During a recent House subcommittee hearing, congressional Republicans questioned the adequacy of responses by public school districts to antisemitic incidents. Rep. Kevin Kiley of California confronted Enikia Ford Morthel, the superintendent of Berkeley Unified School District, with a report detailing various antisemitic expressions within her district. The report, bolstered by a joint statement from the Anti-Defamation League and the Louis D. Brandeis Center, highlighted severe allegations, including antisemitic slurs and threats faced by Jewish students.
The incidents cited in the report paint a troubling picture of the school environment, with Jewish students reportedly subjected to comments such as “kill the Jews” and being asked about numbers tattooed on Jews during the Holocaust. Such statements have raised fears among students about potential mob violence. Despite these concerns, Superintendent Ford Morthel insisted that the district takes immediate action whenever such incidents are reported, emphasizing her daily presence in the schools to address these issues directly.
Responses and Reactions to Antisemitic Behavior
The discussion broadened as other members of Congress brought additional examples from different districts, pressing for clarity on the actions taken against such behavior. Rep. Aaron Bean of Florida highlighted a case from Montgomery County, questioning Karla Silvestre about the disciplinary actions taken against staff or students involved in antisemitic acts. While Silvestre confirmed that disciplinary actions were implemented, no terminations had occurred, indicating a possible gap between the severity of the incidents and the responses provided.
In New York, the situation appeared similarly concerning. Rep. Brandon Williams questioned David Banks, chancellor of New York City Public Schools, about the employment status of a former principal involved in allowing a student-led antisemitic incident. The chancellor’s acknowledgment that the principal was still receiving a salary despite the gravity of the incident led to sharp criticism from lawmakers, who questioned the commitment to protecting Jewish students.
The hearing underscored a significant tension between reported antisemitic activities in schools and the perceived inadequacy of administrative responses. Superintendents defended their actions, suggesting that while incidents do occur, they are not reflective of a pervasive problem within the schools. This stance, however, faced criticism both from within the committee and external observers, who argue that the response to antisemitism needs to be more robust and proactive to truly safeguard all students from hate-driven behavior.
