We have some
new developments to bring you right now.
The University of Pennsylvania's
board of trustees
has just wrapped up an emergency meeting
as school president
Liz McGill
faces
scathing criticism over her testimony
at Tuesday's
congressional hearing
about anti-Semitism
at the Ivy League School.
The presidents of Harvard
and MIT
are also under fire
for their statements at that hearing.
CNN's Matt Egan joins
us now with the details.
So, Matt,
what are you hearing about
this emergency meeting
with the Penn trustees?
Well, here's what we know, Boris.
This was a virtual gathering
of the school's
powerful board of trustees.
And while it wasn't a formal meeting,
we do know it came together
rather hastily.
A university spokesperson
telling me
that this virtual gathering was organized
around 2 p.m.
yesterday, and that timing is key
because that's just a few hours
after the governor
of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro,
condemned Penn
President Liz McGill's
testimony on Capitol Hill.
And he actually called
for the board of trustees to meet
and decide
whether or not that testimony
lives up to the school's values.
Now, we don't know whether or not
the fate of Liz McGill
was the central focus
of this virtual gathering,
but you got to believe
this was the elephant in the room,
this hearing.
And that testimony came under enormous
scrutiny.
In particular,
there was an exchange
between Liz McGough
and Republican Congresswoman
Elise Stefanik. Listen to that exchange.
I am asking
specifically calling
for the genocide of Jews.
Does that constitute
bullying, harassment?
If it is directed
and severe or pervasive,
it is harassment.
So the answer is yes.
It is a context dependent decision
Now, those answers
faced intense scrutiny.
We heard from billionaire Bill
Ackman calling on the Penn president,
as well as the presidents of Harvard
and MIT to step down.
The CEO of Pfizer slammed it, calling it
one of the most disgraceful moments
in the history of U.S. academia.
Even the White House had to weigh in,
making it clear that there's no place
for calls for genocide.
Boris, it's
clear that University
of Pennsylvania faces a moment of crisis.
It's not clear yet.
Whether or not Liz
McGill will help lead
the university's response to this crisis.
So how is she personally responding
to this criticism now?
Well, after the hearing of
the University of Pennsylvania's
president lost
because she did go on
and try to clean up her response.
She clarified that the university does
need to make some changes
to their policies.
Listen to what Liz McGill said
on Twitter yesterday.
In that moment, I was focused
on our university's longstanding policies
aligned with the U.S.
Constitution,
which say
that speech alone is not punishable.
I was not focused on,
but I should have been
the irrefutable fact
that a call for genocide of Jewish people
is a call
for some of the most terrible violence
human beings can perpetrate.
I want to be clear.
A call
for genocide of Jewish
people is threatening deeply so
now.
That response was not enough to silence
some of the university's biggest critics.
Jonathan Greenblatt,
the CEO of the ADL,
he was speaking to our colleague Kate
Baldwin earlier, and he said that
that Liz McGill response
looked like a hostage video.
And he said that he has lost confidence
in her ability to lead.
Charlie Dent. What's going on here?
Well, many
people in this
country don't feel that our universities
permit much ideological diversity.
There's a rush to conformity.
A lot of folks
don't feel comfortable and welcome.
And I thought what happened, that hearing
yesterday was really very bad
for these universities.
I mean, how hard is it to condemn
genocide unequivocally
without qualification?
You know, it wasn't about context.
Had somebody been advocating
for the lynching of African-Americans,
I suspect
there would be no context discussed.
They would
they would absolutely talk about
condemning that forcefully,
as they should.
But with anti-Semitism,
it seems there was a little bit
of an equivocation there.
And it's
costing these universities money
at the University of Pennsylvania
The Huntsman Foundation has pulled back.
Marc Rowan has pulled back.
And also here,
some context, just several blocks
from the University of Pennsylvania.
Falafel shop owner was protested
for being a Jewish Israeli.
I mean, I don't know what he has to do
with the conflict in Gaza,
but people stand outside his store
screaming about.
And so there's a lot of sensitivity
in the city of Philadelphia right now.
Ashleigh, how do you see this?
And your response?
Yeah,
no, I mean, I'd love you, Congressman,
but I just I'm not for sort of comparing
if they were black,
then this let's just stay focused
very much on the offense
towards Jewish students.
I think we should just stay there
and hold
the universities accountable
for their inaction on that.
Particular issue
and not bring any other sort
of racial group into the conversation.
But here's the other thing.
I was recently talking
to the White House about this,
and this is obviously public knowledge,
but they're hyper focused on this.
They filed seven.
The Department of Education has filed
seven lawsuits
against these universities
for discrimination.
The universities that testified
yesterday are among them.
So they're not letting
go of this particular issue
as they shouldn't.
So that's just sort of my reaction.
I think, you know, regrettably,
the university presidents
didn't have a more fulsome,
affirming answer that I think would
satisfy the students.
And I think that's regrettable.
And maybe that means they need
to readjust,
go back to the drawing board
on the policies,
and we need to give them the space
to actually do that.
And I hope that they actually will
But but,
you know, the administration
and the president said
they're going to keep
their eye on this ball
and they're being very aggressive
about going after these universities
for not protecting Jewish students.
So the question here seems to be
an Athena got at this in her reporting.
At what point does speech
actually amount to action
right to speaking
mean that you are harassing
or bullying someone? Right.
And that's
what would be against
the university's code of conduct. Right.
They seem to come down on the side
of defending
free speech at the expense of,
you know,
defending free speech
as opposed to saying
they were trying to argue this is speech,
this is not action.
I think
for a lot of kind of casual observers,
we spent a lot of time
looking at college campuses
where they talk a lot
about micro-aggressions.
There have been a lot of concern.
Groups have risen up
and said conservatives
speakers cannot come here and talk
because it amounts to harm
to our community.
How are these two things the same?
I mean, how can they say
we don't want a conservative
speaker on campus
because it will harm our communities?
And also, it's
not bullying
and harassment
for people on our campus
to call for the genocide of Jews.
I mean, I don't understand it.
No, I agree with you.
I don't
I don't think they clearly understand.
I think you're also going to have to go
to the drawing board
and talk about
what actually constitutes speech.
Right.
If I put a noose on your door,
does that constitute speech?
I mean, certainly. No. Right.
I mean I mean. But why?
I mean,
I think that's something
they're going to have to evaluate
to determine.
But they have to be able
to determine the difference
between hate speech
and legitimate First Amendment issues.
I mean,
when when they're
talking about genocide or lynching,
that's hate speech.
When it's about a group
it's about a set of people
because of what they look like
with their characteristics. Correct.
But it's true, though,
that did you just point out, Casey,
there are people who are right of center
who are shouted down
and they are bullied and harassed.
Their views are not welcome.
And these universities, you know,
have to be able to be much more tolerant.
I always said
of this ideological diversity
with on their campus within norms.
And we don't want hate speech
from the left or from the right.
And what is so hard about this?
To call out the hate speech,
but then permit divergent views
on other issues
So, Margaret, I know you are
you know, you work now
in part of university.
And this is a really fraught
and difficult topic.
I mean,
how do you see these conversations?
How do you take some of this
in from the students
that you interact with daily?
I want to answer this in two parts.
Small group of my students shortly after
Hamas attacks on Israel,
we were talking about
how they were feeling and processing it.
They felt a number of things.
Obviously, they were
completely against
killing of innocent civilians.
They you know,
but they also were really struggling
with feeling
the pressure that they were supposed
to make a statement
like on Instagram
or TikTok
or something that they were supposed to
take some kind of a side
that was crystal clear.
And they were worried about
saying the wrong thing, inadvertently
being judged.
Their friend groups splitting
how to straddle
all of these things
and how to contextualize
what they were feeling
against centuries of history
that they don't completely understand.
I think university leaders,
there is a higher expectation
that they would make
some kind of a statement.
But I think in some way,
what those students are
feeling is kind of a trickle down
from watching everybody make a statement.
And this expectation
that when our society
that there is a statement,
that is the right statement,
that is the perfect statement
and that anything else is
the wrong statement.
I am not speaking for
either of the two universities
where I teach right now,
but I will say
I don't believe that any of this
university leadership,
any of these folks are anti-Semitic.
I believe they are striving to figure out
how to balance interests,
including the interests
of academic freedom.
And I believe
that they are all going to be now
and going forward,
taking a lot of instruction
in crisis communication
because part of the challenge
when you are under fire in Congress
is messaging,
and it's
almost when you become a university
president has not traditionally been
that you're
as great as Nikki Haley
as as pushing back attacks
and answering the question
the way you intended to.
I think that I think
this is really complicated stuff
and obviously genocide is not okay.
And universities,
I guess, need to make that clear now.
That's not okay.
But if you are a university,
you there is a difference
between the physical safety
of your students
and being able
to have difficult conversations
of any kind in any classroom.
I think they're trying
to preserve their space to do that
and not be driven by
news events or politics of the moment.
They need to be more clear
in their language
to avoid problems like this
and to assure every student,
no matter their religion
or ethnic background, that they are safe
on campus.