Updated: Nov. 18, 2024, at 5:37 p.m. 

Community members said they disagree with a congressional assessment claiming that officials failed to sufficiently hold pro-Palestinian student protesters accountable for violating University policies after the onset of the war in Gaza.

The Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce published their findings last week from an 11 monthslong investigation into antisemitism on college campuses, accusing GW and 10 other universities of a “stunning lack of accountability” for students who trespassed, damaged property, violated University policies and exhibited alleged antisemitism. Students and faculty who supported the protests said the committee’s report inaccurately categorized students’ protests as antisemitic, while community members who condemned the protests said officials handled pro-Palestinian campus activism as best they could.

The report describes and documents the outcomes of 73 incidents of alleged antisemitism and Islamophobia on campus between Oct. 7, 2023, and May 9, 2024, which GW provided to the committee. Incidents include the pro-Palestinian encampment in University Yard, anti-Israel projections onto Gelman Library and the removal of posters of Israeli hostages from the GW Hillel building, which the committee listed as examples of antisemitism, Islamophobia and misconduct.

University spokesperson Shannon McClendon said earlier this month in response to the report that officials have “devoted additional significant time and resources” over the last year to meet community needs. She said officials will continue to educate the community about antisemitism and Islamophobia while working to ensure students can freely express themselves and their religious beliefs.

Community members who supported pro-Palestinian protests on campus said the report falsely accuses students of antisemitism and overlooks their reasons for protesting, while critics of the protests said the University has done everything it can to respond to displays of activism that violate GW policies.

A representative from the Student Coalition for Palestine at GWU, who requested anonymity due to fear of administrative repression and doxxing, said they disagreed with the committee’s assessment that GW insufficiently disciplined pro-Palestinian protesters because they’ve been disciplined more than “any other group.”

Officials allegedly suspended two pro-Palestinian student organizations and placed an additional six organizations on disciplinary probation for their involvement in the encampment, and 22 students entered student conduct processes between October 2023 and May 2024 for the encampment and other protests, per the committee’s report.

“The only thing that they could do further is to expel students,” the representative said. “They’ve already banned half of our orgs off campus. That’s precisely what House Republicans want, because they don’t want anti-Zionist speech on campus. They, quite frankly, don’t want Muslim and Palestinian people on campus.”

The representative said GW hasn’t sufficiently responded to “rampant” Islamophobia on campus, including reports from Muslim students that they were spat on and had their hijabs ripped off by an unknown person on campus. 

They added that GW has been identified by the Council on American-Islamic Relations as one of three institutions of “particular concern” where Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, Jewish and other students and faculty who oppose the war in Gaza face backlash from officials.

“They’ve punished us beyond what is reasonable, and at the same time, they don’t punish violence against our community,” the representative said.

Signs posted on the fencing at the encampment reading “Students will leave when Israelis leave,” and “Students will go back home when Israelis go back to Europe, US, etc (their real homes)” sparked backlash on social media from Jewish on Campus, a national organization that exposes antisemitism on college campuses.

A photo also went viral of a non-GW affiliated man at the encampment holding a sign that read “Final Solution,” a phrase that the Nazi regime used to describe their genocide of Jewish people during the Holocaust.

The coalition representative said organizers “immediately removed” the signs when they discovered them, which took a “few hours” because of the protest’s size. They added that police said at the time that the man with the “Final Solution” sign had a legal right to remain on the public sidewalk.

They also said that one student protester stood in front of the man with a sign reading “This man does not represent us” to make clear that the message did not reflect the coalition’s values.

“We wholeheartedly condemn genuine acts of antisemitism like these incidents,” the representative said. “At the same time, incidents like these, which are explicitly rejected by organizers, are often amplified on platforms like Stop Antisemitism to manufacture outrage and obscure our core message, advocating for the liberation of Palestine.”

GW for Israel Vice President Sean Shekhman said Jewish students’ experiences on campus have varied, but he believes officials have “done an incredible job” handling protests. He said in every conversation he has had with officials, they have tried to foster dialogue between both sides while protecting students’ free speech rights. 

“I do legitimately believe that University administration is working to do their best to try to find solutions and cooperation for people on both sides, not just Jewish students, but also, I’d argue, for Palestinian students,” Shekhman said.

Shekhman said students shouldn’t be disciplined solely for protesting and that pro-Palestinian protests aren’t necessarily antisemitic, but it depends on if there are any antisemitic actions occurring at a protest. He said he knows “a few” Jewish students who protesters “physically harassed” at the encampment, but it was difficult to determine who committed such actions or request repercussions because they hid their faces.

“The past year has been very difficult for Jewish students. I think it’s been difficult for all students,” Shekhman said. “The University, despite a lot of struggle, has done their absolute best to try to mitigate them. It’s not an easy job, and I know I, along with GW for Israel, 100 percent appreciate all their efforts.”

Daniel Schwartz, a history professor who penned a letter in May criticizing a faculty letter that supported protesters at the encampment, said the University handled the encampment as well as it could have. Schwartz said he believes the University can grant students the right to protest, but they can’t set up an encampment “wherever they want.”

He said a lot of “ugly” things happened at the encampment, including the mock guillotine of University President Granberg and Board of Trustees members.

“I think the University did all it could to try to bring about a peaceful resolution to this,” Schwartz said. “I mean peaceful, like one that wouldn’t involve breaking the whole thing up.”

Schwartz said some universities amended their codes of conduct after the wave of encampments last spring, like New York University which he said updated their code to clarify that the term “Zionist” could be considered harassment if used to refer to Jewish people with a “certain intent.” Schwartz said the use of the term “Free Palestine” at protests is vague because some protesters are calling for a bi-national state — where both Israelis and Palestinians are granted self-determination and access to the land — but others are calling for a state only for Palestinians, where Israelis have “no right” to live on the land.

He said GW could clarify its policies around free speech so they aren’t dealing with the issues “reactively.” In August, officials released plans outlining free expression on campus and corresponding security measures, which included an updated policy that deemed encampments disruptive and a safety risk.

“Do I think the University could clarify its policies? Yes, I do,” Schwartz said.

William Burns — an adjunct history professor who signed an open letter on the second day of the encampment supporting student protesters — said the House committee report doesn’t accurately reflect the situation on campus and instead delegitimizes pro-Palestinian protest on campuses.

He said the committee’s accusation that officials are putting the wants of “terrorist sympathizers” over the safety of Jewish students, faculty and staff doesn’t take into consideration that pro-Palestinian protesters’ motivations stem from Israel’s “violent” actions toward Palestinians, not a desire to promote antisemitism.

Gaza’s Ministry of Health has said more than 43,000 Palestinians have been killed in Israeli attacks as of Saturday, and thousands more are buried under rubble and threatened by illness since the outbreak of Israel’s war in Gaza last October. More than 1,200 Israelis were killed during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack, and Hamas also took 254 Israelis hostage.

“It’s a legitimate thing to protest,” Burns said. “It’s not antisemitic to protest. It’s not pro-terrorist to protest.”

Adena Kirstein, the executive director of GW Hillel, said in a statement that it’s “more important than ever” that Hillel works with officials to continue addressing antisemitism on campus, which will create a “safer and more inclusive” environment for Jewish and non-Jewish students.

She declined to comment on if she believes the report accurately reflects the experiences and concerns of Jewish students and community members on campus.

This post has been updated to correct the following: 

This post has been updated to clarify that Schwartz said NYU updated its code of conduct to include that the use of the term “Zionist” to describe Jewish people could be considered harassment in certain contexts, not that “Zionist” is protected speech that people can use as an excuse to harass Jewish students. The Hatchet also incorrectly reported that Schwartz said some rhetoric used at protests could be interpreted as either calling for a two-state solution or a one-state solution for the Palestinian people. He said the phrase “Free Palestine” could be interpreted as calling for a bi-national state, or for a single state only for Palestinians. We regret this error.