SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
harvard
Why Harvard Is Wrong to Impose the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
A principled leadership of Harvard and of all the other great universities of this country should be giving leadership and effective direction to the movement against the war on the Palestinians—not figuring out how to destroy it.
Feb 11, 2025
Harvard's decision to impose the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, or IHRA, definition of antisemitism on its campus underscores the university's complete failure to rise to the occasion of opposing Israel's crimes against humanity, its subservience to the Israeli lobby, and its actual complicity in the mass killings carried out by Israel in Gaza and the West Bank.
Not only does Harvard refuse to examine its likely investments in companies profiting from the destruction of Gaza (those investments are secret). But it actively silences opposition to that killing by large numbers of its own students through punishments and suspensions. How times have changed since a previous Harvard administration finally listened to the cries of its students for divestment from the white racist apartheid South African regime in the 1980s! The days when Harvard would welcome a Nelson Mandela to its campus to sing the glories of its protesting students who helped to end apartheid are over because of Mandela's outspoken championing of Palestinian rights during his whole political life.
Even though American Jews are among the leaders of the opposition to Israel's crimes against Palestinians, Harvard will now label these vast numbers of Jews as antisemites because of the loud opposition they are organizing against Israel's indiscriminate attack on Palestinians, against the calls of Israeli leaders to destroy Palestinians through starvation and onslaught, and against Israeli apartheid and denial of basic rights to Palestinians and their parents who once called the land their home.
Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?
The issue here is far beyond free speech. It is about playing a major role in silencing opposition to monstrous murder and destruction. In all its expressed concern about what it labels antisemitism and about the discomfort of some of its students who support the Israel's war, there is no mention at all about the reason that so many of its students condemn Israel's actions in Gaza—where it will take years just to remove the bodies of thousands of Palestinians buried under the rubble of their homes, schools, and hospitals. It is as if Israel's policies in Gaza are irrelevant to the upheaval that the Harvard administration seeks to crush. Harvard students were risking their futures not primarily for their rights to free speech but to maintain a semblance of integrity and as an expression of their grief while their own country provided Israel with full-throated support for its attack on Palestinian children.
Antisemitism is a centuries-long curse that must be opposed and challenged whenever it rears its ugly head. The Holocaust is a crime that stands out against all others in the modern age and whose lessons must never be forgotten. One of those lessons is "never again." And that is the lesson that the vast majority of young Jews who condemn Israel for its deliberate destruction of Palestinian society are acting on—as their forebears condemned white South Africa for its brutal apartheid system. The vast movement against Israel's racism and killing is not calling for Israelis to be murdered or driven into the sea. The call is for an end to the war on Palestinians and for equal rights for both peoples whether in the same country or in separate independent states. To pervert the fight against antisemitism into a weapon to be used to subdue opposition to what we have seen each day in Gaza is morally reprehensible. A principled leadership of Harvard and of all the other great universities of this country should be giving leadership and effective direction to the movement against this war on a people—not figuring out how to destroy it.
Why is the assertion by large numbers of American Jews that "the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor" labeled antisemitic? It may be true or it may not be true. But why is it antisemitic? Why can a student at Harvard say that the United States is a racist endeavor without being charged with racism? They can certainly be challenged, but what does racism have to do with such a claim? Why would drawing a comparison between the brutal October 7 Gaza uprising and the Warsaw Ghetto uprising against the Nazis be considered antisemitism? It may be right, wrong, or partially wrong. Let the facts speak. But why is it antisemitic? "Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination" is wrong. But why is it just fine for Israelis to deny Palestinians that same right without being called on the carpet for doing so? The chant "from the river to the sea" may be mistakenly experienced by many Israelis as calling for the violent destruction of Israel. Clearly the violent destruction of any people cannot be tolerated. But why was it just fine when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party enshrined the same slogan in its documents in the not too distant past? And why is the call by millions of Israelis today for the expansion of the state of Israel into wider areas of the Middle East—even beyond the river to the sea—just fine with our country's leaders?
When the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its legal ruling that "Israel's occupation and annexation of the Palestinian territories are unlawful, and its discriminatory laws and policies against Palestinians violate the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid," is that antisemitism? Or just a statement of fact? When the ICJ preliminarily ruled that South Africa (now joined by Ireland) had made a plausible case that Israel was committing genocide in Gaza, was that because Ireland and South Africa are antisemitic? When the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes, were they motivated by antisemitism or by the facts of the matter?
We applaud Harvard's commitment to oppose antisemitism whether directed against Israeli Jews, Zionist Jews, or anti-Zionist Jews. Would that Harvard was just as concerned about the pervasive doxing and harassment of its students for their support of Palestinian life by pro-Israel zealots—in some cases with dire consequences for those students' careers.
So the question is: Is Harvard really concerned about antisemitism? Or just policing its students' language and actions to undermine opposition to the atrocities Israel has been committing in Gaza and now in the West Bank?
Harvard University should be faithful to its better angels. To oppose antisemitism and Islamophobia, of course. But to jettison its imposition of the IHRA definition of antisemitism on its faculty and students. To insist that the rights of all its students be respected. But also to stand, as it has at times in the past, on the side of justice. There is a monstrous crime that poses a threat to the very existence of a people that must be ended. There are hostages on both sides that must be released. Let's hope that this first phase of the cease-fire in Gaza can be turned into the beginning of a necessary process that brings immediate peace, food, and medical care to the people of Gaza; ends land seizures and attacks in the West Bank; begins the reconstruction of Gaza; allows self-determination for Palestinians as well as Israelis; and even moves toward the reconciliation of two peoples who wish the same things for their children and who, some day, can do great things together.
Keep ReadingShow Less
To Repair Trust, Harvard Must End the Palestine Exception and Let Seniors Graduate
If Harvard allows students to suffer the harsh and unfair consequences meted out by a body of 12 unelected members of Harvard Corporation, fundamental faith in the institution will disappear.
Jun 05, 2024
Across the country unrest continues to shake university campuses and commencement ceremonies. At Harvard, over 1000 people walked out of graduation in a coordinated protest over its handling of students involved in the Palestine solidarity encampment.
On May 14, after three weeks of peaceful protest, Harvard students dismantled their solidarity encampment based on assurances from Harvard President Alan Garber that disciplinary bodies would act “expeditiously under existing precedent,” with the goal that seniors would be able to graduate. Garber led students (and faculty advisers) to trust that Harvard’s Administrative (“Ad”) Board, which enforces undergraduate academic regulations and conducts disciplinary processes, would be “guided by standard responses and considerations of equity.”
This, however, is not what happened.
The Ad Board placed 39 Harvard College students on multi-semester long probation and suspended five students. Consequently, 13 graduating seniors had their degrees delayed by multiple semesters. On May 20, the Faculty of Harvard College overwhelmingly voted to reverse the Ad Board’s decision and confer the 13 degrees. However, on May 22, the day before graduation, the Harvard Corporation refused to let the 13 seniors graduate in a shocking rebuke to faculty governance. These seniors may now lose post-graduate work opportunities and fellowships, including 2 of the 10 Harvard students awarded a Rhodes scholarship this year. These punitive actions will have lifelong consequences for students, many of whom are not from economically privileged backgrounds.
What should we now teach our students? That you may speak up, except for Palestine?
This disproportionate punishment exemplifies the “Palestine exception” by overturning decades of precedent in university disciplinary proceedings in prior student protest encampments—including many that were longer, larger, and more disruptive. Far from responding in a “content-neutral” manner to Palestine solidarity protests, the university has shown that Palestinian lives—and the rights of those who advocate for them—are expendable.
Even before the student encampment, the ACLU of Massachusetts sent a letter to Harvard’s General Counsel, warning that Harvard’s probation and suspension of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, the only recognized student Palestinian advocacy organization at Harvard College, “constitutes a breach of contract, violates Harvard’s duty to provide basic fairness in disciplinary proceedings, and may otherwise be unlawful because of its negative impact on free speech and associational rights.” In the letter, the ACLU urged Harvard to “ensure that students expressing views that may be unpopular or controversial… are not disproportionately targeted due to their viewpoints.”
As physicians and faculty at Harvard Medical School, we have dedicated our careers to caring for vulnerable people. We teach our students the importance of standing up for the oppressed, that no life is disposable, and that we must use our privilege as physicians to contest conditions that devastate health and crush life chances. While we each come from different faith traditions—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim—we teach our own children the same thing. Do the right thing, no matter what others are doing. Speak out when others are being harmed.
We see clear connections between our healthcare worker colleagues in Palestine—who refuse to leave their patients’ sides, even as bombs fall and they become targets for detention and torture—and student protesters. On April 24, when students launched their encampment demanding an end to Harvard’s silence and complicity with genocide, students knew they risked their careers, livelihoods, and possibly even their physical safety. Our students had already witnessed other university administrators, at University of Texas and Emerson College in Boston, call in police to violently remove encampments and arrest protesters.
Our students still made the principled decision to risk their education, careers, and personal safety, as privileged students at Harvard, to demand justice for the people of Palestine. There were no universities left in Gaza, students reminded us. This collective act of solidarity was so inspiring, that each of us brought our own children to witness the encampment. We wanted them to see and feel the love and principled commitment of young people in the encampment in the face of injustice. We wanted them to catch a glimpse of other worlds that might be possible. Worlds where all lives are held precious.
How will we tell our children of the unfair punishment students face at the hands of Harvard administrators for peacefully and bravely living their values, for daring to demand justice and an end to genocide? What should we now teach our students? That you may speak up, except for Palestine?
That Harvard resolved the Palestine solidarity encampment without police force has been framed as a victory for the Harvard community—a sign of its beneficence and tolerance. But, if Harvard allows students to suffer the harsh and unfair consequences meted out by a body of 12 unelected members of Harvard Corporation—despite calls of over 500 Harvard faculty and staff and the vote of its own Harvard College Faculty—fundamental faith in the institution will disappear. It would suggest that Harvard is not guided by its own principles of equity and fairness, but rather susceptible to corporate overreach and donor pressure. That too will have grave and long-term consequences that will long outlive the current students involved.
In the words of James Baldwin, “[We] do not believe what you say because [we] see what you do.”
Harvard could choose to repair broken trust. The first step is ending the Palestine exception and allowing our 13 seniors to graduate with degrees they earned.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The NYT Is Fanning the Flames of a Fake Outrage
When covering right-wing claims of antisemitism on campus, reporters for an ostensibly liberal paper should be looking at what is actually being said and what is actually happening.
Dec 17, 2023
University presidents are under fire from politicians and the media over what is being framed as their waffling over allowing antisemitic speech on their campuses. But it is a concocted outrage that has nothing to do with safeguarding Jewish students, and The New York Times is going along for the ride.
The uproar concerns an appearance by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania before the House Education committee, in which Rep. Elise Stefanik (R–N.Y.) grilled them about antisemitism on campus and whether “calling for the genocide of Jews” violates university codes of conduct.
The Times (12/6/23) reported the story under the headline, “College Presidents Under Fire After Dodging Questions About Antisemitism,” with the subhead: “The leaders of Harvard, MIT, and Penn appeared to evade questions about whether students should be disciplined if they call for the genocide of Jews.” Reporters Stephanie Saul and Anemona Hartocollis began:
Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews?
Specifically, the reporters wrote, the presidents’ “lawyerly replies”—that it depends on the context of the speech—drew criticism from Jewish leaders as well as Democratic bigwigs, thus framing the ire not as partisan positioning against liberal academia, but a categorical defense of Jewish students against uncaring administrators.
But there are two big problems with the Times‘ framing: The calls for genocide were imaginary, and the presidents’ answers were not evasive, they were accurate reflections of the constitutional protections of free speech and the scope of university policies on harassment and bullying.
‘From the River to the Sea’
As a subsequent Timesreport explained (12/7/23), Stefanik
repeatedly tried and failed to get them to agree with her that calls for “intifada” and use of slogans such as “from the river to the sea” were appeals for genocide against Jews that should not be tolerated on campuses.
First, let’s be clear: Calls for “intifada” or a free Palestine “from the river to the sea” are not the same as calls for genocide. Merriam-Websterdefines the Arabic word “intifada” in the context of Palestine to mean “an armed uprising of Palestinians against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.”
“From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a slogan that’s long been used by Palestinians to “represent the vision of a secular democratic state with equality for all,” as University of Arizona Mideast studies professor Maha Nassar (Conversation, 11/16/23) noted.
The American Jewish Committee describes the phase as “a rallying cry for terrorist groups and their sympathizers,” saying it calls for the “establishment of a state of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, erasing the state of Israel and its people.” But as Nimer Sultany of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies told Al Jazeera (11/2/23), the word “free” in the slogan refers to “the need for equality for all inhabitants of historic Palestine.”
So much for right-wing opposition to “cancel culture.”
As U.S. corporate media outlets seldom remind their audiences, Israel is currently deemed an apartheid state by leading human rights groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Israel’s B’Tselem (FAIR.org, 2/3/22).
Pro-Palestinian protesters on campuses do talk about genocide, however (Ha’aretz, 10/25/23)—to argue that Israel is carrying one out in its assault on Gaza, which has so far killed at least 17,000 people, 70% of them women and children, according to Gazan health officials (Reuters, 12/7/23).
Announcing the “second stage” of the war against Gaza (Common Dreams, 10/30/23), Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “You must remember what Amalek has done to you, says our Holy Bible”—a reference to 1 Samuel 15:3: “Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling.”
A Gotcha Question
But Stefanik—the chair of the Republican Conference, whom Times reporting by Nicholas Confessore (12/31/22) had earlier depicted as a vacuous opportunist with no real ideology beyond her own advancement—wasn’t asking good-faith questions about antisemitism on campus. She was asking a gotcha question to force the presidents to answer “yes” or “no” about legal and policy matters that in fact required more context. The paper quoted at length her exchange with UPenn president Mary Elizabeth Magill, who has since resigned:
Ms. Stefanik asked Ms. Magill, “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?”
Ms. Magill replied, “If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik pressed the issue: “I am asking, specifically: Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?”
Ms. Magill, a lawyer who joined Penn last year with a pledge to promote campus free speech, replied, “If it is directed and severe, pervasive, it is harassment.”
Ms. Stefanik responded: “So the answer is yes.”
Ms. Magill said, “It is a context-dependent decision, congresswoman.”
Ms. Stefanik exclaimed: “That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is depending upon the context?”
Stefanik was smugly triumphant, and the exchange led to pressure against Magill from the state’s governor (Chronicle of Higher Education,12/6/23) and calls to resign from the board of UPenn’s business school (Axios, 12/7/23). The school lost a $100 million donation (BBC, 12/8/23).
After issuing an apology (Wall Street Journal, 12/7/23), Magill resigned (New York Times, 12/9/23). Falling just short of openly declaring a witch hunt against university administrators, Stefanik (Fox News,12/9/23) replied to the resignation: “One down. Two to go.”
The New York Post (12/10/23) wasn’t so shy, saying that in response to the supposed leftward nature of higher education society should “starve these schools of funds (alumni giving, government largesse, tuition money) until they have boards and administrations dedicated to righting things.” So much for right-wing opposition to “cancel culture.”
Context Matters
But Magill was correct. Speech is protected; Penn’s policies are about bullying and harassment. So if someone simply uses the phrase “from the river to the sea” or “intifada,” it doesn’t fall under Penn’s policies unless it is accompanied by conduct that can be interpreted as bullying or harassment. As the Daily Beast‘s Jay Michaelson (12/6/23) wrote:
What about when someone makes a statement in a classroom or a college lecture? If someone insists, in a classroom discussion, that Israel as a country is an illegitimate colonial outpost and should be “wiped off the map”?
That sounds like a political statement to me, not an act of bullying or intimidation.
But if a mob marches into a Shabbat service and shouts the same slogan, then that’s clearly harassment and in violation of the policy. Context matters.
In the Times‘ letters section (12/7/23), one writer said:
Free speech doesn’t exist only for speech with which you agree, and if it doesn’t cross the bright legal line into literally targeting individuals or inciting violence, punishing it is problematic.
So yes, as Harvard’s president, Claudine Gay, rightly said, context matters as it relates to discipline. But that doesn’t mean there is any ambiguity, any argument, that calls for genocide against Jews aren’t both bigoted and deeply disturbing. They surely are.
‘Legally Correct’
It wasn’t until the eighth paragraph that the Times said the university presidents “tried to give lawyerly responses to a tricky question involving free speech, which supporters of academic freedom said were legally correct.”
This is a sneaky way to hide the reality that, yes, free speech means, hypothetically speaking, defending people’s rights to make atrocious and offensive statements. If Republican lawmakers believe that such a reality is unacceptable, then they should come out and say they are against free speech.
But the next paragraph is far worse:
But to many Jewish students, alumni, and donors, who had watched campus pro-Palestinian protests with trepidation and fear, the statements by the university presidents failed to meet the political moment by not speaking clearly and forcefully against antisemitism.
The Times had just noted that all three presidents “said they were appalled by antisemitism and taking action against it on campus. When asked whether they supported the right of Israel to exist, they answered yes, without equivocation.” So the problem is not their clearly stated opposition to antisemitism or support for Israel. It’s their unwillingness to say they’ll discipline those whose speech some find abhorrent.
Just because people don’t like a protest—even with good reason—doesn’t mean that the protesters should be punished for their speech. Many women might find anti-abortion tabling to be sexist; that doesn’t mean it is outside the bounds of free speech. Would the Zionist version of “from the river to sea”—where Israel includes the Occupied Territories (Times of Israel, 9/22/23)—be considered so offensive to Palestinian students that students who make them should be punished? Would the Times also have us believe that it should be illegal for pro-police students to have rallies in defense of cops accused of brutality and murder of unarmed Black people?
‘Free Speech Scruples’
After quoting no fewer than six critics of the presidents, the Times finally found someone to offer a defense of their answers—sort of. Saul and Hartocollis turned to Will Creeley, legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group more often associated with libertarian pearl-clutching over “cancel culture” (1/31/22). He grudgingly accepted that the administrators were right: “It does depend on context,” he told the Times.
But Creeley added that he was sad “to see them discover free speech scruples while under fire at a congressional hearing,” and hadn’t come out as advocates for his version of free speech more generally, which sees decisions by publishing companies to not publish certain (right-wing) authors as “book banning.”
After Creeley’s brief and half-hearted defense, the Times returned to more critics, one of whom demanded that the presidents “resign in disgrace,” and another who was “appalled by the need to state the obvious: Calls for genocide against Jews do not depend on the context.”
Boosted by Conspiracy Theories
Perhaps the Times could have glanced at Stefanik’s own record; she has come under fire for engaging in white nationalist conspiracy theories like the “great replacement” theory (Washington Post, 5/15/22, 5/16/22; NBC, 5/19/22). In fact, Albany’s Times-Union editorial board (9/17/21) blasted her embrace of the far-right theory:
If there’s anything that needs replacing in this country—and in the Republican party—it’s the hateful rhetoric that Ms. Stefanik and far too many of her colleagues so shamelessly spew.
This was in response to her ads that said, “President Biden and fellow Democrats are seeking a ‘permanent election insurrection’ by expanding pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants” (Washington Post, 9/16/21).
In perhaps her weirdest outburst, Stefanik “denounced Democrats who disagreed with her proposals to ease baby formula shortage as ‘usual pedo grifters’” (Daily News, 5/13/22), a nod to the antisemitic QAnon conspiracy theory that fuels the Trumpian right (Guardian, 8/25/20). Once an obscure backbencher, Stefanik has risen in conservative fame while latching onto conspiracy theories about the 2020 presidential election being rigged, to the point the point of aligning herself with an anti-Muslim leader of the “stop the steal” movement (WAMC, 8/23/21).
The Times missed this important context, which would have led a reporter to question if Stefanik’s pointed questioning toward the university presidents was genuinely motivated by a concern for antisemitism or, instead, a kind of projection of her own record.
A Right-Wing PR Vehicle
The whole affair has boosted Stefanik’s currency in right-wing media, especially Fox News (12/6/23, 12/6/23, 12/8/23). In fact, The New York Times (12/7/23) wrote a followup article reporting that the exchange with the three university presidents “went viral, racking up tens of millions of views on social media (the Israeli government even reposted a clip of the hearing).” While Stefanik has had support from the right, Times congressional correspondent Annie Karni wrote that her grilling achieved the “unthinkable” by
prompting many Democrats and detractors of Mr. Trump to concede that an ideological culture warrior with whom they agree on nothing else was, in this case, right.
In yet another follow-up piece, the Times (12/10/23) accepted Republican concern about campus antisemitism as fact, without questioning whether mere criticism of Israel was being wrongly branded as antisemitic, or acknowledging that it has actually been the left that has blown the whistle on the rise of white nationalism, antisemitism, and xenophobia in conjunction with the political rise of Donald Trump (Washington Post, 10/17/22; Haaretz, 11/8/22). The “potency” of the recent Republican inquisition into free speech on campuses, the Times‘Nicholas Confessore said, “was underscored by how many Democrats joined the attack.” It was lost on the Times that it was its own misframing of the exchange that lent liberal validation to a far-right GOP leader like Stefanik.
Of course, Stefanik took to The Wall Street Journal’s opinion page (12/7/23) to rebroadcast her congressional spectacle, calling the presidents’ testimony “pathetic” and displaying a “lack of moral clarity.” But it makes sense for a conservative opinion space to act as a right-wing PR vehicle.
Reporters for an ostensibly liberal paper, meanwhile, should be looking at what is actually being said and what is actually happening. Instead, the Times is fanning the flames of a fake outrage, and it’s already having a dire impact on free speech.
Correction: This article was updated in order to properly identify the"Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular