Harvard Quietly Resolves Anti-Palestinian Discrimination Complaint With Ed. Department

Harvard quietly agreed last week to resolve a 2024 federal complaint alleging the University failed to protect students from anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian harassment and intimidation.

In a Jan. 17 letter addressed to University president Alan M. Garber ’76, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights concluded that Harvard did not “provide a prompt and effective response to reports of a hostile environment.”

The resolution — reached four days before Harvard announced it had settled two antisemitism lawsuits — will require the University to revise its anti-discrimination policies and keep better records of how it processes discrimination complaints.

Unlike the settlements, the OCR resolution does not mandate that Harvard introduce new language specifically protecting Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian students.

The Title VI complaint was initially filed to the education department on Jan. 29, 2024, by the Muslim Legal Fund of America — a nonprofit that provides legal services to defend the rights of Muslims in American courts — on behalf of more than a dozen Harvard students.

In the last weeks of the Biden administration, schools rushed to close OCR cases before Donald Trump took office. At least five other universities resolved Title VI complaints with the OCR in January, including one other complaint that a university failed to combat discrimination based on shared Palestinian, Muslim, or Arab ancestry.

The OCR reviewed Harvard’s Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Policy and the University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities, in addition to an internal chart tracking approximately two dozen complaints of shared ancestry harassment that Harvard processed under the NDAB.

Harvard also provided the OCR with information about roughly 125 other reports that it did not pursue under the NDAB.

In the letter to Garber, Ramzi Ajami — a regional director for the OCR — wrote that due to the University’s limited records, the OCR could not “make a determination about Title VI compliance.”

But Ajami identified steps in Harvard’s review process that the OCR deemed likely to hinder thorough Title VI investigations.

The OCR found that Harvard’s NDAB policy allows students and employees’ complaints to be dismissed if the alleged conduct has been addressed “in another forum or another mechanism,” but does not require that the alternative mechanism investigate whether the complainant experienced a hostile environment.

That requirement, the OCR concluded, could lead Harvard to “preclude or dismiss complaints of a discriminatory hostile environment in violation of its obligations under Title VI.”

Ajami also wrote that the OCR is “concerned” the NDAB policy may result in the University judging a student’s ability to file a Title VI complaint on their prior engagement with informal resolution processes.

If a formal complaint is rejected or precluded, the NDAB policy “does not provide for how, or if, the University will pursue information provided in a report alleging harassment that may constitute a discriminatory hostile environment,” the OCR wrote.

The NDAB policy also allows students and employees to file anonymous complaints through a hotline, but anonymous complaints cannot proceed through the formal process.

The OCR wrote that the NDAB policy’s statement that students cannot proceed with Title VI complaints anonymously “misapplies” Title VI law, which requires the University to respond in all cases where it has information about students facing a discriminatory environment, regardless of whether those students are identified.

Under the resolution, in addition to clarifying the NDAB policy, Harvard must ensure it formally processes national origin discrimination claims submitted through its anonymous reporting hotline.

The University must also make a plan to educate its employees on how to evaluate reports of ancestry discrimination in a consistent manner with University policies and procedures. They have also agreed to provide annual training on Title VI policy to all University employees who evaluate and investigate reports or complaints.

Unlike the antisemitism lawsuit settlements, Harvard did not announce its resolution with the OCR on its website or to the media.

In a Friday interview, Chelsea G. Glover ’11, the Civil Litigation Senior Staff Attorney for the MLFA, said the University’s decision not to publish a press release regarding the settlement was “nothing but cowardice.”

“They don’t want to have these conversations, but they have to,” Glover said. “It’s really sad that the richest university can’t defend itself.”

In a statement, Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote that “Harvard remains dedicated to providing a safe and welcoming environment for learning and discourse and equitable treatment for all members of its community.”

He noted that the University did not admit to any wrongdoing or liability under the agreement.

Harvard must submit a revised copy of its University policy and procedure documents to the OCR for review and meet OCR recordkeeping requirements within four months. The University must also provide documentation to the OCR of steps taken to ensure employees have been formally trained on Title VI complaint response by June 30.

—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.