In recent months, congressional Democrats have renewed scrutiny of how the Trump administration handled investigations into antisemitism on American college campuses. Those Title VI investigations were intended to determine whether universities were adequately protecting Jewish students amid reports of harassment, intimidation and exclusion.
Rep. Jamie Raskin has emerged as one of their most vocal critics. He points to allegations from career Justice Department lawyers that investigations were rushed, evidence mishandled and conclusions sometimes reached before the facts were fully developed. If those claims are borne out, they warrant examination.
But Raskin is making a mistake by turning those questions into another Washington investigation aimed largely at proving that the previous investigation was politically motivated. There is a much more important job to do.
Antisemitism on American campuses was not invented by the Trump administration. Raskin acknowledges that. Jewish students were harassed and intimidated. Classes and campus activities were disrupted. Students sometimes found themselves unwelcome in organizations or spaces because they supported Israel. University administrators repeatedly struggled to distinguish legitimate protest from discrimination, intimidation and harassment. That is the problem Congress should be trying to solve.
Raskin instead describes the administration’s investigations as “fake,” a “pre-baked frame-up operation” and a “sham.” Those are sweeping conclusions to announce before conducting an investigation supposedly intended to determine what happened. More importantly, they point Washington in the wrong direction.
If the administration stretched Title VI beyond its proper boundaries, define those boundaries more carefully. If investigators confused protected political speech with unlawful discrimination, develop clearer standards. If universities were pressured into settlements unsupported by evidence, establish procedures protecting both civil rights and due process. That would be useful congressional oversight.
The courts are already doing their part. A federal judge recently dismissed the administration’s Title VI case against Harvard because the government had not adequately alleged an ongoing violation. That does not mean campus antisemitism was imaginary. It means courts can police executive overreach.
The House Judiciary Committee should be strengthening that system, not conducting another round of political theater about who weaponized government first.
Raskin is a serious constitutional lawyer. He could help construct a durable, politically neutral approach to campus antisemitism — one that protects Jewish students without suppressing protected speech, gives universities understandable rules and requires government investigators to meet consistent evidentiary standards. And if the administration’s approach was flawed, Raskin and members of his committee can show us what a better one looks like.
Congress has limited time, attention and resources. Every hour devoted to proving that political opponents acted politically is an hour not devoted to fixing the problem that brought government onto these campuses in the first place.
Investigate actual misconduct where credible evidence warrants it. Let courts resolve disputed legal claims. But do not allow an investigation of government overreach to obscure the reason government became involved in the first place.
Campus antisemitism remains a problem. If Jamie Raskin believes the government addressed it badly, he should spend his time showing America how to address it properly.
