By: Cirien Saadeh, Executive Director & Community Journalist

The Minnesota Senate Judiciary and Public Safety curriculum met on June 25th to discuss what they call anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incidents at the University of Minnesota. 

“There’s been a number of very disturbing incidents at the University of Minnesota since October of last year that raised statutory, constitutional, and public safety concerns within the jurisdiction of this committee,” said Committee Chair Sen. Ron Latz (DFL – St. Louis Park). 

Latz has been criticized in recent months, by fellow Democrats, for stating that Palestinian children are raised to dream of killing Israeli Jews. 

Latz began the hearing by stating that the hearing would focus exclusively on incidents occurring at the University of Minnesota and that the hearing would not touch on international politics. 

“That is why some proposed testifiers or those who submitted a request to testify, that sought to speak more broadly than related to the University and its actions or had no connection to the university were not accepted to testify,” said Latz. “These incidents are in front of us because they raised constitutional or statutory issues, not only relating to topics of academic freedom, the First Amendment, and free speech but also regarding the anti-BDS statute; the Minnesota Human Rights Act anti-discrimination provisions; explicitly anti-Semitic speech; student safety, both mental and physical on our campus; the conduct and targeting of Jewish students for harassment on-campus; physical desecration of campus structures including spray painting of anti-Semitic rhetoric on-campus; posting of posters with explicit calls for the elimination of the State of Israel in spaces where Jewish students live and learn; as well as shooting out the windows of the Jewish student organization Hillel.” 

In his opening remarks Latz went on to criticize the responses by University faculty including faculty with the Gender, Women, and Sexuality and Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature departments. 

Latz also criticized the university’s response to the student encampment that persisted during the academic year. Specifically Latz criticized the university for incorporating “terrorist, anti-Semitic language” into the university’s response to the student encampment. 

The committee’s first testifier was Interim President Jeff Ettinger, who was given 20 minutes to speak. 

“Anti-Semitism has no place at the University of Minnesota. We stand against all forms of hate and bias, including anti-semitism, Islamophobia, or any other bias against individual identities,” said Ettinger. “The university has tried to take a comprehensive approach to combating anti-Semitism. Our approach includes mandatory diversity training including training regarding anti-semitism for all incoming freshmen via the Gopher Equity Project.” 

Ettinger went on to further describe the university’s response to combating anti-semitism. This response includes Jewish affinity groups for students and employees. Additionally Ettinger notes that the University offers support for Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim student affinity group.

“We know that despite all our efforts, our campuses are far from immune to concerns of anti-semitism,” said Ettinger. “Since the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas, and the subsequent response by Israel on Gaza, we have seen a significant increase in political activity on college campuses nationwide and unfortunately we have seen a corresponding increase in bias-claims as well.” 

Ettinger went on to note that the University has publicly condemned Hamas. He also said that four “units” posted their own independent statements on their website after the attacks on Oct. 7: the Center for Jewish Studies (now removed), the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, the Department of Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature; and the Department for Gender, Women, and Sexuality Studies. The Department of American Indian Studies has also posted their own statement. 

“None of these statements represent the position of the University, as an institution,” said Ettinger.” Our Board of Regents policy on academic freedom and responsibility states that faculty and the academic staff have the freedom to speak or write on matters of public concern but they also have the responsibility to ensure that when they speak they are not speaking for the institution.” 

Ettinger went on to discuss other issues of concern at the university and the college’s policies and perspectives on academic freedom as well as the university’s more specific responses to these incidents including an encampment put up on the campus lawn and an act of vandalism on the Hillel building with beebee guns. 

Ettinger ended his testimony by stating that the University of Minnesota, and its five campuses, responded to the unfolding protests by balancing their different priorities. 

“Challenges related to these global challenges since October have required a balancing of many factors and, in each situation, our team has tried to find the best answer for the university as a whole under the totality of the circumstance,” said Ettinger. “I can assure you we tackled each challenge in a manner befitting the seriousness of those issues.” 

Following his testimony, Ettinger answered questions from legislators, including those from Chair Latz. 

“With regards to the protests and encampment, I’m particularly concerned that the manner of sanctions, or lack of sanctions, for those who violated the law, would have an effect of encouraging future, similar disruptions,” said Latz. “An agreement to seek leniency, which resulted in the complete dismissal of criminal charges, and an agreement even within the university’s administrative processes for student misconduct to treat it as a teaching moment only, it seems to me will only be a signal to future people intending to protest that they can do it with impunity, without facing any real sanctions.” 

Latz went on to ask Ettinger his thoughts on what he called a lack of sanctions for student protestors; Ettinger detailed the university’s response and their priorities when determining a response.

“There is no doubt that that is a legitimate concern. That was a dilemma we were facing and we have an anti-encampment policy,” said Ettinger. “We looked at [these incidents] with three priorities in mind. Priority 1: the safety and avoidance of violence if possible against campus members, against law enforcement members, against bystanders and so forth. Priority 2: to support free speech on our campus including the right to protest. Priority 3: adherence to our policies and the laws of the state.” Ettinger also noted that each priority was considered in tandem. 

Ettinger went on to answer several other questions from Latz and other legislators. Following that, additional testimony continued. These testifiers included (and are not limited to): 

• Benjie Kaplan, Executive Director of Hillel at the University of Minnesota
• Professor Richard W. Painter of the University of Minnesota Law School
• Professor Oren Gross of the University of Minnesota Law School
• Zach Fisher, member of Jewish Voice for Peace and a graduate of the University of Minnesota law school
• Bob Goonin, member of Minnesota BDS
• Sylvia Schwarz, member of Minnesota BDS
• Dr. Sima Shakhsari, member of UMN Educators for Justice in Palestine
• Dr. Tony C. Brown, a faculty member in the University of Minnesota’s Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature department
• Steve Hunegs, Executive Director of the Jewish Community Relations Council 

One testifier, Beth Gendler, Executive Director of Jewish Community Action, urged the committee to recognize and respect ideological nuance in the Jewish community. 

“It is important to remember that the Minnesota Jewish community, like every marginalized community, is diverse in many ways including ideologically,” said Gendler. “JCA members, I think, mirror the folks in the room today. We hold a broad range of perspectives and we reject the claim that one discreet part of the Minnesota Jewish community can speak for all of us including and especially when it calls for actions that have the potential to damage the credibility and mission of important democratic institutions, like the University of Minnesota.” 

Gendler was also explicit in noting that her testimony was not against any other Jewish organization nor was she speaking in support of acts of violence that have occurred. 

“While no organization including JCA can claim to speak for all Jews, I think it is safe to say that we share a deep belief that Jews should not be dehumanized, harassed, discriminate against, or face violence because we are Jews,” said Gendler. ‘But I am deeply troubled by assertions that one organization is the consensus voice of the community. I would encourage suspicion when any part of any one group claims to speak for the whole. So my ask for you today and into the future is to include a much more diverse perspective of Minnesota voices in this conversation. Please do not accept the false assertion that there is consensus in the Jewish community on these complicated topics.” 

Other testifiers critiqued the University of Minnesota’s responses to student protest. 

Gross, for example, stated that the University of Minnesota “is no longer a safe space for Jewish students, due to the rising tide of anti-semitic acts and expressions on campus by faculty, staff, and students, some of whom are in this [committee] room today.”

“Intentional and concentrated work is required to the University to the welcoming place it had been and to ensure it lives to its full potential as a place of a higher learning where all belong,” said Gross, who went on to discuss Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, despite committee rules meant to keep the conversation focused on the University of Minnesota and incidents on campus. 

Others, like Fischer, discussed the campus protests and the purpose of those protests from the protester perspective. Fischer (and others) noted that a small minority of extreme statements are picked out from certain protestors while the vast majority of protestors are calling for an “an end to death, that’s it, across the board.” 

“No one wanted anyone to die on Oct. 7, no one wanted anyone to die before or after, that’s all we’re advocating for.

They received pushback from legislators, including Latz, who said he was “having trouble believing” Fischer. 

The entire committee hearing went for approximately four hours. No action was (or could be) taken during the hearing, because the legislature is not in session.