One law firm prepared both Penn and Harvard for a hearing on anti-Semitism

The leaders of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology immediately faced backlash Tuesday over carefully worded — and apparently evasive — answers to the question of whether they would discipline students who called for the genocide of the Jews.

Two of the school presidents, Claudine Gay of Harvard and Elizabeth Magill of Penn, prepared separately for congressional testimony with teams from law firm WilmerHale, according to two people familiar with the situation who asked not to be identified because it preparation process is confidential.

WilmerHale also met with MIT President Sally Kornbluth, one of the people said.

WilmerHale’s attorneys sat in the front row during the hearings. They included Alyssa DaCunha, who heads the firm’s congressional investigations and crisis management practices, and Felicia Ellsworth, the firm’s vice president of litigation and controversy.

Both Ms. DaCunha and Ms. Ellsworth were involved in preparing the presidents of Harvard and Penn for the hearings, a person familiar with the process said. The schools each independently hired WilmerHale, and the company created separate teams to prepare each president. The company already had ties with all three schools.

A company spokeswoman declined to comment.

When preparing for testimony in Congress, legal caution must be combined with political acumen and common sense, legal experts say. Lawyers typically advise those testifying to be mindful of the law, but also to consider the headlines that may emerge from the hearing. That can be a difficult task after hours of asking specific questions.

“I got caught up in what had become at that moment: an extended, combative exchange over policies and procedures,” Ms. Gay told The Harvard Crimson.

Steven Davidoff Solomon, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, said the university presidents “seemed willing to provide answers in court — and not in a public forum.”

But the responsibility of university presidents, Mr. Solomon said, is “not to provide legal answers, but to provide the vision of the university.”

In one of the most charged moments of testimony, Representative Elise Stefanik, Republican of New York, asked the three presidents whether calls for violence against Jews would violate their school’s code of conduct.

Ms. Kornbluth of MIT responded that they could, “if they target individuals, and don’t make public statements.” Ms. Magill of Penn said that a call for violence against Jews could be considered an offense “if it is targeted and severe and pervasive, it is harassment.” When pressed to answer yes or no, she replied, “It’s a context-dependent decision.” And Harvard’s Ms. Gay responded: “That may be so, depending on the context.”

The responses immediately caused a wave of criticism. A House committee opened an investigation into the three institutions, and a donor recovered a large donation to Penn. A day after Wharton’s board of advisors called for Ms. Magill’s resignation, Wharton’s board of directors issued a statement Friday supporting the change in leadership.

Critics said the answers seemed too focused on whether conduct would violate the First Amendment.

“Once they were in that box, I think they stuck with their preparation,” said Edward Rock, a law professor at New York University. ‘That’s why they seemed so wooden. And then they realized it was a terrible answer.”

Dr. Harvard’s Gay commented on Wednesday: “Let me be clear: Calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group, are despicable. They have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held accountable.”

Ms. Magill of Penn said in a video: “I was not focused on, but I should have been, the irrefutable fact that a call for genocide of Jewish people is a call for the most terrible violence that human beings can commit.”