Liz Magill’s departure, announced Saturday, divided politicians, academics and the nation, with some hailing it as a needed corrective to curb hateful rhetoric on college campuses. Republican lawmakers, who have argued in recent years that the most prestigious schools are also the most out-of-touch, were especially eager to paint universities as hotbeds of angry leftist rhetoric where liberal ideologies are tolerated, while conservative viewpoints are shut down.
Democrats and Jewish groups celebrated the exit, too, which came after Magill would not say, during testimony before Congress last week, that calling for the genocide of the Jews violated her school’s code of conduct. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who is himself Jewish, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday: “At the end of the day, when somebody is saying they believe in genocide of the Jewish people … that is not acceptable.”
Still, others called Magill’s resignation a loss for free speech, predicting that it will imperil the rights of students and professors to speak their minds as donors and politicians step in to shape free-speech rules.
The board of advisers at Penn’s Wharton business school has proposed a broad policy that would “discipline” students or staff who “engage in hate speech, whether veiled or explicit,” Axios reported. On Sunday, a Penn professor of law and philosophy, Carol Finkelstein, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for the restriction of free speech to protect students — urging university presidents “to rethink the role that open expression and academic freedom play in the educational mission.”
And the Democratic governor of New York issued a letter to state college and university presidents Saturday promising to take “aggressive … action,” including pulling funding, against schools that “fail to clearly and unequivocally denounce antisemitism and calls for genocide of the Jewish people.”
There are likely to be more such calls for colleges to update their rules on speech, said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education. Although public universities are bound by the First Amendment, private institutions are not, and they have wide latitude to set their own policies governing the freedom of speech and discussion on controversial issues.
Mitchell attended a meeting of college presidents from both public and private institutions last week and said many shared that they were anticipating questions and concerns about their speech codes — an expectation, and worry, that he shares.
“There will be more attempts, whether those are by campuses or boards of regents or boards of trustees, to more tightly define the boundaries of protected speech,” Mitchell said. “It’s invited new players to the game.”
Mitchell said it is a hard time to lead colleges right now: “This is a sad day,” he added, “for higher education.”
Magill was called to testify before Congress on Tuesday alongside the presidents of Harvard and MIT, as all three leaders confront allegations that antisemitism has run rampant on their campuses since war broke out between Israel and Gaza. The three universities, like schools nationwide, have seen students report a string of antisemitic incidents, from things like bomb threats at Hillel Houses to protests featuring chants of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which some interpret as calls for the elimination of Israel and Jews. Reported incidents of Islamophobia have also surged since October.
Two days before the congressional hearing, hundreds of protesters marched through Philadelphia, veering close to Penn’s campus and chanting, “From water to water, Palestine will be Arab!” as some Jewish undergraduates sheltered in their rooms. Students told The Post they felt afraid and unsafe on campus.
During the hearing Tuesday, in a now-viral exchange, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) asked Magill and the two other presidents whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate her school’s rules or code of conduct.
Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”
Stefanik followed up to ask whether calling for the genocide of Jews would amount to “bullying or harassment.” Magill at first said the behavior would have to be “directed and severe or pervasive” to qualify as harassment — and then, pressed further, added: “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”
Asked a near-identical question, Harvard President Claudine Gay said such speech would be “at odds with the values of Harvard” and, if “speech crosses into conduct, that violates our policies.” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said that calling for the genocide of Jews violates school rules “if targeted at individuals, not making public statements.”
Stefanik’s line of questioning forced Magill and the other two presidents to walk a very narrow line, said Penn professor Jonathan Zimmerman, who studies education history and policy. All three women had to convince lawmakers that they abhor antisemitism and will defend Jewish students, while making clear they are obligated to uphold people’s right to say “odious things,” Zimmerman said.
Zimmerman said the three were really being asked to decide whether chanting something like “From the river to the sea” is so hateful and antisemitic that it must be disallowed. And that is not something university presidents are really equipped to decide, he said.
Now, he worries that universities will be pushed to adopt policies that explicitly define and bar certain kinds of speech as antisemitic or just too hateful — when the point of college discourse is that it should be open and free, so communities can come together and, through informed debate, determine what, if anything, is beyond the pale.
“We should all be ready for an infinite regress of charges and countercharges about what is, or should be seen as, a genocidal statement,” Zimmerman said. “I’m very afraid.”
The presidents’ testimony, especially Magill’s remarks, ignited a firestorm of criticism, earning harsh words from top donors, the White House and the governor of Pennsylvania, among others. On Friday, more than 70 members of Congress called on the governing boards of Harvard, Penn and MIT to fire the presidents.
Stefanik has called for the ousting of Harvard and MIT’s presidents, too. “One down. Two to go,” she wrote on X on Saturday afternoon.
Spokespeople for Harvard and MIT did not respond to requests for comment over the weekend.
The MIT Corporation, the university’s board of trustees, has publicly stated that Kornbluth has its “full and unreserved support” since her testimony.
The Harvard Corporation has remained silent, although Gay said in an interview Thursday with student newspaper the Harvard Crimson that she retains the goodwill of Penny S. Pritzker, senior fellow of the Corporation, which is the university’s highest governing body.
The Harvard Corporation and the Board of Overseers met Sunday, but for a regularly scheduled gathering, the Crimson reported. Some Harvard faculty have recently spoken out to share their hope that Gay stays in the job; in the past, Harvard presidents have chosen to resign following faculty votes of no-confidence.
Meanwhile, prominent Republicans took to the morning shows Sunday to applaud the resignation — and in some cases to call for stricter campus regulation of speech.
“These universities have failed,” Sarah Isgur, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department during the Trump administration and a Harvard law graduate, said on ABC News. “This wasn’t a messaging problem with the congressional hearing — it’s a policy problem.”
Students on Penn’s campus watched the testimony, resignation and national fallout with a mix of hope, worry and trepidation.
Rachel Miller, a 21-year-old senior, said she believes Magill made the right decision. Miller, who is studying communication, said Magill proved she was unable to support Jewish students, including Miller herself, in their time of greatest need.
“Antisemitic acts have gone unpunished at Penn for far too long,” Miller said, referencing the fact two Jewish students are now suing the university for failing to respond to a string of antisemitic incidents over the past three months. “Hopefully, Penn picks someone who can … take a stronger stance on antisemitism, now.”
But Vinay Khosla, a 20-year-old junior at Penn studying English and political science, said she thinks Magill’s departure sends a concerning message.
“It sets a really bad precedent that donors are the ones who are in power at the school, and not academics, not administrators even,” Khosla said.
And it makes Khosla worry for the future: “I think that whoever they replace her with is going to be a lot harsher towards student activism and free speech.”
Mariana Alfaro in Washington and Suman Bhattacharyya in Philadelphia contributed to this report.
