House Republicans largely failed to land damaging blows on Wednesday as they questioned public school leaders from three politically liberal parts of the country, accusing them of “turning a blind eye” to an alarming rise in antisemitism in classrooms since the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel.
In contrast to similar Congressional hearings for university leaders, which prompted upheaval at several colleges in recent months, the leaders of elementary and secondary school districts from New York City, Berkeley, Calif., and Montgomery County, Md., mostly managed to hold their ground. In some cases, they turned the charges of failing to confront antisemitism back on their Republican questioners.
The school leaders fielded rapid-fire questions from Republican members of a House education subcommittee on a broad range of accusations made by some Jewish students, parents, educators and advocacy groups. Those groups have filed complaints to the U.S. Department of Education, saying that the districts violated federal civil rights laws by allowing a hostile climate for Jewish students.
The leaders said that both students and faculty members who engaged in overt antisemitic acts had been disciplined. They also disputed some of the allegations, saying that subsequent investigations had not borne out the initial incendiary reports.
Here are four takeaways from the hearing.
Republicans failed to land the same heavy blows they did against university presidents.
The congressional inquiry into primary and secondary schools followed two contentious hearings on antisemitism in higher education.
At a hearing in December, the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology fell into the trap of relying on lawyerly answers rather than appealing to common sense.
Then last month, Columbia University leaders took a different approach, promising a crackdown. That helped stir further protests and eventually led to arrests on the school’s Manhattan campus, prompting a surge of pro-Palestinian activism across the country.
The public school leaders seemed to fare better on Wednesday than the university presidents, assuming a calm and unapologetic posture and at times pushing back against tough questions from Republican committee members.
They repeatedly stressed their dedication to the students in their districts. “We recognize the need to teach students to express themselves with respect and compassion,” said Enikia Ford Morthel, superintendent of the Berkeley schools, adding that the district passed a policy against hate speech last year.
Public school leaders seemed practiced in dealing with tough questions.
The three districts all serve diverse student bodies with a significant number of Jewish students. In all three, the school district leaders have had to respond to highly fractious debates over what kind of behavior and language veers into antisemitism.
They have also been through the crucible of the Covid pandemic, navigating the closing of schools and mask mandates.
At the hearing on Wednesday, that experience appeared to pay off.
David Banks, chancellor of the New York City schools, the nation’s largest district, in particular made it clear that he would not be cowed by tough questioning. “It is my responsibility to go before Congress to face this critical, complicated and highly charged issue head on,” he said in a Tuesday opinion column in The New York Post.
The three districts serve many students of color, as well as members of various faiths. In their testimonies, the leaders spoke to the necessity of protecting all of their students from discrimination.
“I stand up not only against antisemitism,” Mr. Banks said. “I stand up against Islamophobia and all other forms of hate. You can’t put them in silos.”
Mr. Banks pushed back especially hard, defending his actions and his city.
Mr. Banks responded forcefully at times to pointed questions from Republican lawmakers, including Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, who had tripped up university presidents at the December hearing on antisemitism.
He said that some of Ms. Stefanik’s accusations about antisemitic chanting at a Brooklyn high school had not been substantiated by an investigation.
At one point, Mr. Banks turned the tables on the politicians by blaming Congress for not doing enough to fight antisemitism.
The hearing, he said, felt like “the ultimate gotcha moment.” He added that the antidote to antisemitism is education.
“You have to raise the consciousness of young people,” he said.
Discipline of students and faculty was a major point of contention.
Republican representatives asked repeatedly about the kinds of disciplinary action that would be taken in response to acts of antisemitism on school grounds, and particularly whether educators accused of inappropriate actions had been, or would be, fired.
In response, the school leaders emphasized that antisemitism was unacceptable. “Let me be clear,” said Karla Silvestre, the school board president in Montgomery County. “We do not shy away from imposing consequences for hate-based behavior, including antisemitism.”
But the leaders mostly tried to avoid broad statements about the grounds for termination or suspension. In union districts, like the one in New York City, there are often lengthy processes that administrators have to follow when they pursue disciplinary action.
Ms. Ford Morthel said California’s strict rules regarding divulging personnel information can make people think teachers who cross a line are not punished. But she said that was not true, and action can be taken by district administrators privately.
Mr. Banks said that at least 30 students in New York City public schools have been suspended since Oct. 7, and roughly a dozen staff members were subject to discipline — the first time he has publicly shared specific details about repercussions related to antisemitic incidents.
Reporting was contributed by Troy Closson, Dana Goldstein, Annie Karni and Sarah Mervosh.
