On April 29, Harvard released its long-awaited reports on campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias. The task forces, convened together by then-interim President Alan M. Garber in January 2024, published initial findings in June 2024, but publication of the final reports were continually delayed. The Department of Human Health and Services’ Office for Civil Rights demanded Harvard turn over the reports by Friday, May 2: their publication comes three days before that deadline.
The two reports fit together awkwardly. In some respects, they align: each task force called for stronger anti-bullying policies, more respectful discourse programs, and greater consistency in academic and disciplinary policies; each report shared stories of students treated with disdain, attacked on social media, pressured to hide their identities, and pushed to the periphery of campus life; each asked that the studied group’s suffering be assessed in its own right, not compared to the other group’s.
But in many ways, the two reports diverge and even work against each other. The anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias task force (hereafter referred to as the anti-Muslim task force) recommended increasing the study of Palestine; the antisemitism and anti-Israel task force (hereafter referred to as the antisemitism task force) criticized the University for offering one-sided, pro-Palestine courses. The anti-Muslim task force relayed student concerns about a “Palestine exception to free speech,” where speech related to Palestine is overpoliced; the antisemitism task force refuted the existence of such a standard, instead saying that pro-Palestine perspectives are frequently available, whereas Israel is widely criticized in courses. The anti-Muslim task force asked the University to consider its stance on “divestment, disclosure, and engagement” with Israeli companies; the antisemitism task force noted that the divestment movement on campus heightened tensions and that the culture of divestment alienates Israeli and Jewish students.
The two reports are broad—532 pages combined—and include the histories of each group on campus, timelines of campus Israel-Palestine protests throughout the past four decades, logs of hateful incidents, collections of student anecdotes from surveys and listening sessions, and recommendations. The reports primarily rely on survey data and student anecdotes. The task forces were not charged with investigating, verifying, or litigating campus hatred—other campus and government groups are analyzing such incidents. Their recommendations span admissions, academics, administration, and student life. In his community-wide email today, President Garber wrote that in line with the groups’s recommendations, the University is starting a research project on antisemitism, supporting a historical analysis of Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians at Harvard, and speeding the establishment of an initiative to promote viewpoint diversity.
The scope of each committee also grew over time. The antisemitism task force added “anti-Israeli bias” to its name in June 2024 to “better reflect the Task Force’s charge.” (The report notes that Israeli students—Jewish and non-Jewish—have faced particular hardship on campus.) The antisemitism task force also dedicated significant efforts to analyzing the status of anti-Zionist Jews on campus, who faced criticism from both Jews and non-Jews. The anti-Muslim task force added “anti-Palestinian bias” to its name to reflect “the impact on…many community members facing bias due to their pro-Palestinian stance.”
These reports do not exist in a vacuum. Harvard’s seemingly slow response to campus chaos opened the door for people somewhat removed from campus to express their thoughts. Several groups took it upon themselves to investigate campus antisemitism: Bill Ackman ’88, M.B.A. ’92 in fall 2023, the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance in summer 2024, and the Trump administration this spring (although without any evidence, so far, of having investigated campus events or conditions independently). As many groups looked toward Harvard, they demanded very different changes. The antisemitism task force wrote, “Since Fall 2023, different factions at Harvard have fought to force various University leaders to make statements, invest, divest, hire, fire, doxx, un-doxx, discipline students and undiscipline them.”
The task forces condemned some tactics by outside groups. The anti-Muslim report discussed the doxing of pro-Palestine student activists and noted that many students felt that the University did not adequately defend its students. The antisemitism report began with an addendum asking “external parties, even if well-intentioned” (understood to be the Trump administration) not to “seek to compel adoption of some of our proposed reforms.” It continued, “If they do so, they will make it more difficult for Harvard to fix itself.”
In the reports, Harvard reflected on its tense campus environment of the past two years. President Garber began his email today by writing “The 2023-24 academic year was disappointing and painful. I am sorry for the moments when we failed to meet the high expectations we rightfully set for our community.”
The language used to describe the October 7 attacks has subtly changed, too. After then-President Claudine Gay’s initial email message on October 10 failed “to meet the needs of the moment,” in the words of former Harvard president Lawrence S. Summers, she continually and explicitly referred to Hamas’s incursion as a terrorist attack. In his email today, Garber noted that “the grave, extensive impact of the October 7, 2023, Hamas assault on Israel and its aftermath had serious repercussions on our campus.”
Some recommendations from the task force are already being implemented. Harvard has clarified its protest rules, restricted its ability to comment on political matters, and initiated programming on constructive dialogue. And some Trump administration demands align with findings from the antisemitism report. The antisemitism task force found that many Jewish students did not feel welcomed by the Office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion: Harvard today renamed that office and adjusted its mandate. Their report criticized the Harvard Divinity School—particularly its Religion and Public Life program—for fostering an environment hostile to pro-Israel perspectives; the program was suspended in early April.
These weighty reports will likely capture the attention of students, faculty, and alumni as well as legislators, journalists, and donors. They raise an important question. How will Harvard balance the competing interests of these two task forces and the disparate voices seeking to influence campus life?
