hearing, while the compensatory lie was frequently underlined for dramatic effect.
The questioner’s weaponization of language not only resulted in a moral panic surrounding the two presidents’ appeal to “context,” but it also cast suspicion on the university budgets that they manage. Notably, throughout the hearing, the witnesses were asked to disclose financial details about the university and were questioned on various accounting practices in relation to faculty hiring and the setting of curriculum.
As a case in point, commentators on the hearing have attributed the moral rot of condoning genocide to a “woke” agenda that many see as responsible for elevating these female and non-white individuals through the ranks of academia’s higher admin to begin with. Other participants in the equity-and-free-speech culture wars, including Bill Ackman, have directly attacked Claudine Gay on the assumed connection between wokeism and antisemitism.
Congress members at the hearing joined the chorus against wokeism as the net result of their aggressive line of questioning was a generalized complaint regarding the politicization of merit. By cynically attributing such merit to the witnesses, questioners provided themselves with sufficient cause to demand that all public educators be accountable to partisan financial audit. In other words, the hearing facilitated the lie about condoning calls for genocide to become a salve for Congress’ interference in higher education pursuant to the defunding of progressive institutions.
In the aftermath of the hearing
Weeks after the hearing, an anonymous source disclosed plagiarism violations in Claudine Gay’s published work. These charges provide compelling examples of misconduct that any student in my university would be expelled for. But the fact that Gay’s academic record was scrutinized in a way to inflict maximum damage after the hearings should not go unnoticed.
While ignoring Gay’s academic record may reveal problems in the university system as it concerns the ivy leagues in particular, it should also be acknowledged that powerful forces deliberately exposed her infractions to advance a political goal. I argue that this strategy hinged on instrumentalizing the hearing’s media effects – its construction of reality and how we evaluate facts about the world – to control the fates of the witnesses.
In reflecting on the outcomes of this story, it's important to be specific about who Gay is and what she represents. Indeed, she may be a totally unscrupulous and self-interested academic who was elevated in her field of research by a raft of plagiarized work. She may be the beneficiary of an equity program that has failed in its rush to solve deep structural problems by advancing a problematic initiative to install “black faces in high places,” to quote Ruha Benjamin. However, despite these aspects of Gay’s professional life and the conditions that guided her success, she is not a proponent of the genocide of Jews. She is not an apologist for terrorism. And her very existence doesn’t prove that “wokeism” perpetuates antisemitic violence. If anything, she has been just as bad for Palestinian resistance as she has for the reputation of Harvard.
Lessons from the past
There are historical precedents for the brand of manipulation at play in this story. The Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954 is one such precedent. Another is the trial of the Nazi operative Adolf Eichmann in 1961. Held in Jerusalem, the televised broadcast of Eichmann’s trial became a pivotal moment for the State of Israel. The trial is historically significant because it symbolized the legitimacy of the burgeoning state by underscoring its commitment to the rule of law. Furthermore, the magnitude of testimony evidence that was allowed in the courtroom has led researchers like Annette Wieviorka to observe the trial’s role in facilitating an “era of the witness,” which resulted in a growing public audience for the first-hand experience of Holocaust survivors.
The political philosopher Hannah Arendt drew criticism for her analysis of the trial by questioning the portrayal of Eichmann as an embodiment of all Nazi crimes, and specifically for vilifying the individual despite the “banality of evil” represented by his specific role in executing the genocide.
For Arendt, Eichmann’s televised show trial resulted in an emotional display of disgust and anger for the genocidal crimes of the Nazis, but it did not impart any historical accuracy regarding the degree that Eichmann himself was accountable. Eventually, the trial’s legal merits were ignored to advance a set of political goals.
Liz Magill and Claudine Gay may reveal problematic trends in university education – a banality, as it were. But unlike Eichmann, they are not apologists for genocide. If anything, they become a pawn to advance a bigger culture war which is focused on accelerating the power and privilege of an ideologically motivated few. The facts of the case become far less important when observed from this broader perspective. Campus antisemitism is simply not the driving issue.
Consider, for example, that Neri Oxman, the wife of Bill Ackman who has been leading the charge against Gay’s tenure at Harvard, has also been accused of plagiarism. Though unconscionable by its own example, this instance of plagiarism is significant as a counterattack by an equally well-resourced opponent in the culture war. Like genocide, plagiarism is not the subject of main concern here.
Conclusion
On December 14th 2023, it was reported that Canadian Members of Parliament drafted a letter to 25 university presidents to express concern about antisemitism on campuses. It’s clear that the political interference demonstrated a week earlier by members of the U.S. Congress at the hearing on campus antisemitism sets a worrying precedent for educators around the world. This interference not only concerns a matter of education, but also the culture of university campuses and student protest in general. The prospect that funding public institutions of higher learning could be dependent on the political directions explored in seminar rooms and lecture halls is a chilling one indeed.
The clandestine attack on those who criticize the war of aggression against Palestinians appears to align with a deeper mission to defund progressive educators. Standing up with administrative leaders who are fatally flawed for different reasons is not the answer to this problem. Whatever that may be, a media analysis is needed to determine the implications of the hearing and the steps that can be taken going forward.
Joshua Synenko is an Assistant Professor in the Cultural Studies Department, and Coordinator of the Media Studies Program at Trent University (Canada). He is Co-Editor of Media Theory Journal, and between 2019-21 he served as President of the Canadian Comparative Literature Association (CCLA). Synenko works in the nebulous region between media and geography where he explores relationships between cities and tech, locative arts and visual culture, and experimental technologies for social engagement. He has developed a studio-based pedagogy to complement this work with a bridge to collaborative and process-oriented spaces.
 | A guest post by
|