Campus protest hearings continue at state level

The House Education and Workforce Committee made headlines this spring when its members questioned three groups of university presidents and trustees about their handling of pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Now, lawmakers in several states have followed suit and held their own hearings.

Last month, Minnesota lawmakers grilled University of Minnesota Interim President Jeff Ettinger during a hearing before the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee. It came on the heels of debate over the proposed selection of a historian who has accused Israel of genocide to head the university’s Holocaust Center, an incident of vandalism at the Hillel Jewish student center and a controversial settlement with students protesting a pro-Palestinian encampment in May. The Democratic-led committee grilled Ettinger on his “leniency” in easing the protests and his approach to maintaining a safe academic environment for Jewish students.

A similar hearing was held in Texas in May, and lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Virginia plan to question university leaders in their states in late July and September, respectively. Republican lawmakers in New York have also called for hearings to assess the response of institutions — including private ones like Columbia and New York Universities — to protests and encampments this spring, but have so far been unsuccessful.

The most popular

Critics say the federal hearings were largely politically motivated, with conservative lawmakers seeking to weaponize anti-Semitism and portray colleges and universities as bastions of unfettered liberalism in the midst of a tumultuous election cycle.

But at the state level, hearings are seen more as a necessary and expected part of legislative oversight, state lawmakers and higher education experts say. They argue that regular communication — however heated — between legislators and university administrators allows for more civil and productive conversations and strengthens the state’s democratic process.

“State legislatures holding hearings on events happening on their public campuses is pretty much the norm. It’s pretty much a common and healthy thing to do,” said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. “It’s really not surprising that legislators want to hear more about this.”

“Fair” and “fair” responsibility

The hearing room in St. Paul was fairly crowded on a Tuesday in June as lawmakers and voters waited for comments from more than a dozen witnesses, including university administrators, faculty members and Jewish students. (Representatives of pro-Palestinian student groups were invited to testify but declined.)

As Senator Ron Latz, the committee chairman, noted, it was also unusually quiet.

“Usually before the gavel comes down there’s a lot of noise in the chamber and I have to quiet everyone down,” he said in his opening statement. “But not today.”

Latz outlined his reasons for calling the hearing, saying the events on campus “raise statutory, constitutional and public safety concerns.”

He later said Inside higher education that the purpose of the hearing was not to gain political advantage or to emulate the actions of the Republican-led federal education commission; on the contrary, it was a bipartisan effort to clarify higher education policies and processes.

“To me, it’s not a partisan issue and it shouldn’t be,” he said. “Everyone on campus, regardless of religious beliefs or political views, should feel safe and free to enjoy the full academic, educational and institutional benefits of being there.”

During nearly four hours of questioning, lawmakers grilled witnesses about controversial statements posted on university department websites, whether a professor’s submission to a university journal was rejected because of the author’s ties to an Israeli university, and whether it was appropriate to provide lenient sentences for protesters in exchange for the camp’s dismantling.

The University of Minnesota was one of the first institutions in the country to reach such an agreement with pro-Palestinian protesters. As part of the agreement, administrators said they would “appeal to the Minneapolis city attorney for lenient remedies” for those arrested. Trespassing charges against nine protesters were dropped in early May, but some lawmakers and Jewish advocates worry the decision will embolden students to take similar actions in the future.

Ettinger walked through each of the issues raised by lawmakers step by step, explaining why they did so.

“Questions about the limits of free speech often involve constitutional issues that are beyond our control,” Ettinger said during the hearing. “(But) even when hate is constitutionally protected and cannot be banned or punished, the university still responds by supporting those who have been harmed … and working to create an inclusive campus environment.”

“We may not have always done it right,” he added. “But I assure you we have approached each challenge in a way that is proportionate to the seriousness of the issues.”

However, following Ettinger’s speech, which took place in the last week of his term as interim rector, the Faculty Senate did not pass a vote of no confidence in him.

A university spokesman declined to comment further beyond pointing to Ettinger’s remarks at the hearing and Vice Chancellor Rachel TA Croson’s words during the Faculty Senate meeting.

Lawmakers have taken no action since the hearing; the Legislature is on recess until 2025. Their options are also legally limited, Latz said, given that the flagship — unlike the Minnesota state system — is a constitutionally independent entity.

But for Steve Hunegs, a third-generation University of Minnesota graduate and executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas, the fact that the state held the hearing at all means a lot.

Taking the stand as the final witness, Hunegs expressed concern over the use of “hostile” and “intimidating” phrases in chants, chalk drawings and graffiti during campus protests.

While some of the words he quoted — including “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — have sparked debates about their meaning, others, such as “victory of the Al-Aqsa flood,” are seen as clear cries of support for Hamas. For Hunegs, they are all calls for the eradication of the Jewish state, which many Jews find disturbing. He acknowledged, however, that not everyone agrees, and said the hearing treated everything in a “serious” and “fair” manner.

“You saw the full range of perspectives from the Jewish community expressed,” he said. Inside higher education“It was a healthy exercise in democracy in the sense that people had a chance to testify; they were cross-examined, and different views competed in the marketplace of ideas.”

Relationships breed respect

Virginia Sen. Ghazala F. Hashmi — a Democrat who spent nearly 30 years as a professor in the state before taking office and becoming chairwoman of the state’s education committee — has a similar vision for a new state commission on keeping campuses safe and expressing First Amendment views.

“Administrators, faculty, staff and students will be invited to share information and perspectives to develop better and clearer policies that protect free speech, use of public spaces, and the rights of students, faculty and staff, while also protecting public safety and campus security,” she said in an emailed statement.

To help the committee “gather the facts,” Hashmi said, administrators will be asked to explain their actions, noting that the reasoning behind their decisions will be carefully considered and that it can look at the issue from all sides.

“As a former college professor, I understand that academic freedom, critical thinking, debate and dialogue are at the heart of higher education. It is the responsibility of our institutions to teach students how to engage with difficult issues,” she said. At the same time, “every student in every institution of higher education deserves to feel and be safe. Needless to say, no student should feel targeted because of their race, religion or identity.”

ACE’s Fansmith hopes state-level hearings will leverage the closer relationships lawmakers have with colleges and universities in their state, resulting in a more positive outcome for all parties involved.

Many senators and state representatives likely attended the colleges whose leaders they are interviewing, or have family and friends there, he said; at least they have constituents at those institutions. Lawmakers also provide annual funding and often approve board members for public institutions in their state.

“One of the things we tend to see at the federal level is a lesser focus on moving toward productive solutions and more on showboating, campaigning and politics,” Fansmith said. “But oftentimes, state legislators can be more open-minded about where they see problems in the institution. They come at it from a real perspective of wanting to address the problems and solve them in a way that doesn’t necessarily make the institution a punching bag.”

He added: “Just because a hearing was held on this matter does not mean its outcome will be negative.”