Will Mahmoud Khalil Make Harvard Liberals Reconsider Palestine?

Last weekend, the Trump administration detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who participated in student protests last year at Columbia University against Israel’s assault on Gaza.

Over three million people have signed a petition for his release, Congressional leaders have spoken out, and the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union has called it “targeted.”

The condemnation has been widespread, and I feel no differently. Khalil is a permanent resident, and as of Thursday, he had not been charged with any crime. From what we know so far, it looks like he is being punished simply because the current administration disagreed with the way he exercised his free speech rights.

Khalil’s detainment is not just an attack on one individual — it is a broader attempt to suppress the Palestinian movement and intimidate those who speak out for its cause. His arrest signals to activists across the country, including those at Harvard, that advocating for Palestinian rights comes with severe consequences.

I don’t expect to change the minds of conservatives on this matter. Many of them were unsympathetic to the protests from the start. But I pose this question to liberals, especially those at Harvard: Will you finally reconsider your approach to Gaza?

Since the beginning of the war, the student movement for Palestine has faced scrutiny, doxxing, and intimidation. Even faculty have faced backlash for expressing solidarity.

It hasn’t just been conservatives leading the charge, but some moderates and liberals as well, standing by and watching. The response to Mahmoud Khalil’s detainment reflects this broader trend. Many establishment Democrats have expressed sentiment along the lines of, “I don’t agree with anything this man has said, but this is wrong.”

At first glance, it appears sympathetic; after all, they agree that he shouldn’t have been arrested. But underneath that sentiment is a quiet presumption of moral superiority, as if speaking out is an act of pity rather than solidarity. It’s like their support for free speech extends only as far as it remains politically favorable. If a situation rouses more fundamental questions of dignity and equality, you tend to see defensiveness instead.

Unfortunately, I’ve found that this mistake applies to many at Harvard as well.

Liberals at Harvard, whether students or faculty, struggle to reconcile their professed commitment to democracy with their support for a state that denies Palestinian dignity. Time and time again, their “commitment” requires exceptions, carve-outs, and compromises that betray their stated values.

We’ve seen this tension in the University’s relationship with students dissenting over its free speech and protest policies. Harvard, as an institution, must be a place where students can freely express dissent without fear of retaliation. Yet, too often, the University’s commitment to free expression feels selective. The administration has been too quick to punish student protesters and allow an atmosphere of fear to persist around pro-Palestinian activism. To accept only the most palatable protests, to engage only when it is easy, to qualify every form of resistance, is to remain complicit in oppression.

Our campus should recognize this pattern and resist it.

I promise I am not just haggling liberals. I believe that many of us at Harvard are genuinely concerned about Palestinians, Jews, students, and free speech, and want to find some path through these complex entanglements.

But Harvard has long positioned itself as a place where future leaders are shaped. If our students cannot engage in meaningful political expression here, where can they? If the University cannot stand firmly for the right to protest, what does that say about the state of higher education?

For the sake of argument, let’s agree that Khalil’s detainment is wrong. But take it further. Isn’t this happening precisely because he is standing up to a hostile government? Doesn’t this moment show that, rather than putting politics aside for the sake of principle, we must align our principles with our politics?

We know this alignment is the way forward, in part, because some of the most vocal pro-Palestinian activists on campus have been Jewish. They have been at the forefront of this movement, consistently challenging the notion that Jewish safety must come at the cost of Palestinian displacement and subjugation. The multiracial, multifaith coalition built up around these principles also shows why this movement is needed at our University.

Harvard students, faculty, and administrators must recognize the stakes. Preventing President Donald Trump from getting away with his attacks on student activists requires more than quiet disapproval; it requires speaking up clearly and forcefully and, yes, taking action. It means affirming the right to protest, resisting external pressure to stifle dissent, and ensuring that Harvard remains a place where academic freedom is not dictated by political expediency.

The movement for Palestinian liberation and for the right to speak freely on its behalf needs everyone. If Harvard truly values free speech and justice, those values must be applied universally, not with hesitation but with confidence and conviction.

History will remember who stood for Palestinian liberation — and who hesitated when it mattered most. The need for commitment at Harvard and everywhere is greater today than ever.

Clyve Lawrence ’25-27, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Government concentrator in Adams House.