Harvard muzzles pro-Palestine voices by adopting Zionist lobby’s antisemitism definition

By Maryam Qarehgozlou

Just a day after President Donald Trump’s inauguration, Harvard University adopted a controversial definition of antisemitism in a brazen move to restrict and muzzle freedom of expression on university campuses in the United States.

According to reports, an Ivy League research university in Massachusetts, settled two lawsuits that accused it of “failing to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic bullying and harassment on campus.”

The lawsuits claimed that the university violated Title VI of the US 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or origin in programs or institutions that receive federal funding.

The plaintiffs cited alleged harassment and discrimination from fellow students and faculty members during campus protests against Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, which continued for 471 days and has so far claimed over 47,000 Palestinian lives despite the truce that came into effect earlier this month.

Campus protests erupted across universities in the United States and several European countries last year in a display of solidarity with the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, with students and faculty members denouncing the Israeli regime’s devastating assault on the besieged territory.

The demonstrators called upon their respective universities to sever ties with the apartheid regime in a collective effort to hold the Zionist regime and its Western backers accountable for their actions. 

The lawsuits against Harvard were filed by the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, and Students Against Antisemitism — a group of six Jewish students.

As part of the settlement, Harvard agreed to make changes in how it addresses antisemitism on campus in what many activists termed surrender before the powerful Zionist lobby in the US.

These changes include adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when reviewing complaints, and clarifying that Jewish and Israeli individuals are protected under the university’s non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies.

Additionally, the Ivy School agreed to draft an annual report for the next five years detailing the university’s response to discrimination and harassment, hiring a consultant for complaints of anti-Semitism, and providing staff training on combating anti-Semitism.

In a statement, a Harvard University spokesperson said the settlement reflects Harvard’s "enduring commitment to ensuring our Jewish students, faculty, and staff are embraced, respected, and supported.”

Despite Harvard University’s initial attempts to dismiss the lawsuits, the institution ultimately gave in to pressure from Trump and fellow pro-Zionist Republicans as threats to withdraw federal funding from universities, if pro-Palestine protests persisted, intensified the situation.

“Colleges will and must end the antisemitic propaganda or they will lose their accreditation and federal support,” Trump said in virtual remarks in September at the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas.

After the Biden administration deployed police to dismantle protest encampments at several US universities, including the University of Columbia, made thousands of arrests and forced the resignations of numerous university presidents—most notably Claudine Gay of Harvard University—the Trump administration looks poised to impose a greater crackdown on free speech.

Earlier this month, reports emerged indicating that several universities across the US settled antisemitism complaints with the Department of Education during the final weeks of the Biden administration before Trump returned to the White House.

Biden administration’s Department of Education came under fire from Republicans for the “toothless agreements” that aimed to “shield schools from real accountability by the incoming Trump administration.”

Analysts suggest that Trump and his supporters aim to transform American higher education through Project Esther, a blueprint pitched by the right-wing Heritage Foundation.

The plan seeks to “dismantle” the pro-Palestine movement on US campuses “when a willing administration occupies the White House.”

While Trump has previously proposed eliminating the Department of Education, some of his advisers have expressed hope he will use its tools, like Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, to eradicate the pro-Palestine activism on US campuses under the guise of fighting antisemitism.

In October, in a meeting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the leading Zionist lobby in the US, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise detailed plans to strip federal funding and accreditation from prestigious universities, including Harvard, for allowing pro-Palestine protests.

What is the IHRA definition of antisemitism?

IHRA's definition of antisemitism is a non-legally binding statement that has been manipulated to serve as a “guideline” for identifying and addressing antisemitism.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews,” reads the definition.

Specific examples include “claiming that the existence of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.”

The IHRA adopted the definition in 2016, and, following strong pressure from the Zionist lobby, it has been accepted by the US, several European governments and some EU groups and organizations.

US campus protests show Zionists failed to manipulate public opinion in West

What these student protests on university campuses across the US underline is the fact that the attempts to manipulate public opinion have failed spectacularly.

In 2019, then-president Trump signed an executive order expanding the scope of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to prohibit “forms of discrimination rooted in anti-Semitism.”

The order stipulated that when enforcing such cases, federal agencies would consider the controversial IHRA definition of antisemitism.

Kenneth Stern, a lawyer, scholar, and the lead drafter of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in 2004, warned at the time that Trump’s order was an “attack on academic freedom and free speech.”  

In Stern’s words, the definition has been “weaponized with Title VI cases” to effectively impose speech codes on college campuses.

Stern, an unapologetic Zionist, in his 2020 book “The Conflict Over the Conflict,” also described the organized Jewish community’s promotion of the IHRA definition as “one of the most significant threats to the campus today, and to Jewish students and faculty.”

In a May interview with the New Yorker, he repeated the same concerns, warning that codifying this definition into law would set a dangerous precedent by exposing schools to civil rights investigations for allowing lectures or programs that included legitimate criticism of Israel.

It “was not drafted, and was never intended, as a tool to target or chill speech on a college campus,” he reiterated, adding that the definition has been misused as “a blunt instrument to label anyone an antisemite.”

In April, over 100 organizations urged the United Nations to reject the definition because it “has often been used to wrongly label criticism of Israel as antisemitic, and thus [to] chill and sometimes suppress, non-violent protest, activism and speech critical of Israel and/or Zionism.”

Harvard University’s recent decision to adopt the IHRA definition has once again sparked similar concerns among students, faculty, and advocates of academic freedom, fearing it restricts the ability to engage in meaningful conversations about the ongoing Palestinian struggle for liberation.

“Once a highly-respected institution of higher learning, Harvard, with the adoption of the Israel lobby’s “IHRA definition”, has now officially abandoned free speech, academic freedom, and the defense of human rights on behalf of an oppressive foreign regime practicing apartheid & committing genocide,” Former UN official and human rights lawyer Craig Mokhiber wrote in a post on X, formerly Twitter.

Mokhiber emphasized the need for collective resistance against the “Israeli-exported fascism” infiltrating US institutions.

“At Harvard, you are allowed to freely criticize any of the 194 countries in the world, including the US, but not Israel. And all political philosophies are open to free criticism except Zionism. That is not education. It’s indoctrination," he wrote.

“Israeli-exported fascism is seeping into US institutions across the country. It must be opposed by all."

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir