Faculty Assembly discusses antisemitic violence on campus, announces antisemitism ad-hoc committee 

Faculty Assembly President Robin Kear opened Wednesday’s meeting by addressing the 2024 presidential election results. 

“I choose to remain hopeful,” Kear said. “The alternative to that is bleak, and I refuse to submit to that. I hope you all also choose to be hopeful, not bleak.”

In the beginning minutes of the meeting, Kear reflected on the intensity of the polarizing election season. 

“This election cycle was exhausting for everyone,” Kear said. “We now have a president elected, and we have many diverse viewpoints on campus — no matter the results, there’s no doubt we’ll have many discussions on campus about what the election means and how it affects us.” 

The Assembly’s third meeting of the 2024-25 academic year took place on Wednesday at 3 p.m. in room 2700 of Posvar Hall and over Zoom. After addressing the election results, Kear announced the creation of an ad hoc committee on antisemitism. 

“The urgency and energy around the safety of our Jewish community has not diminished,” Kear said. “I believe this is an issue that would benefit in the focused and defined work of a dedicated group.”

The ad hoc committee was formed after the Faculty Assembly discussed the recent acts of antisemitic violence on campus last month. The committee will assess the campus environment, recommend “enhancements” to existing policies and propose initiatives to promote equity and inclusion, according to the proposal.

“The idea that we can solve antisemitism or even put a dent in it is a moonshot, but I feel like it’s worth a shot,” Kristin Kanthak, an associate professor in the political science department, said. “At Pitt, we are uniquely qualified to address this concern.” 

Kanthak supports creating the ad hoc because “it is so difficult” to handle the violence.

“We’ve been inundated since the beginning of this semester of hair-curling stories from faculty, staff and students, and I don’t know what to do with them,” Kanthak said. “These are people who don’t feel like the University is addressing those issues in an important and meaningful way.” 

Bridget Keown, co-chair of the Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Discrimination Advocacy Committee, is “deeply concerned” that the committee will not be successful in preventing antisemitic incidents on campus.

“It is unclear in the resolution document what constitutes success,” Keown said. “The Senate and the University have faced similar public scenarios very recently against the LGBTQIA+ community and transgender people about 18 months ago.” 

Keown referenced two “transphobic” events that were held in March 2023 by student organizations College Republicans at Pitt and Pitt’s former chapter of Turning Point USA, which was disbanded in October. Keown highlighted the Faculty Assembly’s response to the “transphobic” events. 

“These events were discussed in the Senate, and the acts of violence were not perceived as urgent enough to form an ad hoc committee,” Keown said. “We’re concerned about the message the formation of this committee might imply.” 

The Assembly voted to continue the discussion at next month’s meeting on Dec. 4 to allow time for the Senate’s Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Discrimination Advocacy Committee to review the proposal and provide comments. After voting, Kear announced a bylaws resolution to allow the creation of affinity groups in the University Senate. 

“Affinity groups aim to represent the interest of those underserved communities,” Kear said. 

The resolution comes after an affinity group from the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion showed interest in working with the Senate’s Equity, Inclusion and Anti-Discrimination Committee. 

“This isn’t meant to duplicate the affinity groups already formed in the DEI office,” Kear said. “It would be good for them to be able to formally share information with a similar group under the Senate. Our main goal is to expand the Senate.”

Marc Coutanche, an associate professor in the psychology department, is worried that the Senate may become “too large.”

“When does an administrative body become too big and unwieldy?” Coutanche said. “Expanding is not always good when the Senate becomes so big that eventually it’s just everyone in the University.”

Lisa Parker, director of the Center for Bioethics and Health Law, also voiced concerns about classifying some groups on campus as “formal” while not recognizing others in the same way.

“I’d like to think that any group would feel comfortable speaking to the Faculty Assembly and be welcomed,” Parker said. “Maybe we need to do a better job of publicizing the opportunity to speak to our representatives.”

Kear responded, explaining all that faculty, staff and employees can attend the University Senate’s committee meetings. 

“Individuals can always exercise their right to go to a committee meeting,” Kear said. “All committee meetings are open, so individuals always have that ability.”

Parker added that using the term “underserved” as a criterion for forming an affinity group is not a “fair requirement.” Coutanche expressed similar concerns about the resolution, describing the formation of affinity groups as “othering.”

“I think we can amplify voices through another channel in a way that doesn’t ‘other’ groups,” Countache said. “It’s like saying, ‘since you’re a faculty member in a special group, you get a different path because you’re not part of the ‘real faculty.’’”

Nick Bircher, the Senate bylaws committee co-chair, explained that the resolution will hopefully allow more people who aren’t already a part of the Senate to work with them. 

“A lot of people don’t even know there’s a University Senate, much less how to approach it,” Bircher said. “There are a lot of faculty who don’t feel represented.”

The Assembly ultimately passed the affinity group resolution with a vote of 27 to 11.