In a recent development that has sparked intense public scrutiny, the testimony of three university presidents before the House Education and the Workforce Committee in December has raised questions about the obligations of individuals to appear before Congress.
The appearances of M. Elizabeth Magill, the president of the University of Pennsylvania, and Claudine Gay, Harvard’s president, at hearings on antisemitism on their campuses led to their resignations after delivering evasive answers. Nemat Shafik, Columbia University’s president, faced growing outrage from pro-Palestinian student protesters and faculty after declining to appear at a session but testifying at a later hearing.
Lawyers who prepare clients for congressional testimony emphasize the risks of not appearing, as lawmakers may demand their presence with a subpoena. While there are opportunities for negotiation with the committee beforehand, refusing to cooperate can have negative consequences.
Experts advise witnesses to make their testimony as unremarkable as possible and not view their appearance as an opportunity to push back on lawmakers. Christopher Armstrong, a lawyer representing clients in congressional investigations, stressed the importance of avoiding high-profile confrontations and aiming for hearings that are not widely discussed.
As the debate continues over the obligations of individuals to testify before Congress, the consequences of refusal and the strategies for navigating congressional hearings remain key considerations for those in the public eye.
