On Feb. 20, during a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights public briefing on antisemitism on America’s college and university campuses, a George Washington University, student, Mara Regel, testified that when she reported an antisemitic incident, there was “not a shred of justice.”
Another witness, Sabrina Soffer (who is also my daughter), a recent GWU graduate and lead plaintiff in a federal lawsuit against the university, testified that a “pipeline of hate” linked classroom messaging, campus protests and administrative responses, reflecting what she described as a familiar DARVO pattern: deny, attack and reverse victim and offender.
These testimonies point to more than isolated campus failures. In Aug. 2025, the Department of Justice determined that GWU university had acted with deliberate indifference to antisemitism, meaning officials knew of substantial risks and failed to act. Yet antisemitic incidents persisted, and no meaningful structural reforms followed.
A similar pattern emerged in another case filed by StandWithUs on behalf of Jewish students. GWU’s internal investigation initially found no discrimination. Three years later, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights overturned those findings, determining that the university had retaliated against Jewish students and ordering their disciplinary records expunged.
The situation at GWU, like several universities facing similar complaints, illustrates a deeper structural problem in higher education governance.
When institutions absorb penalties for civil-rights violations but officials face no personal consequences, accountability becomes optional and misconduct persists. Authority carries responsibility. When officials can abandon that responsibility without liability, impunity becomes inevitable.
As Congress examines rising discrimination complaints on college campuses, lawmakers should confront this structural gap: Civil-rights enforcement penalizes institutions but rarely holds decision-makers accountable.
Universities pay settlements. Administrators are reassigned or recycled.
This structure creates predictable incentives. Financial penalties may appear substantial, but they rarely threaten the larger funding streams that sustain major universities. Columbia University agreed to pay roughly $200 million to resolve federal civil-rights allegations while preserving access to more than $1 billion in federal funding. When penalties are smaller than the funding at stake, settlements become a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
Debates about campus antisemitism often focus on foreign funding, particularly money from Qatar. While such financial relationships deserve scrutiny, they do not explain the central governance failure. Foreign money cannot force university officials to ignore discrimination or retaliation against students. Those decisions are made by administrators entrusted with authority. When authority is exercised without accountability, impunity calcifies and abuse becomes normalized.
Federal prosecutors have long recognized the importance of individual accountability. In the Varsity Blues admissions scandal, wealthy parents used a nonprofit to secure privileged admissions through fraudulent records. The crime was not the donations themselves, but the corruption of a system designed to ensure fair access.
The same principle applies to civil-rights enforcement. Financial relationships and institutional partnerships may be lawful. What becomes unlawful is the misuse of authority to deny equal protection or ignore discrimination. History shows the consequences. In scandals involving Larry Nassar and Jerry Sandusky, repeated warnings were ignored for years while institutions prioritized reputation and liability management. By the time authorities intervened, the harm had multiplied in both severity and scale.
These cases reveal a pattern: an institutional culture of impunity across different forms of misconduct whether sexual abuse, antisemitism or other violations. The “too big to fail” mindset has migrated to education, where authority is shielded by institutional immunity, accountability is evaded and justice becomes discretionary.
These cases reveal a pattern: an institutional culture of impunity across different forms of misconduct whether sexual abuse, antisemitism or other violations.
Congress has confronted similar accountability failures before.
After corporate scandals exposed widespread financial fraud, lawmakers enacted the Sarbanes–Oxley Act, requiring executives to certify financial statements and imposing serious penalties for misconduct. The principle was simple: Align authority with responsibility and when responsibility is abdicated, impose liability.
Congress must meet the moment and enact a similar accountability framework for higher education. Officials responsible for civil-rights investigations should certify their findings under professional standards. Independent investigators should review complaints rather than rely solely on institution-controlled processes, and real-time systems should detect early signs of misconduct.
Such reforms would strengthen transparency and accountability. When authority in education is held to the highest level of scrutiny, the risk of exploitation of children and students is substantially reduced. Only then can educational institutions restore trust and safeguard our young generation.
Congress has already established this principle for corporate America; it must apply the same standard to education, where vulnerability and the risk of exploitation are high. Authority carries responsibility. When responsibility is abdicated, liability must follow.
Congress now faces a choice: amend liability or preserve a system of impunity. If institutional immunity remains intact, the next scandal is inevitable. The only question is when.
Lea Wolf-Soffer, MS/MBA, is co-founder of Let’s Speak Up, CAPE-Ed
, and creator of the SELF-Ex Method, recognized by USC, IDEO and the Nikou Foundation for innovation in education.
