Harvard’s Settlements Threaten Free Speech

On the second day of President Donald Trump’s second term, Harvard settled two lawsuits that claimed the University inappropriately handled cases of antisemitism on campus — a startling move of acquiescence with real implications for campus culture.

As a result, the University revised its Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Policies and Procedures page to include specifications involving antisemitism and islamophobia, including adopting the widely controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism.

The moves will harm Harvard’s speech culture: freedom from discrimination on the basis of political opinion should be guaranteed, but freedom from criticism should not. And that is precisely where Harvard’s new policies fall short.

Fundamentally, Zionism, anti-Zionism, and non-Zionism are opinions about the world. As such, they should be — and now explicitly are — protected by NDAB policies: someone should never be shunned, harassed, or otherwise intimidated on account of political belief.

But by their very nature, political beliefs or opinions should be open to all manner of criticism — “sunlight is the best disinfectant,” the refrain goes.

Some progressives might conceivably claim that the United States is a racist endeavor as a matter of politics, but a similar claim of Israel might result in sanctions or remedial measures — maybe?

Under the IHRA definition, “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is antisemitic. At the same time, the definition uses “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic” as a guiding principle. According to that, such a claim of Israel wouldn’t be antisemitic at all.

It is this very confusion — what counts as legitimate criticism and what does not — that marks the definition as unsuitable for use and produces a chilling effect on speech culture.

But don’t worry: The University solemnly swears academic discourse shall not be infringed upon, stating that controversial statements in academic work or scholarship will “ordinarily” not violate the NDAB policies. When deciding whether to charge an affiliate with antisemitism, we would hope the University would have more to go on than the word “ordinarily.”

With such little clarity, affiliates may feel pressure to clam up. We’ve already seen one such example — the program director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Nonviolent Action Lab resigned in protest of the IHRA definition’s adoption.

So, where should the University go from here?

Harvard will be updating the NDAB Policies and Procedures in the next four months. Instead of more reactionary decisions driven by lawsuits or other external factors, Harvard should proactively seek input from those most impacted — students and faculty — when revising policies.

The adoption of the IHRA definition and the updates to the NDAB FAQ page signal that the external pressure of a lawsuit is enough to force Harvard to step away from its purported commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

We hope Harvard won’t endure more lawsuits — it may have to cough up more integrity as payment.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.