In Private, Harvard Officials Tell Professors That New Antisemitism Definition Won’t ‘Ordinarily’ Limit Speech

In the wake of Harvard’s decision to extend its non-discrimination policies to Zionists, University leaders assured professors who study the Israel-Palestine conflict that their speech will “ordinarily” be protected.

Harvard’s new Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Policies and Procedures, updated in January as part of two antisemitism lawsuit settlements, outlines extensive protections for Zionists — and lists both “advocating genocide” and “accusing an individual of supporting genocide” as potential policy violations.

In conversations with University officials, History professor Derek J. Penslar — who also directs Harvard’s Center for Jewish Studies — was told the policies would not usually restrict academic freedom in the classroom around the conflict.

According to the NDAB “Frequently Asked Questions” webpage, “ordinarily, it will not violate the NDAB Policies for members of the Harvard community to make controversial statements” in academics, disagreements over political beliefs, or in criticizing political leaders.

“That’s the key word that the guidelines use: ‘ordinarily,’” said Penslar, who is currently teaching a class titled “One Land, Two Peoples: The Modern History of Israel/Palestine” and is a co-chair of Harvard’s task force on antisemitism.

“That does keep the door open, though, for cases where there might be some limitation,” he added.

In separate discussions, Harvard Kennedy School professor Tarek E. Masoud, who directs the school’s Middle East Initiative, was told invited speakers could still strongly criticize Israeli leaders under the new policies. A University spokesperson declined to comment on the private conversations.

“To accuse Netanyahu of genocide in the context of a public event, or in the context of a discussion about whether the current campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide or not, that discussion is not covered by the policy,” said Masoud, who frequently invites polarizing figures to discuss Israel and Palestine as part of the Middle East Dialogues series.

At a Harvard Law School talk on Wednesday, Paul O’Brien — the executive director of Amnesty International USA — did just that, presenting findings that Israel was committing a genocide in Gaza.

When asked if he was concerned about the scope of the antisemitism definition, O’Brien said he remained confident that Harvard would “protect reasonable evidence-based debate around international law.”

“I’m here in that spirit,” O’Brien said, of his HLS talk. “If we can’t do that in a law school, it’s not just a threat to the individuals that are impacted, it’s a threat to the protection of rights.”

But Dalal Saeb Iriqat, a professor at the Arab American University Palestine whose speaking role in a March 2024 Middle East Dialogues event sparked controversy, said she found the new policy “very worrying” and “very alarming.”

Iriqat, who was condemned by former HKS Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf before the event for describing Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel as a “normal” freedom struggle, said there needed to be a clearer line drawn between antisemitism and anti-Zionism.

“The definition of antisemitism has come to the level of to criticize the right-wing government, then you’re antisemitic,” Iriqat said. “This is totally wrong.”

HKS spokesperson Daniel B. Harsha wrote in a statement that the school’s “unwavering commitment to non-discrimination” would not conflict with its protection of free speech and academic expression.

“No matter the context, antisemitism or any other form of harassment on the basis of religion or political belief is unacceptable at HKS and all of Harvard University,” Harsha wrote, declining to comment on Iriqat’s criticisms.

Harvard’s language now aligns with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism. The new definition also includes IHRA’s examples of antisemitism, which state it is antisemitic to call Israel’s existence a “racist endeavor” or draw comparison between Nazis and contemporary Israeli policy.

In substantial updates to the NDAB policies, University leadership wrote that they encourage “reasoned dissent and the free exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions, including on controversies such as the Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts.”

Penslar warned that in interpreting the policies, people should distinguish between “academic freedom” and “absolute freedom,” clarifying that he did not believe the policy would let you “say whatever you want to whenever you want to.”

“What happens if a professor starts to rant at their students?” Penslar asked. “Would that be protected free speech?”

In his view, “perhaps not.”

—Staff writer Elise A. Spenner can be reached at elise.spenner@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @EliseSpenner.

—Staff writer Will P. Cottiss can be reached at will.cottiss@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X at @WillPCottiss.