In Annual Elections, Students Debate Role of Zionism at Harvard Hillel
Harvard Hillel elected its new student board after an election revealed debates over how the organization can represent Jewish students with varying political beliefs, even as the group’s leaders define it as a voice for Zionism on campus.
Harvard Hillel elected its new student board last month after a protracted election revealed debates over how the organization can represent Jewish students with varying political beliefs, even as the group’s leaders define it as a voice for Zionism on campus.
In position papers and at a December forum, between discussion of Shabbat programming and bagel brunches, candidates staked out stances on the role of Zionism at Harvard Hillel.
And the race for Israel chair — one of the 10 student board seats up for election, tasked with organizing Israel-related programming — was pushed to a January runoff after a no-confidence vote against an unopposed candidate.
Amelia M. Heller ’27, the incoming student president, said she thought the election results were determined as much by candidates’ campaigning and social visions as by their politics.
The incoming board will lead an organization that many Jewish students call home — and that has faced vandalism, protest, and boycotts over the past year as Harvard’s stance toward Israel remains a contentious issue on campus.
Rabbi Jason B. Rubenstein ’04, the executive director of Harvard Hillel, wrote in a statement that this winter’s elections demonstrate that Jewish Harvard affiliates can be “proud of Harvard Hillel’s democratic governance.”
Heller said she thought her board was well-equipped to foster conversation and embrace diversity among Jewish students.
“Something that will help my board really represent the Jewish community right now is just the fact that we have so many different types of people,” Heller said.
The Presidential Race
More than 180 Hillel affiliates voted in the student board presidential election, where Heller defeated fellow presidential candidate Maya Shiloni ’26. All undergraduates who were on Hillel’s mailing list or in its official WhatsApp group 20 days before the elections began were eligible to vote.
The election — initially a three-way race between Heller, Shiloni, and Charles M. Covit ’27 — emphasized ideological differences in the candidates’ stances on Zionism within Hillel.
In her candidate paper, Heller wrote that she views Hillel as a Zionist organization, but that there is “room to discuss current events through the lens of our shared values.” She also wrote that Hillel should be home to “Jews of various religious backgrounds.”
Shiloni and Covit, however, took a harder line. In Shiloni’s candidate paper, she wrote that she would “advocate to amend Hillel’s constitution, affirming that Hillel is a Zionist organization.”
Similarly, Covit described Hillel as “the home of Zionism on this campus.”
“Hillel must be the home for real conversations about different visions for where Israel goes next,” he wrote. “For all who believe that Israel is our one and only Jewish and democratic state, I will invite you to join in.”
Caleb K. Levine ’26, a Hillel affiliate, said this contrast aided Heller in getting the support of the more progressive students. But the election was quickly ensnared in a constitutional controversy, which some students thought tipped votes toward Heller.
In the lead-up to the candidate forum, Covit dropped out of the race — and during the forum, Shiloni vowed to appoint Covit co-president if she were elected.
Under Hillel’s constitution, appointing a co-president requires unusual conditions, such as if one of the two candidates were graduating early, studying abroad, or accepting an internship. Candidates must petition a supervisory elections committee — composed of all former presidents currently enrolled as undergraduates at Harvard — for approval. Committee member Jacob M. Miller ’25 said the body received no such petition from Shiloni.
Shiloni and Covit, both of whom are Crimson Editorial editors, did not respond to requests for comment.
During the race, the elections committee did not intervene. But Miller, a former Crimson Editorial chair, said Shiloni’s co-presidency plan would have required her to launch an extended amendment process had she won the race.
‘A Tough Topic’
The Israel chair position, which Hillel’s election guide describes as both “big-tent” and “pro-Israel,” became a lightning rod for debate over how to reconcile Hillel’s traditional status as a space for Zionism with dissent from some of its members.
Hillel’s bylaws describe the position as responsible for organizing Israel-related events, including a celebration of Yom Ha’atzmaut — Israel’s independence day — and recognition of Yom HaZikaron, Israel’s memorial day for soldiers and victims of terrorist attacks.
The bylaws also task the Israel chair with organizing programming that is “accessible to a variety of perspectives on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
Only one candidate, Kyra M. Esrig ’28, ran for the position. But a majority of voters selected a “no-confidence” option when voting for Israel chair, leaving the seat temporarily vacant.
According to Miller, in prior years’ elections, there was not a “no-confidence” option on the ballot, but candidates still had to receive a majority of votes in order to be elected. The elections committee introduced a formal “no confidence” option this election cycle because there were six uncontested races.
Levine said some students considered Esrig’s responses to voter questions during a December candidate forum “hostile” to non-Zionist students.
Levine said that a “contingent of politically progressive-leaning Jewish students” who attended the forum — many of whom are members of the Forward Thinking Jewish Union, an unrecognized progressive Jewish group on campus — objected to Esrig’s answers.
That group organized the no-confidence vote, which was ultimately successful, Levine said.
Esrig did not respond to a request for comment.
Jordan H. Mittler ’27, a Hillel affiliate who attended the forum, said Esrig expressed support for making Hillel “a safe space” for Zionist students at Harvard during the event.
“She made clear that in her role, she would make sure to put more effort into that — making Hillel Israel-centric — which is a big part of why Hillel was built and what Hillel stands on,” Mittler added.
To fill the vacant position, Heller, the new president, took nominations for the position from general Hillel members and other Student Board members, in accordance with Hillel’s bylaws. Two candidates emerged from the nomination process — Levine and Evan H.C. Epstein ’28.
The incoming Student Board, which voted on the two candidates, was perfectly split. Ultimately, per the bylaws, the outgoing Student Board then voted, electing Epstein to the role.
Mittler said the scrutiny over the Israel chair role was not surprising.
“Israel is a tough topic at this time,” Mittler said. “No matter what candidate would be running, I feel like that position would always be questionable for most people.”
‘Joy and Pride in Our Judaism’
In the aftermath of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the war in Gaza, Hillel became a place of shared grief and healing for many Jewish students. But some said they felt increasingly isolated in Harvard’s traditional centers of Jewish life, such as Hillel and Harvard Chabad, where they felt their criticisms of Israel were not accepted.
Hillel’s clergy and student leaders have said they welcome respectful dialogue and support all Jewish students. But Hillel has adamantly maintained its identity as a Zionist institution.
Hillel’s leaders have urged “accountability” for pro-Palestine activists’ slogans and affirmed Zionism as central to many Jewish students’ identities. In statements, Rubenstein, Hillel’s executive director, has emphasized his and Hillel’s commitment to Zionism at Harvard.
In an emailed statement on Monday, Rubenstein wrote that Hillel’s elections were a heartening example of students’ pluralism.
“We continue to seek broad input and wide representation — because of, not despite, our very real differences about the meaning of Judaism in this moment,” he added.
Levine, who lost the race for Israel chair to Epstein, said he saw a “super damaging and pretty ubiquitous sense on campus” that Hillel was fundamentally conservative — and said Epstein’s term would be defined by his navigation of the “tension” between students with differing relationships to Israel and Zionism.
Epstein wrote in a statement that he wanted to ensure Hillel remained a “welcoming pro-Israel space” while attempting to “build bridges between Jewish students of all political affiliations.”
Heller said that, as president, she will focus on fostering conversation and ensuring Hillel remains a place for all Jewish students.
“When you walk into our dining hall, I want people to see just people and not, ‘Oh, well, I think that they’re an anti-Zionist,’ or ‘I think that they’re a Zionist,’” she added. “There is a time and place to talk about and discuss and educate on Israel, but there’s also a time to just have joy and pride in our Judaism.”
—Staff writer Samuel A. Church can be reached at samuel.church@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @samuelachurch.
—Staff writer Cam N. Srivastava can be reached at cam.srivastava@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @camsrivastava.