{shortcode-5e06e444b7e156fb429d396fa7b84d35ed455c4c}

Updated January 21, 2025 at 10:05 p.m.

Harvard settled two Title VI lawsuits accusing the University of tolerating antisemitism on campus for an undisclosed amount on Tuesday, closing the proceedings just after President Donald Trump — who has promised to punish universities over antisemitism claims — took office.

Per the settlements, Harvard will clarify that its non-discrimination policies protect Israeli and Jewish students and adopt the widely-used but controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Association definition of antisemitism.

The definition — which a group of pro-Israel affiliates urged Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 to adopt in a May letter — classifies certain criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. The definition could allow Harvard to crack down on pro-Palestine student protesters who have condemned Israel’s war in Gaza and policies toward Palestinians, often in harsh terms.

Harvard explicitly stated it will adopt the definition’s “accompanying examples,” which state that it is antisemitic to describe Israel’s existence as a “racist endeavor” or compare its contemporary policies to those of the Nazis.

The settlements apply to litigation efforts from Students Against Antisemitism, a group of six Harvard students, and the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education.

At least two students in the SAA lawsuit refused to agree to the settlement. Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, SAA’s lead plaintiff and a vocal public critic of Harvard, rejected a last-minute attempt by Harvard’s lawyers to persuade him on Monday. Kestenbaum will pursue additional litigation under new counsel.

Kestenbaum wrote in a statement that he plans to take Harvard to trial and depose top administrators including Garber, former Harvard President Claudine Gay, and Harvard Divinity School Dean Marla F. Frederick.

In August, a judge ruled that Kestenbaum may seek damages but “lacks standing to pursue proper injunctive relief” because he is no longer enrolled at Harvard.

A University spokesperson declined to comment on a potential trial.

The SAA filed its lawsuit in January, alleging Harvard was negligent in addressing “severe and pervasive antisemitism on campus.”

In May, the Brandeis Center accused the University of “deliberately” ignoring antisemitism by slow-walking its response to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack. The suit cited accusations of antisemitism against Harvard Kennedy School lecturer Marshall L. Ganz ’64 and a viral confrontation between an Israeli Harvard Business School student and pro-Palestine demonstrators at a “die-in” protest at HBS in October 2023.

Harvard unsuccessfully motioned to dismiss both lawsuits. In November, a judge consolidated the two suits.

In the weeks preceding Donald Trump’s Monday inauguration, a wave of universities — including the University of California system and Brown University — have settled Title VI complaints under the Department of Education alleging they failed to respond to campus antisemitism. The settlements allowed universities to close the proceedings before Trump took office.

Top House Republicans released a report in December following a year-long probe into antisemitism on college campuses, encouraging Congress to more rigorously enforce Title VI antidiscrimination provisions at universities like Harvard.

Under Tuesday’s settlements, Harvard will adopt an official partnership with a university in Israel — directly contradicting the demands of pro-Palestine campus organizations, which have urged Harvard to cut ties with Israeli institutions.

Harvard will also appoint an employee at its Office for Community Conduct to supervise and consult on antisemitism complaints and will compile an annual report on all Title VI complaints under its non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies for the next five years.

Harvard Law School Professor Noah R. Feldman ’92 said he believed the University was “happy to agree” to the settlement as a clear public statement against antisemitic speech — something he said Harvard sorely needed after Gay’s congressional testimony.

“I think the plaintiffs got what they wanted, and the University got an opportunity to clarify its policies,” Feldman said.

Former Harvard President Lawrence S. Bacow wrote in an emailed statement that the settlement “takes important and needed steps to prevent legitimate debate from spilling over into bigotry and hatred.”

But Harvard’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition and enshrine protections for Zionist students drew concern from some free speech advocates.

“Criticizing Israeli government policy can now get you punished at Harvard,” the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression wrote in a post on X. “Instead of choosing consistent, robust protection for free speech, Harvard is opting for consistent censorship.”

Two scholars affiliated with the Nexus Project, which developed a definition of antisemitism that does not classify “contentious, strident, or harsh criticism of Israel” as necessarily discriminatory, said Harvard’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition could blur the lines between legitimate political discourse and antisemitic rhetoric.

University of California Los Angeles professor of Jewish history David N. Myers, who sat on the task force that developed the Nexus definition, called the IHRA definition a “form of virtue signaling,” saying that it did not offer a practical tool for combating antisemitism.

“It’s a very coarse filter that mistakes criticism of Israel for antisemitism, and therefore it doesn’t really allow us to get at what is antisemitic,” Myers said.

Joshua Shanes, a Jewish studies professor at the College of Charleston who also sits on the Nexus task force, said some anti-Zionist rhetoric can tilt into antisemitism. But he said he found it “troubling” to treat Zionism as a protected category instead of a matter of political debate.

“If someone’s going to come along and say, ‘Jews are a constructed nation, Palestinians are a constructed nation, let’s just create a democracy’ — I totally reject that would be antisemitic, although I think defenders of IHRA would say it is,” Shanes said.

Feldman said he did not think Harvard’s new guidelines would imperil debate. The University’s disciplinary policies apply to harassment and bullying but not to speech per se, he said — even if that speech is antisemitic, racist, or otherwise offensive.

But some Harvard affiliates said the settlement alone was not enough. Harvard Hillel notified affiliates Tuesday morning that the group had created a community engagement role last week that would be responsible for enforcing the settlement agreement going forward.

“No settlement or report is worth more than the consistency and breadth of its implementation,” Rabbi Jason B. Rubenstein ’04, Hillel’s executive director, wrote in an email.

“Today’s settlement reflects Harvard’s enduring commitment to ensuring our Jewish students, faculty, and staff are embraced, respected, and supported,” a Harvard spokesperson wrote in a Tuesday press release.

Harvard’s agreements with the plaintiffs did not admit any wrongdoing or liability.

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.