University President Lawrence H. Summers’ treatment of anti-Semitism within Harvard’s divestment movement at last Tuesday’s Morning Prayers was both disingenuous and divisive. Addressing a small audience in the intimate setting of Appleton Chapel, he offered a list of examples of “actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent” advocated by “serious and thoughtful people.” He capped off this list with a dismissive attack on those who have lobbied Harvard to divest from Israel.

“Some here at Harvard and some at universities across the country have called for the University to single out Israel among all nations as the lone country where it is inappropriate for any part of the University’s endowment to be invested. I hasten to say the University has categorically rejected this suggestion,” Summers said.

While we do not doubt that there are some within the divestment campaign who are anti-Semitic—who are prejudiced against Jews—those represent only the barest minority of its members. Divestment is a political issue, one on which intelligent, open-minded people can disagree. Opposition to policies of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s government is no more an attack on the people of Israel, or on Jews in particular, than opposition to the Bush administration’s policies is an attack on the American people—and divestment is a way of expressing political dissatisfaction, albeit a particularly strong one.

We expressed our fundamental disagreement with divestment from Israel last May, as that movement was picking up steam on campuses across the U.S. But our reasoning, unlike Summers', had nothing to do with the so-called anti-Semitism of its proponents—the divestment movement undermines efforts toward a settlement by making Israel insecure, and peace will never be reached when either Israelis or Palestinians feel like they are under attack.

We do not consider ourselves anti-Palestinian for taking that stand. Accusations of bigotry, whether launched at those who oppose Israeli policy or at those who oppose affirmative action, cast a dark shadow on public discourse. They threaten to mar the reputation of those they target and, as a result, can intimidate opponents into retreating from their views. Such accusations chill debate, in effect if not in intent.

As a university president, Summers must be especially attentive to that effect. He has the potential to exercise enormous clout on the academic and professional futures of Harvard’s students and faculty—particularly on those untenured faculty who may one day require his signature at the end of the tenure process. Even if Summers never applies that clout to promote a political agenda, the mere threat of being targeted could certainly stifle critics.

The text of Summers’ speech suggests he was aware of this threat. His list of anti-Semitic activities is sandwiched between two affirmations of the value of open dialog, one immediately before and one immediately after. But that awareness was not enough to dissuade him from labeling all divestment’s advocates by its most extreme members. Summers has every right to speak his mind on political issues, to be sure. But it is incumbent upon him to do so responsibly, in a way that protects the “academic freedom of everyone to take any position,” as he himself puts it.

Such freedom requires that indictments for bigotry should be held up to the strictest burdens of proof. Summers is prescient to point to “an upturn in anti-Semitism globally,” which is a dangerous threat that must be fought vigorously. But we have seen no evidence for the link he proposes between this worldwide trend and the students and faculty who support divestment at Harvard. Summers presented no evidence beyond the misguided assumption that anything opposed to Israel’s policies is anti-Semitic.

This reasoning does not even attempt to meet the necessary burden of proof. Such arguments discredit the academic rigor of this institution and signal an ominous start to President Summers’ second year.

Dissent: President Should Speak Out

The Staff’s contention that President Lawrence H. Summers’ comments on the anti-Israel activity are stifling debate insults those who would disagree with his support of the Jewish State.

We are pleased that Summers has spoken his mind on this issue, and hope he continues to use Harvard’s bully pulpit to speak on issues relevant our community. His argument that actions against Israel may be anti-Semitic in effect deserves close scrutiny, as the Staff perceives. The problem of anti-Semitism should not be excluded from the debate over the war between Israel and the Palestinians.

—David M. DeBartolo ’03, Jonathan H. Esensten ’04, David J. Gorin ’03, Robert J. Fenster ’03, Nicholas F. Josefowitz ’05, Evan J. Lushing ’04, Anat Maytal ’05, and Andrew P. Winerman ’04