Harvard University has settled two federal lawsuits alleging antisemitic discrimination on campus following nearly a year of wrangling.
As part of the agreement, the famous college will incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, and the contemporary examples appended to the definition, when evaluating allegations of discrimination
The university was sued in May 2024 in the wake of pro-Palestinian campus protests that emerged after the Hamas-led terrorist attacks in southern Israel on October 7, 2023.
Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Brandeis Center, which brought the suit, and a former US assistant secretary of education, told JNS that Harvard’s announcement marks a shift beyond symbolic gestures.
“What is so important about Harvard’s incorporation of the IHRA working definition is that they are not merely using it for educational purposes,” he said. “They are committing to weaving it into their non-discrimination policies and practices.”
“This is something that every college and university should do,” Marcus added. “Most of them have been resisting it.”
IHRA’s non-legally binding, working definition, which the group adopted in 2016, includes examples of Jew-hatred like comparing Israel to Nazis or unfairly criticising the Jewish state. Some 43 countries have adopted the definition, as have international organisations and state and local governments.
“It is part and parcel of federal law, so it shouldn’t be so hard to convince universities that they need to do it,” Marcus told JNS. “But we’re in a much better position as a result of this agreement, now that Harvard is publicly stating that it will be using this working definition of antisemitism for compliance purposes.”
Marcus thinks that Harvard’s adoption of the IHRA definition “will be helpful when we are dealing with colleges and universities around the country.” He also doesn’t think it’s a coincidence that Harvard opted to settle the lawsuits as US President Donald Trump began his second term.
The new president has previously signalled his intention to penalise universities with unresolved antisemitism claims.
“I would call this a Trump effect,” Marcus said. “Nobody wants to have pending litigation when the new sheriff comes to town. I would credit the force of President Trump’s statements about campus antisemitism as a significant reason why so many colleges have been more interested in resolving cases in recent weeks than they had been prior to the general election.”
Marcus told JNS that the agreement could set a precedent for how colleges address campus Jew-hatred. “We see this as a pivotal moment,” he said. “It’s not so much that antisemitic incidents will stop, but that more administrators will be prepared to address the incidents as they arise.”
“Having Harvard University on board means that we will be able to point to this standard every single day, and it will be the new floor for future agreements and will be the new standard for future compliance,” he added.
Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, told JNS that the resolution of the lawsuit will be a turning point for the university.
“I think you can trace the need for this settlement as a clarification back to the infamous Capitol Hill hearing with Claudine Gay, in which the president of the university was pushed to answer this somewhat complex and difficult legal question about Harvard’s rules,” he said.
“That’s one of the reasons that this settlement is, in my perspective, good for the university as well as good for the plaintiffs because it clarifies something that might not have needed clarification were it not for those events,” Feldman said. “But because of those events, it’s very valuable to get clarification that antisemitism, just like racism and Islamophobia, are encompassed within the university’s anti-discrimination policies.”
At the congressional hearing on December 5, 2023, Gay and the presidents of the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology were asked repeatedly if calling for genocide against all Jews violated their campus policies. The presidents testified before the House Education and Workforce Committee that calling for the genocide of Jews wouldn’t necessarily violate their procedures.
“The university needs to be able to protect the academic freedom of all of the students, faculty and staff, and simultaneously, it also needs to be able to assure that everyone who’s in the university is treated equally and is not discriminated against or bullied or harassed,” Feldman said.
“Both of those objectives are, I would say, mission-critical for the university,” he said. “What’s good about today’s settlement is that, in my view, it really respects both of those objectives.”
A Harvard spokesperson said: “Today’s settlement reflects Harvard’s enduring commitment to ensuring our Jewish students, faculty, and staff are embraced, respected, and supported.”
