Why has Harvard adopted a new definition of antisemitism?

Harvard University has officially adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, marking a significant shift in its approach to addressing discrimination complaints.

This move follows the resolution of two lawsuits filed by Jewish advocacy groups and students who alleged that the university failed to adequately protect Jewish students from harassment and antisemitism on campus.

The lawsuits, led by organisations such as the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, and Students Against Antisemitism, culminated in a settlement designed to foster a safer and more inclusive environment for Jewish students at the institution.

What is the new definition adopted by Harvard?

The IHRA defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” Specific examples include “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavour” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

Proponents state that the definition is a necessary tool to identify and combat antisemitism effectively, while critics caution that it could conflate legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitic behaviour.

More from Explainers

Is your house heating up and making you miserable? Paint it white How ChatGPT is becoming everyone’s BFF and why that’s dangerous

Under the terms of the settlement, Harvard has agreed to apply this definition in investigating complaints of discrimination or harassment.

The university will also publish a Frequently Asked Questions section to clarify that harassment of Zionists or individuals targeted for their Jewish identity violates its anti-discrimination policies. Recognising that Zionism is an integral aspect of identity for many Jewish individuals, Harvard has committed to treating discriminatory actions against Zionists as breaches of its policies.

How else is Harvard planning to combat antisemitism?

In addition to adopting the IHRA definition, Harvard has outlined a comprehensive set of initiatives aimed at combating antisemitism:

• Annual reporting: The university will publish a yearly public report on Title VI violations related to antisemitism for five consecutive years.

• Dedicated oversight: A new official within the Office for Community Conduct will be appointed to handle complaints of antisemitism.

• Collaborative outreach: Harvard plans to partner with an Israeli university to foster academic and cultural collaboration.

• Awareness initiatives: The university will organise campus events to promote dialogue and raise awareness about antisemitism and Jewish identity.

The settlement also includes a provision allowing the Brandeis Center to host events and discussions on campus, further underscoring Harvard’s commitment to open and constructive engagement on these issues.

What is behind Harvard’s decision?

The university’s decision has been shaped by recent events, including the October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent nationwide campus protests .

During this period , Jewish students at Harvard reported incidents of harassment and threats, with some accusing the university’s leadership of failing to act decisively.

These concerns were magnified during Congressional hearings, where university administrators, including Harvard’s former president Claudine Gay , faced criticism for their handling of antisemitic incidents.

Editor’s Picks

1

Harvard, Stanford MBAs struggling to find jobs: What’s behind the decline? 2

Israel-Hamas ceasefire: A ‘half-baked’ solution, yet a good beginning

The challenges Harvard faces are not unique. The US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights and members of Congress have intensified their scrutiny of antisemitism in higher education, pressing universities to adopt robust measures against hate and discrimination.

Is this the right step forward for Harvard?

While many have applauded the settlement as a significant step forward, the decision has also provoked debate within the academic and Jewish communities.

Advocates like Kenneth L Marcus, founder of the Brandeis Center and former US assistant secretary of education, described the move as one that “ensures Jewish students can learn and thrive in an environment free from antisemitic hate.”

“Zionist is often a code word for Jews,” he said, adding, “Harvard is making clear that rules against Zionists are as objectionable as rules against Jews.”

Conversely, critics such as Kenneth Stern, a primary drafter of the IHRA definition, have voiced concerns about its application in academic settings, warning that it might stifle open debate and infringe on academic freedom, particularly concerning discussions about Israel and West Asia.

“I would much rather universities make clear that nobody is going to be harassed for any reason and avoid these types of issues on speech,” said Stern, who is now the director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, according to The New York Times.

Also Watch:

With inputs from agencies