One Year After Settlement, Harvard Has Not Released Required Antisemitism Report

Harvard has yet to publish a report on its handling of antisemitism complaints required under a January 2025 legal settlement, according to the group that brought the suit.

The report — one of several conditions in Harvard’s agreement with the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law — was intended to provide an annual public accounting of how the University addresses discrimination complaints under Title VI, including antisemitism.

As of Tuesday, it has not been released.

Kenneth L. Marcus, the center’s founder and chairman, confirmed that the center is still “awaiting” the report in a Monday interview with The Crimson.

The outstanding requirement comes as Harvard faces mounting federal scrutiny over its response to antisemitism on campus, including a recent lawsuit from the Department of Justice alleging civil rights violations.

Over the past year, Harvard has taken steps to comply with the other provisions of the settlement, which resolved a May 2024 lawsuit accusing the University of failing to respond adequately to antisemitism.

As mandated, Harvard adopted the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, appointed an official to oversee Title VI complaints, and implemented mandatory training for staff.

It has also begun hosting Brandeis Center programming on campus, including a conference this week on antisemitism, civil rights, and the law — the first in a series of annual events required under the agreement.

“We were very pleased that one of the results of our litigation was a settlement provision under which we’re able to provide at Harvard — for Harvard, but also for the broader community — a conference that puts a spotlight on the emergence of a new Civil Rights legal movement to address the antisemitism that we’ve been seen surging around the country and around the world,” Marcus said.

This conference is scheduled during the week of Yom HaShoah — Holocaust Remembrance Day — which Marcus said gives it added significance amid what he described as a rise in antisemitism following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

Still, Marcus indicated that the University’s compliance with the settlement remains ongoing.

“Settlement compliance is often a work in progress,” Marcus said. “There have been continuing conversations with Harvard about compliance concerns. We still hear fairly regularly from Harvard students about issues that they are having even after the settlement.”

Marcus declined to detail specific concerns, saying discussions with Harvard are being handled privately. But he emphasized that the agreement requires not just formal policy changes but consistent implementation.

“When there are problems that arise, they aren’t necessarily violations of the agreement,” he said. “But the agreement does put in place various procedures that need to be applied, and we are working to make sure that they are applied as required.”

The missing report is among the most visible outstanding obligations. Under the settlement, Harvard must publish annual reports for five years, including a retrospective on disciplinary responses to antisemitism complaints dating back to October 2023.

A University spokesperson declined to comment on the status of the report or any compliance concerns, instead pointing to actions Harvard has taken under the agreement.

The settlement resolved a lawsuit brought by the Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education. Harvard also settled related claims from Students Against Antisemitism, a group of six students.

But legal challenges have continued.

Last month, the Department of Justice sued Harvard, claiming the University had violated federal civil rights law by remaining “deliberately indifferent” to campus antisemitism. The complaints draw on many of the same incidents in the Brandeis case, including those tied to pro-Palestine protests.

In response to the suit, Harvard argued that the Trump administration was using antisemitism claims as a pretext for retaliation.

Marcus firmly disputed that claim.

“I do not believe that there is anything pretextual about the administration’s approach to antisemitism,” he said. “There are federal officials who are committed to addressing the recent surge of antisemitism.”

“It may be a different way than what prior administrations, especially on the Democratic side, have done, but I am fully confident that it is done in good faith,” Marcus added.

The Justice Department has sought broad remedies, including potential funding cuts and the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee Harvard’s compliance.

Marcus said monitors could help strengthen accountability.

Despite the ongoing litigation, Marcus said the Brandeis Center’s focus remains on ensuring Harvard follows through on its commitment under the settlement.

“There’s no question that Harvard can do better,” he said. “They’ve taken a number of steps. I’m hoping they’ll do more as time goes on.”

—Staff writer Hugo C. Chiasson can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at hcc.35. Follow him on X @HugoChiassonn.

—Staff writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal @sbc.23. Follow him on X @SebastianC4784.

—Staff writer Elise A. Spenner can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at elisespenner.82. Follow her on X @EliseSpenner.