A passerby walks through a gate leading to the Harvard University campus, Tuesday, Jan. 2, 2024, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Steven Senne/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Steven Senne/AP
Harvard University has agreed to strengthen its policy against anti-Semitism on campus as part of the settlement of two federal lawsuits accusing the school of not doing enough to prevent anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.
Below the affairHarvard will adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) broad definition of anti-Semitism, which considers certain instances of anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli criticism to be anti-Semitism. Critics say the definition is too strict, wrongly conflates the two and stifles free and open academic research. Harvard views the move as one of several “robust measures” that will ensure that “Jewish and Israeli students are treated equally and with the same urgency as all protected groups.”
As part of the agreement, Harvard will issue an explanation stating that “For many Jews, Zionism is part of their Jewish identity” and will also list examples of anti-Semitism, such as “the exclusion of Zionists from an event open, calling for death.” Zionists, applying the “non-Zionist” litmus test for participation in any Harvard activity. »
Harvard also agreed that over the next five years it would publicly share findings on suspected cases of anti-Semitism as well as complaints of other forms of bias. Students have accused Harvard of being more lax in enforcing harassment and discrimination policies involving Jews, compared to black or LGBTQ students, for example.
Harvard says it will require outside training for staff reviewing anti-Semitism complaints and will invest additional resources to study anti-Semitism, including holding an annual academic symposium on the subject, hosting a variety of events on campus and partnering with an Israeli university.
“When fully implemented, this agreement will help ensure that Jewish students are able to learn and thrive in an environment free from anti-Semitic hatred, discrimination and harassment,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Education and President of the association. the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which filed one of the lawsuits accusing Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and national origin in schools that receive federal funds.
Harvard also accepted an unspecified monetary payment, but the university has not admitted any wrongdoing.
“We are committed to ensuring that our Jewish community is welcomed, respected and can thrive at Harvard,” the university said in a statement. “We are resolute in our efforts to combat anti-Semitism.”
The settlement was welcomed by many on campus, including Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman. He said this clarification was particularly necessary following the congressional hearing where Claudine Gay, then president of Harvard, I had trouble answering whether certain scenarios would cross the line into prohibited anti-Semitic conduct.
“The truth is, in law, it depends,” Feldman says. So it’s important that Harvard has now more clearly spelled out the criteria it will use to determine what crosses the line. But, he said, it’s not much different from the rules applied in the past.
“It’s a common-sense balance,” he says. “People need to be able to say what they believe, and there needs to be a respectful community where all participants can engage in debate without being intimidated, harassed, or discriminated against. These are both equally important parts of the university’s core mission .”
But the deal drew furious criticism on campus and online, including from the Palestine Solidarity Committee for Harvard Undergraduates. The group accused Harvard on social media of using a “widely contested” definition of anti-Semitism to “silence support for the Palestinians.”
Another user, identified as Jayanti Leslie-Iyer, a Harvard student, responded “it’s insane that Harvard has exceptionalized (sic) Israel and Zionism to be above criticism.”
Violet Baron, a Harvard student and organizer for the group Harvard Outside Occupied Palestine as well as Jews for Palestine, calls the colony “extremely dangerous.”
Baron says she was among those protesters chanting “Zionists are not welcome here.”
“To me, it means that racists are not welcome here,” she says. “Zionism is a political ideology, and Harvard protecting Zionists, perhaps at the expense of free speech, is not what the fight against anti-Semitism looks like. what speech policing looks like.”
Marc Kasowitz, the lawyer who filed the lawsuit and negotiated the settlement with Harvard, vehemently rejects such arguments.
“There is nothing in our regulations that prohibits or limits political speech in any way,” he says. “However, if someone expresses the idea that Zionists should not be welcome at Harvard, because of the belief they have in the existence of the State of Israel, that seems very anti-Semitic to me .”
Several other schools have recently settled similar lawsuits, and lawsuits are pending against others, including the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.
But at Harvard, even this agreement does not completely resolve the issue.
A student who was part of the lawsuit refused to participate in the settlement and instead took his complaint to court. A federal judge has already ruled against Harvard’s attempt to have the case thrown out, saying that “Harvard has failed its Jewish students” and that the university “cannot hide behind the First Amendment” to avoid comply with anti-discrimination laws.
