The Brandeis center has announced a settlement in its civil lawsuit against Harvard University for allowing the creation of an anti-Semitic atmosphere, and Harvard will make some changes. The deal is announced by the Center, and you can see the announcement by clicking below:
Harvard, of course, has admitted to neither wrongdoing nor liability; I suppose it’s just making these changes because it’s the right thing to do. LOL!
From CNN:
One day after the inauguration of President Donald Trump, who has said he would “remove the Jew haters” if reelected, Harvard University has settled two lawsuits accusing the Ivy League school of failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitic bullying and harassment on campus.
In the settlement with the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, and Students Against Antisemitism — a group of six Jewish students — Harvard agreed to make several changes to how it addresses antisemitism on campus.
Among them is adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism when reviewing complaints of antisemitic discrimination and harassment and posting a document online that clarifies people who identify as Jewish and Israeli are covered by the school’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies.
Additionally, the school agreed to draft an annual report for the next five years that details its response to discrimination and harassment; hire a point person to consult with on all complaints of antisemitism, and provide training on combating antisemitism for staff who review the complaints.
“Today’s settlement reflects Harvard’s enduring commitment to ensuring our Jewish students, faculty, and staff are embraced, respected, and supported,” a Harvard University spokesperson said in a statement. “We will continue to strengthen our policies, systems, and operations to combat anti-Semitism and all forms of hate and ensure all members of the Harvard community have the support they need to pursue their academic, research and professional work and feel they belong on our campus and in our classrooms.”
Harvard has come under fire in the past year for how it addresses antisemitic bullying on campus. Much of the criticism and complaints from students and faculty stemmed from the protests and vandalism on campus following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel.
Last year, Harvard received a failing grade from the Jewish civil rights advocacy group Anti-Defamation League for its policies to protect Jewish students from antisemitism on campus.
It also has the lowest Free Speech rating from FIRE among all 251 schools. The two others right above it also have ratings of “abysmal”: NYU and Columbia, and both are, as I recall, subject to similar Title VI lawsuits.
I have no idea whether this settlement has anything to do with Trump’s threats, nor do I much care; I suspect, though, that a settlement was in the works before Trump was inaugurated. Harvard has not looked good after Claudine Gay stepped down on January 2, 2024, plagued by accusations not just of personal plagiarism, but of Harvard hypocrisy in how it dealt with speech.
At any rate, the IHRA definition of antisemitism is so tame that I don’t know why it’s even controversial. Here it is from their page of explanation:
Note that the definition doesn’t include anti-Zionism, but does state this:
Manifestations might include the targeting of the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity. However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.
To me, that means that if you deny the right of Israel to exist, that’s anti-Semitism, for it conceives of Israel, because it’s the one Jewish state, as the one state that has no right to exist. We all known that “Zionist” has long since become a euphemism for “Jews” by pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli demonstrators, and this ruse no longer carries water. That’s the point made by Natasha Hausdorff in the Munk debate on whether anti-Zionism is the same as anti-Semitism, and Hausdorff and her partner, Douglas Murray, did change the mind of the audience about this. I’ve watched this video several times; Hausdorff’s final metaphor is brilliant.
As for the other agreeements, about annual reports, point persons, and the like, yes, they are necessary to combat the atmosphere of anti-Semitism that Harvard itself tacitly admitted by settling the lawsuit.
None of this, however, should be construed as prohibiting acts of speech that are anti-Semitic or anti-Israel. A Harvard student still has the right to stand in Harvard Yard holding a placard reading “Gas the Jews.” (It won’t do his reputation much good, however.) It’s only when a multiplicity of anti-Semitic acts, teaching, and speech add up to create an atmosphere that discriminates against Jews, or creates a climate that chills the speech of Jews, that lawsuits must be filed.
Next, Columbia and NYU. . .
One of the original plaintiffs, Shabbos Kestenbaum, did not sign on to the settlement, so his lawsuit will continue. It’ll be interesting to see if it goes to trial, or if he settles eventually as well.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/international-relations/to-settle-lawsuits-harvard-says-it-will-use-debated-definition-of-antisemitism/ar-AA1xG1ho.
Ceiling Cat, I haven’t read your news highlights yet today. But here is some news from Harvard that might interest you: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/1/23/hms-cancels-gaza-patient-panel/
(I’m on Havard’s listserv against anti-Semitism, where things like the lawsuit you reference in this post and the topic I’m sharing are discussed. There’s overlap in listservs tackling anti-Semitism and those dealing with matters of academic freedom, of course.)
Oh goodness, I have something else to share related to Harvard and one of your earlier posts this week on Trump’s executive orders. Harvard isn’t going to back down on DEI. Here is evidence from the Chair of my former department at Chan. Notice that the new euphemism for DEI is “community engagement”:
“Dear EH community
You likely have seen the executive orders and NIH news since Monday. There are many premises that are unfounded. We will continue to focus on our purpose to try to protect and sustain the health of all people. We will continue to focus on community engagement.
As we work to determine how these new rules will affect our NIH grants and research work, I wanted to take a moment to reach out to you all and offer my support.
I want to assure you that we stand by you, your jobs, your families, and our mission to investigate and solve the world’s most pressing environmental health challenges, and especially those communities most susceptible to their impacts. We stand by the School’s motto of health, dignity, and justice for every human.”
Chan has a massive anti-Semitism problem fueled in part by DEI. Some of Chan’s students penned that odious letter blaming Israel for October 7th.
Roz, this is discouraging. During my time in practice and teaching in the consumer side of medical research, we all put great presumptive credibility in any academic article that came out of the Harvard Chan school concerning public health and health-care systems organization. Probably you were there then.
How the mighty have fallen.
Why are there Gazans in the US being treated? Are they classed as refugees?
Apparently Harvard has agreed to “posting a document online that clarifies people who identify as Jewish and Israeli are covered by the school’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies.” Makes me wonder which categories of students and staff may be bullied and discriminated against under Harvard’s policies. If none, the policy is meaningless. If any, I’ll bet Red America and Jewish and Asian-American individuals can accurately predict who those lucky folks might be.
Sorry, but the IHRA definition is so wide to the point that it’s utterly useless. Under the definition, I am an anti-semite – but I’m not worried, because I think it’s nearly certain that our host is one under the IHRA defintion as well (please accept my apology, if you are offended by being the subject of this example – I don’t mean to offer offense and chose you because you are clearly NOT an anti-semite).
The reason is, that I have “a certain perception of Jews”. That perception is based on my observations and the background information I have read on this very site. In my case, I would NOT express this “certain perception of Jews” as hatred towards Jews. That’s because my perception isn’t negative – it’s merely distinct.
I just now told my computer, that Jews exist. This is an act of antisemitism under IHRA as well, since it’s a “rhetorical manifestation” directed towards the property of a non-Jewish individual.
I would challenge anyone to come up with an act of someone who knows about the existence of Jews that ISN’T anti-semitic under the IHRA definition.
Agreed, it’s useless. It’s not even a “definition”! Definitions need to define things!
“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, …”
What perception? Spell it out!
“… which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews”
“May be”? That’s commentary, not “definition”.
Let’s instead turn to a dictionary, which tells us that “anti-Semitism” is:
“Hostility towards and discrimination against Jewish people”
Easy! Now that’s a definition.
And don’t get me started on defining “woman” as meaning “woman”.
Well.. it would certainly suit a good chunk on the political left to have an anti-semitism definition akin to their definition of a woman:
An anti-semite is, whoever say “I’m an anti-semite”.
[sarcasm]
Since self-ID works so well on sex, it’s surely the way to go here as well!
[/sarcams]
Edit:
On a more serious note I’d sharpen your dictionary definition to “Hostility towards and discrimination against Jewish people on the basis of their perceived Jewishness.”
Else you would be anti-semitic if you are hostile to some random *(&&#$ (insert expletive) for being a *(&&#$ , but that *(&&#$ happens to be Jewish.
That Munk debate was excellent. Hausdorff and Murray made great points. I thought Gideon Levy had a few good thoughts, but I thought that Mehdi Hasan came off really poorly. I came to a realization “gosh, he hates Jews” during the discussion. Maybe it isn’t true, but it felt like it.