OPINION: How President Raymond’s Performance Before the U.S. House Committee Sheds a Concerning Light on the Haverford Community

[Editor’s Note: The views expressed in all opinions published in The Clerk are solely those of the individual authors and do not reflect the opinions of the publication, its editorial board, or its staff.]

Last Wednesday, May 7th, Haverford College president Wendy Raymond testified in front of the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce in a hearing titled “Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses.” Raymond was one of four witnesses–the three others being the President of DePaul, the President of California Polytechnic University, and the former national legal director of the ACLU. The purpose of the hearing, as stated by the Committee, was to “unearth and address antisemitism at these schools.”

Raymond’s testimony has since made multiple headlines. The Philadelphia Inquirer published an article that stated that Raymond “got the worst of the grilling” at the hearing because she “was reluctant to answer questions about discipline, especially in specific cases.” CBS also noted that Raymond was “singled out” for refusing to discuss disciplinary actions.

At the time of writing this, Raymond is also trending on Twitter, and in the platform’s usual fashion, it has been highly critical of Raymond’s performance. One of the top tweets about Raymond, with over 30,000 views, was posted by Republican Representative Elise Stefanik with the caption “WATCH: I questioned Haverford College President Wendy Raymond on her failure of leadership and the scourge of Antisemitism within her institution.” The video is a clip in which President Raymond is asked if she condemns a Haverford student group for calling for the “completely dismantling of the apartheid settler colonial state of Israel by all means necessary”–a statement many interpret as implying the genocide of Israelis, if necessary. 

Raymond responds that such a statement is “repugnant for what it can mean,” and that she will “not defend that statement.” Rep. Stefanik then asked Raymond what disciplinary action had been taken, but Raymond did not respond. Rep. Stefanik asks Raymond four more times if any disciplinary action had been taken before Raymond attempted to answer the question by defining what disciplinary action is. Having watched the clip, both live and then again in the tweet, Raymond’s refusal to directly answer Rep. Stefanik felt evasive. I would even go as far as to say that it felt like Raymond had a lawyer whispering in her ear, telling her everything she could and could not say. And it made me question–does Haverford have something to hide?

Another tweet that appears when you search “Haverford,” with 99,000 views, also by Stefanik, is a photo of Raymond’s flash card for the hearing– what appears to be a absurdly large piece of paper with reminders such as for Raymond to respond to questions on “Calls for Genocide” with the statement, “Yes, abhorrent, violates our policies.” Funnily enough, the answer she gave to Stefanik’s question in the video that students’ calls were “repugnant” is also on the cheat sheet, in a section titled “Antisemitic Conduct or Statements.” And when I say that it’s on the cheat sheet, I mean word for word, the sheet reads, “Repugnant. I will not defend that statement.” I would think that a college president would not need to read a script to answer questions about the validity of antisemitism. And I would also hope that Raymond would be able to provide reassurance that Haverford has no such problems, or at least be able to confidently say that Haverford has handled the issues of antisemitism well. But Raymond’s performance, to put it nicely, defied expectations.

At one point, a Representative from California, Mr. Riley, asked Raymond about the now semi-notorious case of Chabad posters being torn down on Haverford’s campus. For those who don’t know, last year, a Jewish student organization’s posters were mysteriously and continuously torn down around campus throughout the year. According to the court case, Jews at Haverford et al. v. Haverford College, the administration eventually investigated and found that “the wind” was responsible for pulling down the posters. Raymond told Riley, “If posters were taken down intentionally, not by the wind, that would be antisemitic.” Riley followed Raymond’s statement with the jab at the ludicrosity of the idea of wind that “only goes after one particular type of poster.”

It should be noted that on April 22, 2025, Raymond sent out an email to the student body titled “Result of investigation of poster removals.” This email states that in recent weeks, the school has received more complaints about posters being torn down, and an investigation has concluded that these “antisemitic acts are unacceptable and clearly violate the College’s bias and posting policies.” Whether this investigation applies to the poster incident from last year or only the poster incident from this year is not entirely clear. 

Perhaps the most embarrassing moment to watch for me as a Haverford student was when Rep. Fine asked Raymond if a student carrying a “No Blacks on Campus” sign would be disciplined. Instead of directly answering that the student would be punished, Raymond robotically responded, “There is no room for discrimination on campus.” While this is technically an answer, it felt inauthentic and evasive. She may have avoided directly answering the question because she was aware of where Rep. Fine was headed with the question: towards students’ signs on campus last year that said “No Zionists on campus.” While there’s an ongoing debate about whether anti-Zionism equals antisemitism, it can’t be ignored that many Jewish students and faculty have expressed that anti-Zionist speech at Haverford has made them feel unsafe and targeted within the Haverford community.

By the end of the hearing, a very distinctive image had formed; of the three schools, Haverford had come out looking the worst. Raymond’s evasiveness to questions, inability to recount disciplinary actions taken, and her answering every question in a way that sounded like she was reading from a script (and she may have been) all contributed to an impression that Raymond and Haverford had the most to hide regarding antisemitism. I fear that Raymond’s performance has made Haverford look, on a national stage, like a safe haven for antisemitism.

I believe we, as a community, must now ask: Is the Haverford Raymond portrayed to the Committee the real Haverford? Are we a community in which antisemitism is allowed to exist? Is our culture one that permits, and may even permeate, such hate?

As a Haverford student, this is not the Haverford I want to claim. It is, however, a Haverford I know. I am not Jewish, but I have heard time and time again from Jewish friends about their experiences with antisemitism on campus. Instances in which they felt that their connection to their religion, ethnicity, home, and identities was putting them at risk in the Haverford community, making them the subjects of hate and discrimination. I have witnessed some of these instances myself. I have heard students say that another student, because they are proudly Jewish, should die. I’m not exaggerating. The words “They should die” came from a student’s mouth, purely because they disagreed with another student’s identity.

In the words of Raymond’s flash card, I abhor that such hate would be allowed to fester in a community that claims to be founded on the Quaker value of acceptance, even in the face of difference.

I ask that the Haverford community step back and re-evaluate where we are. After the sobering display by Raymond at the hearing, I believe it is becoming harder to deny that hate is seeping into Haverford’s campus. If someone disagrees with us, we aren’t engaging them in dialogue. Instead, we are making enemies out of classmates because they see complex issues differently than we do, all because they come from different backgrounds, values, and experiences. Why are we demonizing difference? Is that not the whole Haverford ethos–that we celebrate and welcome differences?

Why have we reached a point where, of all the colleges in the country, our college is one of a select few called to defend itself at this hearing on charges of antisemitism, of hate? 

I am aware that the underlying tension in this whole affair is the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is this conflict that has contributed to the recent uptick in antisemitism, as well as Islamophobia, on and beyond campuses across the U.S. However, I hope that no matter where you stand on the topic, you can acknowledge that this hate should be condemned. In that same vein, I hope you can acknowledge that it is time for us, as a Haverford community, to realign ourselves with each other, as a community that values acceptance of difference, not one that demonizes it. 

The fact that Haverford is now viewed as a place where antisemitism is tolerated should make all of us deeply ashamed. As much as the community may want to reject that label, if we’ve reached the point of being called before Congress, we have a problem. And I believe that perception is real and national. Haverford’s inclusion in the hearing proves as much. Worse, President Raymond’s testimony didn’t dispel that image; it confirmed it.