Students, faculty and advocacy groups tell U.S. Commission on Civil Rights campuses are failing Jewish students; witnesses debate definitions and due‑process

WASHINGTON — Students, faculty members and civil‑rights advocates told the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights on Feb. 20 that Jewish students face intimidation, harassment and institutional failures at colleges and universities, and the witnesses were sharply divided over how federal enforcement should respond.

At the Commission’s public‑comment listening session, which Chair Rochelle Garza opened as part of the agency’s investigation of antisemitism on campuses, witnesses described incidents ranging from swastikas and property vandalism to verbal assaults and exclusion from student‑government processes. "We do not display political messaging. The only visible association is our Jewish identity," said Jonas I, president of Alpha Epsilon Pi at the University of California, Santa Barbara, recounting multiple attacks on his fraternity house.

Advocacy organizations offered consolidated data and policy proposals. "ADL’s most recent audit recorded 9,354 antisemitic incidents across the United States, nearly 1,700 on college and university campuses," said Dan Grenot, ADL senior director of government relations and community engagement, who urged use of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism and stronger, consistent Title VI enforcement and campus training.

Many student witnesses and campus leaders described what they said were failures by university administrators to apply existing discipline or to protect students. "When antisemitism goes unrecognized, incidences go unreported and unaddressed," said Lisa Mockover Coats, vice dean and executive director at the Wurzweiler School of Social Work at Yeshiva University, who also noted that scheduling hearings on Fridays can exclude Sabbath‑observant participants.

Other witnesses emphasized limits on federal power and the need to preserve constitutional protections for speech and academic inquiry. Amanda Shaner, an associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said civil‑rights statutes and enforcement must adhere to constitutional and procedural constraints and warned that some agreement terms can "turn our universities into agreements that lock in the administration's contested legal interpretation" without lawful rulemaking. Tyler Coward, lead counsel for government affairs at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, urged the Commission to check whether federal agencies are following Title VI’s procedural safeguards and cautioned that vague speech‑focused definitions risk unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Several speakers urged adoption of the IHRA working definition to give campuses a common standard, and many called for more transparent reporting, better training for campus officials and enforceable settlement terms. Some contributors, including faculty and Jewish‑studies scholars, cautioned that overly broad or poorly drafted definitions could chill academic inquiry or be applied unevenly.

Witnesses also raised other concerns: student‑government votes scheduled on Jewish holy days that excluded voters, allegations that some faculty or campus organizations normalized or defended antisemitic rhetoric, and claims that certain unions or outside funding sources had influenced campus environments. Many speakers urged the Commission to recommend clearer reporting mechanisms, Title VI compliance coordinators on campuses and federal support for campus safety measures.

Commissioners did not engage in Q&A during the session; the Commission invited written testimony through March 20. Chair Rochelle Garza closed the session at 2:03 p.m. Eastern. The Commission will weigh the testimonies as part of its broader inquiry into how institutions and federal agencies respond to antisemitism on campuses.