Harvard University will use a definition of anti-Semitism when investigating disciplinary cases, the university said in an agreement Tuesday, part of several initiatives aimed at protecting Jewish students in the wake of Gaza war protests.
The definition includes some criticism of Israel as an example of anti-Semitism, including calling its existence a “racist act.”
It’s part of a settlement in two lawsuits filed by Jewish groups that accused schools of not doing enough to prevent and punish anti-Semitism on campus. Last year, a federal judge in Boston allowed the case to proceed.
Harvard’s move is unusual. Many universities have shied away from adopting any definition of anti-Semitism, although pressure has grown on them to do so due to campus conflicts related to the Gaza war.
The definition used by Harvard has been criticized for blurring the lines between anti-Semitism and arguments against Israel and Zionism.
Kenneth Marcus, Louis D. Brandeis Chairman The Center for Human Rights Under Law, a Jewish civil rights group, said he hopes other universities will adopt the definition.
“Zionist is often synonymous with Jewish,” he said, adding, “Harvard has made it clear that rules against Zionists are just as objectionable as rules against Jews.”
But Kenneth Stern, who helped draft the definition while serving at the American Jewish Committee and has since become a critic of its use in academic settings, said it could stifle public debate about the Middle East. The issue has divided campuses ever since.
“I would prefer that the university make it clear that no one will be harassed for any reason and avoid such issues in speech,” said Mr. Stern, now director of Bard’s Center for the Study of Hate.
Previously, Harvard policy prohibited discrimination based on religion, national origin and ancestry, including anti-Semitism. What is new is that the university will now consider the definition of anti-Semitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance when investigating complaints.
The group’s definition is not controversial. It defines anti-Semitism as “a certain perception of Jews that may manifest itself as hatred towards them”. But it also listed examples including holding Israel to a “double standard” or describing its creation as a “racist act.”
Mr. Stern said Harvard was “opening a can of worms” by giving students a tool to file complaints against professors. “If you’re a faculty member, you know people are looking for things,” he said.
Since the outbreak of the Gaza War, Harvard University has been receiving intense public attention. On the night of the Hamas attack, more than 30 student groups published an open letter demanding that Israel “take full responsibility.” The university’s former president, Claudine Gay, eventually resigned, in part because she testified at a congressional hearing amid accusations that she didn’t do enough to combat anti-Semitism.
Harvard’s student anti-Semitism group filed the lawsuit in January, saying Harvard failed to address “serious and pervasive anti-Semitism on campus.” In May, the Brandeis Center also filed a lawsuit saying the university ignored anti-Semitism.
The agreement released Tuesday resolves both cases. A former student in the earlier case declined to join the settlement, which also included an undisclosed amount of money, and will continue to pursue claims against Harvard, according to Harvard.
“The battle has just begun,” said Shabbos Kestenbaum, a former student who graduated in June. He said he was working closely with the White House and “expected Harvard to be punished in the coming weeks. “
Harvard’s move comes one day after President Trump took office, saying the university “must end anti-Semitic propaganda” or risk losing federal support.
Under a 2019 executive order by Mr. Trump, the Education Department and other federal agencies must “consider” the IHRA’s definition in civil rights complaints alleging anti-Semitism. However, the executive order has left college administrators confused about what is expected of them, and dozens of schools are now under investigation.
Critics of the definition’s use in academia say policies prohibiting harassment of Jewish students already exist and that the IHRA’s definition does more to combat speech related to Israel.
Jeffrey S. Flier, former dean of Harvard Medical School, said on social media that the IHRA definition “does not itself prohibit or punish speech.”
“Once adopted by Harvard,” he wrote, “the definition must be used in a manner consistent with other applicable legal principles and the principles of academic freedom and free speech.”
Harvard said in a statement that under the lawsuit agreement, Harvard must also enter into a partnership with an Israeli university, hire someone to consult on all anti-Semitism complaints and allow the Brandeis Center to “host a variety of programs on campus.” Activity”. The Kennedy School of Public Policy at Harvard University must allow three alumni to hold an event “on the substantive issues of Jewish democracy in Israel.”
The university is also required to post the following statement on its website: “For many Jews, Zionism is part of their Jewish identity. Actions that violate the nondiscrimination policy if directed against Jews or Israelis are prohibited if Zionism is targeted.” Otherwise, it may violate this policy.
A Harvard spokesperson said in a statement that the school “will continue to take strong measures to maintain a welcoming, open and safe campus environment where every student feels they belong.”
