Dissent: Why Is Protecting Jewish Students Up For Debate?

Fifteen months after the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee first held Israel “entirely responsible” for the October 7th massacre, Harvard’s Jewish and Israeli students have finally secured a victory. According to the Editorial Board, that’s a problem.

Last month, the University updated its guidance for applying anti-discrimination policies to define both antisemitism and Islamophobia and give useful descriptions of what constitutes harassment of Zionist and pro-Palestine students. Harvard also adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which is widely used by groups like the United States government (an IHRA member) and the European Commission.

The IHRA definition acknowledges the somber truth that antisemitism takes many forms — and it’s not always as straightforward as an antisemitic cartoon.

We are glad that Harvard’s policies finally reflect that other manifestations of antisemitism can be just as insidious — from minimizing Jewish historical oppression to holding Jewish students responsible for Israel’s every action.

Indeed, the Board’s specific arguments in opposition to the new policies only underscore their necessity.

For example, the Board argues that people should be protected from discrimination based on their identity or political views, but not guarded against criticism of their beliefs. But in the case of Zionism, the line between critiquing ideology and excluding based on identity is not so clear.

Even Zionism’s fiercest critics must acknowledge that identifying as a Zionist is not equivalent to being a Democrat or a Republican. Unlike a mere political belief, Zionism, for many Jews, is deeply intertwined with their religious, national, and ethnic identities, as well as the broader imperatives of Jewish safety and survival. The Board’s belief that criticisms of political beliefs can be tidily separated from exclusion based on them disregards Zionism’s unique role in Jewish life.

Furthermore, the Board asks why a student be allowed to call the United States a “racist endeavor,” yet be labeled antisemitic according to the IHRA definition for making the same claim about Israel.

First of all, the IHRA language makes clear that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” But more importantly, the Board’s allegation of a double standard forgets the reality that Israeli and Zionist students have faced their own double standard over the past year.

Why is the issue of Israel exceptional? Because the anti-Israel movement has made it so. Israel is the only nation in the world whose very right to exist is so regularly criticized at Harvard. This kind of antisemitic rhetoric has become dangerously normalized.

The Board also argues that future updated policies should be subject to broad community input. But this argument rings hollow, serving as further evidence for the double standard to which Jewish and Israeli students are regularly held.

When other marginalized groups speak out about the discrimination they face, their experiences are not treated as matters for debate — nor are the policies to protect them crafted by those responsible for the harm.

Defining antisemitism is about protecting Jewish students. Consulting the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism may have been appropriate, but it seems absurd to suggest that Harvard should seek input from every corner of campus. Would we include those who have openly called to “globalize the intifada” — as some of our classmates have — in discussions about the definition of antisemitism?

Regardless of the Board’s concerns, these policies affirm a simple principle: Jewish students' identities deserve the same protections as any other — and that’s not up for debate.

Jane S. Lichtman ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government and History concentrator in Lowell House. Margot I. Cerbone ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Canaday Hall.

Dissenting Opinions: Occasionally, The Crimson Editorial Board is divided about the opinion we express in a staff editorial. In these cases, dissenting board members have the opportunity to express their opposition to staff opinion.