Antisemitism Must Not Be Normalized Here

As we mark the 20th International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we feel compelled, as two Jewish professors at Harvard Medical School and one Jewish Harvard alumna, to express our support for Harvard’s decision to adopt the definition of antisemitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. This definition has been officially recognized by the United States along with 43 IHRA member and observer countries. Some within our academic community have relayed concerns that adopting this definition will censor legitimate criticism of Israel and curtail academic freedom. We strongly disagree.

In accepting the IHRA definition, Harvard agrees to two yet unrealized positions related to antisemitism at the University. Not only have these seemingly fair stances been attacked by some within the Harvard community, these forms of antisemitism have seemingly run amok and, thus, become normalized throughout many of our collective campuses.

Harvard has allowed far too many inaccurate criticisms of Israel that would never be leveled against other countries. The first change for Harvard with this recent agreement is a newly applied insistence that, just as Jews should be treated like other human beings – criticized for flaws and praised for virtues without crossing the line into stereotyping and hate – so too should Israel be treated like other nations. The IHRA definition specifies “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” That seems unambiguous.

For those who raise concerns that academic freedom will be limited, it is imperative to note that IHRA’s definition explicitly states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” This is reasonable and clear, suggesting neither censorship nor academic impediment.

The second novel shift that will emerge from Harvard’s settlement is the University understanding and enforcing the idea that, “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is antisemitic.

This portion of the IHRA definition contends that Jews, like other peoples, have a right to self-determination in the country of their ancestry. Recent evidence supports the view that for the vast majority of Jews, the Land of Israel remains core to their religion, culture, and identity; in point of fact, nearly half of all Jews (7.2 million) live in Israel. On that basis, repudiation of the historic link between Jews and the Land of Israel — despite overwhelming documentary, archaeological, and genetic evidence — represents an effort to claim that Judaism is fraudulent and illegitimate. Jews have heard these charges before. Such vitriolic sentiment has been spewed for millennia, literally leading to the murder of millions of Jewish people over the centuries, including in the current day.

While there are Jews who do not consider the Land of Israel central to Jewish thought, culture, and religion, they are — as polling indicates — the minority. Nonetheless, it is their right to despise the existence of Israel if they choose. Similarly, it is also the right of the majority of Jews to hold a different view. In any case, Jews and non-Jews with different opinions about the meaning of Judaism and the importance of Israel to that identity should not have the right to bully, harass, or intimidate one another about which view is correct.

With the IHRA definition and other elements of the settlement, Harvard has begun to turn the tide away from the normalization of exclusionary and demonizing forms of antisemitism. Frankly, these principles are applicable to all forms of hate.

Still, the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism has caused angst for some at Harvard. Of course, there are many hard questions ahead. As members of both the Council of Academic Freedom at Harvard and Harvard Against Antisemitism, we’ve grappled with them for some time.

Can the administration punish its members for publishing statements which will now be regarded as antisemitic in the public space? Almost certainly not.

Can the administration insist that such views not be aired by affiliates in such a way as they might be misconstrued to represent the University as a whole? We believe that they can and that the law insists that they do.

Can the administration insist that officers of the university refrain from antisemitic speech while performing their official duties? We believe they can, and that the law insists that they do.

With the new stipulations, can faculty teach freely and openly about the complexities of the Middle East Region and its people? We believe that they can and that this will create deeper educational opportunities with inclusivity, balance, and accuracy at the forefront.

Boundaries between free speech, academic freedom, and the need to guarantee that no group of students, faculty, and staff (in this case Jews and Israelis) are denied equal access to all that Harvard has to offer due to discrimination and hate must be drawn.

Although there are no simple solutions, with the acceptance of the IHRA definition of antisemitism, the Harvard community and its leadership will be well-equipped to address egregious forms of antisemitism on campus. The alternative would have been to continue down the path of normalizing this form of hate on campus, creating an inhospitable environment for Jews and Israelis to study. We await the release of the Harvard Antisemitism Taskforce report to inform us of how close we came to that outcome.

In the meantime, we hope to see meaningful and lasting change take place at Harvard.

Mark L. Zeidel is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Mark C. Poznansky is a Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School. Jacqueline A. Hart is a graduate of Harvard-Radcliffe College.

Correction: January 28, 2025

A previous version of this article identified yesterday, January 27th, as the 80th Holocaust Memorial Day. In fact, it was 20th International Holocaust Remembrance Day.