Over it weekend. Top of the morning and i thank you, mr. Chairman. Welcome. All nine witnesses. All time hearing. And the distinguished gentleman from wisconsin. Let me just say briefly that before discussing the important topic of the days hearing, i want to raise another issue that we must unfortunately confront with urgency. On sunday, a gunman shot and killed 26 church goers in southern springs, texas. We now know that information concerning his Court Marshal for Domestic Abuse should have been submitted by the air force to the National Instant criminal background check system and should have been prevented from purchasing firearms from licensed gun dealers via the brady background check system. Yesterday before this information came to light, i wrote to you, mr. Chairman, requesting that the briefing planned for our members tomorrow afternoon by atf on the issue of bump stocks. Be expanded through the fbi to discuss the background check issues. Related to southern springs. And in that briefing be conducted as a formal hearing open to the public. Now tat we have even more information that theres been a break down in the implementation of our background system, i ask that we include relevant officials from the department of defense in the air force. And i believe as i think you do too that we should proceed quickly to learn what happened and tdirectly. Therefore, i renew my request and expand it concerning tomorrows briefing and i thank you for this opportunity. I share his concern about having an effective system. And that data about Domestic Violence go into that system, including data that may be developed as part of our military tribunal system. Therefore, we will look into a breaching on that subject, whether it can be accommodated quickly to be done tomorrow or not, well have to see. But my plan is to proceed with the briefing by the atf. If we cant incorporate the other if to that briefing, well do that another time and do it under advisory. I think its as important to be as informed as possible. I was the one who was insistent on putting the brady bill if had to system in 1993. And at the time the legislation was drafted, i made the point that the National Instant check system would only be as good as the data put if to it and it took about five years to aproep retly automate and input records not only for felony and convictions, mental inhad comp tense ajudeications as well as Domestic Violence legal action. And we found that one state kept all of these records in boxes of three by five cards located in every county court house. Tat took a while to finally automate them. So i dont think we can blame the law for the failure of these the transaction of the shooter to be identified. And i dont think we can blame the system which we set up almost 25 years ago because it system has worked in hundreds of thousands and what was necessary to let the system be able to identify this gentleman with he came and purchased the firearm and he used in a horrific killing particularly as people were in church. Why this failure was and its not just the it air force. It could be any clerk of court. Anywhere in the country that could have done that. And its been ajudsicated by te court, get it into the system and get it in it system right away. I thank the gentleman and i thank both for their observations. I want to return to focus on it important matter thats before us today. But we will proceed with the briefing tomorrow and we will add Additional Information or a separate briefing depending on what time allows. Thank you. I now recognize myself for the purpose of an opening statement. Racism, sexism and antisemitism among other forms of anmous are abhorrent whenever they appear, inhadcluding on Americas College kafcampuses. While our civil rights laws have long doctor addressed this. The there questions about antisemitism is addressed. This will examine that question and others. Antisemitism does not reflect core religious values of equality and freedom. Im also concerned about the sof called bds movement that seeks to End International support for israel. It took just 11 minutes for the United States to recognize israel after it formally declared independence and ever since then the United States and israel have had a strong relationship based on Common Security interests and economic vallaus. There are those who disagree in various ways of course, including student faculty and administrators on College Campuses. I will also do everything i can to insure their right to speak is protected under free speech principals generally. Its in that spirit of welcoming are perspectives that ive convened this hearing today. When do speakers, scholarership or student protesters harshly critical of israel constitute antisemitism . Has the department of education in the past or today adequately examined allegations of antisemitism on College Campuses. How does existing law address harassment based on antisemitism. What impact would some other approaches have on freedom of speech, student relations and what precedence would they set, good or bad . Those are some of the questions i look forward to discussing with todays witnesses. Its now my pleasure to recognize the gentleman from michigan from his opening statement. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I welcome the witnesses. And i wanted to mention that todays hearing on examining antisemitism on College Campuses is a part of a continuing discussion that our Judiciary Committee has had on the confluence of our twin interests. Protecting equality of opportunity and freedom of speech in inhad stugz stitutionr education. Our particular focus is on antisemitism. One of the most ancient forms of prejudice that unfortunately not only continues to exist but in some places has even seen anan. As we hear from our distinguished panel of witnesses id like to keep several points in mind for context. To begin with antisemitism on college and University Campuses like other forms of inviddious discrimination remain as very real concern. According to the Antidefamation League as of september 30th, antisemitic incidents decreased by 67 in 2017 compared to the same period last year. And theres a significant surge in these incidents after White Supremacists marched in charlottesvil charlottesville, virginia, last august. During which some of those marchers shouted quote jews will not replace us end quotation. Additionally the league reported a disturbingly high number of antisemitic bullying and vandalism incidents in k through 12 schools and College Campuses across the United States. In recent years other reported incidents included the vandalism of Campus Property with swastikas and the it passing out or posting of leaflets with White Supremacists and antisemitic content on campuses. In light of the four going, i whole heartedly support the department of educations guidance interpreting title six of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So as to protect jewish students and other religious minorities from discrimination. This guidance rightly clarified that while titles six, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or National Origin in programs that receive federal funding, does not include religion as a protected characteristic. It does prohibit discrimination against members of religious minorities. If it is based on an actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnicity. Although this guidance dates from the obama administration, the Trump Administration so far seems inclined not to change this interpretation. I would encourage the Current Administration to continue to keep it in effect. Finally, while we must insure a campus learning inhad environment free from discrimination, we must also be careful not to stifle legitimate had, if hard edged and even offensive political debate on controversial topics. It vigilant protection of the right to free speech is a fundamental hallmark of a demarkeracy and of Academic Freedom. Indeed other than in the context of speech that amounts to objectively severe or pervasive harassment and in few other limited circumstances, the remedy for bad speech is more speech. Equality and free speech are not and must not be pitted against each otherer as if they were opposing values. Both values are social to our democracy and to insuring a free society. In closing, i thank the chairman for this holding this important hearing and i look forward to the testimony of our esteemed witnesses. Thank you, mr. Coniers. We welcome our distinguished witnesses and ill begin by swearing all of you in. Please raise right your hand. You solemnly swear the testimony shall be the truth, the whole truth. And so help you god. This is a wonderfully disti distinguished panel, you might not be surprised to learn that because there are nine of you, im not going to give all of those details about each of you. Theyre on the brief side but theyre nonetheless important. Our firsz witness is rabbi andrew baker. Director of International Jewish affairs at it American Jewish committee. Our second witness is pamela nidel. Director of Jewish Studies Program at American University. Our third witness is rabbi abraham cooper, associate dean and director of the global soels social action agenda. Our third witness is michael r. And deborah k. Reuben, president ial chair at wake forest university. Our fifth witness is a partner at kirkland and ellis llp and sandra haguey partner, chairwoman of the christians for israel united fund. And National Director of the Antidefamation League, our eighth witness is the executive director penn america and Rosenberg Foundation. Your written statements will be iftered in their entirety and we ask that you sums are your testimony within five minutes. Theres a timing light on your table. When 2 t switches from green to yellow and rabbi baker, welcome. You can begin. Thank you, for had chairman. In my work at a. J. C. And at the osce i have focussed on europe and the problem of antisemitism there. While the number of incidents and their severity are much greater than here in amaircu, there are important parallels on addressing antisemitism in this country. This has much to do with the essential first step of fdsing the nature of antisemitism and the importance of defining it. 15 years ago we saw a surge in incidents. We also saw a new form of antisemitism, whereby the state of israel was demonides, where its existence was being challenged. This effected the lives of jews themselves. Subject to verbal and physical attacks as a result. Merely giving voice to their own proisrael views could subject them to personal harassment. In 2004, the European Monitoring Center conducted its own survey conducting and evaluating data and conducting personal interviews with jewish leaders. At the time few countries bothered to identify hate crimes, let alone those that were antisemitic. The own monitors did not even have a definition to guide them. Meanwhile the personal interviews in the study revealed the level of anxiety and uncertainty that had not been seen in decades. They acknowledged the need for a uniform definition to strengthen the work of its monitors and to make sense of the pessimistic predictions of the jewish leaders surveyed. In the falloff 2004, the director inhadvited me to present her with a definition of antisemitism. We began with academic experts in the field. They were shared with others in the world until a final draft document achieved consensus. It wuz my responsibility to negotiate agreement on a final version of the e, oc. So in march of 2005 it issued what as come to be known as the working definition of antisemitism. A core paragraph with examples. And let us also be clear the purpose of this definition was not just to assist monitors in filing reports, it was to make a difference in the day to day safety and security. Of all europeans. Raise awareness. The most important and most controversial in this definition. Antiisrael was behind many of the physical attacks even as they frequently dismissed them as political acts. They had their own corrosive impact on security. The take into acount the overall context and that criticism of israel cannot be regarded as antisimettic issue and you can see why using it has become valuable. Demonstrations in some european cities became antisemitic. Police need to be prepared for this. So the definition is part of police cudet training in the uk and its now included in a newly published guideline on u. S. Security. An arson attack on the synagogue in germany was determined not to be antisimettic because of the affiliation of the attacker. An offer to call kill jews was deemed not antisemitic for it same reason. Thus they include the definition in Training Police and prosecutors and judges. In may 2016 ira, the international Ha InternationalHolocaust Remembrance Alliance adopted this. It has since been adopted by germany, bulgaria and introduced for use in the European Parliament and the parliamentary assembly. The yoours government has its own record of use. The antisemitism act of 2004 called on the state department to call a special envoy and said it has at times taken the form of villification of ziennism, and called on state to report on acts of antisemitism around the world. In tat report and a subsequent one, the working definition was employed. Im an advocate for using it, if were to be successful in combatting antisemitism, we must define it. Some said it would be used to stifle criticism of israel. But theres ample evidence that public criticism is more vocal than a decade ago. And a recognition of the very real problem relates to israel j the dangers it poses to the Jewish Community. This ought to be instructive when addressing antisemitism as it appears on College Campuses. Finally im often joined by colleagues whose mandates cover other forms of intallgence against muslims, romas, christians. Some said adopting a definition would lead to demands of other definitions. But that has not happened. Those problems are no less serious than antisemitism and the need for governments to address them is every bit as critic critical. If you can sum up in a sentence. My last sentence, even though representatives of vulnerable groups are not saying they need a definition, unlike antisemitism, theyre easy to recognize and sadder still that theyre so prevalent. Dr. Adel. Am had i pronouncing that correctly . Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Ranking member and distinguished members of this committee for ifviting me today. As a scholar of American Jewish history and as president of the association for jewish studies, the Learned Society for scholars in my field, i know that our countrys encounters with antisemitism began in 1654 when 23 jews landsed in New Amsterdam and its governor tried to expel what he called this deceitful race of hateful enemies and blas foreign ministerers. Perhaps we would not be there this morning but he failed and since then jewish immigrants have come from around the world and called our nation home. As citizens american jas if joyed the same right and ask others to voice their content for the jewish people and religion. A malevolent ideology has waxed and waned across the landscape of american history. The political moment, economic dislocations, social forces, the movies in their hay day and social media in ours set its volume control. We are, by all accounts, sadly of one of those moments where the volume on antisemitism in American Life is turned way up. When violent protesters chant jews will not replace us, American Jews are rightly fearful. The hard evidence is indisputable. But today pfsz hearing is about the climate of antisemitism on campus and it was triggered by those that have pointed to our colleges and universities and antiisrael bias. Our campuses really hot beds of antisemitism or are they places where jews, one minority among many meet from time to time stupidity and sensitivity and prejudice. Is it so pervasive on the campus that its created a hostile climate for jas. And nearly three quarters confess. And theyre exposed to one of the statements of the past year. They do not characterize their campuses as antisemitic. Instead they report they feel safe. When had ta do experience discomfort, they trace it to the stridency of both sides of the israel palestinian debate. While it can devolve, such political speech is not if so facto antiantisemitic. Students say antisemitic expression comes mostly from their peers, not from professors or the administration. One study recognizes we have quote more noise than Accurate Information about what is really happening on campus around antisemitism. Students surveyed are smart. They recognize its a significant problem in American Society but they dont characterize their campuses as antisemitic. It confirms what i hear from my association for jewish studies colleag colleagues. Teaching around the country. Unquestionably death to israel and all jews posted on a organizations facebook page. But deplorable in