In Response to “Ethicist, Should I Let Go of My Zionist Friends?”

On Nov. 6, The Crimson published an article titled “Ethicist, Should I Let Go of My Zionist Friends?” We write out of deep concern that such questions have become mainstream within a university culture that increasingly — and unapologetically — marginalizes students on the basis of their religious beliefs. The decision to publish this question normalizes prejudice under the guise of ethical debate.

The premise of the article conflates “Zionist” opinions with political beliefs, failing to recognize that Zionism at its core, is a central tenet of Judaism as a religion — not as a political philosophy. Whenever the Torah is read for the congregation, Jewish practice sings, “For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.” Three times daily during the Amidah, Jewish prayer recognizes the essential longing of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland in Israel. At the conclusion of the Passover Seder and Yom Kippur services, Jews proclaim “next year in Jerusalem.” All of these statements recognize that Jewish practice is incomplete without a central connection to the Jewish national homeland.

These examples are not political, instead reflecting the day-to-day practice perpetuated by Jewish people for centuries. Israel and Judaism are inextricably and profoundly intertwined. Zionism — simply the belief in the right of Jews to self-determination in their homeland is a Jewish value, not a political philosophy, a genocidal rally call, nor an exclusion of other religions or peoples who also call Israel home today. While this article denigrates the Jewish right to self-determination, it prejudicially fails to deny any other people that same right by omission. This is inherently antisemitic.

By publishing the article, The Crimson entertains the idea that individuals should alienate friends and peers on account of their religious values. Marginalizing students on the basis of their religious beliefs is entirely antithetical to the values that Harvard holds sacred. In the pursuit of veritas, you do not need to be an ethicist to find the article’s argument unethical. The call is clear, you can, and should, undoubtedly cherish your friends who hold Zionist values central to their religious experience.

—Samuel L. Colchamiro ’28 and Charles R.M. Bernat ’27.

The Ethicist takes pains to emphasize that friendship, unlike family, is entirely volitional and so we are free to end friendships for good or bad reasons. While this may be narrowly true, it avoids the moral thrust of the writer’s question and ignores the painful experiences of shunning that many in our community have suffered. By foregrounding this narrow framing, the Ethicist risks normalizing shunning at Harvard and antisemitic shunning in particular.

Our friends sometimes delight us with their interests or opinions, but if that is all that constitutes our friendships, then those friendships are transactional and shallow. We are friends with others quite simply because we care for them. If that care is deep and genuine we ought to continue caring for them even when some of their opinions come to trouble us. The question is not: Do we continue to care for careworthy people if they have opinions that offend us? The question is: How do we show care while staying true to ourselves? Persuading, questioning, struggling, even arguing can all be done with care in our relationships. But shunning, insofar as it reduces the complexity of a careworthy person to a single opinion or identity and then rejects them for it, is not.

The writer of the original question states that they have already been shunned by friends for their opinions about Zionism. I am sorry for this. Those were not good and caring friends. The writer also notes that they continue to regard their Zionist friends as good people. I would like therefore to recommend — with more clarity than the Ethicist — that they continue to care for their friends. As the Ethicist does ultimately suggest, it may be that your friendship will open space for difficult but important dialogue, that a way forward beyond retaliatory shunning and harm might be built on the basis of your mutual care. I believe a way forward is unlikely to be built on anything else.

—Matthew Ichihashi Potts, Plummer Professor of Christian Morals and Pusey Minister in the Memorial Church.

As the Executive Committee of the Harvard Chaplains, representing 35 distinct religious, spiritual, and ethical communities on campus, we write to express our deep concern after reading “Ethicist, Should I Let Go of My Zionist Friends?”

We are profoundly troubled by any normalization of shunning or socially ostracizing individuals or groups based on their religious or political identity.

As chaplains, our collective mission is to provide for the religious, spiritual, and ethical needs of the Harvard community, and in doing so, to model and foster a spirit of genuine connection across our many traditions. Among ourselves, we represent a vast spectrum of beliefs, values, and political viewpoints. We regularly engage with one another across profound theological and political disagreements. We model, and we teach, that the strength of the Harvard community is not found in uniformity of thought, but in our shared commitment to seeking connection across our differences.

We fully respect the right of all students to make personal decisions about their friendships and associations. However, we must caution against the development of a campus culture that normalizes shunning as a tactic. Such a practice contributes to a climate of exclusion and fear, undermining the very foundations of a diverse learning community.

This trend is particularly egregious in light of the recent, painful findings from the University’s task forces on antisemitism and Islamophobia. Those reports highlighted deep-seated issues of exclusion and marginalization. Actively shunning any member of our community, whether for their Zionist, anti-Zionist, or other core beliefs, only exacerbates the very divisions we are being called to heal.

At a time when our campus is so deeply fractured, we must actively choose dialogue over division and connection over condemnation.

—The Executive Committee of the Harvard Chaplains: Rita Powell, Episcopal Chaplain, Swami Tyagananda, Hindu Chaplain, Dan Cho, Southern Baptist Chaplaincy, Kevin Bryant, Affiliated Minister in the Memorial Church, Carrie Ballenger, Lutheran Chaplain, Greg Epstein, Humanist Chaplain, David Heckendorm, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Getzel Davis (ex-officio), Director of Interfaith Engagement, Evette Awa, InterVarsity Chaplain.

How would you feel if you read an article by a Crimson editor saying that other students can turn their backs on you because of your association with a particular country or religion? How demoralizing, isolating, even frightening would that be? Wouldn’t it make you feel unwelcome in the very place where you should feel supported and included?

This is what many Israeli and Jewish students — for whom Zionism is integral to their identity and religious beliefs — likely felt when reading the shockingly titled article: “Ethicist, Should I Let Go of My Zionist Friends?”

The author says: “If what you are asking is whether you are justified in letting go of your Zionist friends, then the matter is simple. The answer is yes.” The author surrounds this claim with discursions about the volitional nature of friendship, but the invidious message is clear. We are appalled that The Crimson is fostering this type of prejudice and hope others recognize that it’s wrong to discriminate against people because of their nationality or religious beliefs.

Indeed, The Crimson piece is worse than the recent Salient article which echoed Hitler’s rhetoric about nationalism. Although that article wasn’t directly targeted at Harvard students, it was apparently bad enough for the Salient’s board to suspend operations. The Crimson article goes even further: It includes reasons why one might shun Zionists — a group we’d wager includes most Jews — just as Jews at German universities were ostracized during the rise of the Nazis.

Students: Have the courage to support your Jewish and Israeli classmates. Listen to fellow students who feel a deep connection to the Jewish state and learn from them. Take the search for veritas seriously. Don’t cut off people with views different from your own. Most importantly, don’t promote, participate in, or be a bystander in the odious behavior of shunning other students based on their nationality or religious beliefs.

As former Harvard College students, former Crimson editors and current Harvard faculty members, we are deeply ashamed that a Crimson editor is now making excuses for anti-Jewish bigotry on campus.

—Jesse M. Fried ’85, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and

Matthew L. Meyerson ’85, Professor of Genetics and Medicine at Harvard Medical School.

They are founders of the faculty group Harvard Faculty for Israel.

Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to editorial@thecrimson.com and should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.