Months After Fall Deadline, Harvard Task Forces on Antisemitism, Islamophobia Have Yet To Issue Final Reports

More than one year after their founding, Harvard’s task forces on combating antisemitism and Islamophobia have yet to issue their final recommendations — missing their fall 2024 deadline by months.

Last June, Harvard said the task forces — which were created in January 2024 at the direction of Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 — were expected to issue their final recommendations in the fall 2024 semester. But since issuing preliminary recommendations in June, the groups have given no more formal guidance.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that the University has “implemented efforts and initiatives related to those preliminary recommendations.”

“The forthcoming reports and further recommendations represent the opportunity to continue to advance this commitment, building on the preliminary recommendations and guided by the dedication and work of the members of the task forces,” he wrote.

But Newton declined to comment on what has led to the delay in issuing the final task force reports.

The yearlong wait for recommendations has drawn impatience from some of Harvard’s critics, who described the earlier recommendations as too little, too late.

In a post on X Monday, former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers wrote that he found it “shocking and I think outrageous that months after Harvard’s abject failures after Oct 7, the Task Force hasn’t even reached a conclusion.”

Derek J. Penslar — a History professor and co-chair of the antisemitism task force — wrote that the reports were “forthcoming” in a statement to The Crimson.

But Penslar declined to comment on the task force’s timeline, writing only that “the investigations for and preparation of the reports were enormously time and labor intensive.”

“When you see the reports, you will have a better understanding why the process has taken so long,” he added.

Two co-chairs for the task force on anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian bias — Economics professor Asim I. Khwaja and History professor Ali S. Asani ’77 — did not respond to requests for comment.

Harvard has implemented a series of changes in response to the task forces’ preliminary findings from June.

In August, Harvard University Dining Services agreed to introduce hot kosher lunches in undergraduate dining halls, and in February, Garber announced the recipients of the Building Bridges fund, an initiative funding projects dedicated to deepening “understanding across differences on our campus.”

In July, Harvard standardized its fact-finding procedure for disciplinary cases across the University, accepting the antisemitism task force’s recommendation to address the “significant disparities across units in the handling of disciplinary cases.”

But it remains to be seen whether the final task force reports will recommend action that goes beyond the bounds of the earlier reports.

Key demands lodged by some pro-Israel Harvard affiliates — including limits on masked protests, punishment for pro-Palestine student groups, and reviews of academic programs for antisemitic content — were not included in the antisemitism task force’s recommendations.

In July, 28 House Republicans — led by Elise M. Stefanik ’06 (R-N.Y), one of Harvard’s fiercest critics in Washington — wrote in a letter to Garber that “the task force took six months to reinvent the wheel” and offered “an inferior set of recommendations.”

Stefanik and her colleagues contended that the task force’s findings were “weaker, less detailed, and less comprehensive” than suggestions presented by an earlier antisemitism advisory group assembled by former Harvard President Claudine Gay.

Gay’s advisory group recommended taking a “zero tolerance” approach to classroom disruptions and restricting protests, leafleting, and “organized campaigns” in classroom buildings, libraries, and dining halls. The group’s report also recommended that Harvard review “academic programs reported to have antisemitic content.”

But Harvard never released that report publicly. The recommendations were first released by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in May based on internal Harvard documents obtained under subpoena.

Since July, Harvard’s most drastic changes to its handling of antisemitism complaints came as part of an agreement to settle two Title VI lawsuits. In January, the University adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which classifies certain criticism of Israel as antisemitic. Under the settlements, Harvard also promised to take steps that would fulfill task force recommendations, including promoting annual training on “recognizing and combating” antisemitism.

It remains to be seen whether the task forces’ final recommendations will expand to address issues which, so far, Harvard has not been willing to touch.

Gay’s advisory group suggested Harvard should investigate whether the University was influenced by funding from Iran, Qatar, and “terrorist groups.” But in May, the House committee report revealed that Harvard’s lawyers had investigated funding from Middle Eastern countries and found “no issues.”

Harvard has likewise not halted work between its researchers and scholars at Birzeit University in the West Bank — a collaboration that pro-Israel advocates have repeatedly targeted.

And so far, Harvard has not gone so far as to rebuke individual faculty members or centers, nor has the University agreed to conduct audits of its curricular content.

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon