Morning Wire - Collegiate Antisemitism Testimony & Daily Wire Sues The State Department | 12.6.23

Episode Date: December 6, 2023

Heads of elite universities testify before Congress over their handling of campus antisemitism, The Daily Wire joins with The Federalist and the State of Texas to take on the Biden State Department, and top female athletes and female leaders speak before Congress about the importance of protecting women's sports. Get the facts first with Morning Wire. Shopify: "Get a $1 per month trial at https://www.shopify.com/morningwire" Balance of Nature: Get 35% off your first order as a preferred customer + free Fiber and Spice supplements. Use promo code WIRE at checkout: https://www.balanceofnature.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In a contentious hearing on Capitol Hill, lawmakers grill the heads of elite universities over their handling of campus anti-Semitism. What action has been taken against students who are harassing and calling for the genocide of Jews on Harvard's campus? I can assure you, we have robust disciplinary processes. I'm not asking. I'm Daily Wire, editor-in-chief John Bickley with Georgia Howe. It's Wednesday, December 6th, and this is Morning Wire. The Daily Wire joins the Federalist and the state of Texas in suing the Biden State Department over the censorship of news outlets.

This is something that is highly offensive to our clients, and it should frankly be highly offensive to all Americans. And Congress hears from top female athletes and female leaders about the importance of protecting women's sports. Unsafe, unfair, and discriminatory practices towards women must stop. Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire. Stay tuned. we have the news you need to know. On Tuesday, leaders from several elite universities appeared before Congress,

where lawmakers grilled them over their handling of anti-Semitism on campus, an issue that spiked during the Israel-Hamas war. Here with more from the fiery event is Daily Wire Senior Editor Cabot Phillips. So Cabot, a topic we've discussed quite a bit on this show. Now it's taking the center stage in Washington. What can you tell us? Well, as you mentioned, since Hamas attacked Israel back in October, where we've seen a massive uptick in anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses nationwide.

And Jewish students have faced growing harassment and threats of violence. Many university administrations have either tacitly endorsed those actions or been slow to offer any real form of condemnation. Now, while this disturbing trend has been seen around the country, it's been especially prevalent at some of the country's most prestigious schools, including Harvard, UPenn, and MIT. And on Tuesday, the leaders of those schools were called to testify before the Republican-led House Education and Workforce Committee,

where they were grilled for their, we'll call it a lackluster response. Right. Now, let's get to some of that testimony. It was pretty contentious. Yeah, you're absolutely right. The hearing was led by Republican rep Virginia Fox, who called out those university presidents just before the hearing commenced. Anti-Semitism is spreading like wildfire. The best time for college presidents to have stood up for their Jewish students was October 7th. That did not happen. The second best time is today.

As Fox and other Republicans put it, one reason college campuses have been ground zero for anti-Semitism is because they've created an environment conducive to hate through their proliferation of identity politics and what they called race-focused curricula. Institutional anti-Semitism and hate are among the poison fruits of your institution's cultures.

Now, what did the presidents have to say for themselves? So they were each question. quick to condemn anti-Semitism and touted new measures to combat it on their campuses. Harvard President Claudine Gay, for example, said the school is increasing security on campus and also launching a training program for students that will be aimed at combating anti-Semitism and also Islamophobia. Liz McGill from UPenn gave a similar answer, but the majority of lawmakers present were just not satisfied with what they heard.

During one especially contentious exchange, Republican Elise Tophonic questioned Harvard President Claudine Gay on why she had allowed students to be. publicly call for intifada or armed rebellion against Jews. Do you believe that type of hateful speech is contrary to Harvard's code of conduct or is it allowed at Harvard? It is at odds with the values of Harvard. Can you not say here that it is against the code of conduct at Harvard? We embrace a commitment to free expression.

It's when that speech crosses into conduct that violates our policies against bullying, harassing, Does that speech not cost that barrier? Does that speech not call for the genocide of Jews and the elimination of Israel? Stefanik went on to call for Gay's resignation. She also accused Harvard of being, quote, corrupted by its apparent desperation to appease the far left. Now, we also heard from some students who say they've been impacted by this. What did they have to say? Yeah, also present at the hearing were Jewish students who say that they've experienced the impact of rising anti-Semitism on campus.

Here's Jonathan Frieden, a Harvard student. Multiple times a week, on my way to class, I walk by mobs of people chanting from the river to the sea, which is a call for the destruction of the state of Israel. I talk to my Jewish friends on campus every day. They tell me how afraid they are to go to class. And here's MIT student, Talia Khan, sharing a similar sentiment. 70% of MIT's Jewish students polled feel forced to hide their identities and perspectives. This is the same climate of anti-Semitism that,

that has led to massacres of Jews throughout the centuries. This is not just harassment. This is our lives on the line. Sounds like a very frightening climate for them. Cabot, thanks for reporting. Anytime. The Daily Wire and the Federalist, along with the state of Texas, have just filed a civil complaint against the Biden State Department.

The lawsuit aims to halt what it describes as one of the most egregious government operations to censor the American press in the history of the nation. joining us to discuss is Margo Cleveland, an attorney with the New Civil Liberties Alliance who helped author this complaint. So Margo, this lawsuit alleges an unconstitutional censorship scheme by the State Department using private entities. First, what are the key allegations here? So the key allegations are that the State Department acted without authority to cause and to fund the censorship of the plaintiff speech, the Daily Wire, and the Federalist speech, as well as the rights as a press. The State Department has a group called the Global Engagement Center,

which has its history preventing and countering terrorism. But what it started to do was see its mission as countering disinformation, misinformation, misinformation, mail information, which I think Americans now recognize is anything the government doesn't want. the public to know or believe. And what the Global Engagement Center did is it started reviewing all of this technology that is available to cause the censorship of speech. And the State Department used funds that are limited to foreign affairs to see what type of technology and tools are available for private companies, Google, Microsoft, Twitter, Facebook,

to censor speech. Now, of course, they call it to counter disinformation, mail information, but the bottom line is those tools are used to censor American speech and the American press. And what the State Department did is it funded research and infrastructure and helped develop these technologies. It created a platform where all of these tools and technologies that the State Department tested were available. And this platform originally was developed for the dot-gov and the dot-mill users. But it was opened up to private tech companies, so all the social media companies. And then the State Department invited those companies to come on and test out these tools

to see what fit their, quote, needs. Well, the needs are censoring speech on social media. But that wasn't all they did. The State Department then had a liaison based in Silicon Valley who would then visit the tech companies and act as a basically sales representative to encourage the companies to use this technology that would limit the reach, limit the speech, limit the ability for disfavored media to obtain advertisers. And probably the clearest example we can see is with the NewsGuard and the global disinformation index.

What is the lawsuit asking of the State Department? Is it seeking damages and what comes next? The lawsuit is not seeking damages. What our clients want is the State Department to stop this unconstitutional conduct. So here we actually have two fundamental problems. First, our State Department should have nothing to do with American speech and the American press. The statute that authorizes the State Department to act authorizes it only.

to act regarding foreign affairs. And second, the State Department has no authority to promote censorship to criticize this American speech and to try to get private actors to adopt technology to silence it. The plaintiff's next step, likely in early January, will be to file a motion for a preliminary injunction, asking the court to preliminarily order the defendants to stop the funding, promotion, marketing, development of technology that targets the plaintiffs. It's going to take a lot longer, though, to get the final conclusion, which will be a permanent injunction, to make sure the State Department never does this again. Well, Margot, thank you so much for joining us, and we'll obviously be following this very

closely. That was Margot Cleveland, an attorney with the new Civil Liberties Alliance. Female athletes pushed back against the Biden administration's proposed rewrite of Title IX on Tuesday with fiery testimony to Congress. Here to discuss as Daily Wire reporter Amanda Presta Giacomo. Hey Amanda. First, tell us about these proposed changes to Title IX, which was the subject of yesterday's hearing. Yeah, sure thing. So these changes would effectively rewrite Title IX to include gender identity. Therefore, policies that ban biological males who identify as trans from competing in the

with or against women, they would now be in violation of Title IX. And doing so could strip a school of its funding. The new rule would affect public K-12 schools, colleges, universities, and other institutions that receive federal funding. Now, this hearing was called by Michigan Representative Lisa McLean, who is opposing this rule change. What were some of the arguments against the Title IX rewrite? Basically, the argument centered around protecting girls and women. They cited studies showing the physical differences between males and females post-puberty, even after hormone treatments. They also argued that women and girls are losing out on scholarships and other opportunities. They discussed the invasion of girls' privacy in places like locker rooms.

And they also noted of female athletes who've been physically harmed by biologically male opponents. Here's former NCAA collegiate swimmer Riley Gaines. In September of last year, North Carolina high school volleyball player Peyton McNabb suffered serious injury after a trans-identified male player, spiked a ball at her head, rendering her unconscious. Still to this day, a year and three-ish months later, she is still partially paralyzed on her right side. Her vision is impaired, her memory is impaired,

and she isn't playing college sports like she had dreamed. Sarah Partial Perry of the Heritage Foundation, another witness at this hearing, she argued that this comes down to common sense, and she said that keeping the sports separated by sex is widely supported by the American people. We can use terms like cis or trans all we want, but men and women are different. And the American public knows it, which is why 70% of the American populace wants sports separated by sex.

Perry also predicted that if the Biden rule were to go through, it would automatically be challenged in a federal court. Right. What about those who support the Title IX changes? What did they argue? Some of the representatives in favor of the Biden rule change spoke a lot about supposed bigotry and transphobic. of those who disagree with them. Pennsylvania representative Summer Lee, for example, she preemptively classified the witness's testimonies

before they gave them as hateful misinformation and transphobic. This led to a fiery moment between Lee and Gaines. And Ranking Member Lee, if my testimony makes me transphobic, then I believe your opening monologue makes you a misogynist. Thank you. Excuse me. I moved to have the gentlewoman's words taken down. Can I just ask how it's fair to be called transphobic,

One witness at the hearing who is in favor of the Biden rule change, Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, she argued that the issue of women's privacy in places like locker rooms could be addressed by curtains or doors. The issue of privacy in locker rooms and in bathrooms, there's a wide range of ways. So you feel like Ms. Gaines should have had privacy? You address that. You could put up a curtain. You could put up a door.

You could have rotation. I reclaim my time. Well, another contentious and important debate on Capitol Hill about our education system. Amanda, thanks for reporting. You're welcome. That's all the time we've got this morning. Thanks for waking up with us. We'll be back later this afternoon with more news you need to know.