Good news for once out of Harvard. The university has settled two anti-Semitism-related lawsuits with agreements that will require concrete action instead of vague promises of better behavior. It will make students’ BDS demands dead-on-arrival. And it may be a model for future such settlements—an outcome that would go far toward helping American higher education finally break its intifada fever.

“It’s a terrific result and I think it’s going to be really influential,” Daniel R. Benson, of Kasowitz Benson Torres, told COMMENTARY today. The firm represented Students Against Antisemitism, one of the plaintiffs. The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law represented the other. (Benson is a member of COMMENTARY’s Board of Trustees.)

Among the more significant outcomes of the case is that Harvard will be adopting the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism to govern its anti-harassment and non-discrimination rules. The definition, as worded by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, is the mainstream Jewish community’s preferred definition: “Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The IHRA definition is often described in the press as “controversial,” but what that really means is “misunderstood.” Along with the definition, IHRA includes examples of anti-Semitism. Among those examples are expressions of anti-Israel bias that “may” amount to anti-Semitic intent when they form the basis of discriminatory acts. The definition does not outlaw speech; it merely makes it more difficult for anti-Semites to hide their bigoted intent. This cynical excuse has been responsible for enabling universities to violate Jewish students’ civil rights at will; the Harvard settlement therefore makes it less likely that Jews will openly be treated as second-class citizens on campus.

The settlement also aims to end the broad use of obvious euphemisms to get around non-discrimination statutes, especially when it comes to the anti-Jewish loyalty oaths some university groups around the country have begun requiring from their prospective members. The university handbook will make explicit that those rules apply to both Jews and Israelis, and it will include the following explanation: “For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Conduct that would violate the Non-Discrimination Policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the policy if directed toward Zionists. Examples of such conduct include excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a ‘no Zionist’ litmus test for participation in any Harvard activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., ‘Zionists control the media’), or demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism to harass or discriminate.”

The settlement, if implemented properly, would bring Harvard into compliance with Title VI civil-rights protections. It also might encourage other universities to do the same. Having seen where the process got Harvard, other schools might save themselves the effort and expense required to fight against applying civil-rights laws to Jews.

The explosion of anti-Semitism on campus, much of which expresses some level of support for Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023 massacre of Israeli civilians, has been especially potent at Ivy League colleges. Harvard itself was among the first to experience the fallout when its past president, Claudine Gay, resigned after a disastrous appearance before a congressional committee last year.

Harvard and the other elite universities clearly could not and would not stand up to their Hamas cheerleaders. Luckily, the settlement helps them do so. As part of the agreement, Harvard has committed to forming an official partnership with an Israeli university, thus making one of the anti-Zionist hordes’ most-common demands—a boycott of anything that can plausibly be connected in some way to the Jewish state—a nonstarter.

It’s also perhaps worth hoping that this settlement serves as an example for the federal government’s own such settlements. Title VI complaints to the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights have skyrocketed, but during Joe Biden’s presidency, OCR often protected the schools from consequences. Donald Trump, on the other hand, has threatened to withdraw or withhold federal funding from institutions that violate civil-rights laws. Harvard’s settlement might represent a blueprint for a compromise that would still ensure some measure of accountability for the universities’ violations.

American universities should not have to be dragged kicking and screaming into following the law and respecting Jewish students’ civil rights. That Harvard’s defiance of the law went on this long is a stain on the university’s reputation. But perhaps other holdouts will learn from its bleak example.

+ A A -
You may also like
42 Shares
Share via
Copy link