On Saturday—less than a week after her shameful performance at congressional hearings about campus anti-Semitism—Liz Magill resigned from her position as president of the University of Pennsylvania. This outcome suggests that there are tangible consequences for the behaviors that have allowed for the corruption of the universities, and made them incubators of hostility to Jews. Another sort of tangible consequence can come from the application of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Michael A. Helfand explains:

Title VI prohibits institutions receiving federal funding—including indirect funding—from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” Universities are subject to these requirements because they typically receive various forms of federal funding, including benefiting indirectly from federally subsidized student loans.

Importantly, the antidiscrimination rules of Title VI prohibit more than just direct discrimination. They also prohibit schools from acting with “deliberate indifference” to “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” harassment, including peer-to-peer harassment. So, a university would be in violation of Title VI if it is aware of—and fails to address adequately—harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origins that is so severe that it prevents the victim from accessing the range of educational opportunities available to all other students.

All told, given the broad interpretation of Title VI across multiple administrations, we are likely to see a wave of complaints filed against universities for failing to address severe and pervasive anti-Semitism on campuses.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.