Harvard Settled Two Antisemitism Lawsuits a Day After Trump Took Office
“Per the settlements, Harvard will clarify that its non-discrimination policies protect Israeli and Jewish students and adopt the widely-used but controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism.”
On the campaign trail, Trump said that he would go after schools that tolerated antisemitism on campus. Harvard clearly got the message. Just one day after Trump was sworn in, the elite institution settled two ongoing lawsuits based on the mistreatment of Jewish students on campus.
Other schools should take note, and get their acts together – quickly.
Harvard has settled two antisemitism lawsuits against it.
Among other things, it will adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism and create “an official partnership with a university in Israel — directly contradicting the demands of pro-Palestine campus organizations.” pic.twitter.com/94sXNRYmwv
— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) January 21, 2025
From the Harvard Crimson:
One Day After Trump Takes Office, Harvard Settles Two Antisemitism Lawsuits
Harvard settled two Title VI lawsuits accusing the University of tolerating antisemitism on campus for an undisclosed amount on Tuesday, closing the proceedings just after President Donald Trump — who has promised to punish universities over antisemitism claims — took office.
Per the settlements, Harvard will clarify that its non-discrimination policies protect Israeli and Jewish students and adopt the widely-used but controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism.
The definition — which a group of pro-Israel affiliates urged Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 to adopt in a May letter — classifies certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. The definition could allow Harvard to crack down on pro-Palestine student protesters who have condemned Israel’s war in Gaza and policies toward Palestinians, often in harsh terms.
Harvard explicitly stated it will adopt the definition’s “accompanying examples,” which state that it is antisemitic to describe Israel’s existence as a “racist endeavor” or compare its contemporary policies to those of the Nazis.
The settlements apply to litigation efforts from Students Against Antisemitism, a group of six Harvard students, and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education.
The Brandeis Center put out this press release:
The Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education Agree with Harvard to Settle Title VI Litigation
Today, Plaintiffs The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (“JAFE”) announced that they have reached an agreement to resolve their claims against Harvard University. As part of the settlement, Harvard has agreed to implement a series of steps, building on measures that Harvard has undertaken over the past year as a part of its commitment to combating anti-Semitism. Harvard and the Brandeis Center look forward to working together in these efforts.
The agreement resolves claims raised by the Brandeis Center and JAFE on behalf of Harvard students in a federal lawsuit. Under the agreement, and consistent with Harvard’s existing Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying Policies (“NDAB”), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of ancestry, religion, national origin, or political beliefs, Harvard will incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of anti-Semitism including accompanying examples applied in the manner described in guidance issued by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”) in 2021 and 2024. Harvard will accordingly consider in the same manner the IHRA definition and examples when evaluating NDAB complaints raising allegations of anti-Semitic discrimination or harassment.
That last part about IHRA is very important. We wrote about it just a year ago:
Left-wing Activists Pressure American Bar Association Not To Adopt Widely-Accepted IHRA Definition of Antisemitism
Legal Insurrection Foundation doesn’t often compliment the American Bar Association these days. But, we’re tentatively applauding the decision of a group of its sections to propose a resolution condemning antisemitism. Resolution 514, as it’s known, is slated to be presented to the ABA’s House of Delegates for approval, at the HOD’s upcoming February meeting.
The resolution urges federal, state, and local governments to condemn antisemitism. It isn’t worded as clearly as it could be, but it encourages governments to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA’s) working definition of antisemitism…
Among the manifestations of antisemitism which the IHRA definition condemns is unfairly targeting Israel, as by “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” or “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation”; and targeting Jewish people on the pretext of “Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.” The resolution notes that “The United States [– or at least the U.S. State Department –] now uses this working definition and has encouraged other governments and international organizations to use it as well.”
I’ll leave you with this classic clip of the well-known writer and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“Harvard will clarify that its non-discrimination policies protect Israeli and Jewish students”
Previously, the policy was clear as mud.
By the vile administrators’ and faculty’s actions, it was certainly clear that Harvard’s codes of conduct inured to the benefit of other ethnic/religious groups, but not Jews.
There was extremely outrageous conduct by Pales at Harvard and other institutions. The worst offenders should be perminately expelled as a warning to others, noncitizens deported and banned.
>>Harvard settled two Title VI lawsuits accusing the University of tolerating antisemitism on campus for an undisclosed amount on Tuesday . . . <<
And "undisclosed amount" which means it's probably just a token amount and just a pittance of what they could have won at trial. But if they're happy with it then I guess one can't complain. But I'm more than sure Harvard got off easy with this settlement.
Do you think so? I’ve always considered “undisclosed amount” meant that the payer wanted to avoid embarrassment and shame… and quite possibly a goldrush of other claims.
I’ve always considered “undisclosed amount” simply to mean the defendants paid off the plaintiff with the bare minimum they could get away with and then simply didn’t want to disclose how little they actually paid.
The reason I never thought so is that it’s the payer who demands the nondisclosure, so the payment has to be large enough to buy the receiver’s silence. If an offender wanted to short change me on the settlement, I have no incentive to keep the amount quiet, which gives me leverage to hold out for more. If they don’t offer more, I sing anyway.
The idea that Harvard has agree to “protect” one group from another seems to indicate the offending group is still tolerated and condoned to an unacceptable extent.
NO ONE should be able to behave as the Pali lovers have, no matter the reason or alleged justification. These schools have made it clear that their admin and faculties are ideologically aligned with the “protestors.”. Being forced to pay a little (and not out of their own pockets, I notice) will do nothing to fundamentally alter this.
Maybe just close down the school. This shouldn’t have happened in the first place. We shouldn’t have to sue in order to study in peace.
Or move the school to Gaza, they could use an education, so lets give them one.