Stakeholders in the campus argue that Harvard must initiate a transparent process to address and rectify its policies in order to regain trust.
Stakeholders in the campus argue that Harvard must initiate a transparent process to address and rectify its policies in order to regain trust.
In the aftermath of a controversial testimony, Harvard President Claudine Gay faces international criticism for retaining her position. The fallout unfolded when leaders, including the president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sally Kornbluth, refrained from categorizing a call for Jewish genocide as harassment.
Stakeholders in the campus argue that Harvard must initiate a transparent process to address and rectify its policies in order to regain trust.
Roni Brunn, a prominent member of the Harvard Jewish Alumni Association, emphasized the importance of transparency in Harvard’s next steps. She expressed disappointment over the vague statements and promises from the university, particularly concerning the repercussions faced by students who have engaged in antisemitism.
“The other thing about it is that Harvard, they’re saying that they did take some disciplinary action to students, but it’s held in private,” Brunn said.
Brunn emphasized the need for clarity, expressing concern that the lack of announced consequences for antisemitic behavior leaves people undeterred. She urged a clear articulation of the repercussions to make it evident that such actions will have consequences, calling the current situation as vague.
Investigation on HEIs learning environments
Following the hearing, Chairwoman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) swiftly announced that her panel would investigate the learning environments and disciplinary policies of Harvard, MIT, and UPenn, possibly extending to other schools.
Foxx indicated that the schools might be subject to subpoenas and additional calls for testimony as part of the investigation.
The Department of Education has also initiated inquiries into Harvard and UPenn regarding allegations of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
The department has also expanded its ongoing probe to include additional schools, such as Stanford University, the University of California, Los Angeles, and Rutgers University.
Harvard lacking action
Brunn highlighted the committee on antisemitism formed by Gay, expressing concern that there is limited transparency about their meetings, with insights only available when Rabbi David Wolpe resigned.
Wolpe said in his resignation, “the ideology that grips far too many of [Harvard’s] students and faculty, the ideology that works only along axes of oppression and places Jews as oppressors and therefore intrinsically evil, is itself evil.”
In contrast to Gay, Liz Magill of the University of Pennsylvania faced a different outcome as she was removed by her school’s board. This decision came despite her release of a statement retracting her testimony to Congress.
Meanwhile, MIT President Kornbluth received prompt support from her school’s board, even though she has not yet issued a statement retracting or apologizing for her congressional testimony.
Gay informed The Harvard Crimson, the school’s student newspaper, that she was “sorry” for her testimony before the House. “I got caught up in what had become at that point, an extended, combative exchange about policies and procedures,” she said.
Other institutions looking to Harvard’s guidance
Jacqueline Pfeffer Merril, director of the Campus Free Expression Project for the Bipartisan Policy Center, emphasized the significance of Harvard’s next steps. As one of the most prestigious colleges in the country, Harvard’s actions are influential, with other institutions often looking to it for guidance.
The defensive position the presidents were in during the hearing “erodes the confidence and trust of the public in our entire system of higher education,” she said.
According to Merril, the initial step in this process involves a thorough examination of free speech and expression policies on campus. She emphasizes the need for these policies to offer “robust protection for free speech” and be applied impartially, ensuring neutrality in standards.
FIRE survey
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech organization, conducts surveys on the culture of free expression on college campuses. According to their rankings, Harvard was placed last on the list, although the university disputes the methods employed by the organization.
Harvard has been in the spotlight since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, marked by a statement from 30 student-led groups attributing blame to Israel for the conflict. Subsequent protests on the campus in Cambridge, Mass., have featured slogans like “Free Palestine from the River to the Sea” and other divisive expressions.
Withdrawal from former Maryland governor
Former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan recently withdrew his participation in fellowships with Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and Chan School of Public Health adds another layer of complexity to an already heated debate around free speech, political discourse, and antisemitism on American campuses.
His action came after 30 Harvard student organizations signed a statement blaming Israel for deadly attacks perpetrated by Hamas. This move has polarized opinions and highlighted the intricate interplay between academic freedom, institutional responsibility, and political polarization.
Hogan said he was “looking forward to sharing leadership lessons with the next generation of leaders at Harvard next month,” and that he “cannot condone the dangerous antisemitism that has taken root on your campus, especially by more than 30 Harvard student organizations attempting to justify and celebrate Hamas’ terrorism against innocent Israeli and American civilians.”
