The answer to an overabundance of groupthink and intolerance of dissenting perspectives that replaces intellectualism with pseudo-intellectualism is not authoritarian removal of people for the views they have expressed.
Good grief.
Dr. Claudine Gay, for instance, has made multiple perfectly reasonable statements regarding genocide against Jews with the benefit of hindsight and a zillion people screaming "How could you say 'depends on context' to that?!?!" at her.
This is how freedom of speech is supposed to work. She said stuff, reflected, then said things that were far more humane and reasonable. If the reaction to that is still "Off with her head!!!" then what incentive does anyone have to update their viewpoints--and how could anyone be brave enough to express a viewpoint other than exactly what the executioner (or the Red Queen) wants to hear?
Not reflexively firing a now-much-more-sensible-sounding Dr. Claudine Gay is part of how problems of this sort get fixed.
Rather than your entirely counterproductive measures, which are easily spun as "Jews want to control everything by firing anyone who fails to accept them", by far the better action is to directly support organizations that counter antisemitism (as long as they aren't making the same mistake), and/or support organizations that promote viewpoint diversity (like FIRE or the Heterodox Academy) which, if it hadn't been suppressed for so long, would have prevented the development of the attitudes that the University Presidents were presumably merely faithfully reflecting.
It's also a good idea to keep on top of Dr. Gay to make sure that she makes good on her newfound dual commitment to the safety of all students on the one hand and freedom of expression on the other.
Finally, as much as you might wish that the Ivy League schools aren't actually attended by the smartest people, the reality is that, on average, they are. They have the highest SAT scores on acceptance, for instance, and SAT and IQ have a pretty strong correlation. (The occasional legacy admit who isn't all that bright doesn't bring the average down enough to change the conclusion.) Indeed, one of the biggest criticisms of the Ivy Leagues--which seems at least moderately statistically justified--is that they don't develop talent but instead just recruit it. What is really scary is that within that environment pretty blatantly wrong ideas can still take hold, illustrating that tribalism and associated forms of groupthink are a danger even to the brightest people. (But we already knew that from IQ testing of Hitler's inner circle.)