0:05

For weeks, the University

0:07

of Pennsylvania president, Liz McGill,

0:10

has been facing calls for her

0:12

resignation. So

0:15

the pressure on McGill had been building

0:17

for months, and we had some very

0:19

outspoken donors. You know, these

0:22

are not people who donate anonymously.

0:24

These are folks with their names on buildings across

0:26

campus. That's our colleague

0:29

Melissa Corn, who covers higher education.

0:32

And they had been really frustrated with how

0:34

the school was handling a number of issues,

0:36

including the response to the October 7th Hamas

0:38

attack, and felt that the

0:41

school wasn't taking their concerns seriously

0:43

about anti-Semitism and that there needed

0:45

to be a leadership change. What

0:47

was at the heart of this standoff? The

0:50

controversy at Penn, it's two things.

0:52

One is how the school deals

0:54

with questions regarding

0:57

free speech and academic freedom and

0:59

the line between free speech and

1:01

anti-Semitism. And then

1:03

the other big issue is what

1:06

role, what power donors have over

1:08

how a school runs itself. And

1:11

on Saturday afternoon, those donors

1:13

got what they wanted. McGill

1:17

resigned. And

1:23

what would that mean to yield

1:25

to that kind of

1:27

demand? I think that's where

1:29

some of the more interesting questions about this all come in. Right?

1:32

Who's pulling the strings? Right?

1:35

Do you do whatever a big donor tells you

1:37

to do because they're a big donor or have

1:39

been in the past? How

1:41

much power should they have? These

1:44

are all questions that I think Penn and many

1:46

other universities are grappling with right now.

1:51

Welcome to The Journal, our

1:53

show about money, business and power.

1:56

I'm Kate Leinbach. It's Monday,

1:58

December 11th. Coming

2:04

up on the show, anti-Semitism,

2:07

free speech, and

2:09

the rising tensions between elite universities

2:12

and big donors. It's

2:30

secure, hallucination-free, LLM-agnostic, and

2:33

IP liability-free. Learn more

2:35

at c3.ai. This

2:39

is Enterprise AI. Liz

2:49

McGill became president of the University of

2:51

Pennsylvania in July 2022. She's

2:54

a constitutional law scholar and had

2:56

been dean of Stanford Law and

2:59

provost at the University of Virginia.

3:02

Since early September, McGill has

3:04

been facing controversy on campus. Initially,

3:07

it was related to an event, a

3:10

Palestinian literary festival. There

3:13

was concern about the guest list

3:16

and that some of the people

3:18

there would be espousing anti-Semitic ideas.

3:21

So the donors who were upset,

3:24

you know, these are Jewish donors. They

3:26

often, many of them have ties to

3:28

other Jewish advocacy organizations. And

3:31

they said, you know, it seems

3:33

like you're not taking anti-Semitism seriously, that you're

3:35

almost inviting it onto your campus, and

3:39

this is really troubling. And

3:41

that they wanted the event to be

3:43

canceled. How did Penn

3:46

president Liz McGill respond? McGill

3:49

put out a statement, you know, saying

3:51

that the university is not

3:53

condoning anti-Semitism, but there

3:56

is value to free speech

3:58

here. And she put her this

4:00

statement but that wasn't the

4:02

end of things. Not by a long shot.

4:07

There was a letter that went around

4:09

from donors. A number

4:12

of donors crafted this letter, kind

4:14

of an open letter opposing the

4:16

university's decision to move forward with

4:18

the event. Were

4:20

there anti-Semitic incidents happening on

4:22

campus that these donors

4:24

were pointing to? There had

4:26

been, yes. The Hillel, the

4:28

JIRA Student Center, had been

4:31

trashed. There was somebody who was

4:33

yelling anti-Semitic slurs outside the Hillel.

4:35

There had been a

4:38

couple of incidents and general reports of

4:41

Jewish students saying they felt unsafe, they

4:43

felt uncomfortable, and you know

4:46

many of the donors saw the

4:48

entire Palestinian Writers Festival as an offense

4:52

to them and student safety and

4:54

security on campus. And

4:58

then after the October

5:00

7th Hamas attacks on

5:03

Israel and Israel's

5:05

subsequent strikes on Gaza,

5:08

what happened at Penn? So McGill

5:10

issued a statement three days after, so

5:12

on October 10th, it

5:14

lamented the loss of life by

5:17

Hamas's attack. It didn't

5:19

just shrug its shoulders at the barbarity of

5:21

what happened, but it was a pretty

5:24

kind of focused on some of the

5:26

practicalities. Like here are some support services you

5:28

can seek out on campus if you feel

5:31

you need them, and let's remember to be

5:34

kind to each other right now. And there

5:36

was almost immediate backlash to that statement.

5:39

How so? There was a concern

5:41

that it wasn't strong enough. It didn't call

5:44

Hamas a terrorist organization

5:46

explicitly. There

5:49

was also frustration that McGill

5:51

didn't really acknowledge

5:54

the loss of life in Gaza, right?

5:56

The civilian deaths happening there were

5:58

not called out

6:01

the same way the civilian deaths in Israel were.

6:03

So she was getting it from both sides. McGill's

6:07

statement failed to assuage tensions

6:09

with Penn's donors. One

6:12

of them, a man named Mark

6:14

Rowan, the CEO of private equity

6:16

firm Apollo Global Management, wrote

6:18

an op-ed calling for the resignation

6:20

of McGill and the president of

6:22

the board, Scott Bach. And then

6:26

Rowan took his message onto

6:28

CNBC. Over the past two

6:30

weeks, more than 4,000 of

6:32

our alumni, many of our leaders, many of our

6:34

trustees, many of our board members, have

6:36

kind of finally said we've we've had enough and

6:39

signed an open letter basically telling President McGill that

6:42

she was heading in the wrong direction. And

6:44

what was happening with students on campus

6:46

around this time? There were

6:48

protests on campus, right? There are

6:50

always protests of some sort on

6:52

many college campuses. But

6:55

these were, you know,

6:57

there were groups of hundreds of students. It

6:59

was generally students, pro-Palestinian

7:01

student groups that were

7:03

organizing these. And

7:07

the sense that the

7:09

kind of mood on campus shifted further

7:12

with Jewish students saying they

7:14

felt really uncomfortable, really unsafe.

7:17

There were reports of a few more

7:20

anti-Semitic incidents, vandalism, things

7:22

like that. That there

7:25

was kind of this steady drip

7:27

of statements from university leaders

7:30

saying, you know, we're looking into it. Once

7:33

again, we do not condone anti-Semitism on our

7:35

campus. These anti-Semitic

7:38

incidents on campuses began

7:40

to draw the attention of

7:42

lawmakers. There

7:44

was a big push in Washington

7:46

and state governors put out statements.

7:50

Mayors put out statements, all of that, saying

7:52

we're very concerned about this. And

7:54

then you have enough of a push

7:56

in Washington of people saying these schools

7:58

are doing something very wrong. So

8:01

the House Committee on Education and

8:03

the Workforce arranged a hearing and

8:06

they invited the presidents of Harvard,

8:08

MIT, and Penn to testify. Why

8:12

those universities in particular? Well,

8:15

they're all very prestigious schools. They

8:18

are all schools, whether it's in particular

8:20

incidents or allegations of anti-Semitism, they're

8:24

high profile schools, so when things happen there,

8:26

everyone notices. So

8:29

the House Committee on Education and

8:31

the Workforce arranged a hearing and

8:34

the House Committee, which is

8:37

run by Republicans, made

8:39

very clear that they were very

8:41

disappointed in this leadership. Coming

8:46

up, how that hearing would

8:49

tip the balance against McGill.

9:00

This episode of the Journal is brought to you by

9:02

sponsor C3AI. C3

9:04

generative AI equips enterprises

9:06

with verified traceable answers.

9:08

It's secure, hallucination-free, LLM

9:10

agnostic, and IP liability-free.

9:12

Learn more at C3.ai.

9:17

This is Enterprise AI. What

9:27

is the theme of this hearing? Is

9:29

the men lined up in a

9:31

row facing the

9:34

crowd of committee

9:36

members? Virginia Fox opened

9:38

the session and then the

9:40

questioning began. Today each of

9:43

you will have a chance

9:46

to answer to and atone

9:48

for the many specific instances

9:51

of vitriolic, hate-filled anti-Semitism on

9:53

your respective campuses. How

9:56

did things go? These hearings are

9:59

political events. They're political spectacles

10:02

often. No matter who's

10:04

running the hearing, this is an opportunity for

10:06

politicians to get a few

10:08

sound bites to show that they're being tough

10:10

on a particular issue. The

10:12

goal for the presidents is to get

10:14

through the hearing. Yes. The goal

10:16

is to get through the hearing relatively

10:19

unscathed, if possible. And

10:22

they had all worked with lawyers and prepared.

10:25

This was not a group of people who went in cold,

10:28

and some argue maybe they were

10:30

over-prepared because their answers tended to

10:32

be extremely legalistic.

10:36

When did you notice things start

10:38

to go awry? So the

10:40

first half of the hearing,

10:42

I'd say, was not that spectacular.

10:46

Elise Stefanik, a Republican from New York,

10:48

was asking some pretty pointed questions. And

10:51

then they went on recess because House members had to

10:53

go vote on a couple of things. And

10:55

some people thought the hearing was over. And

10:59

then after, I want to say it

11:01

was an hour, they come back. And

11:03

that's really when things started

11:05

to get heated, and that's

11:08

the part of the hearing that everyone is now

11:10

focused on. Here's Elise

11:13

Stefanik grilling McGill. Ms.

11:15

McGill, at Penn, does calling for

11:18

the genocide of Jews violate Penn's

11:20

rules or code of conduct? Yes

11:22

or no? If

11:25

the speech turns into conduct, it can

11:27

be harassment. This is

11:29

when Elise Stefanik started asking the

11:31

genocide question. And

11:34

none of the presidents gave an unequivocal

11:36

yes. They all

11:38

said something along the lines of, it

11:41

depends on the context. I

11:43

am asking, specifically calling for

11:45

the genocide of Jews, does

11:47

that constitute bullying or harassment?

11:51

If it is directed and severe or

11:54

pervasive, it is harassment? So the

11:56

answer is yes. It is

11:58

a context dependent decision, Congress. It's

12:00

a context dependent decision. That's your testimony

12:02

today. Calling for the genocide of Jews

12:05

is depending upon the context. That

12:07

is not bullying or harassment. This

12:10

is the easiest question to answer.

12:12

Yes, Ms. McGill. So

12:16

is your testimony that you will not answer yes? If

12:20

it is, if the speech

12:23

becomes conduct, it can

12:25

be harassment. Yes. What

12:27

did you think as you heard that? I

12:29

knew what they were trying to say, which

12:32

is we give people a wide

12:35

berth in what they're allowed to say

12:37

on campuses, both inside and

12:39

outside the classroom, because that sparks discussion

12:41

and debate and intellectual growth. So

12:44

yes, it can depend on the context. That's

12:46

why it was so hard for them to answer the question.

12:49

Exactly. You know, they couldn't answer

12:52

that question with a hard yes,

12:54

because it's well, you know, hate

12:56

speech is subject to disciplinary action

12:59

when it has the threat

13:01

of imminent violence or it's directed at an

13:03

individual. But they were so caught

13:05

up in the rules

13:07

part of it and the policy and the precedent

13:10

and all that they weren't thinking, wait a

13:12

sec, I just said maybe we wouldn't punish

13:14

someone for calling for genocide. And

13:17

how did that go down

13:19

at Penn, which already had

13:22

these like pensions between donors and

13:24

the school and McGill

13:26

in particular? I had

13:29

a trustee refer to the testimony last

13:31

Tuesday as a hand grenade that

13:33

went off on campus. Like this

13:36

just blew things up. Even

13:38

if this tension had been simmering,

13:41

the situation became untenable afterwards. Like there

13:43

was no coming back from this. The

13:46

next night on Wednesday, McGill sought

13:48

to walk back her remarks in

13:51

a video. She said she

13:53

regretted how she answered the question at

13:55

the hearing and promised to make changes

13:57

to Penn's policies. focused

14:00

on our university's longstanding

14:02

policies aligned with the

14:04

US Constitution, which

14:06

say that speech alone is not

14:09

punishable. I

14:11

was not focused on, but I should have

14:13

been. The irrefutable

14:15

fact that a call for genocide

14:18

of Jewish people is a call

14:20

for some of the most terrible violence human

14:22

beings can perpetrate. But

14:25

her statement fell short, notably

14:27

to some donors to Penn's

14:29

business school, Wharton. The

14:33

donors were horrified.

14:36

And you also had one major donor,

14:39

Ross Stevens, say that

14:41

he was going to rescind a $100 million gift

14:43

that he had given back in 2017 because, essentially,

14:48

his affiliation with Penn now is

14:50

doing reputational damage to his own

14:52

company. And he couldn't have that.

14:55

Who is Ross Stevens? And can

14:58

you rescind a donation? So

15:00

Ross Stevens is another finance guy. He

15:03

is a very wealthy man who is

15:06

very generous to the institutions that he likes. So

15:09

he had given money for this new center

15:11

at Wharton a couple of years back. The

15:14

center opened. And now he says

15:16

that the gift was in the form of stock in his

15:18

company. And he said he's going to cancel the shares

15:21

because of all of this.

15:23

Is there precedent for that to

15:25

withdraw a donation so large?

15:28

I haven't seen something like this ever before.

15:31

Certainly not at this dollar amount. On

15:34

Saturday, McGill and board chair

15:37

Scott Bach both resigned. McGill

15:40

will stay on until an interim president

15:42

is named. And she'll remain on faculty

15:45

after the transition. How

15:47

has the student body reacted to McGill's

15:50

resignation? It's a mix. So

15:53

there was a big camp saying the school

15:55

can't back down. The school shouldn't back down.

15:57

And McGill shouldn't step down because that sends.

16:00

a terrible message about prioritizing

16:02

donors over academia. Right.

16:06

And then there was another camp saying, they

16:09

have to back down because the school is, you

16:13

know, this could be the first of many

16:15

rescinded donations. And at

16:17

what point can you no longer just give

16:19

back all of your money that you've gotten over the years?

16:24

And has her resignation satisfied

16:27

her critics? Not sure yet. I

16:30

think, you know, some of them spent the weekend doing

16:32

a bit of a victory lap, but

16:35

they also know that

16:37

this doesn't solve underlying

16:40

currents of antisemitism that

16:42

may be on campus and not just Penn's campus. And

16:46

there's a question of how much

16:48

power they'll get in deciding who the next president

16:50

is, right? They might see this as an opportunity

16:52

to really take a

16:55

stand and weigh in on who

16:57

the successor is. And they may

16:59

feel that they have the authority and the power to

17:01

do it because this worked. With

17:05

McGill resigning now, what's

17:07

the big question you have? I

17:11

think I have a few questions still. One

17:13

is who's gonna wanna take that job, knowing

17:17

that there's some dysfunction

17:19

within the board and some frayed

17:23

relationships with major donors, and

17:26

also likely some distrust from faculty, many

17:29

of whom they weren't thrilled with how McGill

17:31

handled things, but they're

17:33

worried about what the

17:35

move means for them, right? Are

17:38

they gonna self-censor now? Are they gonna

17:41

be nervous about what they're allowed to say and

17:43

they'll be on the chopping block next? So

17:46

I'm not sure who wants to take that job. And

17:49

then I still have

17:51

questions about what this solves, right?

17:55

This doesn't make anti-Semitic incidents on

17:58

campus disappear. These

18:00

things will continue to

18:02

happen. It's

18:06

just someone else sitting in the

18:08

presidency. That's

18:29

all for today, Monday, December 11.

18:32

The journal is a co-production of Spotify and

18:34

The Wall Street Journal. Reporting

18:37

in this episode by Douglas Belkin,

18:39

Joseph de Avila, Rachel Louise Ensign,

18:41

Ruara Cusisto and Peter Velazquez. Thanks

18:44

for listening.