BY GIULIA ZANNI, ROBERT NEWTON, EZRA SUSSER, SARAH BORDEN, SUSAN WITTE, AND PAGE FORTNA
Below is a response to Daniel A. Segal’s post, “The AAUP Errs in Endorsing Cait Conley for Congress.” Segal’s subsequent reply to this response is also being published on the blog.
We are grateful to Academe Blog for publishing Daniel A. Segal’s essay, and to Segal for writing it. If the AAUP is going to endorse candidates, it should also encourage discussion among its members about those endorsements. As AAUP members who recommended the endorsement of Cait Conley for the US House of Representatives in New York’s Seventeenth Congressional District, we offer this as a response, not a rebuttal.
An endorsement is a judgment, made in a real race, about which candidate will defend higher education, students, and faculty members and fight for academic freedom. Segal himself writes that Conley is “unquestionably a better choice for higher education” than her opponent and that he would probably vote for her.
We share Segal’s concern for the free speech rights of faculty and students. Charges of antisemitism have been used as a weapon against students, faculty, and others who have engaged in legitimate, protected criticisms of Israel and calls for equality for Palestinians. Defending such speech is AAUP work. Our aim here is to explain why we recommended Conley and to set out what she actually stands for.
Conley’s public record shows that she understands how false accusations of antisemitism have been weaponized illegally against students practicing their right to protest. In an April 2025 interview with Jewish Insider, she said she did not believe the administration’s deportations of student visa holders or its funding cuts to universities were actually designed to combat antisemitism. “I think what we are seeing is the guise of fighting antisemitism be[ing] the cover in which the Trump administration actually pursues their political targeting of opposition.”
In the same interview, she said the mass firings at the Department of Education were “kneecapping our ability to address the issue of antisemitism in our schools.” She has called for real enforcement through the Office for Civil Rights, with due process, rather than punitive defunding of institutions. She condemned the weaponization of antisemitism to defund science and punish universities and pledged to fight for due process and for enforcement of civil rights law where discrimination meets the legal threshold, while protecting students’ freedom of speech.
These public statements show that her positions are well-aligned with the AAUP’s own analysis of how antisemitism has been weaponized against universities.
In our conversations with her, Conley committed to protecting the Department of Education from being dismantled, defending academic freedom, and reducing student debt. Her platform would cap interest rates on federal student loans and expand community college and career and technical programs. She has taken a stand opposing book bans at US military service academies and has called for the restoration of tenured positions for civilian faculty at the academies. She has pledged to hold public hearings into how federal research funding has been politicized. She supports affordable health care through public options by defending the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, along with federal support for affordable childcare. She backs the PRO Act and has promised to “always be a staunch defender of the right to organize.” She has pledged to rein in Immigration and Customs Enforcement, condemning how it has been deployed by this administration. This suggests that her positions are guided by her call for due process, crucial in a district where her opponent has supported the ongoing government attacks on higher education and free speech on our campuses. Conley is not a weak alternative; if elected, she will be a partner to higher education advocates and a champion for restoring due process and accountability in this country.
As reported by the Jerusalem Post, Conley said she was “absolutely disgusted by the rising antisemitism that is happening within both political parties.” Segal’s critique hinges on his interpretation of such comments as coded speech for an intent to repress criticism of Israel and pro-Palestinian expression on our campuses. But in this he attributes to her positions she has not taken and has even opposed. Conley did not name any person, movement, or form of speech. She also declined Lawler’s repeated invitation to denounce Mamdani. As noted above, she has identified the Trump administration’s weaponization of antisemitism, which her opponent has amplified and relied heavily on in his messaging, as fraudulent. Her record on campus speech is clear and clearly aligned with the AAUP’s “Blueprint for Strengthening and Transforming Higher Education” platform.
The federal attack on universities, on international students, and on freedom of speech is part of a broader authoritarian push. Control in Congress will shape how successful that push is. We have endorsed candidates who will stand against authoritarianism, and we believe that is the right choice for an organization whose members hold a wide range of views. If agreement on every question were the test for our electoral work, we could endorse only in a handful of districts, and we would step away from the places where the fight over higher education is actually being decided. We don’t think that would serve our students, our colleagues, or the speech rights Segal rightly wants to protect.
Conley, in conversations with our group, shared the AAUP’s view that the attacks on universities must be stopped and that defending academic freedom and due process should be prioritized by Congress. She committed to using her power in Congress, including calls for public hearings, to hold federal agencies accountable for how they spend the funds Congress appropriates and to keep an open channel with academics whose expertise she wants to guide her legislative work. We stand by the endorsement. Segal’s essay raises questions that the AAUP should keep discussing, including how to protect pro-Palestinian speech on our campuses. We welcome that conversation, and we’re glad Academe Blog is hosting it. Meanwhile, we will be knocking on doors in New York’s Seventeenth District to flip this critical seat.
The authors belong to the Columbia University AAUP chapter. Giulia Zanni is a neuroscientist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry. Robert Newton is an oceanographer and lecturer in the Sustainability Science master’s program. Ezra Susser is emeritus professor in epidemiology and psychiatry. Susan Witte is a social worker and professor of social work. Sarah Borden is clinical research coordinator in the Department of Medicine. Page Fortna is Harold Brown Professor of US Foreign and Security Policy.
