A congressional committee trying to root out antisemitism in higher education across the country is continuing to scrutinize California universities. On June 26, the committee sent a letter to the president of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, following up on his recent testimony about actions he said the campus is taking in response to antisemitic acts that occurred there. Soon, the president of UC Berkeley will answer to the committee in its next hearing, which has been postponed from July 9.

University presidents are under increasing pressure to answer for what lawmakers are calling hate and discrimination toward Jewish students and faculty. While both Republican and Democratic committee members have denounced antisemitism during the hearings, some question where the line gets drawn between free speech and hate speech.

Many of the universities that have been called to testify before the House Committee on Education and Workforce are among the nation’s most elite schools. However, the Republican chair of the committee, Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, told CalMatters in a written statement that “antisemitism is a widespread problem across the country,” which is why the committee specifically chose Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo’s president Jeffrey Armstrong to testify on May 7.

“We sought out colleges that fit this criteria and offered diverse school settings across the country. We also sought out a balance of public and private schools. Cal Poly also had several incidents of antisemitism that stood out and were a concern to the Committee,” according to the statement attributed to Walberg, who his press team said did not have time for an interview.

The hearing placed Cal Poly in the national spotlight amid concerns over antisemitism on college campuses and heightened political scrutiny of higher education. Under former President Joe Biden, the House committee last year questioned university leaders across the country, including UCLA, about campus policies and safety after the Israel-Hamas war sparked protests on both sides of the issue. Three university presidents, from Harvard, University of Pennsylvania and Columbia, resigned from their positions after testifying last year.

So far this year, during President Donald Trump’s second term, the Department of Justice has formed a task force to investigate antisemitism on campuses, including UCLA, UC Berkeley and USC, and the House committee has announced investigations into at least nine universities.

While no university leaders who have testified before the committee have resigned this year, the Trump administration has frozen federal funding to institutions for alleged antisemitism. Following the administration’s policy to deny research grants to universities that allow the boycott of Israel, UC President Michael Drake sent a letter to all campus officials on July 2 affirming that boycotts of businesses based on affiliations with any country are against UC policy.

Questioning Israel’s right to exist may be considered antisemitism under the Trump administration. During his first term, Trump issued an executive order federally defining antisemitism to include certain forms of anti-Zionist expression, aligning with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s examples of antisemitism. One example includes criticism that denies “the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”

Trump’s executive order says antisemitism may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, but does not cover discrimination based solely on religious belief. While the Department of Education has “interpreted Title VI to reach religious discrimination when it overlaps with race or national origin discrimination,” case law is sparse and inconsistent, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

Violating the Title VI anti-discrimination law can result in loss of federal funding or legal action, according to the Library of Congress.

But executive orders aren’t law, said Catherine Lhamon, former assistant secretary for civil rights in the U.S. Department of Education, at a journalism conference in May. “Executive orders bind federal agencies about what the president directs those federal agencies to do. They don’t create law.”

During the May 7 congressional hearing, many of the Democratic representatives on the House committee questioned whether the federal administration could effectively address antisemitism and other forms of discrimination on campus if the Office of Civil Rights is closed. The office operates under the U.S. Department of Education, which Trump has called for dismantling. Rep. Bobby Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said of the 12,000 current Office of Civil Rights complaints, only 144 relate to discrimination based on national origin involving religion, which includes antisemitism.

A federal judge blocked the Trump administration on May 22 from firing Department of Education employees, saying this is an act only Congress can do, and called for hiring back over 2,000 employees.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding for Harvard and other institutions due to their handling of campus activism and antisemitism. The Department of Education is investigating dozens of universities for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

Leaders from over 600 universities around the country have signed a joint statement from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences condemning “unprecedented government overreach and political interference,” including nine of 10 UC chancellors and 14 of 23 Cal State presidents. The UC system President Michael Drake signed, but the Cal State system Chancellor Mildred Garcia did not.

Armstrong declined to sign the statement because Cal Poly San Luis Obispo has no role in determining public policy, according to Lazier, the university spokesperson. A letter signed by 284 faculty members urged Armstrong to publicly support Harvard and sign the statement.

UC Berkeley’s chancellor did sign the statement. When Richard Lyons testifies before the House committee, he will appear alongside top officials from Georgetown University and The City University of New York. Both UC Berkeley and the House committee denied CalMatters’ request for the letter sent to Lyons requesting his appearance and outlining key concerns.

In his statement to CalMatters, the committee chair Walberg noted only that the next hearing “will focus on the factors underlying antisemitic upheaval and hatred on campus. Until these factors — such as foreign funding and antisemitic student and faculty groups — are addressed, antisemitism will persist. Several of these factors have long been present at Berkeley, and Berkeley has failed to effectively respond.”

UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof sent a written response to CalMatters acknowledging the campus is dealing with antisemitism and needs to combat it. He wrote, “Chancellor Lyons looks forward to testifying before the committee to share how the campus has been investing, and continues to invest, in resources and programs designed to prevent and address antisemitism on the Berkeley campus.”

Jennifer Burger and Mikhail Zinshteyn contributed to this repor. Jeremy Garza is a fellow with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.