In early May, when the cochairs of the University’s task forces on combating antisemitism and combating anti-Muslim, -Arab, and -Palestinian bias commented briefly on what they had heard from the community, they offered similar impressions. Ali S. Asani, Albertson professor of Middle Eastern studies and professor of Indo-Muslim and Islamic religion and cultures (cochair of the latter), sketched “a great deal of anxiety and fear of being targeted” on campus for the mere fact of being, or being perceived as, Arab, Muslim, or Palestinian, amid instances of being doxxed and harassed—conditions he described as “frankly, dehumanization.” Frost professor of Jewish history Derek Penslar, cochair of the antisemitism task force, described “a lack of trust, between students and the administration and between students” even preceding the Hamas attack last October 7. His group’s listening sessions highlighted “deep-seated problems,” with “many Jewish affiliates profoundly unnerved” by “social exclusion and shunning.”
Asani said the University faced the challenge of “engaging with and understanding difference, and building bridges,” within the curriculum and beyond, as intentional elements of a Harvard education. Overcoming that would require introducing new teaching methods and educating the community about religious literacy. Penslar reported a lack of healthy discussion of “controversial subjects” amid pervasive fear and distrust: for an academic community, a sign of things gone off the rails. Their overlapping perceptions pointed, perhaps, toward common remedies. (Read more at harvardmag.com/fas-task-24.)
Both task forces, organized in January, issued preliminary findings and near-term recommendations on June 26, with final reports (including in-depth investigations of campus culture) and longer-term action plans due in the fall semester.
As they had forecast, each group again reported similar, dismaying conditions. To cite only some of the language: “Muslims, Palestinians, Arab Christians, and others of Arab descent as well as pro-Palestinian allies described a state of uncertainty, abandonment, threat, and isolation, and a pervasive climate of intolerance,” while “The situation of Israeli students at Harvard has been dire. They have frequently been subject to derision and social exclusion,” and “We have heard disturbing reports that faculty members and teaching fellows discriminate against or harass students because they are Israeli or have pro-Israel views.”
Among immediate recommendations, Asani’s task force called for:
• providing 24-hour, rapid, real-time helpline support for safety concerns;
• focusing attention on doxxing, which the task force urged be denounced as “an abhorrent activity”;
• offering University statements of support for all community “groups equally, without overlooking affected groups”;
• expanding Palestinian studies curricular offerings and recruiting tenure-track faculty in support of this objective (and related efforts to gather information on academic resources and needs);
• clarifying policies and procedures for reporting bullying, bias, and discrimination;
• reaffirming the University’s commitment to free expression and open debate, and clearly, effectively communicating policies on protest and dissent;
• revisiting the University’s 2018 statement of its declared values—and including community members’ safety as an explicit part of the values articulated;
• finding ways “to publicly highlight and clarify its adherence to fundraising best practices that protect academic freedom and institutional independence”;
• fostering conversations within Houses and dorms, facilitating faculty-organized community conversations on diversity and pluralism during orientation, and addressing “religious illiteracy” as it is “a significant factor contributing to stereotypes and prejudices”; and
• strengthening interfaith and multifaith understanding of religious holidays, observances, dietary needs, and related factors.
The antisemitism task force highlighted prompt action on:
• clarifying Harvard’s values (“[A]ntisemitism and anti-Israeli bias—like Islamophobia, anti-Arab bias, racism, misogyny, homophobia, or transphobia—are forms of hatred that have no place within the Harvard community”);
• acting against discrimination, bullying, harassment, and hate, across the University and in specific problem instances such as the use of social media and the reported student belief that participation in extracurricular activities may be subjected to litmus tests—a form of exclusion the University must end;
• improving disciplinary processes, as students report a lack of clarity on submission of complaints about antisemitic behavior, and “the policies of administrative boards and other disciplinary bodies vary widely across the University’s separate units, and there are significant disparities across units in the handling of disciplinary cases” [see the commentary, “Own Goals,” in this issue]—to address many community members’ “doubt [that] the University is committed to imposing substantive consequences for antisemitic expression or action”;
• adopting measures on education and training of officers responsible for implementing equity, diversity, inclusion and belonging policies pertaining to antisemitism, and for new students and student leaders;
• fostering constructive dialogue—by having senior University officials attend talks by leaders with opposing viewpoints on controversial issues (a recommendation made by both task forces), sponsoring faculty talks on “historic and contemporary relations between Christianity, Islam, and Judaism,” and encouraging student conversations and research; and
• supporting Jewish life on campus.
In a Harvard Gazette interview accompanying release of the preliminary reports, antisemitism task force cochair Jared Ellias said, “We have to return to our foundational principles as an educational institution and recognize both the potential that we have, but also the inherent limitations as a university that’s in the business of admitting students, teaching them, and giving them a degree.” Ellias, who is Collins professor of law, continued, “We must also appreciate that the global ambitions of the University mean that we’re going to bring together a gigantically different group of people where what they have in common is their excellence. And we’re going to, hopefully, let them meet each other, form meaningful friendships and relationships, and then help them become leaders in the world that they’re going to graduate into.”
At the end of the day, that points to recommitting to Harvard’s educational role and strengthening its effectiveness. Asani’s task force put its preliminary report in the context of longer-term measures, possibly entailing “substantial changes in institutional policies, curricular and co-curricular improvements, and rethinking of the structure of religious life on campus”—the kinds of recommendations both groups seem likely to advance.
Interim president Alan M. Garber, who created the task forces, welcomed their initial efforts, which he attributed to their “willingness to seek truth, to listen while withholding judgment, and to speak with kindness”—traits he called “a powerful example of how I hope we can proceed together.” He also cited “their optimism. After having spent months leading the task forces during what has been a strife-filled time for Harvard, they have developed a shared belief in the possibility that our community will change for the better, becoming more welcoming and inclusive.” But given the gravity of the issues the task forces detailed, Garber soberly noted, “The work ahead of us will require concerted effort.”
Read more about the preliminary reports at harvardmag.com/task-report-24, and follow coverage of the final reports, expected this fall, at www.harvardmagazine.com.
