According to a BBC report, the University of Pennsylvania has lost a $100m (£79.3m) grant after its dean M. Elizabeth Magill provided testimony to Congress which was alleged to be antisemitic. The donor who has withdrawn the grant was not identified. The university’s leadership has released a statement apologising ‘unequivocally’ for the dean’s remarks. The university has launched an investigation into Magill’s testimony.

What specific remarks did M. Elizabeth Magill make during her testimony that were deemed antisemitic?

During M. Elizabeth Magill’s testimony to Congress, she made a variety of remarks which were widely perceived as antisemitic. She spoke of ‘alleged ‘Jewish wealth’ and ‘Jewish businesses’, suggesting that they had used their money to influence faith-based organisations, politicians, and the media during the presidential election. She also suggested that the ‘Jewish lobby’ was responsible for a ‘made-up scare’ about ‘Russian interference’ in the US election. In addition, Magill also reportedly asked the audience to ‘imagine a powerful group of people were using their connections to suppress your voting rights’ and used language that was widely perceived to be divisive.

Magill subsequently apologised for her remarks, but the damage had already been done. After her statements were made public, a donor who had promised to give the University of Pennsylvania $100 million in funding pulled the grant, the identity of which donor remains anonymous. A formal investigation into Magill’s remarks and behaviour has been launched by the university’s leadership, with President Amy Gutmann apologising ‘unequivocally’ for the ‘hurt and pain’ that Magill’s words had caused. The outcome of the investigation and potential consequences for Magill’s role as dean remain to be seen.

How did the donor who withdrew the $100m grant become aware of Magill’s testimony?

It is not clear exactly how the donor who withdrew the $100 million grant became aware of Magill’s testimony. It is possible that they read about it in the media, or were informed by someone familiar with the testimony. It is also possible that the donor is connected to one of the many organisations that have come out in strong criticism of Magill’s remarks. The donor’s identity remains anonymous and it is unclear what motivated them to withdraw the grant. Regardless, Magill’s statements had significant financial consequences for the University of Pennsylvania, who have lost a major contribution to their coffers.

How will the University of Pennsylvania’s investigation into Magill’s testimony be conducted, and what are the potential consequences for her role as dean?

The University of Pennsylvania will be conducting an investigation into Magill’s testimony to Congress. They have responded to the situation by offering an apology “unequivocally” for the remarks. The consequences of the inquiry will determine Magill’s role at the university. Depending on the results of the investigation, she could potentially be asked to resign or face a suspension. The investigation will also explore the circumstances behind the $100 million grant withdrawal and how the donor became aware of the testimony.