‘Fine Scholar’: UC Berkeley Chancellor Praises Professor Who Expressed Solidarity With Oct. 7 Attacks

Dion J. Pierre

University of California, Berkeley chancellor Dr. Rich Lyons, testifies at a Congressional hearing on antisemitism, in Washington, D.C., U.S., on July 15, 2025. Photo: Allison Bailey via Reuters Connect.

The chancellor of University of California, Berkeley described a professor who cheered the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre across southern Israel as a “fine scholar” during a congressional hearing held at Capitol Hill on Tuesday.

Richard K. Lyons, who assumed the chancellorship in July 2024, issued the unmitigated praise while being questioned by members of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, which summoned him and the chief administrators of two other major universities to interrogate their handling of the campus antisemitism crisis.

Lyons stumbled into the statement while being questioned by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI), who asked Lyons to describe the extent of his relationship and correspondence with Professor Ussama Makdisi, who tweeted in Feb. 2024 that he “could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7.”

“What do you think the professor meant,” McClain asked Lyons, to which the chancellor responded, “I believe it was a celebration of the terrorist attack on October 7.” McClain proceeded to ask if Lyons discussed the tweet with Makdisi or personally reprimanded him, prompting an exchange of remarks which concluded with Lyons saying, “He is a fine scholar.”

Lyons’s comment came after nearly three hours in which the group of university leaders — which included Dr. Robert Groves, president of Georgetown University, and Dr. Felix V. Matos Rodriguez, chancellor of the City University of New York (CUNY) — offered gaffe-free, deliberately worded answers to the members’ questions to avoid eliciting the kind of public relations ordeal which prematurely ended the tenures of two Ivy League presidents in 2024 following an education committee held in Dec. 2023.

Rep. McClain later criticized Lyons on social media, calling his comment “totally disgraceful.” She added, “Faculty must be held accountable and Jewish students deserve better.”

CUNY chancellor Rodriguez also triggered a rebuke from the committee members in which he was also described as a “disgrace.”

As previously reported by The Algemeiner, CUNY campuses have been lambasted by critics as some of the most antisemitic institutions of higher education in the United States. Last year, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolved half a dozen investigations of antisemitism on CUNY campuses, one of which involved Jewish students who were pressured into saying that Jews are White people who should be excluded from discussions about social justice.

During Tuesday’s hearing Rodriguez acknowledged that antisemitic incidents continue to disrupt Jewish academic life, disclosing that 84 complaints of antisemitism have been formally reported to CUNY administrators since 2024. 15 were filed in 2025 alone, but CUNY, he said, has published only 18 students for antisemitic conduct. Rodriguez went on to denounce efforts to pressure CUNY into adopting the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel, saying, “I have repudiated BDS and I have said there’s no place for BDS at the City University of New York.”

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) remarked, however, that Rodriguez has allegedly done little to address antisemitism in the CUNY faculty union, the Professional Staff Congress (PSC), which has passed several resolutions endorsing BDS and whose members, according to 2021 ruling rendered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), discriminated against Professor Jeffrey Lax by holding meetings on Shabbat to prevent him and other Jews from attending them.

“The PSC does not speak for the City University of New York,” Rodriquez protested. “We’ve been clear on our commitment against antisemitism and against BDS.”

Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), whose grilling of higher education officials who appear before the committee has created several viral moments, rejected Rodriguez’s responses as disingenuous.

“It’s all words, no action. You have failed the people of New York,” she told the chancellor. “You have failed Jewish students in New York State, and it is a disgrace.”

Following the hearing, The Lawfare Project, a legal nonprofit which provides legal services free of charge to Jewish victims of civil rights violations, applauded the education committee for publicizing antisemitism at CUNY.

“I am thankful for the many members of Congress who worked with us to ensure that the deeply disturbing facts about antisemitism at CUNY were brought forward in this hearing,” Lawfare Project litigation director Zipora Reich said in a press release. “While it is deeply frustrating to hear more platitudes and vague promises from CUNY’s leadership, we are encouraged to see federal lawmakers demanding accountability.”

To zdjęcie zrobił kilkanaście lat temu Jerry Coyne. Byliśmy w dobrzyńskim porcie, Jerry coś oglądał czy robił jakieś zdjęcia, a my poszliśmy do przodu gadając o swoich sprawach. Jerry zrobił nam zdjęcie, obiecał, że nikomu nie pokaże, a ja je zamieściłem w informacji o autorach założonych w tym okresie “Listów”.

Mały problem z kontynuacją „Listów”

Andrzej Koraszewski

Kiedy Anjuli Pandavar napisała piękne wspomnienia o spotkaniu z nami, napisałem do niej:

Oh, my dearest, thank you. It all hurts so terribly that I’m glad it’s me who feels the pain, and not her. If I believed in any god, I would pray for such a death. I know there were prayers begging for an easy death. I now feel like a lonely sailor on the ocean, falling into short sleep, waking in alarm, checking whether the wind has picked up or if some obstacle has appeared ahead of the yacht. I sleep little, I hide my face from people, I go out to them with a calm face, resigned to fate. Slowly, I continue writing the story of our life woven into the fabric of history.
Love to You and Belinda
Andrzej

Korespondencje z przyjaciółmi to osobny rozdział. To Małgorzata kontaktowała się ze światem zewnętrznym, a teraz zwaliła całą robotę na mnie. Korespondencji przybyło stokrotnie — listy krótkie i rzeczowe z konieczności zrobiły się długie i mniej rzeczowe. Tak więc jest problem do rozwiązania i jeszcze nie wiem, co ja z tym wszystkim zrobię.

P.S. A jeśli kogoś zaintrygowała wzmianka o mojej inicjacji seksualnej, to zdradzę wam tajemnicę, że opowieść zaczęła się od Teatru imienia Wilama Horzycy w Toruniu i roku 1946. Ciąg dalszy opowieści kiedyś — tu tylko inwokacja, którą poprzedziłem gawędę z młodą kobietą, która kiedyś (jako czternastolatka) wychodząc z naszego domu, zapytała mnie z przerażoną buzią dziecka, któremu nic się nie zgadza:
– Czy pan naprawdę nie wierzy w Boga?

Inwokacja.

Ludwik Stomma urodził się w Krakowie w 1950 roku. Jego rodzice pochodzili z Wilna, więc Ludwik dostawał przyspieszenia bicia serca, kiedy słyszał wileński zaśpiew. Toruń po wojnie był „małym Wilnem” — tu przeniósł się Uniwersytet Wileński i nie tylko. Kiedyś Ludwik kupił na rynku od przekupki torebkę malin. Pyszne świeże maliny, ale tylko pierwsza warstwa — reszta zgniłki. Wraca wściekły do przekupki, a jak ona zaczęła odpowiadać na jego wrzask, przestał słyszeć, co ona mówi, bo słyszał tylko śpiew wileńskiej polszczyzny. Przekupka też się rozczuliła na widok prawdziwego rodaka, który zaczął wypytywać, jak jej się w Toruniu mieszka. A ona mówi, że tęskni do Matki Boskiej Ostrobramskiej. Ludwik pocieszał ją, że tu jest Częstochowska. A ona wyjaśniła:
– To nie to samo. Z Ostrobramską to ja mogła pogadać jak kobita z kobitą, a u Częstochowskiej to ten maluch na ręku siedzi i wszystko podsłuchuje.

Na dworze jasno, nie wieje, drobny deszcz pada. Pora się zdrzemnąć. Śpię nago, nie znoszę piżam ani innych rzeczy tworzących bariery między człowiekiem a człowiekiem.

How global human rights groups dehumanized Israelis during the Iran-Israel conflict

Olga Deutsch

Iran-Israel conflict and dehumanized Israelis illustration by Linas Garsys / The Washington Times more >

OPINION:

It has been nearly three weeks since Iranian ballistic missiles and explosive suicide drones rained down on Israeli civilians, hitting hospitals, residential buildings and places of worship. The fragile quiet of the ceasefire provides an opportunity to take stock of the active role human rights organizations have played in this war.

Theirs was a twofold process of dehumanizing Israelis. The same nongovernmental organizations that reflexively and vigorously condemn every Israel Defense Forces strike in the Gaza Strip remained silent in the face of Iran’s unprecedented assault on Israeli human rights. After all, each and every Iranian missile was undeniably a war crime for its targeting of civilians.

Beyond the passive failure to respond, NGOs actively shaped the international response to the conflict. Through selective statements, coordinated social media campaigns and organized protests, NGOs that claim to promote human rights helped drive a global narrative that vilified Israel while excusing, minimizing or ignoring Iranian aggression.

NGO Monitor’s analysis of dozens of NGO communications during and immediately after the two weeks of war starting June 13 found that only a handful even acknowledged the scale or nature of Iran’s attacks on Israel. Even fewer noted that Iran’s actions, including the launch of more than 400 ballistic missiles and more than 1,000 armed drones at Israeli population centers, represented clear violations of international law.

Yet, when Israel acted to defend its population with preemptive strikes on Iranian missiles ready for launch and targeted strikes on the regime’s nuclear program and related infrastructure, all non-civilian targets, the same NGOs were quick to condemn its actions, often before any credible information was available.

These groups issued demands for “restraint” and “de-escalation” aimed almost exclusively at Israel. In doing so, they shaped media coverage, policy discourse and public perception, all while failing to meet the standards of impartiality and consistency in respect for human rights that they demand from others.

This distortion was compounded by the disturbing degree of sympathy, if not enthusiastic support, that many human rights NGOs extended toward the Iranian regime. Iran has a very public and long-standing commitment to Israel’s destruction. This genocidal objective has been repeated by its leaders and written into the regime’s political doctrine, including its backing for proxy terrorist groups such as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis.

Yet numerous NGOs either justified the Iranian attacks or framed them as a legitimate response to Israeli policies. Their language echoed that of Iran’s propaganda: portraying the regime as a victim of Israeli provocation and its assault as a form of defensive action.

In fact, some of the NGOs in question are fairly open in their promotion of pro-terrorist sentiments. Groups such as Samidoun, Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, Masar Badil and the Palestinian Youth Movement offered outright support for the Iranian regime. Some openly celebrated Iran’s attacks and depicted them as legitimate acts of “resistance” against Israel.

A second group of NGOs was more insidious. These are the NGOs that portray themselves as objective observers and neutral policy or legal experts while exhibiting a similarly hyperpartisan agenda regarding Israel. This category includes the European Council on Foreign Relations and Democracy for the Arab World Now, which remained silent on Iran’s conduct and quickly pivoted to criticizing Israeli responses, reemphasizing the deep-seated political and ideological biases.

Human Rights Watch offers perhaps the clearest example of silence and hypocrisy. Its default posture during conflicts of this magnitude is to release a “frequently asked questions” brief within days of initial hostilities, laying out its interpretation, albeit distorted, of international humanitarian law and recommending conduct for the parties involved.

When it comes to situations where it can bash Israel, Human Rights Watch has a long history of frequent statements and emotive reports alleging all manner of wrongdoing.

However, after Israel’s June 13 strike on Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure and Iran’s subsequent indiscriminate missile and drone attacks, Human Rights Watch was silent. This omission is particularly telling given the clear legal asymmetry: Iran launched barrages of indiscriminate weapons against highly populated civilian centers, while Israel targeted military and nuclear infrastructure.

Beyond the hypocrisy, this pattern of NGO silence about Israeli human rights while directing blame at Israel reflects a broader trend where NGOs treat Israelis, and Jews by extension, as less worthy of human rights protections.

This dehumanization has been especially glaring over the past 20 months. Not a single international human rights NGO has mounted a significant campaign on behalf of the more than 250 hostages Hamas violently took to Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023, which included women, children and the elderly. Fifty hostages remain in Gaza today.

By contrast, these same organizations have devoted enormous resources to advocating for Palestinian detainees, many of whom committed murder and other violent offenses against Israelis.

Likewise, the sharp rise in antisemitic violence worldwide has received little sustained attention from leading human rights organizations. The cumulative effect is a troubling double standard that normalizes threats to Israeli and Jewish safety.

With their actions and inactivity, many NGOs have again shown that they have no moral authority and are seeking to advance highly partisan political agendas rather than universal human rights. The time has come for accountability, not just for those who launch missiles but also for those who enable them through silence, distortion and selective application of human rights advocacy.

These organizations do not deserve humanitarian or government funding.

• Olga Deutsch is vice president of NGO Monitor.

They Firebombed Our Synagogues — And You Said Nothing

J. Philip Rosen

Arsonists heavily damaged the Adass Israel Synagogue in Melbourne, Australia, on Dec. 6, 2024. Photo: Screenshot

A synagogue was set on fire. Again.

Since October 7, Jewish houses of worship have been torched in Germany, France, Australia, Canada, the United States, and beyond. Doors smashed. Entrances doused in accelerants. Molotov cocktails thrown.

You may have missed the stories. Many did. These attacks are too often buried under euphemisms — dismissed as “unrest,” framed as fringe, or worse, justified by the “context.”

Let’s be clear: this isn’t protest. It’s coordinated hate. And our governments are failing in their most basic duty — to protect citizens from violence, incitement, and terror.

On July 4, in Melbourne, Australia, someone poured gasoline across the front of a synagogue and lit it ablaze — while 20 worshippers gathered inside for Shabbat. They survived. But the message was unmistakable: We know who you are. We know where you gather. And we want you afraid.

I’ve seen what happens when the truth is buried — when generations are raised in silence and the reckoning comes too late.

Years ago, my firm merged with a German law firm. One senior partner, raised in a household silent about the Holocaust, only learned the truth at university. That Christmas, he confronted his father:

“What did you do during the war? Which camps did you guard? How many Jews did you kill?”

His father slapped him across the face. They never spoke again.

He carried shame that wasn’t his to bear — but also the conviction that truth must come first. Not silence. Not euphemism. Truth.

And the truth today is this: synagogues are being attacked not because of politics, but because they are Jewish. Because of identity. Because of faith. Because of hate.

This isn’t isolated. As Chair of the American Section of the World Jewish Congress, I hear the same message from Jewish leaders across the globe: our communities are under threat — and we are being left to protect ourselves.

Yes, some governments — including the United States — have provided security funding. But none have met the moment. Not one. Not yet.

That may be starting to change. In recent weeks, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Attorney General Pam Bondi have taken long-overdue steps to align US policy with this moment of crisis. By sanctioning foreign actors who incite antisemitic violence and pursuing domestic accountability for those who cross the line from speech to threat, they’ve shown what serious leadership looks like. It’s not enough — but it’s a start. And it should set the standard for others.

If the state can protect parliaments, embassies, stadiums, and shopping malls, it can protect a synagogue. If antisemitism is real enough to build Holocaust memorials, it is real enough to fund police protection.

Some argue these are simply protests. But when rallies echo with “Globalize the Intifada” and “From the River to the Sea,” let’s not pretend we don’t understand the message. These are not chants for justice. They are incitement to violence — calls to spread terrorism and erase a people. And when left unchecked, they do what incitement has always done: inspire action.

Governments must intervene — and they must act on both fronts.

First, they must prevent. That means enacting and enforcing laws that treat violent hate speech — online and offline — as the public threat it is. It means education systems that inoculate the next generation against antisemitism before it metastasizes into action.

Second, protect. Fund real security at synagogues and schools. Not just fences, but personnel. Not just gestures but guarantees. And when there is an attack — arrest. Prosecute. Punish.

Jewish safety cannot be partisan. It cannot be conditional. It is a baseline measure of whether any nation is serious about the promise of citizenship.

To those who say the line is blurry — who claim these incidents are complicated or contextual — I say: history is watching.

The fires have already started. The Jewish people will endure — we always do. But if governments cannot — or will not — protect their Jewish citizens, they will lose far more than credibility. They will lose the right to claim they ever stood for justice at all.

We don’t ask for favors. We demand protection. And we demand it now.

The author is Chairman, World Jewish Congress, American Section.

David Collier – niezależny dziennikarz śledczy

Otwarta odpowiedź do Petera Oborne’a i Irfana Chowdhury’ego

Andrzej KOraszewski