Harvard's lawsuit against the US government indicates that its stance against antisemitism is performative, not real ~ Elder Of Ziyon

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

Harvard's lawsuit against the US government indicates that its stance against antisemitism is performative, not real

Harvard University filed a lawsuit to block the US government's planned $2.2 billion federal funding freeze. The suit is mostly centered on allegations that the government has bypassed its own procedures in the Administrative Procedure Act in its actions.

But what does the lawsuit say about Harvard's actual actions against antisemitism on campus?

It claims, "Well before the Government’s engagement, Harvard had initiated steps to address antisemitism on campus. Recognizing the seriousness of this issue, Harvard has taken and will continue to take steps to do so in the future."

Yet the major actions it has taken appear to be defensive, not pro-active. For example, it touts that it has adopted the IHRA definition of antisemitism as a factor in determining whether incidents violate Title VI. It links to its Frequently Asked Questions, which say:

The NDAB Policies and Procedures encompass Harvard’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Harvard considers the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) guidance in complying with Title VI. The definition of antisemitism used by Harvard in the NDAB Policies is the same definition of antisemitism used by OCR. Harvard, like OCR, uses the definition of antisemitism endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA definition) and considers the examples that accompany the IHRA definition to the extent that those examples might be useful in determining discriminatory intent.

Yet the OCR started using the IHRA definition as early as 2018, but Harvard did not adopt this standard until January of this year - indicating that it disagreed with using the IHRA definition until then. In fact, the OCR settled complaints with NYU and Duke in 2020 and encouraged their use of IHRA then, but Harvard did not take action then.

What made it change its mind?

On January 20, immediately after President Trump was inaugurated, Harvard settled two lawsuits against it for violating Title VI. Part of the settlement was that Harvard would adopt the IHRA definition.

This was not a principled decision - it was a reaction to the lawsuits and an attempt to shield itself from valid criticism that it had not done enough to protect Jews and Israelis on campus.

In fact, Harvard had sought to dismiss both lawsuits, claiming that it was not violating Title VI. Last August, a federal judge refuted Harvard's defense:

"To conclude that the (complaint) has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the (complaint), proved hollow," Stearns wrote.
"The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students," the judge added.

Only after the lawsuit was ruled valid, only after Trump took office, did Harvard agree to follow US government guidelines on upholding Title VI. it is bragging now that it is doing, kicking and screaming, what the US said it should have done for the past seven years.

Although it has only been in place for a few months, I cannot find any examples where Harvard invoked the IHRA definition to prove any anti-Israel activity on campus crossed the line into antisemitism.

This is not the only example of Harvard's reluctance to follow its own stated standards. For example, it was supposed to issue a report last fall on antisemitism, and the report has not yet been released.

Another egregious example comes from November 2023, when the Harvard Graduate Student Union endorsed boycotting Israeli academic institutions. This is a direct violation of the academic freedom that Harvard pretends to uphold. Dozens of Jewish and Israeli students resigned from the union which had said it would not protect them.

Yet Harvard remained silent. It did not issue any public statement to emphasize that it would continue its existing partnerships with Israeli universities.

It is not even clear that the actions that Harvard has done have practically protected Jewish students on campus - we have no statistics and I can find no interviews of students saying that they feel safer on campus in recent months.

I have previously highlighted the difference between Harvard’s actions on campus and those of Northwestern University, which appear to be far more proactive and protective of Jewish students than Harvard’s.

Harvard's record shows that it is not truly interested in protecting Jews on campus, and will only do so when under outside pressure.