Like many who watched the proceedings live or virally afterwards, I was riveted by the evasions of three elite university presidents trying hard not to answer the direct question posed to them during a December 5 Congressional committee hearing – namely, whether calling for the genocide of Jews violates their institution’ code of conduct regarding bullying or harassment.
At the most strained standoff point in these proceedings, New York Rep. Elise Stefanik repeatedly offered University of Pennsylvania president, Liz Magill, the opportunity to answer with a simple, sensible affirmative to that not-so-hypothetical example of campus hate speech, only to elicit the on-record response of: “It’s a context-dependent decision.” It was a refrain that was echoed by her peers from Harvard and MIT when asked the same question.
This was reportedly viewed in disbelief millions of times over social media.
THE INABILITY to acknowledge the threat posed to Jewish students by those in their own quads comparing Zionists to Nazis, holding Apartheid Week protests, and shouting for global intifada, exposed the double-standard charade by which some universities promote safe spaces and prevent intimidation.
No doubt that disconnect is what led to Ms. Magill’s resignation from Penn this past weekend following weeks of growing discontent among donors, alumni, faculty, and even Joel Shapiro, Pennsylvania’s governor, himself a board member of the Ivy League school.
Even though I was stunned by the presidents’ tone-deaf statements, which attempted to frame antisemitism in an intellectual gray zone, I wasn’t surprised by their bob-and-weave replies.
Why did university presidents refuse to answer direct questions?
In my own media relations practices, I’ve prepared numerous clients ahead of aggressive grilling by the press, employees, customers, investors, and other stakeholders – a process so common we have an office template document labeled “Hardball Questions” for this purpose. While trying to formulate reasonable replies to uncomfortable lines of inquiry, we usually advise those in the hot seat to stick to the playbook and not improvise, which can either produce “gotcha” moments, or force those speaking into open water, whereby they are unable to get back to safety. Best to stay on script – and yet, it’s always best to listen closely to those asking the questions in case you need to take a stand and hold your ground.
As it happens, several of the college presidents – including Ms. Magill – were prepped by law firm WilmerHale, which boasts a leading practice in Congressional investigations, counseling blue-chip companies and CEOs in tense, high-profile government probes. Presumably, the WilmerHale team cautioned educational institutions’ officials against succumbing to prosecutorial, deposition-style questions that would commit them to a specific position, especially one requiring a “yes” or “no” answer.
AS HARVARD PRESIDENT Claudine Gay later told the Harvard Crimson regarding her charged interaction with Rep. Stefanik, “I got caught up in what had become, at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures.”
Ironically, the WilmerHale lawyers may have forgotten the example of their legendary late partner Joseph Welch, who, during a televised Senate hearing in 1954, famously called out Joe McCarthy for his vicious Communist-baiting accusations, declaring: “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”
Welch knew when protected speech had broken from the norms of civil discourse into thuggery that could be used to ruin lives and induce violence. It’s unfortunate that those heading some of our country’s most prestigious universities couldn’t unequivocally hear the indecency of voices in their midst who openly applauded the annihilation of the State of Israel, or berated their Jewish classmates for seemingly enabling genocide in Gaza.
In defending Ms. Magill, who he assured “is not the slightest bit antisemitic,” Scott Bok, chairman of Penn’s board of trustees, (who followed his colleague in stepping down from his position), tried to contextualize her remarks to Congress.
“Over prepared and over lawyered given the hostile forum and high stakes,” he harrumphed, “she provided a legalistic answer to a moral question, which was wrong.”
It turns out that even the best-written playbook can fumble a question of moral principle for which the only answer is “yes.”
The sad – and revealing – takeaway from the presidents’ lawyerly December 5 testimony is that they probably do support relative norms for policing campus speech and behavior, which is why their schools have been so quick to safeguard certain groups of perceived victims, while slow to do the same for politically unfashionable individuals such as Jews, but also conservative and other non-progressive professors and invited speakers, sitting judges included.
It’s also why it took a woodshed beating on Capitol Hill – along with the fear of losing millions in donors’ aid as well as their jobs – that compelled Magill and Gay to deliver more forceful post-hearing statements condemning antisemitism tethered to pro-Palestinian tropes and slogans. Let’s hope that as a new class of leaders emerges at Penn and likely other beacons of higher education, they’ll introduce a fresh script aligned to a genuinely inclusive and tolerant belief system.
Mr. Ripp runs a press relations firm in New York.