Transcript: Webinar – Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America’s Elite Universities
Click here to watch the webinar.
PANELISTS
Rep. Elise Stefanik (NY-21)
Member, House Armed Services Committee; House Committee on Education and the Workforce; and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The discussion was moderated by JINSA President and CEO Michael Makovsky, PhD.
—
TRANSCRIPT
Transcript has been lightly edited for flow and clarity.
Michael Makovsky:
Hi, I am Michael Makovsky. I am the President and CEO at JINSA. Welcome. I am really pleased to have today join us Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, who is currently serving her sixth term representing New York’s 21st District. Let me give you a little background on her. Of course, we’re going to be talking about her book. Congresswoman Stefanik made history as the youngest woman ever elected to Congress. She later served as the chair of the House Republican Conference. And she sits—which is very important obviously to JINSA and our supporters in particular—on the House Armed Services Committee, the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, among many other assignments. She is widely recognized for her work on national security and became a national figure in particular, well-recognized for her work on education and questioning of Harvard’s, Columbia’s and MIT’s presidents on the outbursts of anti-Israel and Antisemitic activity. And we’re going to talk today about her book, Poisoned Ivies—which is a great title—the inside account of the academic and moral rot of America’s elite universities and it talks a lot about her hearing and what led up to it and what has followed since then. Congresswoman Stefanik, it’s an honor to have you. I should say also [she is] a great supporter of Israel, which is very important to everyone in the JINSA community. So, thank you so much for all that.
Elise Stefanik:
Well, thank you so much. Thank you for all the great work that JINSA does. We have worked very closely with my Congressional office over the years and in addition to my work on the Education Committee, I serve on the House Armed Services and House Intelligence Committees and have done so throughout my time in Congress. But very excited for the opportunity to talk about this important book and really to dive into the “hearing heard around the world” with the university presidents from MIT, Penn, and Harvard, that really was the turning point in American higher education.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, I want to get into all the questions, but if I may just say editorially, I’ve watched that hearing and particularly those clips of you asking that—I watched it a number of times just to see your questioning and the reaction, including the facial expressions of these presidents. Just to make sure, I will never forget it. Really a tremendous job on that, and I want to delve into all that. I just want to say though, before we get into all the questions, I personally don’t read a lot of political books. I don’t read books by politicians, to be candid. They’re generally not that interesting, and all they do is self-serve. However, this is a really interesting book. I find it really compelling. You learn a lot of information—some of it is a review of what was publicized—but there’s a lot that was not publicized. And it really gives you an inside account, and it’s not just about the hearing. But the book reviews, which we will get into, a lot of the other universities, and what has been happening before and since that hearing. So really kudos on a really well-written, compelling book, Congresswoman.
Elise Stefanik:
Well, thank you. You’re right. It’s not a traditional political book, and usually for an elected official or a politician, the first book is often just the story of themselves. That’s not this book. I made a conscious decision that I wanted to talk about an issue that matters tremendously to the American people. And I do talk a little bit about my educational background and the hearing itself and how I conducted the Congressional oversight. But I really tried to do a deep dive into each of these schools and highlight many of the students who were unbelievable, extraordinary leaders and testified in front of Congress so I go into that in the Harvard chapter, in the Penn chapter, in the Columbia chapter. So, I appreciate you saying it’s not a typical political book, because it isn’t. It’s a book about an issue and it’s a subject matter. And that was my choice to publish this as my first book. And it’s an important one. There’s a reason why it debuted as the best-selling non-fiction book in America. Because people are really asking questions of how higher education lost its way.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah. And I think it’s a model for a lot of other books by elected officials, I would say. Because it’s so substantive. So really, kudos, which obviously reflects on the author, by definition. So let’s get into it. Before we get into some of the details, if we can step back, and you do address this in the book but I think it’s good for the audience to hear. Before we get into what happened in that hearing, how do you explain, broadly, what’s happening on college campuses? How did we even get to the point to what happened on October 7th?
Elise Stefanik:
The book goes into this. So, we saw, of course, in the immediacy after the October 7th Hamas attack against Israel, which was the bloodiest day for the Jewish people since the Holocaust. You saw an explosion of pro-Hamas encampments and Antisemitism on America’s elite universities. But my book goes into how this didn’t happen overnight. This was decades of decay that got to this point and there was this stunning rise in Antisemitism even prior to October 7th. And the book chronicles that. And then, of course, it hit a fever pitch in terms of on October 8th and beyond. So that not only is what the book discusses, but that was the pretext that led to the Congressional hearing. You saw this explosion and the public saw these takeovers of these university campuses by pro-Hamas encampments. You saw physical assaults against Jewish students, incessant targeting and harassment, and the breaking of the rules of the universities, and yet a failure of leadership to discipline and to make sure that students were protected on campus, particularly American Jewish students. That was what led to us having the hearing, and I encouraged my colleague to haul in the presidents of MIT, Penn, and Harvard. I myself graduated from Harvard. I was the first member of my immediate family to have that opportunity, and it was really unrecognizable to me what was happening on campus. It was not like that when I was a student there 20 years ago. So, somewhere along these lines, these schools lost their way, and the book does a deep dive into how this happened, why this happened, what is happening on these campuses, and how we can fix it. Which is the most important part of this—how we save higher American higher education.
Michael Makovsky:
By the way, to clarify, if I’m not mistaken, you’re the first person in your immediate family that went to college, is that right?
Elise Stefanik:
Yes, to graduate from college, and that was a big deal. I know that so many parents are listening, and when you focus, and my parents did very much, on giving better educational opportunities. I mean, that was a life changer. And I talk about this in the book. I had a very positive experience at Harvard. Of course, it was left-leaning, but it wasn’t like it is today, where you saw this specific targeting of Jewish students who face assaults on campus and a lack of leadership from the university. So, something happened in the last 20 years, and we got to dig out of it. We have to be vigilant on this issue.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, let me ask you, by the way, I got my PhD there around the time you, I think, graduated college, I’m a little older than you, but I didn’t see any of this either, and I used to wear a yarmulke. I don’t now, but when I did my first year at Harvard, I never had any problems. I can’t imagine doing that now, but it’s really a disgrace. Let me ask you, I know it’s not in the book, it’s not your focus. But before we just get into all of it, when you say what led up to it, I’m curious. You have young kids, right? You have two young kids?
Elise Stefanik:
One. I have one young son who’s four. Yeah.
Michael Makovsky:
[Do] you think that in your sense, and I know it’s not the focus of the hearings, which we’ll delve into, or your book, but I hope you don’t mind my asking. I mean, I’m sure you’re aware. I guess this just happened to campuses, right? I mean, there’s a K through 12 element, right?Elise Stefanik:
Absolutely. You could write a whole other book, and I might do it, on K through 12, and the challenges in K through 12, we’re seeing that. Certain states are better than others. New York State, where I’m from, is moving in the wrong direction when it comes to K through 12, with the curricula that is in some cases Antisemitic, with allowing foreign dollars to flow into the K through 12—even the public system—that’s very concerning as well. Certain states are taking strong leadership at the governor’s level and state legislatures. Unfortunately, we’re not seeing that in states like New York. So, yes, there is a pipeline issue, even before you get to colleges and universities with what’s happening in our educational system. And the book also makes the case that this is not just about Antisemitism. Antisemitism is the “canary in the coal mine” for broader attacks on anti-Americanism and Western values, Western civilization. And that’s why I think the hearing resonated with so many people across the country. It was the most viewed hearing in the history of Congress, with over 1 billion views in a week, because it really captured the public’s attention and culminated with what’s so very wrong with the trajectory of our education system.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, I agree. I look forward to if you do delve into that book, because I’m seeing this with my daughter now in her school, and it’s very upsetting. Alright, let’s delve back into the hearing now. Maybe you could explain, if you don’t mind giving a little teaser, you know, because one of the things you say in the book is you almost weren’t there, right, at the hearing? I think that is interesting.
Elise Stefanik:
Well, yeah, I go behind the scenes into sort of what the preparation and what a day of a hearing looks like. And I had one of the worst flus I’ve ever had—and this is just a detail of prior to the hearing—and you can see in the video footage I had the box of Kleenex next to me in the hearing, and just was really run down. I knew how important this hearing was, and I had done so much research. I was one of the reasons why the hearing happened, was because I had encouraged my colleague; these are the schools we need to haul in. I had spent a tremendous amount of time talking to fellow alumni, as well as students who are currently on campus, and I had no idea that it was going to be as important of a hearing, but it was just important to me. Important to me based on the policy work, and also working and caring deeply about the education issue and crisis that this country is facing. So, I do talk about that. I talk about the question itself, how in the hearing, and this was very organic, my colleagues—you often hear it in Congressional hearings—they’ll yield time. The Republican members started yielding me time when they had a remaining two or three minutes, so I had six or seven rounds of questions. That was organic, not planned, and it was because my colleagues realized I had done so much preparation for the hearing and was asking very effective questions, and the question heard around the world also almost didn’t happen, because these day long Congressional hearings I had done my six rounds—you usually only get one round—we broke for votes when you go to the House floor, so I went to the House floor and voted, and I didn’t think I’d get another round of questions. And I remember my chiefs of staff and I were saying, “do we go back?” You know, I’ve asked more rounds than anyone else. And there was one member left, she was the most junior member, and she said, “if I have extra time, I’ll yield it to you,” so I went back. That’s why the video footage, you’ll see the hearing room is almost completely empty, and there’s only like two members left. She yielded me her last three minutes, and I thought, ‘how can I ask this in the most direct way possible to force them to answer correctly?” And the question was this: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?” I expected them to say yes. To my shock, and I was planning on following up what disciplinary action has been taken, to my shock, MIT, Penn, and Harvard, one after the other, after the other, said it depends on the context, and I couldn’t believe it. I knew it was going to be an important question that was very revealing. I would never have predicted that it would become the most viewed testimony in the history of Congress. It led to a complete earthquake in higher education that we’re still feeling reverberations of today. The resignation of the Penn president, the resignation of the Harvard president, preemptive resignations of other university presidents, because we are about to subpoena them. Eventually, the toppling of the Columbia president, so it has had a cataclysmic impact on higher education,
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah. I got to ask you. By the way, I’m just gonna say, as someone who lives in Washington, there’s nothing wrong with this, but it’s well known that members of Congress are very staffed up, and then some members are completely reliant on their staff, and maybe others less so. And it’s impressive that you, as you explain that this is just something you would think about, these questions were just coming out of your head that wasn’t pre-planned at all, which makes it even more, to me, impressive and interesting actually.
Elise Stefanik:
Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean, I’m in my sixth term, 12 years. I’ve been at the highest levels of Congressional leadership, and I’ve realized over time, and have a tremendous staff, they do extraordinary research and policy work. But I find that the traditional way of asking Congressional questions can be very, you know, more of a statement—a two-minute-long opening statement, and then a very dense question that’s not revealing. I’ve found and honed this over the years, that often asking the most direct, simple questions are actually the most revelatory and impactful and deliver the most change to pursue policy ends. In this case, I wrote the question and I do what’s called a “question tree.” I sort of write it real-time in the hearing. The other thing I talk about is that sitting in the hearing, in total, allows you to do follow-ups, and I’ve done that a lot over the years. Sometimes members just come in for their five minutes, and they move on to the other hearing. I get it, busy schedules, but I’ve just found that it’s important to listen, so that you can make adjustments on the fly. Interestingly, I talk about in the book how many newly elected members now reach out to me, and they have for years, about how to conduct Congressional questioning, and how you really make an impact at these hearings in a way that’s not traditional on Capitol Hill.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, good. I appreciate your mentoring of them on that. Do you, by the way, obviously Harvard given that you went there, and obviously that became the most famous case, I think, in the situation of Claudine Gay. But if I may just ask, because the story of MIT, and you write about it in your book but she’s still there, right? And by the way, I may add, she’s Jewish, as far as I know. And you lay out how bad it was at the MIT campus. How did she actually survive on this?
Elise Stefanik:
I’ve talked to many people, both who are on the board of MIT, but I have also spoken with her. She deeply regrets how she answered that question, and she was able to hang on to the position. They have made some changes at MIT—the elimination of the Antisemitic DEI program. She has stood up for various Jewish professors that were under significant assault and harassment, but there are still major problems at MIT. The interesting thing about the question is, I started that question with MIT, not because she was Jewish, but because MIT is a technical school, and I viewed it as not as forgone as the Penns and the Harvards of the world. She did not answer correctly, but then the answers got worse as you went to Penn, and then, of course, you went to Claudine Gay. And by the end, it was, it depends on the context, or it’s a context-dependent decision, and that was the reason why I think both, in the case of Harvard and Penn, they were forced out. The MIT portion of the book, I do go into really jaw-dropping detail of examples like the “mapping project,” where literally either Jewish-owned businesses or Jewish organizations or research centers that happen to be led by a leader who is Jewish, are specifically mapped and targeted. I mean, these are snapshots out of 1930s pre-World War II, and the fact that this is happening at America’s elite institutions is deeply concerning to me as an American. And also, I’m not Jewish, I’m Catholic. It’s very important for all Americans to speak out against Antisemitism, and I think that helped me demonstrate why this issue is important to every American.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, I appreciate that very much. And I want to ask you, you just said you’re not Jewish. But do you have many Jews in your district, if I may ask?
Elise Stefanik:
Well, New York, as we know, there are many Jewish families in New York State. In my district, I don’t have a large, large number, but I grew up with many Jewish friends. I went to an all-girls day school. It was right next to a synagogue. I grew up with many Jewish friends going to Bat and Bar Mitzvahs, and just was raised with very great parents who taught me, you know, the importance of moral leadership and right and wrong. I also had a great education where we learned about the horrors of the Holocaust, and one of the issues that I’ve worked on well prior to this hearing, is making sure that we are teaching the horrors of the Holocaust in K through 12. I was the lead Republican on the grant funding that’s run by the Holocaust Memorial Museum regarding Holocaust education in K through 12. So, I have a body of work in this space, and it really culminated in this hearing.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, you’ve also been a great supporter of Israel.
Elise Stefanik:
Yes, and I went to Israel as an undergraduate. I was a fellow for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. That was my first trip. I also, in my capacity on the Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, am deeply understanding of the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship when it comes to protecting American national security. It’s an important, incredibly important ally, as well as an intelligence-sharing partner, and we share values, and that’s very important. I think President Trump has demonstrated that tremendously in some of the really challenging national security decisions that he’s made, particularly in his second term.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, I might ask you about that at the end, if I may. Let’s get back to the hearing. You mentioned here, if you don’t mind, which was interesting, after the hearing, it seemed like Claudine Gay, as you indicated, didn’t really appreciate what happened, and that there was an internal discussion, because I guess your committee has subpoenaed all these documents, which has been very interesting. I hadn’t seen these things. And you write that her chief of staff wrote after October 7th, as they’re deliberating internally at Harvard what to do. She said, ‘they should not say unequivocally that we denounce Hamas’ October 7th massacre.’ And, as you point out, you know, the statements got a little better after there was more pressure on them. But were you even surprised by how entrenched this is—the rot—I guess, at Harvard?
Elise Stefanik:
Yeah, I was surprised. So, after the hearing, it set off the Congressional investigation, and we subpoenaed over 100,000 documents. And going through the internal discussions and really the handwringing in those days and months after October 7th, and just the failure of leadership was very revealing. I talked about that in the book. I also talked about even after the Congressional hearing itself, which was obvious to anyone watching, that they had so fundamentally bombed that hearing. They were still, it still took four different statements for her to clean up, and she wasn’t able to clean up that hearing, but to fully condemn Hamas, and condemn the pro-Hamas encampment that had, in this case, at Harvard, physically assaulted a student. And yet they were equivocating. So, the book is really how to conduct effective Congressional investigation, but it’s also just a bombshell read about what’s happening behind the scenes at these institutions. Remember, in Harvard’s case it wasn’t just a moral rot, but at the same time, in the week after the hearing, it came out publicly that she had a major plagiarism scandal as the president of Harvard. That wouldn’t have been in the news were it not the Congressional hearing. So, I make the case that you also have the academic rot at these institutions as well.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah. By the way, I’ll just say, as a PhD, I never really looked into being a professor, but I was surprised. I mean, not only would she plagiarize, she never even published a book. I don’t know how you could even get tenure at Harvard if you didn’t publish at least one well-credentialed book by some Harvard Press or Yale Press or whatever.
Elise Stefanik:
Or like this [holds up Poisoned Ivies book].
Micheal Makovsky:
Or even that! You know, I remember when I was a grad student, the professors sometimes wanted two well-credentialed books before they would consider a candidate to be a junior professor. She didn’t publish one book, and whatever she published were articles, and they were plagiarized. I found that interesting, personally.
Elise Stefanik:
Yeah, that whole part of the scandal was jaw-dropping as well, because had you been a student, you would have been removed from Harvard, no questions asked. But she was allowed to make quote-on-quote “corrections,” and they covered it up. It was only until it was publicly revealed with investigative journalism, but they tried to cover it up. The Harvard Corporation attempted to cover this up, allow her to make those corrections again. Had you been a student, there would have been zero tolerance for that plagiarism. So, it shows to me the academic rot as well. And again, as I said, the book, it’s not just about Antisemitism, it’s broadly attacks on academic excellence on Western civilization and our American values.
Michael Makovsky:
Well, as you also pointed out in the book, the university already knew about the plagiarism.
Elise Stefanik:
Yep, and they covered it up.
Michael Makovsky:
That’s really something. I think you do say this here in the book, but I must say, as a Jew, one of the things that always stuck out of me, that if these were protesters calling for genocide of blacks, and there were whites attacking blacks on campuses, I can’t even imagine, which would obviously be horrible, I can’t even imagine the swift response by the university and the media and everything.
Elise Stefanik:
Well, I make the case in the book that if you put in any other demographic group, there would have been no hesitation to answer the question correctly and to mete out discipline according to the rules. It was only when you include the group calling for the genocide of Jews, that there is this moral equivocation. I then make the case that that’s the double standard—that really is the underpinning of Antisemitism—and it’s again people understand that inherently across the country how fundamentally these schools are off track because they are specifically refusing to condemn what every average American—I think of my constituents—understands that calling for the genocide of Jews is unacceptable, and that there should be disciplinary action. And yet you have the presidents of these most prestigious institutions failing to do that in a very public way. It doesn’t get more public than a Congressional investigation and Congressional hearing.
Michael Makovsky:
By the way, I gotta say, I commend you and the whole committee, and by the way, the Trump administration for all the work. It is worth more than all the tens of millions of dollars that have been poured into combating Antisemitism. And if you don’t mind me asking, you do talk about this earthquake, which I completely agree with you. When you look today, and I don’t want to skip over the history, but you know, when you look today, where we are, and what the administration has done, and what the university is the fighting that continues to get these universities to do the right thing, how do you see where we are today? Based on the time since that hearing with your questioning.
Elise Stefanik:
You know this didn’t happen overnight, so it’s going to take decades of vigilance to dig out of this. However, this was a real turning point. Remember, the hearing happened in December of 2023, so you had a year left of the Biden administration. There was no action taken, no investigations, and the schools continued to stick their heads in the sand. Counter that and compare that with day one of the Trump administration. You had numerous executive orders signed on day one, you had multiple investigations launched rightfully by the Education Department and the Justice Department, and you had, you know, some of these settlements forcing these schools, and that only resulted from the withholding of federal dollars. So, a lot of times I will be asked, you know, “is that the right approach to withhold federal dollars?” I argue yes, because these schools had the opportunity to fix themselves, they were incapable of doing that, and the only way they will wake up. So, where are we today? We still have a long way to go, but there are bright spots. Not only are there institutions like Dartmouth and Vanderbilt who are excelling and moving in a different direction than the Poisoned Ivies, but you also have recognition. For example, in the last month, the Yale report that was issued by Yale University, talks about a lot of the same issues: about why people are losing faith in these educational institutions, and how they need to find their way back to their founding mission.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, you cite polls in the book early on. I didn’t write it down, so I don’t remember. Pardon me. But, I didn’t really realize how you looked at polls like 20 years ago, 10 years ago, today, of how much confidence Americans have in universities. It’s been a precipitous drop.
Elise Stefanik:
Huge drop, even a huge drop in the last 10 years. I also look at sort of the ideological lack of diversity. These schools, at the same time that they are instituting the DEI agenda, diversity, equity, inclusion, they are doing everything they can to not have diversity of thought. So, you’ve seen the ideological delta, which used to be about one to one 50 years ago, more than 50 years ago, about 70 years ago. Now, in some cases, it’s 88 to one—if you even have one conservative or common sense in some of these departments. And that to me shows that faculty tenure needs to be reformed. I mean, it’s increasingly like-minded, very outside the norm ideological viewpoints. So, again, a long way to go, but an important earthquake that has restarted this conversation.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, why don’t you mention that? I know we don’t have time to talk about the book. I’m sorry that we’re kind of jumping.
Elise Stefanik:
No, it’s great! We are covering a lot of it.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, but the thing is, I really encourage everyone to go through it, the book really reviews and gives you information that you didn’t know, and it goes through a lot of the universities. So, I found it fascinating. Let me ask you two questions. So, you mentioned Dartmouth and Vanderbilt. You also mentioned Washington University, if I’m not mistaken, where I’m from. I grew up right nearby, and I have some relatives that went there. What distinguishes those schools? If your four-year-old was 18 today, are those the kind of schools that you would want them to apply to? And what are they doing differently than the Harvards and the Penns and so on?
Elise Stefanik:
Number one: they’re showing leadership. The chancellors and the presidents of those universities showed leadership at this very important time, and they understood the mission of their universities is not political indoctrination and bowing to the mob. Oftentimes, the loudest voices are not representative of the entirety of the student body or the viewpoints, and that’s a tough lesson that many of these university presidents didn’t realize. In the case of Dartmouth, in the case of University of Florida, Vanderbilt, you had strong leadership. Also, the enforcement of rules. They didn’t hesitate to enforce the rules and clear out the pro-Hamas encampments. They had zero tolerance for physical assaults, and you had some of these Poisoned Ivies where there was no disciplinary action taken, or very limited sort of slap-on-the-wrist disciplinary action taken for physical assaults of students on campus. So, leadership is one thing. The other thing is again the importance of ideological diversity in the case of Dartmouth, of Vanderbilt, and University of Florida, and no school is perfect, but there was more ideological diversity among the professors that I think played out in terms of how these schools handled it, or they didn’t handle it in the post October 7th era. So, I not only talk about the Poisoned Ivies, I try to also discuss schools that are getting it right. Because I get asked by parents every day, where should my kid apply to, and you really have to make that decision as a parent—what is the right institution for what your child and what your family is looking for.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, and you also have a chapter on how to fix this—which you just alluded to—but maybe you could just discuss a little more, if you don’t mind.
Elise Stefanik:
So, how to fix it? I identify foreign funding as one of the major driving issues. If you look at the billions of dollars flowing in from Qatar, billions from China—why are we allowing that to happen? Strings are attached to those foreign dollars, particularly in funding in the Middle Eastern Studies departments, it impacts the curricula, it impacts the type of professors that are hired, and that, of course, impacts the pedagogy of what’s being taught in these classrooms. So, I don’t support any foreign funding from adversarial nations or nations that are counter to American values and American principles. I also discussed the percentage of foreign students. You know, these universities were founded as American institutions, and they’ve lost that way, and they are consistently prioritizing foreign students over American students. We saw in some of these pro-Hamas encampments, it was foreign students on visas who were stoking this Antisemitism and organizing the encampments. First of all, they should be deported. Second of all, why are we prioritizing foreign students? We should have a cap on foreign students at these institutions. I also talk about the faculty tenure reform, that’s very important, and you know those are some of the solutions I’ve worked on legislatively. We’ve worked on executive actions with this administration, but we still have a long way to go.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, by the way, you, in your discussion of MIT, you cite this quotation, which actually I had remembered that the President Kornbluth mentioned, because it really stood out at the time, that they didn’t want to punish some of these demonstrators who were preventing kids from moving to areas on campus because they’d have visa issues. I mean, that was really something that basically protecting MIT—and I assume other universities—are protecting their foreign students.
Elise Stefanik:
Which really poses the question, it is not a right for foreigners to study in the United States of America. It is a privilege. And if you are wreaking havoc and starting these pro-Hamas riots, in the case of Columbia, then you have no place and that visa needs to be revoked. That was the correct decision, counter to the Biden administration, that Secretary Rubio and President Trump—I have said that decision is the right one in terms of the revocation of those visas.
Michael Makovsky:
Let me ask you on this foreign funding, because it’s obviously a big issue. I run a nonprofit, we’re a [501]c3—it’s a think tank—and we don’t take foreign money. I mean, legally we could, we certainly wouldn’t take money from Qatar. We don’t take it from Israel or Germany, either. But if we did, then our lawyers would say, “well you could, if you do some work, if you go to, I mean we wouldn’t go to Qatar, but let’s just use an example, and you go to Qatar, there could be FARA [Foreign Agents Registration Act] issues. How come these universities don’t have these issues with FARA? So maybe you could just explain what FARA is. But you know, should there be a rethink about universities taking foreign money? Should they be required to designate themselves a certain way?
Elise Stefanik:
So, I think there should be a rethink of this. I think transparency is key in this. One of the bills that I’ve worked on is the Deterrent Act, which closes some of the loopholes. Right now, foreign countries can give money to centers or professors or particular programs and not have those be disclosed. We need full 100 percent disclosure of any foreign dollars flowing into higher ed institutions. Now we saw the recent Department of Education report, which was very transparent, in billions of dollars from Communist China, billions of dollars from Qatar, going into these higher ed institutions. That’s been a wake-up call for the American people. And I do think you’re seeing a shifting perspective of why are we even allowing this? In the case of the CCP, for example, the Chinese Communist Party, they have set up what are called Confucius Institutes on campuses. We banned that in Congress, and of course, they’re going to try to circumvent it, but you have to really stay focused on it. And again, it goes back to making sure we’re focused on American students first and remembering that these are American institutions.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah. Do you think there is any resistance in Congress for having more transparency about donations to universities?
Elise Stefanik:
Well, Chuck Schumer blocked it from being brought up in the Senate because it passed the House, including with bipartisan support. And then Chuck Schumer, this is when he was the majority leader in the last term, blocked that from coming to the floor. We have a great partner in Senator John Thune, so you’re seeing more legislation passed through to address this issue, but again, it’s something that we need to continue to work on.
Michael Makovsky:
This came up, of course with the Columbia issue, we learned those texts and reports with the press, you’ll have a better memory on this than I will, of course. Where a university president or an aide said that you basically don’t have to worry, it’s the Democrats will be fine with the Democrats, but the Republicans take over, we’re going to have a problem. Do you think that the Democratic Party more aligned with the universities, because the universities are more on the left, and they generally try to protect the universities more? Or is it not so simply partisan?
Elise Stefanik:
Well look, it was only the House Republicans who conducted these hearings. The Senate, at the time, was controlled by Democrats; they didn’t have a single hearing on the crisis in higher education and the skyrocketing Antisemitism. That, in and of itself, I think shows the lack of prioritization. And then, politically, look at what’s happening in these Democrat primaries. You now have the leaders of the pro-Hamas encampments running for Congress, getting elected in these Democrat primaries. So, I make the case in the book that what happens on these campuses has a direct line into what’s happening politically.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, you know I would add, I know we don’t get too much on the politics here. You had President Biden – I have no evidence at all that he’s an Antisemite in any way, and I always thought he was generally naturally or instinctively pro-Israel. But he didn’t do or say almost anything. And then when you have these Hamas protesters, at one point I think he said—I can’t remember the exact quote—but basically he said they have a point or something.
Elise Stefanik:
There’s a huge challenge within the Democrat party right now with this rise of Antisemitism. I do highlight in the book—Fetterman was a really important voice that condemned without hesitation, and Josh Shapiro, again, he was governor of Pennsylvania. This happened. Penn was among the worst, and you had a very weak leadership from Liz McGill. He called for her resignation immediately as well. So there are a few examples, but that’s outside of the norm of what the Democrat party, what we’re seeing play out both in the public polling, but also in some of these primary elections.
Michael Makovsky:
Didn’t Liz McGill just get hired by Georgetown?
Elise Stefanik:
Yes, There’s also a revolving door in higher-ed that I talk about, where, while she was ousted as the Penn president, she had a parachute at Harvard first, and then now at Georgetown Law School as the dean. Same goes for Claudine Gay, removed as the president, but given a million-dollar parachute to be a professor at Harvard, so you do have this revolving door issue in higher education.
Michael Makovsky:
Which shows why this is going to be a long-term issue to fix. If you don’t mind, I would like to ask you, while we have you for just a few more minutes and we appreciate your time, if you don’t mind if I take advantage of your presence here just to talk about the Iran issue. Because obviously for the country and U.S. national security, it’s so important. How do you assess where we are with Iran? Do you think it’s possible to do a good deal with the Iranians, or should we be resuming military operations?
Elise Stefanik:
Well, first of all, we hold all the cards. Iran has no cards. President Trump correctly took very targeted military action in terms of targeting the terrorist regime and ensuring that, for example, in the last 24 hours, when you saw the Iranian drone striking a U.S. Apache helicopter, the President correctly took action retaliatory for that just egregious targeting by the Iranians. I think we have a very strong President who understands that the only way you bring peace to the Middle East and peace to the world and protect American national security is you have to get rid of the Iranian terrorist regime, and you have to ensure that they do not—and never have—nuclear weapons capabilities. And remember—take a step back. The strike that Iran conducted against the U.S. Apache helicopter was during these negotiations and discussions. So, they have shown time and time again that they cannot be trusted. They have disgraced themselves on the world stage. They are the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism that’s led directly to the deaths of Americans. So, again, we have a very strong “peace through strength” President. We’ve worked on this issue on the Armed Services Committee and on the Intelligence Committee, and I think we should continue utilizing all military tools that are in front of the President to make sure that we are protecting U.S. national security.
Michael Makovsky:
By the way, just so you know, we give President Trump tremendous credit for Midnight Hammer, and then initiating military action here, which I think was really triggered by his support for the Iranian demonstrators in January. I think he’s the first president to really be so vocal in support, of course. I do. Just so you know—where we are is that –we have never supported the ceasefire. We think our leverage has only diminished since the ceasefire began. And I think we view the president kind of as a bit stuck right now. I don’t think he’ll agree to a bad deal, but for whatever reason, he’s reluctant to get back into military action.
Elise Stefanik:
Well look, that changed this morning; look at what he sent out. I mean, again, it’s a whole different game when you have the Iranians targeting a U.S. Apache helicopter over the Strait of Hormuz, and the president correctly said that the Iranians had an opportunity, they blew it, essentially. I’m not going to get ahead of any decisions that he makes, but I have confidence that he will make the right decision in making sure that there’s no nuclear weapons capability, as well as removal of the greatest state sponsor of terror that has led to bloodshed around the world. And then also take a step back. This is a regime that targeted President Trump’s assassination. This is a regime that has tried to assassinate current U.S. elected officials, former U.S. elected and appointed officials. It has caused chaos and violence and terror around the world, and that’s the only way you solve this issue, is solve it for good, and that’s what President Trump is trying to do.
Michael Makovsky:
Yeah, well, look, we’ve taken up a lot of your time. We’ve actually now surpassed it. So, I want to thank you very much, Congresswoman Stefanik. I want to commend you again for all your tremendous work on the universities and on education, and obviously in support of a strong United States, and I look forward to your next book, and everything else you’re going to be doing going forward.
Elise Stefanik:
Thank you. Poisoned Ivies. Get it, it’s a really important book. Thanks for the opportunity, JINSA.