News

Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory

News

Cambridge Assistant City Manager to Lead Harvard’s Campus Planning

News

Despite Defunding Threats, Harvard President Praises Former Student Tapped by Trump to Lead NIH

News

Person Found Dead in Allston Apartment After Hours-Long Barricade

News

‘I Am Really Sorry’: Khurana Apologizes for International Student Winter Housing Denials

Win Against Hate or Loss for Academic Freedom? Harvard Faculty Split Over Antisemitism Settlements

Harvard's Tuesday settlement of two Title VI lawsuits left faculty divided over whether new protections for Zionist beliefs would help Jewish and Israeli students or encumber free speech.
Harvard's Tuesday settlement of two Title VI lawsuits left faculty divided over whether new protections for Zionist beliefs would help Jewish and Israeli students or encumber free speech. By Ryan N. Gajarawala
By William C. Mao and Veronica H. Paulus, Crimson Staff Writers

Harvard’s Tuesday settlement of two Title VI lawsuits left faculty divided over whether new protections for Zionist beliefs were a boon for Jewish and Israeli students or a blow to free speech.

The University’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism — which designates certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic — drew ire from some faculty, who said it could curtail academic freedom.

“It is going to chill all speech and inquiry that has anything to do with Israel, Palestine, the Middle East, Judaism,” said History professor Kirsten A. Weld, a co-president of Harvard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

“Adopting this definition will have a stifling effect on campus debate, and we are kidding ourselves if we think it will not,” Harvard Kennedy School professor Matthias Risse wrote in an emailed statement to The Crimson.

But those concerns were not universally shared.

In a Tuesday post on X, Harvard Medical School professor Jeffrey S. Flier disputed the claim that Harvard’s new guidelines would preclude criticisms of Israel. The IHRA definition “does not by itself prohibit or punish speech,” he wrote, and noted that it does not classify criticism “similar to that leveled against any other country” as antisemitic.

Flier, a co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, described the settlement terms as “a major positive step forward towards addressing the very real problems of antisemitism on campus.”

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that the University’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies do not “conflict with or override” its free speech policies.

“The University stands strongly for reasoned dissent and the free exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions,” Newton wrote.

On Wednesday night, two faculty groups — the Harvard AAUP and Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine — issued statements condemning Harvard’s incorporation of the IHRA definition.

The AAUP chapter argued that Tuesday’s settlements substituted an administrative mandate for academic debate, writing that “the top-down adoption of a polarizing, contested definition of antisemitism” is not an “appropriate means of combating anti-Jewish discrimination.”

Classics professor Richard F. Thomas, an FSJP member, said he worried the agreements set a precedent for allowing legal negotiations to dictate University policy.

“This continues the stripping away of any traces of faculty governance,” Thomas said. “We are having a policy shaped by a courtroom encounter.”

The settlement terms stipulate that Harvard’s non-discrimination policy applies to Zionists, in addition to Jewish and Israeli individuals, and includes among its protected categories “political beliefs.” In particular, the policy bars affiliates from demanding that others take a position on Israel or Zionism with the aim “to harass or discriminate.”

In the wake of the settlement, some Harvard affiliates were eager to take their fight to the classroom, suggesting that changes to faculty hiring and entire academic disciplines would be needed to root out antisemitism at the University.

Rabbi Jason B. Rubenstein ’04, the executive director of Harvard Hillel, wrote in an email to Hillel affiliates that he hoped Harvard would next pursue “the entrenched anti-Zionist orthodoxy of certain academic fields.”

And Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, a plaintiff in the first of the two suits who rejected the University’s attempt to settle, wrote in a post on X that he hoped his ongoing case would uncover “why antisemitic Professors are promoted” at Harvard.

“We will be working closely with the Trump administration to ensure Harvard’s endowment is taxed, its funds are withheld, and its faculty are properly disciplined,” wrote Kestenbaum, a Harvard Divinity School alum.

—Staff writer William C. Mao can be reached at william.mao@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @williamcmao.

—Staff writer Veronica H. Paulus can be reached at veronica.paulus@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @VeronicaHPaulus.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags
Central AdministrationFASFacultyLawsuitsIsrael PalestineFront Bottom Feature