{shortcode-ac1e215535231fa945b57f37a412d175146f8d14}

Harvard provided additional documents to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in conjunction with its 5 p.m. Monday deadline, the first submission after the committee hit three top University officials with subpoenas as part of its antisemitism investigation.

The University’s 11th submission on Monday includes a public four-page summary of its efforts to combat antisemitism, but a spokesperson declined to comment when asked if Harvard had satisfied all of the committee’s demands.

Committee Chairwoman Virigina Foxx (R-N.C.) issued subpoenas to interim Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76, Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker ’81, and Harvard Management Company CEO N.P. “Narv” Narvekar on Feb. 16, demanding internal documents and communications between senior University officials.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement that the University “continues to respond, in good faith” to the congressional investigation.

“With an additional submission today, Harvard has provided nearly 4,900 pages of information in 11 submissions since January, including non-public information and internal communications, along with public information, the Committee requested Harvard to compile,” Newton added.

It is unclear if Harvard’s response to the committee on Monday will satisfy its long-standing demands for extensive internal records of the University’s response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and allegations of antisemitism on campus.

A spokesperson for the committee confirmed that Harvard had submitted additional documents following the subpoenas.

“The Committee is currently reviewing those documents,” the spokesperson said.

Since early January, Harvard and the committee have battled over its requests for information and internal documents. Prior to being subpoenaed, the University voluntarily submitted over 2,500 pages of documents in 10 submissions, including partially redacted minutes from a Corporation meeting on Nov. 6 and a list of unreleased recommendations from the antisemitism advisory group established by former President Claudine Gay.

When announcing the subpoenas, Foxx wrote that the material previously submitted by Harvard was “severely insufficient” and claimed that 40 percent of the documents were already publicly available.

“Harvard’s continued failure to satisfy the Committee’s requests is unacceptable,” Foxx wrote at the time.

The committee’s investigation into antisemitism on Harvard’s campus began days after Gay testified before Congress on Dec. 5. The probe was later expanded to include the University’s handling of plagiarism allegations against Gay, who resigned on Jan. 2 after months of controversy.

Rep. Katherine Clark (D-Mass.) — the second-highest ranking House Democrat — said in a statement to The Crimson that the committee’s stated interest in responding to campus antisemitism is disingenuous.

“We should be clear eyed that the House Republican Majority has no interest in student safety or stopping hate,” Clark said. “Time and again, they fail to denounce bigotry promoted by their own Members, attack LGBTQ+ students, attempt to whitewash our history, and stand by white supremacists who stormed our Capitol.”

“I call on the Majority to work with our institutions of higher learning to support our students — not use them to fuel division and play political games,” she added.

A committee spokesperson declined to comment on Clark’s criticism of the investigation into Harvard.

According to Stanley M. Brand, former general counsel to the House of Representatives, if the committee decides that the University’s response is inadequate, they will need to justify their submissions before forcing compliance.

“They’d have to decide whether and how to enforce the subpoena, either by voting them in contempt — which would then have to go to the full House and then be referred to the U.S. Attorney in D.C. for prosecution or consideration of prosecution — or trying to enforce it in some other way, including a civil lawsuit,” Brand said.

“It is a long process,” he added. “It doesn’t happen overnight.”

Brand said he believes the subpoenas call into question First Amendment rights as well as questions of congressional overreach.

“Part of it is whether the institution is willing to stand up to the Congress and call their bluff and stand on their legal rights and litigate the case,” Brand said.

“The problem with that is that, ultimately, could result in somebody being charged in a criminal contempt, which most institutions — certainly Harvard among them — would rather avoid,” he added.

Brand said the disciplinary records under subpoena present a privacy law risk, even if the committee anonymizes the data. And when there is not a legal case to be made for concealing the documents, he said the committee must defend why the material is important to conducting their legislative business.

Brand said he would advise Harvard to fight the subpoenas and “go all the way.”

“I see this as an existential threat,” Brand added. “To not just Harvard, but every university and college in America.”

—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.