Harvard agrees to adopt a broad definition of antisemitism to settle two lawsuits

Harvard University has agreed to strengthen its policies against antisemitism on campus as part of a settlement of two federal lawsuits accusing the school of not doing enough to prevent antisemitic discrimination and harassment.

Under the deal, Harvard will adopt the broad International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of antisemitism, which considers certain cases of anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli criticism as antisemitism. Critics say the definition is overly strict and wrongly conflates the two, and will stifle free and open academic inquiry. Harvard calls the move one of many “robust steps” that will ensure that “Jewish and Israeli students are treated in the same manner and with the same urgency as all protected groups.”

As part of the deal, Harvard will post an explainer stating that “For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity” and will also list examples of antisemitism, such as “excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a ‘no Zionist’ litmus test for participation in any Harvard activity.”

Harvard also agreed that for the next five years it will publicly share the outcomes of alleged cases of antisemitism along with complaints of other forms of bias. Students have accused Harvard of being more lax when enforcing harassment and discrimination policies involving Jews, compared with Black or LGBTQ students, for example.

Harvard says it will mandate outside training for staff reviewing antisemitism complaints, and will invest additional resources to study antisemitism, including hosting an annual academic symposium on the topic, hosting a variety of events on campus and partnering with an Israeli university.

“When fully implemented, this agreement will help ensure that Jewish students are able to learn and thrive in an environment free from anti-Semitic hate, discrimination, and harassment,” said Kenneth L. Marcus, former U.S. assistant secretary of education and chairman of the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which filed one of the lawsuits accusing Harvard of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That prohibits discrimination based on race, religion and national origin in schools that receive federal funds.

Harvard also agreed to an unspecified monetary payment, but the university did not admit to any wrongdoing.

“We are committed to ensuring our Jewish community is embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard,” the university said in a statement. “We are resolute in our efforts to confront antisemitism.”

The settlement was welcomed by many on campus, including Harvard Law school professor Noah Feldman. He says the clarification was especially needed in the wake of the congressional hearing where Harvard’s then-president, Claudine Gay, struggled to answer whether certain scenarios would cross the line into prohibited antisemitic conduct.

“The truth is, as a matter of law, it does depend,” says Feldman, so it’s important that Harvard has now articulated more clearly the criteria it will use to determine what crosses the line. But, he says, it’s not very different from the rules it has applied in the past.

“It’s a commonsensical balance,” he says. “People have to be able to say whatever they believe, and you need a respectful community where all participants can take part in debate without being bullied, harassed or discriminated against. These are both equally important parts of the university’s core mission.”

But the settlement drew angry rebukes on campus and online, including from the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee. The group accused Harvard on social media of using a “widely contested” definition of antisemitism to “silence support for Palestinians.”

Another user, identified as Jayanti Leslie-Iyer, a Harvard student, replied “it’s insane that harvard has exceptionalized [sic] israel and zionism to be above criticism.”

Violet Baron, a Harvard junior and organizer with the group Harvard out of occupied Palestine as well as Jews for Palestine, calls the settlement “extremely dangerous.”

Baron says she has been among those protesters chanting “Zionists are not welcome here.”

“To me that’s like saying racists aren’t welcome here,” she says. “Zionism is a political ideology, and for Harvard to protect Zionists, perhaps at the expense of free speech, that is not what combating antisemitism looks like. That’s what policing speech looks like.”

Marc Kasowitz, the attorney who brought the lawsuit and negotiated the settlement with Harvard, vehemently rejects such arguments.

“There’s nothing about our settlement that prohibits or limits political speech in any way, shape or form,” he says. “However, if anyone expresses the idea that they believe Zionists should not be welcome at Harvard, because of a belief that [they] have in the existence of the state of Israel, that sounds very antisemitic to me.”

Several other schools have recently settled similar lawsuits, and suits are pending against others, including the University of Pennsylvania and Columbia University.

But at Harvard, even this agreement does not completely settle the issue.

One student who was part of the lawsuit declined to be part of the deal, and is taking his claim to trial instead. A federal judge already has ruled against Harvard’s bid to get the case dismissed, saying “Harvard failed its Jewish students” and that the university “cannot hide behind the First Amendment” to avoid complying with anti-discrimination laws.