New York’s college campuses are no place for antisemitism, hate speech, or violence of any kind, and any university administration that fails to ensure as much has no business running a school in our state. Incidents at Cornell University, where a student was arrested for promoting gruesome violence against the Jewish community, and in our City University of New York (CUNY) schools have led to serious concerns about our state’s learning environments.

“Violence and hatred must not be allowed to fester in our colleges.”

Gov. Kathy Hochul [recently] ordered a probe for incidents of antisemitism at CUNY schools. While I support this measure, there is more we must do to ensure the safety of the students, faculty, and educators living and commuting to our college campuses. For that reason, the Assembly Minority Conference has sponsored new legislation to protect and prevent students from facing unsafe learning conditions on campuses in the state. Additionally, I have called for answers from university officials about these incidents in an open letter that can be found at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wKHutGc0zxEjXEqlwEOCi7oWcfRIJX55/view

Our proposed “Dismantling Student Antisemitism Act” (DSA Act), spearheaded by Assemblyman Ed Ra (R–Franklin Square), would require sensitivity training for students, faculty, and staff and establish baseline reporting requirements for institutions of higher education to combat a growing, unsettling rise in antisemitism.

In the wake of the devastating Hamas terror attack that took place in Israel on Saturday, Oct. 7, we have seen a 400 percent spike in antisemitic incidents. No New Yorker should ever be subjected to hate-based harassment, and that is especially true of our college campuses where students and staff must be free to communicate and learn in safety. 

 Among the provisions included in the DSA Act are: 

• The establishment and implementation of a training program for all current and new employees, and a requirement all college and university administrators, faculty, staff, and students attend training seminars;

• Mandatory consultation with an expert in the areas of antisemitism awareness, prevention, and Jewish history and culture to conduct the training;

• The dissemination of information pertaining to such policies and procedures to the New York State Education Department on an annual basis;

• The publication of such information regarding who to contact with questions regarding the policy and how to report violations of this policy; and 

• State-aid penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of the legislation.

Violence and hatred must not be allowed to fester in our colleges. Before this problem gets worse, I am calling for immediate action both on campus and in the state legislature. Anything less from university and government officials represents a willful failure to protect our students and communities.        

William (Will) A. Barclay, 54, Republican, is the New York Assembly minority leader and represents the 120th New York Assembly District, which encompasses all of Oswego County, as well as parts of Jefferson and Cayuga counties.

It would be a stretch to say that the U.S. government came to a standstill after GOP members of the House unseated Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House at the start of October. The Senate and executive branch both kept working to move their priorities forward during the three weeks before the House finally found a replacement — [Mike Johnson of Louisiana]. Federal workers kept programs running and operations on an even keel.

Yet the House’s dysfunction had a clear cost: an inability to act on key initiatives, like aid to Ukraine and to Israel; weeks lost before a looming government shutdown; and a sense both at home and abroad that a key part of our democracy had simply frozen in place. So you might be wondering: How could it be that one vacancy would cause so much trouble?

Interestingly, the Constitution doesn’t say much about the Speaker’s role, though it does mention it, right there in Article 1, Section 2: “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers…” As the National Constitution Center put it some years back, “The Founders’ intention appeared to be for the Speaker to serve as a parliamentarian and peace maker, more along the lines of the speaker in the British House of Commons.”

Over the centuries, however, the House Speaker has evolved to become one of the most powerful positions in Washington, D.C. — not on a par with the presidency, but not far behind. That’s because the House — the chamber where taxing and spending originate, and indispensable to passing legislation and creating congressional policy — depends fully on the Speaker of the House to operate. The Speaker sets the House agenda, establishes its work and voting calendar, controls committee assignments, and decides which bills will get voted on. The Speaker then oversees the votes themselves, determines how debate will unfold on the floor, and appoints the staffers who are key to the House’s functioning, like the parliamentarian.

The Speaker is also the leader of his or her party in the House, with the power, at least in theory, to call the tune on the party’s legislative initiatives and to make or derail a president’s agenda. An effective Speaker of the House does all this by using the incentives and punishments under her or his control to keep legislators — especially rebellious ones — in line. This is crucial: The House is a fractious place, filled with big egos, powerful politicians, and multiple factions forming around ideology, geography, legislative priority, and other fault lines. In a sense, the Speaker’s role is to make the chamber work in spite of itself.

When I served in the House, new members learned quickly that if they wanted to get something done, the first call you made was to the Speaker. And that you should never try an end run around the Speaker. 

Because of the Constitution’s vagueness, the Speaker’s role has always been a matter of tradition, precedent, and a response to the needs of the moment. Early on, under the parliamentary manual written by Thomas Jefferson and made a formal part of House rules in 1837, the Speaker wasn’t even supposed to talk on the House floor during debates. So it’s hardly unprecedented for legislators to agitate for a relatively weak Speakership. The question faced by the majority of House members who actually want to get something done, however, is how long they’re willing to countenance a Speaker who’s so hemmed in by rank-and-file members that the House — the so-called people’s body — can’t do its job.      

Lee Hamilton, 92, is a senior advisor for the Indiana University (IU) Center on Representative Government, distinguished scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies, and professor of practice at the IU O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Hamilton, a Democrat, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years (1965-1999), representing a district in south-central Indiana.