Rep. Burgess Owens to Georgetown Pres. at Antisemitism Hearing: Would You Allow the KKK to Speak on Campus?
“Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths of Black Americans to speak at Georgetown?”
During the House hearings on campus antisemitism on Tuesday, Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), asked a very pointed and appropriate question of Robert Groves, the interim president of Georgetown University.
Burgess wanted to know if the KKK was allowed to speak on campus at Georgetown, noting that the rhetoric of that notorious group is not much different than what we often hear coming from the “Free Palestine” mob.
Georgetown came under fire in May over a grad student who praised Hamas. In June, a professor at the school had to walk back an inflammatory remark about wanting Iran to perform a “symbolic” strike on a U.S. base.
Part of the dialogue between Owens and Groves is included in the tweet below. Expanded, it reads:
Burgess Owens Calls Out Georgetown’s Double Standard on Hate Speech
@RepBurgessOwens confronted Georgetown President Robert Groves with a simple, pointed question:
“Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths of Black Americans to speak at Georgetown?”
“No.”
Owens didn’t let up: “So if Georgetown would disallow white supremacist bigots, why does it allow Palestinian antisemitic bigots invited by faculty or students?”
Groves had no real answer—just vague talk about diverse viewpoints.
The point was clear: Hate speech targeting Black Americans would never be tolerated at Georgetown—yet Palestinian activists who glorify terrorism and spew antisemitic hate continue to get institutional platforms.
One standard for some, another for Jews.
Watch the exchange:
🔥 Burgess Owens Calls Out Georgetown’s Double Standard on Hate Speech@RepBurgessOwens confronted Georgetown President Robert Groves with a simple, pointed question:
“Would you allow a member of the KKK who wished the deaths of Black Americans to speak at Georgetown?”
“No.”… pic.twitter.com/DFQj4Gm43a
— Stu (@thestustustudio) July 15, 2025
In this longer video, you can hear the full line of questioning that led to the big question above.
Why did @Georgetown invite a Hamas sympathizer who says Jews should “perish” to speak on campus four times? This isn’t “listening to both sides” — it’s moral failure and institutional antisemitism. pic.twitter.com/HZDSo1kEeE
— Rep. Burgess Owens (@RepBurgessOwens) July 15, 2025
Before Owens could even begin his line of questioning, an anti-Israel protester could be heard screaming in the chamber.
From the Georgetown Voice:
Four separate attendees interrupt committee session
The hearing paused four times after attendees interrupted by entering the room and shouting. Members of staff quickly removed the protestors. One of the attendees directly addressed CUNY Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez.
“Félix Matos, you have blood on your hands. How can you sit there talking about the feelings of Jewish students, when there are no universities left in Gaza?” the speaker said. “There’s blood on your hands. You are a genocidal war criminal.”
Owens offered a perfect response to this. Watch:
Featured image via YouTube.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
You ask the KKK who wish for the death of blacks why they wish for the death of blacks. You might cite the good points about blacks. That’s the advantage of having them speak on campus.
Same for Jews, except that nobody ever tries citing the good points about Jews. It’s all Holocaust card competitions.
Invite them on campus and work on an actual argument, is my advice.
Except that the antisemitic forces are already ON campus and in coordination with Univ leadership either explicitly or implicitly using not just a hecklers veto to stifle any reasoned debate but also engaging in blocking access to classrooms, libraries, dorms, public areas. Sometimes even blocking egress and illegally trapping others inside. These antisemitic groups routinely act to create and maintain a climate of fear for any who disagree.
I get your point about the feckless diversity/oppression olympics of what group ranks higher on the victim scale. It’s a dead end debate b/c every group/tribe that leads off with such arguments is already convinced their group is more worthy of being crowned biggest loser even if or perhaps especially if they personally were not even born, much less a direct victim of whatever historical atrocity they use as justification to claim the mantle of biggest loser. There’s no point debating with folks who lead with those arguments or presumptions b/c they will not engage in good faith, instead they will wave a victim card as if it is the ultimate, undisputed clincher that cements their win in any debate.
Yes, their actions are the problem, along with being in control of the venue.
and no one is going to knock blmplo off their lofty perch of victim #1 status
illegals almost did……..
That is one dumb comment. And wrong, too.
No he is not. The answer to free speech is more free speech.
Upvoted not because I agree but because that question does need to be answered.
1. College students are largely indoctrinated by professors and are unwilling to hear the answer
2. They will shout you down (many examples of hecklers veto)
3. They do also sometimes get violent against people for giving the answer
Obviously it doesn’t apply to the letting KKK part because the students would get violent against KKK but when it comes to Jews……
To give an answer the hecklers veto needs to not exist and the people have to be willing to listen which is why reforming education and ending the indoctrination process is essential.
We ultimately need doctors and it isn’t unfair to demand the end of the indoctrination process for future doctors.
To clarify you made a good point, but it would have last been possible at least a decade ago if not earlier.
These people such as the “protestor” heard in The video have no wish to engage in a debate. They want o se sided hyperbolic hate fest in which violence is promoted as they only answer. Stop with your stupid inane holocaust olympics only one side the “pro Palestinian” wants to make erroneous holocaust comparisons and rewrite history to paint themselves as saintly victims. The Jewish people just want to be left alone.
How many times are you going to make this same asinine argument about the Holocaust on every blog you comment on. Once a day, once an hour?
“Same for Jews, except that nobody ever tries citing the good points about Jews. It’s all Holocaust card competitions.”
Jews do not have to justify their existence to you. It is not the last Holocaust that we are concerned about. It is the next one that antisemites like you are attempting to perpetuate. Which other group is being continuous vilified by most of the nations of the world. Which other group is being threatened with destruction? “Death to Isreal”, “Globalize the Intifada” are not terms of endearment.
We are not looking for your sympathy. We don’t need affirmative action to succeed. What we want is for the world to stop trying to annihilate us. Is that too much to ask?
Rhardin can correct me if I misinterpreted but I thought what he was discussing was that it would be better to make the white supremacists and anti-Semites look ridiculous petty and tiny than to keep them from use of the college facilities to spread their bile.
Color me very, very impressed by Rep. Burgess Owens.
I’m sure they have Democrats as speakers all the time.
That is a very valid argument…well played!
This is an excellent point that underscores the brazen hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the wretched Dhimmi-crats in academia. I thank Representative Owens for raising it.
And, of course, the vile university administrator had no credible rebuttal. The answer as to why a hypothetical KKK speaker would be disallowed, while genocidal, goose-stepping, Jew-hating, Islamofascist/Muslim supremacist terrorism supporters would be welcome at Georgetown, is because leftists and Dhimmi-crats rationalize, whitewash and lionize anti-Jewish violence and anti-Israel animus as constituting alleged “resistance” by allegedly oppressed Arab “Palestinians” against alleged “colonial” “settlers,” usurpers and oppressors.
georgetown reps said:
of course we already DO allow our brothers of the kkk to speak
they not only hate blacks they hate the j ews and so we told them to not mention blacks as blacks are the ones we use as our foot soldiers to keep the j ews in line
any more questions ??
It would be more powerful if Sammy Davis, Jr. we’re alive to ask, his having been a one-eyed, black Jew.
Republicans have perfected the art of playing to their voters, and you lapped it all up like a thirsty puppy.
But their votes tell a different story. Just ask yourself: what criminal referrals have come from the pens of Owens in the House and the A-List performers in the Senate such as Kennedy, Cotton or Cruz?
ZIlch. In the end, it’s the interests of DC that matters above all else. These mini-dramas are played solely out for fund-raising purposes.
“The point was clear: Hate speech targeting Black Americans…”
Why did you capitalize “black?”
b/c lefty ,once again,,controls the narrative
At the Columbia Journalism Review, we capitalize Black, and not white, when referring to groups in racial, ethnic, or cultural terms.
For many people, Black reflects a shared sense of identity and community.
White carries a different set of meanings; capitalizing the word in this context risks following the lead of white supremacists.
That is a load of BS
well yeah but thats what they do
I would have said “Yes.”
And would have immediately followed it with “And we would have countered it with more speech arguing their position is morally wrong. And, if they put up an encampment afterward to harass students, faculty, and staff, we would have sent in a squad of folks with billy clubs and bear spray to stop it because we would not allow those actions to go on. Same as we did with the pro-Palestinian a-holes.”
Except, of course, they did NOT do that.
But *I* would have.
Sadly, the Modern University has no basis for making “moral” arguments since they kicked God out 70 or so years ago replaced Him with moral relativism. These days, it’s all about who has power and can shout loudest.
Is Mr Owens suggesting that only “free” speech that he agrees with is acceptable?
He’s suggesting that a private institution that uses that status to censor truly evil speech in a way that government institutions can’t, has no excuse for not doing so in this case. Both private and government institutions should treat the Klan, neo-Nazis, supporters of “Palestinian” terrorism, and communists exactly the same; government institutions must allow all of these opinions to be expressed, but private institutions needn’t and shouldn’t give any of them a platform.
^This^ 100%.
It all comes down to blacks are victims and Jews are white affiliate wealthy privileged oppressors, settlers, colonizers, and racists. Of course you want to protect blacks from KKK speech, provided you could actually find a KKK to publicly speak, while welcoming antisemites to castigate those nasty evil Jews, That much of this isn’t true is irrelevant since no one at the universities cares about truth or reality for that matter.
Why should *anyone* be “protected” from speech they don’t like/ disagree with? If you don’t like it you’re free to leave, assuming it’s not a captive audience (a different scenario).
The real solution, the 1st A. free speech solution, is to allow all to speak, not favor some speech and disfavor others… especially at a university, where people ought to be adult enough to listen to other viewpoints and walk away if they don’t like.
Ought to but never allowed. I would not extend this to professors. They are employees and should be rigidly neutral regardless of their personal opinions. Same as government employees. Don’t like it? Don’t ever take the job.
Serious question: Do you think academic freedom is a value at all? If so, what limits would you put on it, and how would you justify those limits?
As I stated above I think you should have academic freedom within your discipline. If I’m a professor in earth science i should be free to argue before or against man made climate scientist for example. However why should a earth scientist be free to pontificate on the Arab Israeli conflict in a disagreeable fashion when they aren’t a subject expert and be free of any consequences? The answer is they shouldn’t be able to hide behind academic freedom as they all do now.
Note since most Middle East Studies department are full of Muslims this does mean that they can lie their hearts out about history and current events as they do now. But, they are least supposedly a subject matter expert.
The justification I’ve already given. No private employee is ever given the right to say whatever they want on any subject without suffering any potential consequences. Why should public employees be allowed to do so both sheltered and bolstered by their position and paid by the public even though they are anything but an expert. The answer is they shouldn’t,
Not just Georgetown:
“The chancellor of University of California, Berkeley described a professor who cheered the Oct. 7 Hamas massacre across southern Israel as a “fine scholar” during a congressional hearing held at Capitol Hill on Tuesday.
Richard K. Lyons, who assumed the chancellorship in July 2024, issued the unmitigated praise while being questioned by members of the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, which summoned him and the chief administrators of two other major universities to interrogate their handling of the campus antisemitism crisis.
Lyons stumbled into the statement while being questioned by Rep. Lisa McClain (R-MI), who asked Lyons to describe the extent of his relationship and correspondence with Professor Ussama Makdisi, who tweeted in Feb. 2024 that he “could have been one of those who broke through the siege on October 7.”
“What do you think the professor meant,” McClain asked Lyons, to which the chancellor responded, “I believe it was a celebration of the terrorist attack on October 7.” McClain proceeded to ask if Lyons discussed the tweet with Makdisi or personally reprimanded him, prompting an exchange of remarks which concluded with Lyons saying, “He is a fine scholar.””
https://www.algemeiner.com/2025/07/15/fine-scholar-uc-berkeley-chancellor-praises-professor-who-expressed-solidarity-with-oct-7-attacks/
One DB to another.
The dark world always projects, and hides behind the innocent.
From “Palestine” to the furthest tip of Africa, they all have the same lack of morality.
Thing is, antisemitism is a big tent. Neo Nazis and the KKK have similar theories about Jews, Zionism and Israel as antizionist ProPalestinian ‘activists.’ A link is the Protocols of Zion hoax.
The slavs have probably been worse to the Jews than any other group. Still rabid antisemites.
They were allies in WW2. And they have plenty of room in that tent for black antisemites too. The Klan, the Nazis, and the Arabs all despise blacks, but only the Klan actively hates them. Neo-nazis too, but the OG Nazis didn’t persecute black people. There were black members of the Nazi Party.
It’s been going on for a while. Back in 2012, David Duke, former KKK Grand Wizard and self-described “white nationalist”, endorsed former Black Panther and then Moammar Gaddafi-loving NYC Council Member Charles Barron for the Democratic nomination for New York’s 8th Congressional District. The reason? shared crazytown anti-zionism.
DT, March 7, 2019
Share
Rep. Ilhan Omar, Minnesota Democrat, has an ally of a new stripe in the furor over her use of anti-Semitic tropes regarding Israel and its American supporters David Duke.
In a Thursday podcast at his site, the former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard spoke out strongly in favor of the Muslim Congresswoman who has accused Jewish lawmakers of dual loyalty, attributed support for Israel to foreign money, and said Israel has “hypnotized” the world.
There really is no shortage of parallels and examples, or Democrats sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “ lalala, I can’t hear you.”
Why aren’t the hecklers arrested?
Disrupting a Congressional inquiry can include being charged with contempt of Congress, which is a misdemeanor. This can result in a fine of up to $100,000 and a jail term of one to 12 months, depending on prosecution by the Department of Justice. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/contempt-of-congress-process-and-penalties.html