Harvard University is defending its approach to tackling antisemitism on campus in the case President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services. The lawsuit centres on the university’s compliance with federal anti‑discrimination requirements that are tied to billions of dollars in research funding.
Legal arguments and the university’s evidence
Harvard’s legal team, which includes high‑profile attorneys Paul Clement and William Burck, argues that recent faculty hires and new academic offerings demonstrate a genuine commitment to a safe environment for Jewish students. Among the initiatives highlighted are a course on Jewish ecology taught by Rabbi David Mevorach Seidenberg – a figure who has publicly accused Israel of genocide – and a student‑run journal on Palestinian liberation and erotic poetry founded by Professor Shaul Magid, described as “counter‑Zionist”.
Missing data and criticism
Critics point out that Harvard’s filings omit any updated statistics on Jewish student experiences. A 2024 survey found that 49 % of Jewish students felt their well‑being was unsupported and 59 % reported experiencing discrimination. The university has not commissioned a new survey to gauge whether its recent reforms have altered the campus climate.
“The lack of current data undermines claims of progress,” said one legal observer.
Legal analysts note that courts often require empirical evidence of change, and the absence of fresh data could weaken Harvard’s position.
Internal contradictions
Harvard simultaneously invokes First Amendment protections for academic freedom while presenting specific hires and courses as proof of progress. This dual approach may be seen as inconsistent, potentially undermining the university’s argument that it is both protecting free speech and actively combating antisemitism.
Further inconsistencies are highlighted by critics. The Caroline Zelaznik Gruss Visiting Professorship in Talmudic Civil Law, cited as a reform, has been in place since 2017. At the same time, the university has funded anti‑Israel activists and hosted a paid appearance by Ta‑Nehisi Coates on Rosh Hashanah, an event that attracted backlash for its timing and content.
Amicus briefs and divergent views
Amicus briefs filed this week reveal a split among Jewish organisations. Hillel International initially supported Harvard but withdrew its brief over procedural concerns. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs warned that linking funding cuts to antisemitism could fuel scapegoating, while the Brandeis Center for Equal Rights Under Law argued that proving intentional discrimination may not require showing “deliberate indifference”, potentially lowering the threshold for liability.
Academic timeline and student choices
Harvard’s academic timetable moves slowly. A search for a new Yiddish professor to replace retired scholar Ruth Wisse will not conclude until 2027. Meanwhile, Jewish students appear to be gravitating towards other institutions; Harvard is absent from the Hillel college guide’s list of the top 60 schools by Jewish population percentage, a list that includes Brown, Columbia and Yale.