Criticism of Rutgers University’s handling of pro-Palestine protesters went national today, with Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway appearing before the House Education and Workforce Committee for a bout of intense questioning from Republicans and Democrats alike.
Several weeks ago, a number of student protesters set up an encampment on Rutgers’ New Brunswick campus, echoing similar encampments at other colleges around the country, with some students threatening to disrupt exams if their demands for divestment and other pro-Palestinian actions weren’t met. Holloway met with the students and eventually brokered a deal that involved Rutgers acceding to many of the students’ demands as long as the encampment came down peacefully.
Those negotiations have been the subject of substantial criticism, but Holloway said in his opening remarks today that he stands by the decisions he made, which he said obviated the need for the kind of violent police interactions that happened at other universities like Columbia.
“We made a choice,” he said. “That choice was to engage with our students through dialogue as a first option instead of police action. We had seen what transpired at other universities and sought a different way. Without compromising on my fundamental stance against divestment and boycotts, we agreed to talk and to listen.”
But Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-North Carolina) made it clear from the outset of the hearing that it would not be an especially friendly place for Holloway and the three others who were called in to testify: the president of Northwestern, the chancellor of the University of California-Los Angeles, and the CEO of the Phi Beta Kappa Society.
“Dr. Holloway, you accepted eight of the ten encampment demands, including an egregious amnesty deal to Rutgers students and faculty involved in the encampment,” Foxx said. “I’d like to know what sort of message you think that sends to your Jewish students.”
During the three-hour hearing, many of the questions directed at Holloway came from Rep. Donald Norcross (D-Camden), New Jersey’s lone representative on the panel. Norcross was especially focused on the timeline of Holloway’s decision to negotiate with the protesters and his interactions with Rutgers law enforcement.
“I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment,” Norcross said. “But that being said … there are rules in all types of protests on college campuses, no matter what the reason is. I’ve participated in protests over my lifetime, and when I crossed the line, I paid the consequences. So what I want to dig into today is, what are those lines, when were they crossed, and how you reacted.”
Norcross has been publicly critical of Holloway’s actions in the past; in a letter co-authored with Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-Wyckoff) earlier this month, Norcross questioned why Holloway had accepted most of the demands put forward by the protesters while apparently neglecting to act on a parallel set of recommendations made by a group of Jewish students and faculty.
Norcross wasn’t the only committee member who took an interest in Holloway today – and some Republican members were much more aggressive. In one particularly notable interaction, Holloway faced questions from Rep. Bob Good (R-Virginia) over the Center for Security, Race and Rights, a controversial center that has also been used to target a federal judicial nominee.
“There is very little that I find easy about the center, sir,” Holloway said. “I personally disagree deeply with a lot of the ideas that come from that center.”
“Are you going to close the center, or are you going to keep on funding it?” Good asked.
“I have no plans to close that center, sir,” Holloway responded.
In another exchange, Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pennsylvania) asked Holloway about the list of requests from Jewish faculty and students, saying that Holloway had ignored them and “gave in to the demands of the mob” instead.
“You have refused to act on the requests of Rutgers Jewish Faculty Administrators and Staff (J-FAS) from this past December,” Smucker said. “Why have you ignored J-FAS but acted immediately to appease pro-Hamas and anti-American protesters?”
“The requests that they sent to us are being acted on post-haste,” Holloway responded.
Asked after the hearing whether Holloway had assuaged his concerns, Norcross said that he “appreciated” Holloway’s testimony but that he remains worried about protecting Jewish members of the Rutgers community.
“I still have concerns about the safety and inclusion of Rutgers’ Jewish students, faculty, and staff,” Norcross said in a statement. “Many in the Jewish community at Rutgers do not feel safe or heard, and I will continue to follow up with President Holloway and university leadership to make certain that steps are being taken to include Jewish voices on campus and ensure the safety and well-being of everyone at Rutgers.”
But a different New Jersey House member, Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-Ewing) – one of the state’s most progressive voices on the issue of Israel and Palestine – said before the hearing that she stands firmly behind Holloway.
“Rutgers modeled how to listen, learn, and resolve concerns that arise on campus,” Watson Coleman said. “If I didn’t know better, I’d think President Holloway was invited to testify today to teach Congress a thing or two about resolving disagreements. Dr. Holloway, we’re in your corner.”