GUEST POST: Campus anti-Semitism row enters national politics

An address by a recent Harvard graduate and orthodox Jew roused last week’s Republican National Convention (RNC) with a searing condemnation of campus anti-Semitism (see video below). Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, the lead plaintiff in a law suit filed against Harvard by Jewish students, also endorsed Donald Trump’s promise to deport foreign students who break the law or harass Jewish students.

The former divinity student described the institutional culture at Harvard as illiberal, anti-western, anti-American and anti-Semitic. He went on to allege that students and professors have openly called for new Hamas-style attacks against America. 

Kestenbaum said he registered as a Democrat at 18 and once voted for Bernie Sanders, a veteran leftist senator, when he stood for president. Since then, however, Kestenbaum has turned against the far left.

The speech provoked a fierce backlash from Matthew Nekritz, a Jewish student at Harvard, in an opinion piece in the Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper. It was illustrated by a photo of Kestenbaum holding up a placard saying “from the river to the plaza send these antisemites to Gaza”. It also quoted a now deleted Instagram comment on anti-Israel protestors saying: “If you guys love the intifada so much, have you considered blowing yourselves up too? That would really show those Zionists.” The article accused Kestenbaum of hypocrisy for crititicising illiberalism in relation to Israel but staying silent in relation to Republican speakers on other topics.

Nevertheless Nekritz acknowledged there is an anti-Semitism problem on Harvard’s campus. His article noted that: “An encounter with anti-Jewish bias is pretty much a given, in one form or another, for most Jews at Harvard — especially those who vocally support Israel’s existence.”

All of this illustrates the atmosphere in which Harvard’s anti-Semitism task force and an equivalent group investigating what the university describes as “anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias”  has been working. Both task forces simultaneously published a summary report containing their recommendations in June. Full reports will be published in the autumn.

The recommendations of the reports have in part been shaped by the differing experiences of the Jewish and Arab/Muslim communities. So the anti-Semitism task force’s report recommends the outlawing of what it calls “litmus tests” by which pro-Israel students/staff are excluded from clubs and activities where the conflict in Gaza is not relevant. The task force tackling anti-Arab/Muslim bias has a section calling for action to be taken against doxing experienced by anti-Israel protesters.

Many of the recommendations of both reports are similar. Both avoided recommending specific definitions of anti-Semitism or “Islamophobia” (arguably a flawed category ). Instead they called for the publication of a common set of Harvard values. Both also supported initiatives designed to promote cross-cultural interaction and dialogue amongst students and staff. They were clear that procedures for investigating and adjudicating complaints and alleged breaches of policy need improvement. There were also recommendations regarding increasing the flexibility of university processes to allow for the observance of religious practice.

There was an emphasis on high-level staff trying to reinforce bridge-building initiatives. There should be talks given by experts held in central venues and these should be attended by the president and the provost to signify their importance to students and faculty. The anti-Semitism task force even called for money to be set aside to fund research into possible resolutions of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Given that Harvard seems to be experiencing a challenging fundraising environment at the moment this could be a stretch.

The anti-Semitism task force’s report has been criticised for not tackling the hiring and firing of faculty staff who defy university policy. It is claimed that a woke anti-Zionism/anti-Semitism that has taken root in some Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) offices. This is not entirely fair as it does suggest that DEI and teaching staff should be given training on this matter though the wording is oblique.

In fact it may turn out that the most consequential recommendations might be those relating to fixing procedures governing the handling of complaints and breaches of policy. Astonishingly it has emerged that students sanctioned for their involvement in anti-Israel protests  were not subject to a standardised disciplinary procedure. Fact-finding processes varied from university to university.

Both reports’ recommendations are, in many ways, similar to those found in the University of Pennsylvania’s anti-Semitism task force final report. It is also likely that other universities looking into the issue of anti-Semitism will make similar recommendations. The problem will be that it will take a concerted effort to make these recommendations work. 

In his Harvard Crimson piece Nekritz pointed out that in the academic year just gone, many Harvard students tried but failed to create an atmosphere in which respectful dialogue could take place. Even if litmus tests of the sort referred to above were outlawed would the rules be enforceable all of the time. Even if they were, would students excluded from a club or activity for a pro-Israel stance really want to force their way into a group where they would face constant hostility and ostracism? It is notable that Jewish students are applying to Yeshiva University a private orthodox Jewish university, while others are switching to it from other universities in record numbers.

Much will depend on the attitude of students who enter Harvard at the start of the coming academic year. It is not obvious why it should be any different to the attitudes of the students who left this year or who are still there. Meanwhile, the Department of Education has ended its investigation, into Harvard on the grounds that Kestenbaum’s lawsuit is ongoing and covers the same accusations 

Congressional representatives continue to weigh in on the controversy. Some 28 House Republicans criticised the anti-Semitism task force’s report on the grounds that it simply reinvents the wheel. It is also notable that Elise Stefanik, the New York Congresswoman who questioned then Harvard President Claudine Gay on 5 December, mentioned campus anti-Semitism in her RNC address.

In other words Harvard is not entirely in control of how it will be affected by the controversies surrounding anti-Semitism and alleged anti-Arab/Muslim bias on its campus. Matters have become mired in American national politics and feelings will likely continue to run high as long as the Gaza conflict continues. The best that can be hoped for is that, when the full reports of both task forces are published, they generate enough momentum to marginalise extremists. That would leave most campus life to carry on relatively peacefully compared with the year just gone.

Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.