Wherein Congress meets protest by demanding universities silence it as "hatred"

Comment published on New York Times blog in response to news article, “Universities face congressional inquiries and angry donors over handling of antisemitism,” December 8, 2023:

This seems an example of politicians, appealing to the media (and their own donor basis, hoping that university presidents will do likewise), substituting assertion for reasoned debate, the crucial move being to set the agenda by deciding what counts as a problem worthy of discussion.

There have been efforts on campus to silence antiwar protesters, as at Columbia where two pro-Palestinian groups were recently banned. Thus it is relevant that the congressional and other critics of these universities seem unconcerned about what any of the protesting students are saying and why.

The sole concern is whether in any of this is anything that can be called antisemitism. I don't even see any discussion as to what that is.

That the real concern is the very existence on campus of pro-Palestinian protest is suggested in the comment by "prominent rabbi" David Wolpe: he "said most students were not prosecuting an ideological agenda. But he said that antisemitism was so entrenched that...", etc. Is "pursuing an ideological agenda" (that might oppose Israeli or American policy) the certain sign of "antisemitism"?

Everyone knows the passions of protest can involve excesses. Jewish leaders have long been telling Jews that they must identify with Israel, and feel attacked when it is criticized. How do you draw the line between anger and hate, or hatred of injustice and that of those who seem to promote and justify it? Especially on campus, it must be drawn widely.