{shortcode-0a6d1462c6d78023c353c437a10ec88fff55a042}

Updated November 1, 2024, at 3:20 p.m.

{shortcode-be29865d8a9c7908fa05930b7f2d42574eaa573c}n a tense exchange of emails and text messages two days after Hamas attacked Israel, 18 top Harvard administrators collectively drafted — and watered down — a public statement that backfired, drawing wide condemnation and ultimately contributing to Claudine Gay’s resignation as president.

While much of the world reacted with horror and outrage at the murder of more than 1,000 Israelis, the administrators debated whether to disavow a social media post signed by more than 30 student groups that held Israel “entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence.” Ultimately, their statement said nothing about it.

Instead, as the student groups made national headlines, Gay, then-Provost Alan M. Garber ’76, and their top deans agonized over minute wording. Harvard Medical School Dean George Q. Daley ’82 objected to using the word “violent” to describe Hamas’ attack. After further debate, it was eventually removed from the final version.

The internal deliberations were revealed in a 325-page report released on Thursday by the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce, the latest update from its nearly yearlong investigation into campus antisemitism at Harvard.

The documents published in the report offer a remarkable, behind-the-scenes view into how Harvard officials repeatedly struggled for weeks to strike the right tone as they attempted to placate students, faculty members, and donors who were sharply divided over the war in Gaza.

The report also showed how Gay’s administration was increasingly under pressure from alumni and members of the University’s governing boards months before Gay’s hold on the presidency became increasingly precarious after her disastrous congressional testimony.

For Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who chairs the Committee on Education and the Workforce, the report demonstrated that universities like Harvard failed to protect Jewish students on campus and were reluctant to condemn antisemitism.

“Our investigation has shown that these ‘leaders’ bear the responsibility for the chaos likely violating Title VI and threatening public safety,” she said in a press release.

“It is time for the executive branch to enforce the laws and ensure colleges and universities restore order and guarantee that all students have a safe learning environment,” Foxx said.

Though most of the material published by the committee is several months old, the report dealt Harvard its most crushing public relations blow to date since the committee began its drip-drip release of documents earlier this year.

In a statement to The Crimson, Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81 expressed confidence in Garber and the current direction of the University.

“I have every confidence that President Garber and his administration, working with the Provost, Deans and Faculty, will continue to help Harvard learn and grow from the challenges it has faced, recognizing that our work is not done and that Harvard will continue to address these issues with the dedication and humility they require,” Pritzker wrote.

{shortcode-c0f82f2a04bdef5eb263d02934f349cc0a23763f}

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that “antisemitism has no place on our campus, and across the university we have intensified our efforts to listen to, learn from, support, and uplift our Jewish community, affirming their vital place at Harvard.”

“At the same time, the university has taken steps to strengthen and clarify rules for use of campus spaces and disciplinary policies and procedures, as well as engage our community around civil dialogue to bridge divides,” Newton added. “This work is ongoing, and Harvard is fully committed to it and confident we are moving in the right direction.”

The report, however, revealed how the University struggled to respond to campus protests and determine when rhetoric from pro-Palestine activists crossed a line when it had not clarified its policies and rules around campus spaces.

In particular, the committee published emails showing how Gay and Garber advised Pritzker to avoid labeling the phrase “from the river to the sea” as antisemitic because it would raise questions about why student protesters had not been disciplined for using it in chants.

Pritzker, who had been fielding questions from alumni in the weeks following Oct. 7, said she understood the phrase, featured in signs at student protests, as “clearly an anti-semitic sign which calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state and Jews.”

“Can you please help me understand and explain how we handled the situation and our posture toward such signage on campus?” she asked. “I am being asked by some why we would tolerate that and not signage calling for Lynchings by the KKK. Would we do something different now?”

In response, Garber said the determination was “not as simple as some of our friends would have it” and argued that it depended on the speaker’s intention.

“The bottom line is that the phrase can be antisemitic, but if we don’t explain it in a nuanced way many members of the Harvard community will contest the claim,” Garber wrote.

Pritzker, who is Jewish and has been a lifelong supporter of Jewish causes, pushed back against Garber in a reply.

“I must confess that it feels very anti-Semitic to me, especially since it is used by the anti-Israel terrorist groups Hamas and PFLP,” Pritzker wrote. “SO I am struggling with why it isn’t hate speech and why that is acceptable on our campus and why we don’t condemn it.”

Gay later responded, urging Pritzker to characterize the phrase as “offensive” but not antisemitic.

Less than three weeks later, as Gay faced pressure from members of her antisemitism advisory group to condemn the phrase, she denounced the use of “from the river to the sea” in a University-wide message but stopped short of directly labeling it as antisemitic.

{shortcode-55a6cf499d9194efcbc485d7f30bf75ab4112a5f}

More recently, Pritzker said in a transcribed interview with the committee that she believed “from the river to the sea” was antisemitic, and — now that the University had clarified its anti-bullying and protest policies — use of the phrase would result in disciplinary action.

A University spokesperson did not answer whether chants of “from the river to the sea” would currently result in disciplinary action.

“I am fully committed to helping Harvard continue to foster a safe and inclusive community free from antisemitism and hate of any kind,” Pritzker wrote in a statement to The Crimson on Thursday. “And as a Jewish person whose ancestors fled antisemitic pogroms in Ukraine to come to this country, these issues have a deep personal meaning for me.”

The most damning episode from the committee’s report, however, remained the process of drafting the University’s initial response to the Hamas attack on Israel. As the administrators became entangled in a wording debate, Gay described her goal as simply “getting to a yes,” in an email to Garber.

University Marshal Katherine G. O’Dair, who also served as Gay’s chief of staff, suggested the statement should denounce Hamas’ attack explicitly, but the phrase was ultimately omitted from the final draft, as was language proposed by University Secretary Marc L. Goodheart ’81 that distanced the University from the student groups’ social media post.

Daley, the HMS dean, also asked to cut the word “violent” from the statement, expressing concern that it could be interpreted as the University picking sides in the conflict.

“On my first read it sounded like assigning blame when it’s best we express horror at the carnage that is unfolding,” Daley wrote.

Harvard Graduate School of Design Dean Sarah M. Whiting concurred with Daley, but both Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf and interim Harvard Divinity School Dean David F. Holland disagreed.

In a private conversation with Gay, Garber took aim at Daley over his suggestion.

“I don’t love it but can live with the change,” Garber wrote. “Frankly I’m more disturbed by his logic than the wording change.”

When Harvard finally released the statement shortly before 8 p.m. on Oct. 9, 2023, the blowback was swift.

“Instead of moral clarity and courage, they offer word salad approved by committee,” wrote Rep. Jake D. Auchincloss ’10 (D-Mass.).

Under pressure, Gay released another message the next day in which she condemned “the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas” and distanced the University from the student groups’ statement. Daley also released his own message weeks later, describing Oct. 7 as a “horrific terrorist attack” and denounced the controversial student groups’ statement.

But the damage had been done.

In an interview with The Crimson in November 2023, Garber expressed regret over the initial statement.

“Our goal is to ensure that our community is safe, secure, and feels well supported — and that first statement did not succeed in that regard,” he said.

—Staff writer Emma H. Haidar can be reached at emma.haidar@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @HaidarEmma.

—Staff writer Cam E. Kettles can be reached at cam.kettles@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @cam_kettles or on Threads @camkettles.