logo
Harvard publisher cancels journal issue on Palestine, cites ‘a number of complex issues'

Harvard publisher cancels journal issue on Palestine, cites ‘a number of complex issues'

Indian Express6 days ago
In the wake of the standoff between United States administration and Harvard University, the Harvard Education Publishing Group, a prestigious American education journal's publisher, last month, abruptly canceled the release of a special issue titled, 'education and Palestine,' The Guardian reported.
The special issue, which was set to be published this summer was almost ready, as contracts with most authors were finalized and articles were edited, the report noted. On June 9, in an email to the issue's contributors, the publisher cited 'a number of complex issues', taking authors and editors by surprise, The Guardian learnt.
This remarkable move comes amid an escalation of United States' confrontation with Harvard University, where it has warned that the elite institution could lose its accreditation over allegations related to 'antisemitism' on campus. Officials have accused elite universities in the US of fostering leftist ideologies and failing to protect Jewish students amid brewing tensions on campus.
What did the special issue entail?
The special issue of the journal covered topics such as the annihilation of Gaza's schools to the challenges of teaching about Israel and Palestine in the US.
The issue was intended to promote 'scholarly conversation on education and Palestine amid repression, occupation, and genocide,' as per internal emails accessed by The Guardian. It included research articles, essays and other writings on topics ranging from education in Israel-Palestine and among the Palestinian diaspora, to academic freedom in the US.
The journal articles explored the evolution of the concept of 'scholasticide', a term describing the systematic annihilation of education, first coined during Israel's 2008 invasion of Gaza; the 'ethical and educational responsibilities' of English language teachers in the West Bank; and the impact of 'crackdowns on dissent' on teaching about Palestine in US higher education institutions, according to finalized abstracts of the articles shared with The Guardian.
What did the cancellation email state?
The email sent to the body of authors and editors, announcing the cancellation of the issue, did not exactly cite 'antisemitism' as its reason. The executive director of the publishing group, Jessica Fiorillo, wrote that the decision stemmed from an 'inadequate review process' and the need for 'considerable copy editing'.
Intimating them that the issue was being pulled altogether, Fiorillo claimed the manuscripts were 'unready for publication', in part due to a copy editor's resignation. She also cited an unspecified 'failure to adhere to an adequate review process', a 'lack of internal alignment' between the authors, editors and the publisher, and 'the lack of a clear and expedient path forward to resolving the myriad issues at play'.
'This difficult situation is exacerbated by very significant lack of agreement about the path forward, including and especially whether to publish such a special issue at this time,' she wrote in her email, as seen by The Guardian. She added that the cancellation was not 'due to censorship of a particular viewpoint nor does it connect to matters of academic freedom'.
Chronology of the cancellation
The speculations began when Rabea Eghbariah, a Palestinian doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School, and the writer of the afterword for the special issue, requested to amend his contract with the Harvard Educational Review (HER) to add a clause seeking to safeguard his academic freedom, which was later declined by the journal.
Days later, the journal's editorial board wrote to the authors, citing an 'increasingly challenging climate' and asking for their availability for a meeting, which never ended up happening, as per The Guardian report.
However, this was not the first time the publisher tried to pressurise the journal editors. In January this year, the editors were told that an 'institutional review' of the manuscripts would be required. Moreover, in February, the publisher attempted to alter the back cover of the spring issue promoting some of the forthcoming articles.
As per an editor quoted by The Guardian, the publisher acknowledged that it was seeking a 'risk assessment' legal review by Harvard's counsel out of fear the issue's publication would prompt 'antisemitism' claims, which authors and editor referred to as an 'unprecedented' at that stage of publication. 'This sends a dangerous message to scholars globally: that academic publishing contracts are conditional, revocable, and subject to external political calculations,' they wrote in a letter to the journal's editorial board and publisher in the month of May.
However, less than a month later, the special issue was pulled out entirely. Reacting to the move, one of the editors of the HER, said that the censorship of the issue is 'exactly how authoritarianism grows'.
Next steps
Many scholars have come to refer to the incident as the 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom.
The authors are now in talks with other journals and are hopeful their pieces can be published as planned. The Guardian's interviewees, including authors and journal's editor, all expressed fear that the incident would deter other scholars from pursuing work on Palestine.
Other steps taken by Trump administration against Harvard
Harvard has been facing a brutal battle with the Trump administration, after it targeted the Ivy League University for failing to keep Jewish students safe and allowing antisemitism to flourish.
Soon after university protests against Israel's war in Gaza gained traction, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought information on various foreign national visa holders who have been a part of 'illegal and violent' activities within the campus. Eventually, the US Secretary of Homeland Security ordered the DHS to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification even after receiving a detailed list with the number and information of enrolled foreign students. In a letter to the university, the Secretary wrote that current students would need to transfer or risk losing their legal status.
The University has so far managed to sue the administration on the matter, with Judge Burroughs issuing a ruling against Trump's June 4 proclamation, where he had said that any foreign national who enrolled at the university would be banned from entering the US.
Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April this year against the funds freeze, saying the administration was using 'leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard'. The New York Times reported about Harvard receiving seven stop-work orders for research awards between April 14 and May 6, after which 950 such orders totalling $2.4 billion were passed.
Most recently, the US Departments of Education and Health and Human Services announced that they had notified Harvard's accrediting agency that the university had potentially violated federal law by failing to address claims of harassment against Jewish students. Losing accreditation would have severe consequences, including making Harvard students ineligible for federal financial aid.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system
'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system

Mint

time15 minutes ago

  • Mint

'I will not speak in English': BJP's Nishikant Dubey on Tamil Nadu MPs request in LS amid glitch in translating system

BJP MP Nishikant Dubey, on Tuesday, refused to speak in English, rejecting Tamil Nadu MPs request in Lok Sabha amid a glitch in translating system. He further claimed that the MPs 'only had a problem with Hindi.' The BJP MP made the comments in the Lok Sabha after after Tamil Nadu MPs requested Nishikant Dubey to speak in English following a a technical glitch in the translator (system) in the Lok Sabha. Responding to them, Dubey said "...It would have been better if you had asked me to speak in Tamil or Bengali. English is a foreign language, and your insistence on it reflects your mindset. Someone spoke in Bengali for half an hour, yet Tamil Nadu MPs didn't object. You only have a problem with Hindi. Congress and its allies don't like North Indians or Hindi. If you keep promoting English, we'll end up becoming England. 'Hum phir se gulaam ho jayenge' (We will become slaves again)..." During the Monsoon Session of the Parliament on Tuesday, several leaders launched scathing attacks on the government about India's Operation Sindoor in the aftermath of the brutal Pahalgam terror attack in April that killed 26 people. Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav said the launch of Operation Sindoor after the Pahalgam attack was a "symbol of the government's intelligence failure". Uttar Pradesh's former chief minister also said that India's foreign policy has 'completely collapsed,' while labelling China as a 'monster' that will "gobble up our (India's) land and market". "Who will take responsibility for the intelligence lapse in the Pahalgam attack?' Akhilesh Yadav said about the tragedy. Rahul Gandhi also took a swipe at the government, daring PM Modi to call 'Trump a liar,' referring to the POTUS's repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. While India has consistently denied these assertions, the US President continues to highlight his alleged role in de-escalating tensions between the two nations following the Pahalgam terror attack. Following Rahul Gandhi's claims, PM Modi while addressing the Lok Sabha, refuted claims made by US President Donald Trump regarding his role in halting India's military action against Pakistan. He said said no world leader asked India to stop its military action against Pakistan during 'Operation Sindoor' after four days of conflict in May in the aftermath of the Pahalgam terror attack.

Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom
Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom

Time of India

time26 minutes ago

  • Time of India

Trump vs. Harvard: A battle that tests the strength of American democracy and the price of intellectual freedom

Harvard's standoff with the Trump administration tests the price of dissent in American academia. January 2025 wasn't supposed to read like the script of a dystopian campus drama. Yet, within days of Donald Trump's second inauguration, American higher education found itself back in the crosshairs. Harvard University, that centuries-old fortress of intellectual prestige, became the frontline in a clash not over grades or graduation rates, but over politics, power, and the weaponisation of federal authority. This isn't the same old 'Trump vs. Academia' skirmish we saw in 2017. This time, it's a stress test of whether a White House—any White House—can muscle its way into university governance, dictate the fate of billions in research funds, and even toy with student visas as leverage. If you think this saga only concerns one elite campus, think again. What happened to Harvard between January and July 2025 may well be the blueprint for how political control over universities could be asserted in America for years to come. January–February 2025: The opening moves On January 29, barely a week after the oath-taking ceremony, Trump signed Executive Order 14188. Following this, the Department of Justice established the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism on Campuses. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Free P2,000 GCash eGift UnionBank Credit Card Apply Now Undo At first glance, it seemed like another culture-war skirmish wrapped in civil rights language. But the fine print gave federal agencies unprecedented authority to probe universities, condition funding, and scrutinise so-called 'alien students' for ideological leanings. Harvard, along with dozens of institutions, received its first formal letter of 'concern' on February 27 from the Department of Justice, demanding meetings over alleged Title VI violations. For the uninitiated, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act bars institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, colour, or national origin. These weren't polite invitations. They were the opening salvo in a campaign that would escalate beyond anything seen before in federal–academic relations. The groundwork was laid: The administration now had a legal hook (civil rights), a moral shield (antisemitism), and a political target (elite universities often painted as 'woke havens'). Harvard was merely the first domino. March–April 2025: From review to retaliation On March 31, the Task Force formally launched a federal review into Harvard's use of billions in federal research grants, citing alleged failures to protect Jewish students. Boston University Radio (WBUR) and multiple outlets reported that this review was the precursor to unprecedented fiscal scrutiny and laid the foundation for later punitive actions. Just days later, the White House sent a letter demanding sweeping changes at Harvard: Dismantle DEI programs, overhaul governance, adopt 'merit-based' hiring, submit to viewpoint diversity audits, and revise admissions policies. In other words, the federal government wasn't just enforcing civil rights, it was trying to rewrite campus rules by diktat. Harvard refused. What followed was a fiscal guillotine. On April 14, $2.2 billion in federal research grants were frozen, along with $60 million in contracts. The message was blunt: Comply or watch your labs go dark. Trump's Truth Social post on—calling Harvard a 'JOKE' teaching 'Hate and Stupidity' and suggesting it lose tax-exempt status—wasn't just an online bluster. It was the President setting policy through grievance politics. By April 16, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem piled on, demanding detailed records on every international student, threatening SEVP decertification (loss of Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification), and cancelling an additional $2.7 million in grants. Harvard struck back legally on April 21, filing its first lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to challenge the funding freeze as unconstitutional. The complaint asked the federal court to vacate punitive actions and restore billions in research dollars. But the damage was already done: Projects stalled, faculty recruitment froze, and students with research assistantships were left dangling, unsure if their stipends would arrive next semester. May 2025: Visa warfare on campus If April was about money, May targeted people. On May 5, Trump signed a proclamation declaring Harvard an 'unsuitable destination' for foreign students, citing nebulous national-security concerns. It was a shot across the bow, signalling that visas could be wielded as a political weapon. Then came May 22. ICE revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, effectively threatening the legal status of roughly 5,500–6,000 international students overnight. The timing was surgical: Just as spring exams wrapped, thousands of students risked being forced to leave the country or transfer. Harvard's emergency lawsuit on May 23 pulled it back from the brink—Judge Allison Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order hours later, halting the move. But the message was clear: Even the most prestigious university couldn't shield its students from the whims of political power when visas were used as leverage. For every prospective international student watching this unfold, the warning was unmistakable: In the US, your ability to study may hinge less on your merit than on whether your university angers the Oval Office or not. June–July 2025: Courtroom standoff and settlement signals By summer, the conflict had crystallised into two major lawsuits: One over the funding freeze, another over SEVP decertification. Both landed in Boston's federal court, with Harvard arguing that the administration's actions violated the First Amendment, Title VI protections, and due process laws. The Trump team countered that grant money was a privilege, not a right, and universities failing 'agency priorities' could have funding yanked at will. On July 21, oral arguments over the $2.2 billion freeze saw Judge Allison Burroughs grill both sides. A final ruling has not yet been issued, but the hearing laid bare the stakes: if Harvard loses, future presidents could dictate university policy through the purse strings, turning research funding into a political loyalty test. If Harvard wins, it would carve out a legal shield for academic freedom, albeit one forged in bitter litigation. Meanwhile, The New York Times revealed Harvard is exploring a potential settlement with the Trump administration, reportedly willing to pay up to $500 million to resolve the dispute. Negotiations reportedly focus on restoring access to more than $2 billion in frozen research funds while preserving governance autonomy, but the very premise of these talks is chilling. The figure is staggering, not just because of the money involved, but because of what it signals: Even the wealthiest and most powerful university in the country might have to 'pay tribute' to the White House to unlock funding it was already lawfully awarded. The talks mirror Columbia University's earlier $200 million settlement, but this is a higher‑stakes game. Harvard's endowment has become both shield and target, a financial bullseye for an administration eager to make an example of elite academia. Behind the headlines, DHS expanded its scrutiny to J-1 visas, research visas, and campus-linked foreign programs. Even without a final ruling, universities nationwide began quietly reviewing policies, fearing they'd be next. The chilling effect on student speech, faculty hiring, and international enrolment was immediate and measurable. Harvard's choice: Buy relief or win the law If Harvard settles, it risks sidelining the judiciary altogether, dodging the constitutional answer: Can a White House weaponise federal funding to police campus thought? The money tap may reopen, but the chance to set a legal boundary closes. The precedent becomes fear, telling every university president that when Washington knocks, resistance is futile and freedom negotiable. It transforms education into a marketplace where political compliance can be bought and dissent carries a billion-dollar price tag. If Harvard bows to this arrangement, it legitimises a dangerous precedent: Federal funding as ransom, with intellectual independence up for sale. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!

‘Work On America, Gramps': Putin's Ally To Senator Graham On Trump's Ukraine Truce Deadline
‘Work On America, Gramps': Putin's Ally To Senator Graham On Trump's Ukraine Truce Deadline

News18

time40 minutes ago

  • News18

‘Work On America, Gramps': Putin's Ally To Senator Graham On Trump's Ukraine Truce Deadline

The fiery digital exchange came just hours after President Trump publicly reiterated his push for a ceasefire agreement. US Senator Lindsey Graham engaged in a sharp exchange with Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of Russia's Security Council, on Monday, July 28. The heated interaction took place on X (formerly Twitter), following a stern ultimatum issued by US President Donald Trump, who warned Russian President Vladimir Putin to either strike a peace deal with Ukraine or face additional sanctions from Washington. Medvedev responded critically to Trump's ultimatum in a post, suggesting that the American president should stop playing what he called an 'ultimatum game." He warned that Trump must understand Russia is neither Israel nor Iran, an apparent reference to Trump's recent intervention in the Middle East, which led to a temporary ceasefire between those two nations. Medvedev cautioned, 'Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war, not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country." Senator Graham quickly countered the statement, issuing a firm warning of his own. 'To those in Russia who believe that President Trump is not serious about ending the bloodbath between Russia and Ukraine, you and your customers will soon be sadly mistaken," he wrote. He also brought attention to the political shift in the US leadership, adding, 'You will also soon see that Joe Biden is no longer president. Get to the peace table." Medvedev was dismissive in his reply to the senator, stating, 'It's not for you or Trump to dictate when to 'get at the peace table.' Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved." Taking a personal jab at Graham, he concluded with, 'Work on America first, gramps!" It's not for you or Trump to dictate when to 'get at the peace table'. Negotiations will end when all the objectives of our military operation have been achieved. Work on America first, gramps!— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) July 28, 2025 The fiery digital exchange came just hours after President Trump publicly reiterated his push for a ceasefire agreement between Russia and Ukraine. Since returning to the presidency for a second term, Trump has emphasised on resolving the prolonged conflict between the neighbouring countries, which has continued through drone attacks and escalating military strikes. During a recent visit to Scotland, President Trump shortened the original 50-day deadline he had given Russia, announcing a revised ultimatum. He warned that if Moscow fails to reach a peace agreement with Ukraine within the next 10 to 12 days, it could face an intensified round of sanctions from the White House. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from geopolitics to diplomacy and global trends. Stay informed with the latest world news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store