As mentioned in the DOJ and Censorship pages, the Trump administration has interjected itself into universities that are perceived to promote anti-Israel ideas. The student protest movement roiled Zionist commentators, and mainstream media parroted pro-Israel narratives about the rise of antisemitism while utterly ignoring the issues that the student protesters sought to address. To be clear, Elise Stefanik's Congressional hearing about antisemitism on liberal universities' campuses and the lawsuits covered on this page are not meant to really address injuries against Jewish students but rather are meant to silence Americans who speak out against the billions of tax dollars sent to Israel in armaments and aid. It is meant to silence Americans who do not want their tax dollars funding apartheid and genocide. The pro-Israel forces don't want any humanization of Palestinians or any criticism of the Israeli apartheid state. It offends Zionist sensibilities to dare to suggest that Israel has committed war crimes and that they should no longer benefit from such extreme American largesse.
Students have been protesting for decades about Palestine because it is so clearly a case of right and wrong, about injustice, about racism, about a nation-state that practices Jewish supremecy and the dehumanization of the native peoples. Students were taught about the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust and the programs and the evils of colonialism, slavery and the American role in oppressing Native Americans and African Americans. The lesson was that in modern society we would not tolerate colonialism and apartheid and genocide. Yet here we are, and liberal Zionists are being challenged for their support of the entire Israel endeavor, the foundations upon which it was built, and for the discriminatory treatment of Palestinians. To any student of history, it defies understanding why the mainstream media and academia have othered and silenced pro-Palestine voices. With new media, this is changing.
This is the Federal District Court of Massachusetts' decision dismissing Trump's lawsuit against Harvard:
This is the DOJ's complaint against Harvard:
This is the amended complaint:
This is the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim:
The memorandum of law in support of the motion to dismiss:
Professors Benjamin Eidelson and Debora Hellman filed briefs as amicable in support of the motion to dismiss:
The Brandeis Center and Attorney Brown filed briefs in support of the government:
The DOJ filed this memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss:
Title VI
Analysis
Title VI provides that "[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 42 U.S.C. 2000d.
President Trump issued an executive order during his first term about antisemitism to further his pro-Israel policies. Recall that one of his biggest donors was Sheldon Adelson. After Mr. Adelson's passing, his wife, Miriam Adelson assumed the family lead in pursuing pro-Israel policies.
Per Wikipedia: "Miriam Adelson (née Farbstein; born October 10, 1945) is an Israeli-American physician, businesswoman, philanthropist, and conservative political donor. She was married to Sheldon Adelson until his death in 2021. As of October 2025, estimates placed her wealth at $34.6 billion,[1][2] making her the 48th richest person in the world.[1] Notable holdings include the Las Vegas Sands and the Dallas Mavericks. She is the current publisher of Israel Hayom and, with her family, owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Since the 2010s, Adelson has been one of the Republican Party's largest individual donors, and since 2016 she has been one of the most prominent financial supporters of Donald Trump. She and her husband provided the largest donation to his 2016 campaign, his presidential inauguration, his defense fund against the Mueller investigation into Russian interference, and the 2020 campaign.[3] She was the third largest donor to Trump's 2024 election bid, donating $106 million.[4] Adelson has consistently advocated for the US government to adopt pro-Israel policies, including supporting Israel's annexation of the West Bank.[5][6]^President Trump awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2018."
The 2019 executive order provides: "Ex. Ord. No. 13899. Combating Anti-Semitism. Ex. Ord. No. 13899, Dec. 11, 2019, 84 F.R. 68779, provided: By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Policy. My Administration is committed to combating the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world. Anti-Semitic incidents have increased since 2013, and students, in particular, continue to face anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), 42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq., prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. While Title VI does not cover discrimination based on religion, individuals who face discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin do not lose protection under Title VI for also being a member of a group that shares common religious practices. Discrimination against Jews may give rise to a Title VI violation when the discrimination is based on an individual's race, color, or national origin. It shall be the policy of the executive branch to enforce Title VI against prohibited forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism as vigorously as against all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VI. Sec. 2. Ensuring Robust Enforcement of Title VI. (a) In enforcing Title VI, and identifying evidence of discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, all executive departments and agencies (agencies) charged with enforcing Title VI shall consider the following: (i) the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism adopted on May 26, 2016, by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), which states, "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"; and (ii) the "Contemporary Examples of Anti-Semitism" identified by the IHRA, to the extent that any examples might be useful as evidence of discriminatory intent. (b) In considering the materials described in subsections (a)(i) and (a)(ii) of this section, agencies shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected under Federal law or under the First Amendment. As with all other Title VI complaints, the inquiry into whether a particular act constitutes discrimination prohibited by Title VI will require a detailed analysis of the allegations. Sec. 3. Additional Authorities Prohibiting Anti-Semitic Discrimination. Within 120 days of the date of this order [Dec. 11, 2019], the head of each agency charged with enforcing Title VI shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying additional nondiscrimination authorities within its enforcement authority with respect to which the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism could be considered. Sec. 4. Rule of Construction. Nothing in this order shall be construed to alter the evidentiary requirements pursuant to which an agency makes a determination that conduct, including harassment, amounts to actionable discrimination, or to diminish or infringe upon the rights protected under any other provision of law...."
Per Wikipedia, the executive order followed the failed bill to adopt the definition of antisemitism pushed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), also covered in my Censorship page. The definition would include as antisemitic the suggestion that the Israeli government is acting like the Nazi government in its treatment of Palestinians. The IHRA definition cites the following examples. Seven of the eleven examples mention Israel:
- “Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust”
- “[a]ccusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations”
- “[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor”
- “[a]pplying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”
- “[u]sing the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis”
- “[d]rawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis”
- “[h]olding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”[25]
Contributors to Wikimedia projects
Contributors to Wikimedia projects
While it is critical to protect Jewish Americans against threats or violence, the push to censor speech concerning Israel absurdly goes too far and violates First Amendment rights. The Trump administration, by bowing to pro-Israel pressure, by adopting the IHRA working definition and issuing executive orders focusing on antisemitism on college campuses, has used antisemitism as an excuse to stifle speech in favor of Palestinian rights.
In order to prove his pro-Israel bona fides, in his second administration, and in conjunction with his push to target pro-Palestine student activity, Trump issued a second executive order concerning Title VI related to antisemitism:
"Ex. Ord. No. 14188. Additional Measures To Combat Anti-Semitism
Ex. Ord. No. 14188, Jan. 29, 2025, 90 F.R. 8847, provided:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. My Administration has fought and will continue to fight anti-Semitism in the United States and around the world. On December 11, 2019, I issued Executive Order 13899 [set out above], my first Executive Order on Combating Anti-Semitism, finding that students, in particular, faced anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses. Executive Order 13899 provided interpretive assistance on the enforcement of the Nation's civil rights laws to ensure that they would protect American Jews to the same extent to which all other American citizens are protected. The prior administration effectively nullified Executive Order 13899 by failing to give the terms of the order full force and effect throughout the Government. This order reaffirms Executive Order 13899 and directs additional measures to advance the policy thereof in the wake of the Hamas terrorist attacks of October 7, 2023, against the people of Israel. These attacks unleashed an unprecedented wave of vile anti-Semitic discrimination, vandalism, and violence against our citizens, especially in our schools and on our campuses. Jewish students have faced an unrelenting barrage of discrimination; denial of access to campus common areas and facilities, including libraries and classrooms; and intimidation, harassment, and physical threats and assault. A joint report by the House Committees on Education and the Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Judiciary, Oversight and Accountability, Veterans' Affairs, and Ways and Means calls the Federal Government's failure to fight anti-Semitism and protect Jewish students "astounding." This failure is unacceptable and ends today.
Sec. 2. Policy. It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously, using all available and appropriate legal tools, to prosecute, remove, or otherwise hold to account the perpetrators of unlawful anti-Semitic harassment and violence.
Sec. 3. Additional Measures to Combat Campus Anti-Semitism. (a) Within 60 days of the date of this order [Jan. 29, 2025], the head of each executive department or agency (agency) shall submit a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, identifying all civil and criminal authorities or actions within the jurisdiction of that agency, beyond those already implemented under Executive Order 13899, that might be used to curb or combat anti-Semitism, and containing an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints, as of the date of the report, against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism.
(b) The report submitted by the Attorney General under this section shall additionally include an inventory and an analysis of all court cases, as of the date of the report, against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil-rights violations related to or arising from post-October 7, 2023, campus anti-Semitism and indicate whether the Attorney General intends to or has taken any action with respect to such matters, including filing statements of interest or intervention.
(c) The Attorney General is encouraged to employ appropriate civil-rights enforcement authorities, such as 18 U.S.C. 241, to combat anti-Semitism.
(d) The report submitted by the Secretary of Education under this section shall additionally include an inventory and an analysis of all Title VI complaints and administrative actions, including in K-12 education, related to anti-Semitism–pending or resolved after October 7, 2023–within the Department's Office for Civil Rights.
(e) In addition to identifying relevant authorities to curb or combat anti-Semitism generally required by this section, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Education, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, in consultation with each other, shall include in their reports recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3) [sic] so that such institutions may monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff relevant to those grounds and for ensuring that such reports about aliens lead, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to investigations and, if warranted, actions to remove such aliens."
What are the antisemitic instances that gave rise to the federal government's case against Harvard?
- Thirty-three other student groups signed a letter, agreeing that the “apartheid regime [Israel] was the only one to blame,” for Hamas’ murders, rapes, and kidnappings.
- Professor Marshall Ganz held a two-week workshop on Israel in which pro-Israel students were discouraged from presenting their point of view that Israel was a Jewish democracy and encouraged pro-Palestine views.
- "On October 14, students organized a demonstration against Israel on the steps of Widener Library, the main library at Harvard. Some “instructors excused students from class” to join this demonstration and similar demonstrations “that became a frequent occurrence.”16 For affected students, this replaced neutral educational opportunities (e.g., in-class learning) with an alternative (e.g., attending the demonstrations) that was explicitly hostile to Jewish and Israeli students as such." Amended Complaint, Paragraph 21.
- "Chants, such as “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” are not mere political slogans.18 The phrase “From the River to the Sea[]” refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. It includes the entirety of the territory of the State of Israel. In the 1960s and 70s it became the signature phrase of the Palestine Liberation Organization to indicate the replacement of the State of Israel with a State of Palestine extending “from the river to the sea,” including the expulsion of Jews. The phrase soon after became a rallying cry for terrorist groups such as Hamas, the group responsible for the October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israeli civilians. It is a call for the abolition of Israel, the national home for the Jewish people, and a replacement with a different nation, Palestine; it is a call for the abolition of a national origin. Using the phrase to harass and intimidate Jews is antisemitic. Chants calling to “globalize the intifada,” or otherwise to support an “intifada,” are widely understood as calls for violence against Israel and Jews.20 “Intifada” was the name given to a pair of wars waged by Palestinian groups against Israeli civilians, the second of which, running from 2000 through 2005 involved over a hundred suicide bombers targeting Israeli civilians in cafes, buses, and other public spaces. A call to “globalize” this can only be reasonably understood as a call to conduct similar actions on a broader geographic scale." Amended Complaint, Paragraph 27."
- "On October 18, 2023, anti-Israeli students organized a so-called “die-in” in response to a blast at a hospital in Gaza that they incorrectly attributed to Israel. 23 (Palestinian terrorists destroyed a hospital while attempting to launch a rocket at Israel.)24 An Israeli Jewish student attempted to film the blockade and was assaulted by two graduate students, Ibrahim I. Bharmal and Elom K. Tettey-Tamaklo, who were criminally charged.25 The “die-in” violated university policy. A photograph of the incident is below. This assault was reported to Harvard." Amended Complaint, Paragraph 32. The Complaint included the photograph below of the alleged assault, which shows two students scuffling.
Apparently the Trump administration thinks that Jewish students have the right not to see or hear any public display of protest against the Israeli state and for American policies that enable apartheid and genocide. Rather than viewing colleges as academic institutions where a foreign government can be criticized, and rather than condemning Israel for its continued genocide in Gaza, the Trump administration chose to focus on a scuffle with a Jewish counter-protestor and protestors' chants as the bases for a civil action against Harvard for not doing enough to quash the demonstrations.
Harvard moved to dismiss on the basis that the government did not allege sufficiently that there was an ongoing violation of Title VI, which provides that ""[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." I think that the example concerning the professor, if true, is egregious, but that the rest of the allegations concern free speech. Judge Stearns ruled that Without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences, the court finds them, singly and collectively, to be too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with TitleVI persists at Harvard to this day." I agree.
In two private law suits, petitioners alleged that Harvard was discriminatory. The two complaints are Kestembaum v. Harvard and Landau v. Harvard:
In Kestenbaum's complaint, the student alleged that that pro-Palestine protests equated to antisemitism:
"Harvard, America’s leading university, has become a bastion of rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel and slaughtered, tortured, raped, burned, and mutilated 1,200 people—including infants, children, and the elderly—antisemitism at Harvard has been particularly severe and pervasive. Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty have marched by the hundreds through Harvard’s campus, shouting vile antisemitic slogans and calling for death to Jews and Israel. Those mobs have occupied buildings, classrooms, libraries, student lounges, plazas, and study halls, often for days or weeks at a time, promoting violence against Jews and harassing and assaulting them on campus. Jewish students have been attacked on social media, and Harvard faculty members have promulgated antisemitism in their courses and dismissed and intimidated students who object. What is most striking about all of this is Harvard’s abject failure and refusal to lift a finger to stop and deter this outrageous antisemitic conduct and penalize the students and faculty who perpetrate it." Complaint, Paragraph 1.
The Complaint also refers to Harvard's "antisemitism cancer."
" Harvard’s antisemitism cancer—as a past Harvard president termed it—manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior." Complaint, Paragraph 2.
Kestenbaum referred to the IHRA Definition of Antisemitism. Complaint at Paragraph 26.
Kestenbaum equated anti-Zionism with antisemitism: "Anti-Zionism is discriminatory and antisemitic when expressed in terms of, for example: applying double standards not applicable to other countries or peoples in assessing Israel’s legitimacy and conduct; denying the Jewish people’s right to self-determination or the right of the State of Israel to exist; denying that Israel has the right to self-defense against terrorism, invasion, or the murder, rape, and kidnapping of its citizens; accusing Israel of being inherently racist or comparable to the Nazis; or invoking classic antisemitic canards against Israel and its people. “When people criticize Zionists,” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. explained, “they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.” Complaint at Paragraph 28.
Specific instances of objections conduct at Harvard are alleged in the Complaint:
"51. Groups like Harvard PSC are notoriously active during “Israeli Apartheid Week,” an annual world-wide program organized by virulent anti-Israel activists, which promotes BDS and targets Jewish students for harassment. During the April 2017 Israeli Apartheid Week, a Harvard dormitory was covered with mock detention notices targeting Jewish students for their alleged mistreatment of “Palestinians in Israel-Palestine.” The mock notices were orchestrated by Harvard PSC, and co-signed by Harvard Concilio Latino, Harvard Islamic Society, and Harvard Black Students Association. Jewish students reacted with shock and fear, but Harvard took no meaningful steps to discipline the groups responsible. 52. In October 2017, Harvard’s student-led Phillips Brooks House Association granted Nihad Awad its “Call of Service” Lecture and Award, designated for a “significant leader in public service” invited to speak at Harvard to inspire a “deeper engagement with critical social issues on campus and in the wider community”—notwithstanding that Awad had long been an open supporter of Hamas. Awad most recently said that he was “happy to see” the people of Gaza “break the siege . . . on October 7,” a statement the White House “condemn[ed]” as “shocking” and “antisemitic.” 53. On May 10, 2018, a swastika was discovered on a bulletin board at Harvard Public Health. Harvard took no disciplinary action in response and, a few months later, on December 2, 2018, a man intentionally toppled the menorah at Harvard Chabad, a center of Jewish life and faith. Harvard did not condemn or punish the perpetrator. 54. In March 2019, the Harvard Undergraduate Council held a meeting to vote on whether to award University funding to Harvard PSC for its upcoming Israeli Apartheid Week. During the meeting, Jewish students, in the words of Harvard Hillel’s president, were met “with angry interjections and unfounded accusations, as well as references to age-old tropes of prejudice and bigotry,” leaving her “shocked and disappointed by the way in which students were prevented from expressing their very real concerns.” The council voted to award the funding to Harvard PSC through the Open Harvard College grant, even though such grants are designed to fund student initiatives on “mental health, race, culture, [] faith relations, . . . harassment prevention, social spaces, and financial accessibility.” Harvard did not take disciplinary action against Harvard PSC, the council, or anyone who spewed antisemitism during the meeting, and it did not prevent the use of Harvard funds to support the antisemitic Israeli Apartheid Week. 55. On April 2, 2019, during Israeli Apartheid Week, Harvard PSC hosted several speakers, including Boston College Professor Yamila Hussein, who declared that Zionism is a “white supremacist, European, patriarchal, heterosexist, you name it, movement . . . when you read Zionism, it is white supremacy,” and Marc Lamont Hill, a former CNN commentator whom CNN fired for saying “from the river to the sea”—a genocidal call for the destruction of Israel and its Jewish inhabitants—and who is well known for his antisemitic views. Harvard allowed these influential speakers and audience members, on campus and at Harvard’s expense, to spew unchecked antisemitic vitriol. A member of the audience went so far as to demand discussion of the antisemitic trope that European Jews are not “real Jews” but Turkic Khazars, a nomadic European tribe, and that the Holocaust is a “myth.” Harvard took no disciplinary or remedial actions and did not condemn the event’s antisemitism. 56. In August 2020, Harvard PSC posted a graphic on Instagram calling Zionism, the belief in the right of Jews to self-determination in Israel, a “racist, sectarian, exclusionary, Jewish-supremacist political ideology,” using a phrase coined by Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke. 57. In May 2021, in response to a Jewish Israeli student’s post in a WhatsApp group, a Harvard Law student, Shayaan A. Essa, messaged, “We shed your blood with stones.” A group of Jewish Israeli students reported the incident to Dean Jessica Soban, Deputy Dean I. Glenn Cohen, and Assistant Dean-appointee Catherine Peshkin. In a meeting with the deans, the students explained how this violent threat left them “heartbroken and humiliated” and “no longer feel[ing] comfortable,” and asked the deans to denounce Essa’s call for violence. The deans refused to do so, instead downplaying the message and telling the students to ignore or respond directly to such harassment. Harvard chose to do the former, and Essa graduated without consequence. Two of the Jewish Israeli students, who are still enrolled at Harvard Law, report that they feel unsafe and have trouble focusing as a result of Harvard’s clearly unreasonable response to antisemitism, including Essa’s conduct, and the increased anti-Jewish hostility on campus following Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack. One such student told his young children not to speak Hebrew outside their home, out of fear they will be targeted by antisemitic Harvard community members. 58. Also in May 2021, Harvard Hillel’s building was vandalized twice. Two masked individuals tied a Palestinian flag emblazoned with an anti-police slogan to Hillel’s door, after which Hillel’s windows were shattered. While Harvard purports to have investigated these incidents, nothing came of it—no one was arrested or disciplined. 59. In October 2021, the Harvard Law Program on Law & Society in the Muslim World and numerous Harvard student groups co-sponsored a pro-BDS event, “Law and Violence in Palestine,” at which a speaker was Mohammed El-Kurd, who notoriously espouses antisemitic views, has repeatedly and publicly announced his fantasy of murdering Jews, and claims that Israelis and Zionist Jews eat Palestinians’ organs, a vile antisemitic blood libel. 60. In December 2021, SAA Member #4, a Ph.D. student at Harvard, observed to Professor Bram Wispelwey that his winter semester course, The Settler Colonial Determinants of Health, in Harvard Public Health’s Department of Global Health and Population, contained disturbing antisemitic topics and materials, including required readings propagating antisemitic claims and Hamas propaganda, by denying Jewish ethnic identity (which one reading calls an “invented transnational ethnic identity”), calling Jewish history a “mythology,” denying Jewish indigeneity to Israel, and downplaying antisemitism and the Holocaust. Wispelwey dishonestly dismissed these concerns in an emailed response, as “demonstrably false.” SAA Member #4 emailed Department Chair Marcia Castro to raise their concerns. Castro, like Wispelwey, was dismissive of the student’s concerns, but proposed a three-on-one meeting that would include Wispelwey and Professor Jackie Bhabha, who Castro said was leading the development of a new program on Palestine at Harvard’s FXB Center for Health and Human Rights (“FXB Center”). SAA Member #4 made a formal complaint in Harvard’s bias reporting system and sent their concerns to Dean for Education Erin Driver-Linn and Chief Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging (“DIB”) Officer Amarildo Barbosa. The student met with Barbosa later that month and reported this and several other incidents of antisemitism on campus. 61. Harvard took no steps to prevent Professor Wispelwey from promulgating antisemitism in his course or to otherwise discipline him, but instead recently promoted his course from a truncated winter-term course to a full-length spring-semester course, which, according to Harvard Public Health’s website, entailed Harvard approving the course content. Following Hamas’s October 7 terrorist attack, SAA Member #4 followed up with administrators, providing resources to explain the bias in Wispelwey’s course—as Chief DIB Officer Barbosa admitted that his office did not have sufficient expertise in understanding antisemitism. 62. SAA Member #4 also raised concerns regarding Harvard’s continued partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank, which openly discriminates against Jews and promotes Hamas and its terrorism. Among other things, Birzeit’s buildings and events are named after convicted terrorists; military parades on campus feature students wearing mock explosive vests while waving Hamas flags; in May 2022, Hamas won the majority of Birzeit student government seats; and, two weeks before the October 7 massacre, eight students were arrested with weapons and plans to carry out a terrorist attack. Rather than end its affiliation with this antisemitic, terrorism-supporting university, Harvard touts its Birzeit partnership. In fact, since October 7, Harvard’s FXB Center co-sponsored a webinar with Birzeit on December 11, Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the Birzeit University Museum have organized at least fourteen “teach-in” sessions to put “Gaza in context”—which include discussions on “Israel’s onslaught against Palestinians”—and the FXB Center recently opened applications for its Summer 2024 Palestine Social Medicine course at Birzeit."
The case never went to trial, and a stipulation of dismissal was filed before the motion to dismiss was adjudicated.
Again, other than the incident involving anonymous tipping over of the Menorah, the plaintiff claimed he was subjected to a hostile educational environment on the basis of his Jewishness because of Harvard's systemic continued refusal to protect his right against discrimination because of the subject matter of protests and courses and not because of personal violence or threats of violence. Mr. Kestenbaum's complaint sought to establish a zone of education free from anything critical of Israel, equating anti-zionism to anti-semitism, and that is wrong. As for the "Hamas flag," students had a Palestinian flag, not a Hamas flag. How can it be antisemitic to raise the flag of a foreign people whose statehood has been thwarted by another foreign government? What the plaintiff sought was silence pro Palestine speech. The lawsuit wasn't about protecting the student against antisemitism. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism. Protesting against American support of Israel is not antisemitism.
During this contentious period since the October 7 attacks, there have also been instances of anti Palestine and anti-Muslim and anti-Arab conduct, but I would not state that Harvard has systematically engaged in Title VI violations.
https://www.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/FINAL-Harvard-AMAAAPB-Report-4.29.25.pdf
In Harvard's report of April 2025, the college notes several instances, including this example of doxxing:
Harvard, FINAL REPORT, Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias, April 29, 202
Let's not forget extreme and combative nature of counterprotestors and the dangerous instances of doxxing by Canary Mission.
Vivian Chen
Harvard issued it's report on anti-Palestine and anti-Arab hostility on campus in its FINAL REPORT, Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias,April 29, 2025. Excerpts are included below:
Harvard, FINAL REPORT, Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias, April 29, 2025
Why isn't the Trump administration addressing anti Palestinian conduct by students?
Harvard, FINAL REPORT, Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias, April 29, 2025
In the news:
Lisa Hornung
Collin Binkley
Eugene Volokh
Ed Pilkington
Jessica Blake
Discussion