The Settlement Is a Start — But Only a Start — To Restoring Harvard.

Harvard’s settlement last week of two lawsuits alleging antisemitic discrimination surely does not represent the end of overdue efforts by the University to combat antisemitism. To amend Winston Churchill at a key juncture during World War II, it does not even represent the beginning of the end of the University’s efforts to right the ship after the failures of the last academic year. But it may — if our leaders act with boldness — be seen as the end of the beginning of the University’s restoration.

Harvard’s official embrace of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which recognizes the many overlaps between antisemitism and anti-Zionism and condemns the singling out of Israel as antisemitic, is a historic step forward for Harvard and for higher education. And the commitment of the University to enter into partnerships with an Israeli university, is a welcome and decisive rebuke of the morally compromised Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions idea.

But rhetoric and good intentions are not enough. Harvard must take inevitably controversial steps if it is to meet the challenge of campus antisemitism.

Both those who support and oppose the settlement exaggerate what has been agreed. The settlement, properly interpreted, does not de facto prohibit antisemitic speech — or any other kind of speech. The University generally follows First Amendment principles, and the Supreme Court has been crystal clear that free speech can be hate speech. Instead, Harvard has appropriately clarified what it regards as antisemitic speech and what will be treated as prejudice in cases where elements of bullying and harassment are present.

Furthermore, the IHRA definition of antisemitism is not an attack on pro-Palestinian speech or criticism of Israel. Both are totally legitimate. What becomes problematic is when observers celebrate violent terror against Jews, deny the legitimacy of Jewish self-determination, or treat Israel as the world’s worst oppressor nation while turning a blind eye to other countries. I am very sympathetic to advocacy for the Palestinians but worry about antisemitism when advocates are unwilling to recognize any culpability on the part of any state other than Israel.

For decades Harvard’s leaders have been vigorous in condemning and rooting out racism, sexism, and homophobia. A discriminatory environment will continue to exist until the University is equally aggressive with respect to antisemitism. That has not happened because the constituency at Harvard for views that are antisemitic, in effect if not intent, is far larger than for other forms of prejudice.

To decisively address antisemitism, Harvard must now answer three questions.

First, will there be enforcement of University policies against student protests that do not conform to time, place, and manner restrictions?

The record of the last year is very troubling. When students engaged in a clearly impermissible occupation of University Hall, a dean offered the protesters burritos. When Harvard College students were barred from graduation for their participation in the unauthorized occupation of Harvard Yard last spring, faculty members attempted to engage in a kind of juror nullification of University policies by voting to confer the protestors’ degrees (indeed, not all Havard schools even attempted discipline according to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce’s recent report). And when the University finally sanctioned participants in that protest, it doubled back barely a month later by shamefully allowing 11 of 13 protesting seniors to graduate.

Most recently, the University has backed off of the policies it stated with respect to chalking and failed to publicly impose anything more than symbolic sanctions on those violating the rules by using the library as a protest venue.

Ultimately, accountability for maintaining a nondiscriminatory environment rests, under law, with the governing boards. And indeed, the initial refusal of The Corporation to grant degrees to student protesters whose penalty had been overturned by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was a welcome but isolated step. Our leaders must tell us why, given recent history, we should believe that central administration policies are anything more than feckless requests.

Second, will the University actively police antisemitic statements made, not by its community members, but made with its apparent imprimatur? To say that Harvard must permit even hate speech by community members is not to absolve it of responsibility for the words and deeds of those who speak and act with its administrative authority.

To date, the University has failed to publicly address antisemitic content — as I judge it by the IHRA definition — promulgated by multiple university centers and programs. Harvard has continued partnerships with Birzeit University, even as many members of its student body cheer on Hamas terrorists and its administration proudly discriminates against Israeli scholars by boycotting their institutions. It has extended recognition as eligible for University funding to student groups who apparently celebrate the Hamas attacks on Israel.

The central administration has had no policy of publicly withdrawing from scholarly organizations like the American Studies Association that are currently engaged in boycotts of Israel, even while other universities have severed ties. The Dean of the Divinity School in her convocation address used the politically freighted term Nakba to describe Israel’s founding and worse yet spoke of it in parallel structure with the slave trade and the holocaust. (Recall that the IHRA definition of antisemitism is very harsh on statements comparing Israel and the Nazis.)

Only a few years ago, the University took the position that sexism was so serious an issue that students who joined a single-sex social club should not be eligible to receive a fellowship recommendation letter. Surely it is reasonable to expect the university administrative apparatus to ensure that it itself does not engage in antisemitic rhetoric or actions.

Third, will the University’s leadership — through their own words and through those they invite to the campus, temporarily or permanently — be a source of moral clarity?

This is certainly no violation of the University’s institutional voice policies, as it goes directly to upholding fundamental community values. And indeed, it is a Harvard tradition.

University President James B. Conant, Class of 1914, eloquently called on the Harvard community to uphold a commitment to truth and freedom when the Nazis invaded Poland. When a small group of Harvard students announced their intention to hold a Black Mass that was profoundly offensive to Catholic students, then-President Drew G. Faust recognized their right of free speech but condemned their moral judgement. On many occasions University leaders have spoken out vigorously to label and condemn what they saw as racist or sexist free speech by community members.

Last year’s Commencement speaker claimed that she was “called antisemitic by power and money” — in itself an antisemitic dog whistle — while a Harvard Rabbi was driven to walk off the stage and no University official took responsibility. Despite strong rhetorical commitments to bringing more balance to campus debates about the Middle East, I receive far more notifications of events where progressives and harsh critics of Israel are holding forth than those where Israel is being defended.

I deplore the heavy-handed and inappropriate efforts of the Trump administration to dictate what Harvard studies and teaches. The University must do what it thinks is right and not try to placate politicians when academic freedom is at stake. But the legitimate desire for autonomy cannot be an excuse for complacency or drift on moral issues.

Yes, in its normal, cautious way the University is taking constructive steps to address antisemitism and is fortunate in the wisdom and skill of its president and provost. But ending the crisis will, I am convinced, require using the recent agreement as a springboard for greatly accelerated action.

Lawrence H. Summers is the Charles W. Eliot University Professor and served as the 27th president of Harvard University.