Feeney’s Focus: “The Enemy of My Enemy”… Can still be your Enemy 

Welcome back from break, Huskies! I hope you all had a wonderful break and spent time with friends, family and loved ones.  

You know who probably didn’t have a good winter break? Claudine Gay. The former Harvard president had to resign right after the New Year. Her resignation was in response to backlash due to a disastrous congressional hearing a few weeks prior. At the heart of the hearing was the rise in antisemitism on college campuses in the aftermath of  Oct. 7.  

One of the most viral clips from the hearing resulted when all three presidents failed to say that “calling for the genocide of Jews” would violate the schools’ rules and conduct.  

Now, two things can be true. First, antisemitism has had a long history in higher education, long before the attacks of Oct. 7, and since then, attacks have sharply risen. Second, this hearing was a show of political theater and not an exposé of antisemitism on college campuses.  

There’s been enough coverage about the answers from the three presidents. I want to talk about the woman asking the questions: NY Rep. Elise Stefanik. She is the third most powerful Republican in Congress as House GOP Conference Chair. Stefanik and House Republicans viewed the resignation of Gay as a massive political victory, saying that “our robust Congressional investigation will continue to move forward to expose the rot in our most ‘prestigious’ higher education institutions and deliver accountability to the American people.” 

I’m sure most of you know the saying “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It’s an effective argument: two parties with a common enemy should work together instead of alone. However I think the saying should’ve been slightly different. It should be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend… however, they can still be my enemy. No person is a greater representative of my new phrase than Stefanik. While her rhetoric is of one committed to stopping antisemitism, her actions suggest the opposite. 

First there is her support of a man with 91 felony counts in four criminal cases across four states for president. Putting his criminality aside, Former President Donald Trump has a long history of disgusting antisemitic behavior. He’s had dinners with Nick Fuentes and Kanye West, attacked American Jews for “not supporting Israel enough” and has insinuated that American Jews have dual-loyalty to Israel. Despite all of this, Stefanik has shown up in Trump’s corner time and time again. 

Stefanik has also pushed the great replacement theory. A far-right conspiracy theory that believes that immigrants and other ethnic groups come to America to replace white people. Like many political conspiracy theories from the far-right, the great replacement theory has firm roots in antisemitism. It argues that the main perpetrators of the push to replace white Americans are Jewish people. Stefanik has gleefully echoed this theory in her political campaign ads. Yet she enjoyed a  massive spike in fundraising due to the political clout she gained from the hearing.  

Congressional hearings are a great way for our elected representatives to have a platform to talk to the American people. But money will always be louder than a spoken word. It’s easy to say you want to do something, but investing the money into doing it is a lot harder.  

Congressional Republicans, led by Stefanik repeatedly, have not only shown a complete lack of interest in investing in programs towards curbing antisemitism on college campuses; she and her colleagues have pushed for a 55% cut to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. This department was created in 1966 in conjunction with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its purpose is to investigate instances of hate and bigotry on college campuses nationwide.  

Stefanik’s solution to antisemitism on campuses is to accuse universities of not doing enough while hamstringing the department whose sole purpose is to investigate instances of anti–semitism and racism on college campuses by cutting their budget by over 50%. 

 How effective would you be in solving any problem in your life if I took away 50% of your resources while you were working on a solution? 

Antisemitism is going to remain a persistent issue on college campuses. It is an issue that should be confronted. However, Elise Stefanik does not have any meaningful way to solve it other than just simply calling for universities to force their presidents out. She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. She pretends to care about a serious issue while continuing to push for antisemitic candidates and policies that will make it harder to adequately investigate it.