Legal Strategy Under Scrutiny
Harvard University is defending its efforts to combat campus antisemitism in federal court, citing new faculty appointments and academic programs as evidence of progress. The university's legal team, including high-profile attorneys like Paul Clement and William Burck, argues these steps demonstrate commitment to a safe environment for Jewish students. However, internal documents and outside critics suggest the measures may be more performative than substantive.
The case, President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services, centers on compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements tied to billions in research funding. Harvard's filings emphasize additions like a course on Jewish ecology taught by Rabbi David Mevorach Seidenberg, who has accused Israel of genocide, and a student journal on Palestinian liberation and erotic poetry founded by Professor Shaul Magid, described as "counter-Zionist."
Actions vs. Outcomes
Notably absent from Harvard's submissions is updated data on Jewish student experiences. A 2024 survey revealed 49% of Jewish students felt their well-being was unsupported, with 59% reporting discrimination. The university has not conducted new surveys to assess whether touted reforms have improved campus climate. "The lack of current data undermines claims of progress," said one legal observer, noting the court may require empirical evidence of change.
Harvard's strategy also faces internal contradictions. While asserting First Amendment rights to academic freedom, the university simultaneously highlights specific hires and courses as proof of addressing antisemitism. This duality could weaken its position, as courts often demand consistency in institutional arguments.
Critics further point to inconsistencies in Harvard's actions. The Caroline Zelaznik Gruss Visiting Professorship in Talmudic Civil Law, cited as a reform, has existed since 2017. Meanwhile, the university has funded anti-Israel activists and hosted events like Ta-Nehisi Coates' paid appearance on Rosh Hashanah, which drew backlash for timing and content.
Amicus briefs filed this week reveal divided perspectives. Hillel International initially supported Harvard but withdrew its brief after procedural concerns. Other groups, including the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, argue that linking funding cuts to antisemitism could exacerbate scapegoating. Conversely, the Brandeis Center for Equal Rights Under Law contends that proving intentional discrimination may not require demonstrating "deliberate indifference," potentially lowering the bar for liability.
As litigation continues, Harvard's academic timeline moves slowly. A search for a Yiddish professor to replace retired scholar Ruth Wisse will conclude in 2027. Meanwhile, Jewish students are increasingly choosing other institutions: Harvard is absent from the Hillel college guide's list of top 60 schools by Jewish population percentage, which includes Brown, Columbia, and Yale.