logo
‘Show us it's not just words': 5 takeaways from Harvard's reports on antisemitism and Islamophobia

‘Show us it's not just words': 5 takeaways from Harvard's reports on antisemitism and Islamophobia

Boston Globe30-04-2025

Both reports also task Harvard with taking action. Among the recommendations: expanding academic offerings on antisemitism, Jewish history and culture, as well as course offerings on Palestinian Studies and Arabic language and cultures; and providing training and resources, including legal support, to fight doxxing.
The two reports — titled the "
Here are five takeaways from the reports.
Advertisement
1. Commonalities between the two reports
Both groups found the administration failed to protect students. Both spoke of living amid a climate of fear on campus and online. Both felt targeted for their identities, with some going so far as to conceal physical markers.
'I don't wear the keffiyeh because I feel like I will be targeted,' said one staff member. 'I already wear a hijab and have faced verbal abuse just because of that before.'
Advertisement
In the antisemitism report, an undergraduate student reflected on the 'horrible' experiences post-Oct. 7 of friends who are 'more outwardly' Jewish and Israeli, saying, 'I feel lucky I don't look Jewish. I know if I do the 'wrong thing' I might get the antisemitism. So, put your headphones in, make sure you're not outwardly Jewish, and just walk to class.'
Both groups cited a need for more educational offerings and inquiries around Israel-Palestine.
2. Campus shunning and external harassment
Many Jewish and Israeli students described social shunning by their peers on campus, whereas the anti-Muslim/Arab/Palestinian bias report highlighted examples of outside harassment, especially doxxing.
'There's a good-Jew, bad-Jew dynamic,' particularly in progressive circles, one student told the antisemitism task force. 'A Jew who doesn't renounce Zionism and who is gay can't feel comfortable in a gay students' association,' noted an undergraduate.
Others expressed concerns about the 'perceived indifference' toward Jewish students by Harvard's Office For Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging. 'Jews are the only minority [against whom] people speak [but] enjoy maximalist First Amendment protections,' said one graduate student. 'Every other minority group is defended by the administration against hate speech. There's absolute freedom for antisemitic speech. I agree with the Supreme Court case about the neo-Nazi march in Skokie. It's right for the country but not for Harvard.'
Participants in the anti-Muslim/Arab/Palestinian bias report recounted external threats and harassment.
'One student had their face put on a doxxing truck and their phone number and other details doxxed online. They received calls with death and rape threats,' reported a faculty member, who noted the incident was not isolated.
Advertisement
Pro-Palestinian advocates spoke of turning to each other when they should have had access to trained experts and institutional support. 'I felt like a student hotline, tasked with supporting my fellow students,' said one student. 'Where were the administrators? Where was our support system? I am 20 years old.' A faculty member described 'a profound failure of this institution to protect students at all levels.'
Related
:
3. The anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias report includes a range of allies . . .
And not just those whose identities match the title. As a result, the report surfaces accounts of everyday racism against people of color more generally, along with a broader sense of anger and alienation.
'I hate this place. I hate being here,' said one student. 'The reason for that has been the administration — a complete erasure of Palestinian, brown students.'
A major theme in this report is the erasure of the Palestinians, down to their name as a people. Some faculty 'hide their syllabi with references to Palestine because they're worried about not getting tenure,' reported one student, while a faculty member said, 'The Palestine exception is clear to us.'
Some pro-Palestinian campus community members were so skeptical of the Harvard administration they felt the very creation of the task force — which originally focused explicitly on anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias and didn't reflect Palestinians in its name — was nothing more than a performative gesture, a check in the box 'so Harvard can say it's doing something,' as one student said, urging the task force to 'prove us wrong.
'Show us it's not just words.'
Related
:
4. Many students and faculty were still hesitant to voice their views on campus
An untenured Jewish faculty member spoke of being 'afraid' to publicly express support for a ceasefire and Palestinian human rights, while the antisemitism report noted that 'many Jewish students who identified as anti-Zionist reported to us that they felt the main source of hostile behavior against them was other Jewish students.'
Advertisement
'I feel uncomfortable sharing any views that are not pro-Israel due to the caving to donors that [Harvard has] done over the past year,' wrote a survey respondent. 'I do not think [former] President [Claudine] Gay should have been forced out and if that happened to the most powerful position how can anyone else feel comfortable knowing their job could be on the line?'
While one student pointed to Gay as a specific example of the 'avoidance of difficult conversations,' another in the antisemitism report drew attention to a larger problem.
'One of my suitemates knew nothing about the Israel/Palestine conflict and the student tried to talk about it without going too deep, because they didn't feel comfortable talking about it with non-Jews,' they said. 'There's a fear of having conversations about anything related to Israel/Palestine because people don't know enough to participate and don't want to say the wrong thing. But they can listen.'
5. Others fear potential repercussions beyond
'Abandoned and silenced. These two words go a long way towards capturing what many Muslim, Arab, Palestinian, and pro-Palestinian members of the Harvard community reported experiencing in the 2023-24 academic year, and what many continue to feel,' the authors of that report wrote.
They note that 92% of Muslim respondents believed they were likely to encounter academic or professional consequences for voicing their opinions, and that 'freedom of expression is one of the most critical issues facing the entire Harvard campus community.'
Brooke Hauser can be reached at

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.
Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Yahoo

time15 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me.

Despite declarations that something needs to be done about the declining birth rate in the United States, neither President Donald Trump nor the Republican Party has the desire to protect pregnant people. If they did, the Trump administration wouldn't have made its latest move to restrict abortion nationwide. On Tuesday, June 3, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rescinded a Biden-era policy that directed hospitals to provide emergency abortions if it was needed to stabilize a pregnant patient. The guidance and communications on it apparently 'do not reflect the policy of this Administration.' I, like many people who support abortion rights, know what this will lead to. It means more pregnant people will die. Does that reflect the policy of the administration? The Biden policy was implemented in 2022, following the fall of Roe v. Wade, and argued that hospitals receiving Medicare funding had to comply with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The former administration argued that this included providing emergency abortions when they were needed to stabilize a patient, even in states that had severe abortion restrictions. Opinion: A brain dead pregnant Georgia woman is a horror story. It's Republicans' fault. This wasn't entirely a surprise. In 2024, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas could ban virtually all abortions in the state, including abortions that would have occurred under the old EMTALA guidelines. Still, it's terrifying to see this crucial policy eliminated. It's already dangerous to be pregnant in the United States. Our maternal mortality rate is much higher than in other wealthy countries. Same with our infant mortality rate. This will only exacerbate these tragedies. In states with abortion bans, the risks are even greater. A study from the Gender Equity Policy Institute found that people living in states with abortion bans were twice as likely to die during or shortly after childbirth. This is also backed by anecdotal evidence, including the 2022 deaths of two women in Georgia after the state passed a six-week ban. A different study found that infant mortality rates increased in states with severe restrictions on abortion, including an increase in deaths due to congenital anomalies. The Trump administration does not care about what is medically necessary to save someone's life. They don't care about whether the children supposedly saved by rescinding this policy will grow up without their mother. They care about their perceived moral superiority. They care about controlling women. Why would anybody want to have a child under that Republican way of thinking? Opinion: We're worrying about the wrong thing. Low birth rate isn't the crisis: Child care is. I want to say I'm surprised that the Trump administration would allow women in need of emergency care to die. Yet this is clearly aligned with the Republican stance on abortion, just like it's aligned with the actions that the party has taken to make it harder for women to access necessary care. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. Whether you like it or not, abortion is a necessary part of health care. It saves lives. Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, laid it out plainly. 'Women have died because they couldn't get the lifesaving abortion care they needed,' she said in a statement. 'The Trump administration is willing to let pregnant people die, and that is exactly what we can expect." Again, this is the administration that wants young women like me to have children and improve the country's birth rate. This is an administration that claims to care about women and children. I know I wouldn't want to have a child while Trump continues to make it unsafe to be pregnant and give birth. I hate that this is the reality. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump just made healthcare more dangerous for pregnant women | Opinion

A council proposed a Tesla factory. It got a torrent of anti-Musk abuse
A council proposed a Tesla factory. It got a torrent of anti-Musk abuse

CNN

time22 minutes ago

  • CNN

A council proposed a Tesla factory. It got a torrent of anti-Musk abuse

When friends Neon and Zane started a campaign to stop Tesla from building a battery recycling factory on a small block in their local area, they suspected that strong views about the company's billionaire boss might help sway local opinion. But they had no idea how much, or how far, anti-Elon Musk sentiment had spread beyond the epicenter of his influence in the United States, where until recently he caused chaos in federal workplaces as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Neon and Zane, who asked to use aliases to avoid doxxing by Musk supporters, say the main aim of their campaign, 'Trees Not Teslas,' was to preserve about 60 trees on the site, in Tonsley, an area south of Adelaide, Australia's driest state capital. 'We're struggling for designated green spaces … and it's just an insult to try and take away the one bit that's left within the Tonsley area,' said Neon, who used to live near the site and still works in the vicinity. When the local council published the results of its community consultation on the proposal, which allows the land to be sold for redevelopment, it contained hundreds of inflammatory anti-Musk comments or outright slurs. A search showed 229 references to 'Nazi,' 'Nazism' or other, similar phrases, to give an indication of the tone. With his high profile, confrontational statements and postings on social media, Musk has become a lightning rod for people across America and around the world opposed to the policies of US President Donald Trump's administration. The Tesla CEO is now engaged in a very public bust-up with Trump, that's unfolding in real-time on rival social media platforms, watched by a global audience. Musk's former close partnership with Trump took a toll on Tesla sales. Global deliveries plunged 13% in the first three months of this year, the largest drop in its history, as backlash against Musk and growing competition took a bite out of demand for its vehicles. Of the proposed factory in Tonsley, a suburb managed by the Marion Council, one comment from the public consultation said: 'You and I both know it's getting torched every few months because of the Nazi implications. You really want that bought (sic) up every single meeting?' Some respondents referred directly to the arm gesture Musk gave in January at Trump's post-inauguration rally that commentators likened to a fascist salute. At the time, Musk wrote on his social media platform X: 'The 'everyone is Hitler' attack is sooo tired.' But the memory appeared to stick with Tonsley residents and a staggering 95% of over 900 replies to the council survey rejected its plans to prepare the land for sale. However, Marion Council passed it anyway and sent it to the state government for approval. CNN has reached out to Tesla for comment. It may seem unusual that residents in a small Australian city might have issues with Musk, given their distance from his policies and decisions. And it's especially unusual given South Australia's past positive experience with the billionaire entrepreneur. In 2017, Musk offered to build the world's most powerful battery to solve some of the state's power woes within 100 days, or it would be free. And he did. South Australia is now leading the country in terms of renewable energy and is on track to hit its target of 100% net renewables by 2027. Backed by the state government, Tesla and a local power company have created a virtual power plant fitting Powerwall battery systems on homes across the state. The idea is that all the batteries would band together to support the grid in times of high demand. However, the proposed Tesla plant in Marion would not generate any power – it would be used to recycle Tesla batteries and provide a showroom for Tesla's electric vehicles (EV), sales of which have fallen in Australia. Figures from the Electric Vehicle Council show Tesla sales nationwide nearly halved in the year to May 2025. Felipe Munoz, senior analyst at auto market research firm JATO Dynamics, says that's partly due to the wait for the Model Y. It finally arrived in Australia in May, sending Tesla sales soaring 122% last month compared with the same period a year ago. Marion Council Mayor Kris Hanna says anti-Musk sentiment had intruded on a standard council consultation, which was simply about finding a use for contaminated land 'that will probably never be a recreational space again.' The site is contaminated by trichloroethylene, known as TCE, a solvent that can cause cancer and non-Hodgkin lymphoma and is banned in the United States. 'The problem with that is, not only, for example, children playing in the dirt, but also the fumes which can rise up from underneath the earth. Sealing it with a bitumen car park or a building is a solution,' said Hanna. The site has been fenced off from the public since 2016. The locals say that, even if they can't use it, the mature trees offer a refuge for birdlife in an area almost devoid of tree canopy. More importantly, according to the Conservation Council of South Australia, the mature trees are helping to contain the contamination. 'The removal of trees puts that site at greater risk of the leakage of those contaminants into the groundwater and obviously then impacting on human health more broadly,' said Kirsty Bevan, the group's CEO, who added Tesla's promises to plant 59 saplings on the site weren't good enough. 'We are proposing that further research needs to be undertaken at that site, and remedial measures need to be put in place,' she said. 'I think that the site improvements we're looking for would come with a forest of trees.' Of the anti-Musk campaign, Bevan said: 'I don't let my personal opinions of people I've never met before interfere with being a voice for nature.' Hanna, the mayor, said councilors heard the opposition but voted 8-3 to pass the proposal because it would create 100 jobs, a 'huge number' for the area. A new business would also pay local taxes, easing the burden on residents during a cost-of-living crisis, Hanna said. 'To have a substantial new factory come into the area is very significant, and it's adjacent to a high-tech manufacturing area, which we developed in the place of an old car plant. So, it actually fits in very well to have a factory that recycles electric batteries,' Hanna said. One of the dissenting councilors, Sarah Luscombe, said she voted against the proposal because the community had sent clear and consistent feedback that they wanted more trees, and the council's own strategic vision is for a 'livable, sustainable community.' 'The people that I've spoken to in the community are just sick and tired of seeing their interests overshadowed by those of large corporations,' Luscombe said. 'More and more, we're seeing communities just saying, 'Well, hang on, I do want to have a say here, and I do want my views to be counted.'' In recent months, Tesla cars and showrooms have been vandalized in multiple countries by critics venting their anger over Musk's support of far-right parties in Europe, and other policies. Hanna said the council had received 'vitriolic correspondence' since approving the proposal, but he wasn't concerned about a violent backlash against the Tesla factory or council members and wouldn't be drawn on his own views on Musk. 'I'm speaking as a mayor, and I don't actually take any political or ideological stance,' he said. 'I just try and make life beautiful for the people in my area.' South Australian Local Government Minister Joe Szakacs told CNN in a statement that he will follow the 'usual process' to determine if the land should be approved for sale. 'Our Government welcomes investment and job creation in South Australia and is proud of its commitment to deliver 100 per cent net renewables by 2027,' he said. Any sale would require the land's owner to submit a development application and decontaminate the site to the standards set by state authorities. South Australia's Environment Protection Authority said it's held preliminary talks with the council and the developer. Addressing legacy contamination is often complex, costly and time-consuming, it added. Neon and Zane organized a snap rally outside the Marion Council building on Wednesday calling for the state government to reject the re-zoning application. More than a dozen protesters held signs, including one that said, 'Elon Musk can get [redacted].' They're determined to keep Tesla out of their area and are unmoved by the promise of more jobs. 'They're going to be jobs on contaminated land in a company that's contaminated by Elon Musk,' said Neon. 'Ninety-nine out of the 117 pages in their report were negative comments about Elon and the proposal. How can you ignore that? And if you do, you're not representing the people, you're just being bought by business.'

Lebanese army warns Israeli airstrikes might force it to freeze cooperation with ceasefire committee
Lebanese army warns Israeli airstrikes might force it to freeze cooperation with ceasefire committee

San Francisco Chronicle​

time26 minutes ago

  • San Francisco Chronicle​

Lebanese army warns Israeli airstrikes might force it to freeze cooperation with ceasefire committee

BEIRUT (AP) — The Lebanese army condemned Friday Israel's airstrikes on suburbs of Beirut, warning that such attacks are weakening the role of Lebanon's armed forces that might eventually suspend cooperation with the committee monitoring the truce that ended the Israel-Hezbollah war. The army statement came hours after the Israeli military struck several buildings in Beirut's southern suburbs that it said held underground facilities used by Hezbollah for drone production. The strikes, preceded by an Israeli warning to evacuate several buildings, came on the eve of Eid al-Adha, a Muslim holiday. The Lebanese army said it started coordinating with the committee observing the ceasefire after Israel's military issued its warning and sent patrols to the areas that were to be struck to search them. It added that Israel rejected the suggestion. The U.S.-led committee that has been supervising the ceasefire that ended the 14-month Israel-Hezbollah war in November is made up of Lebanon, Israel, France, the U.S. and the U.N. peacekeeping forces in Lebanon known as UNIFIL. 'The Israeli enemy violations of the deal and its refusal to respond to the committee is weakening the role of the committee and the army,' the Lebanese army said in its statement. It added such attacks by Israel could lead the army to freeze its cooperation with the committee 'when it comes to searching posts.' Since the Israel-Hezbollah war ended, Israel has carried out nearly daily airstrikes on parts of Lebanon targeting Hezbollah operatives. Beirut's southern suburbs were struck on several occasions since then. The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel began on Oct. 8, 2023, when the Lebanese militant group began launching rockets across the border in support of its ally, Hamas, in Gaza. Israel responded with airstrikes and shelling and the two were quickly locked in a low-level conflict that continued for nearly a year before escalating into full-scale war in September 2024. It killed more than 4,000 people in Lebanon, including hundreds of civilians, while the Lebanese government said in April that Israeli strikes had killed another 190 people and wounded 485 since the ceasefire agreement. There has been increasing pressure on Hezbollah, both domestic and international, to give up its remaining arsenal, but officials with the group have said they will not do so until Israel stops its airstrikes and withdraws from five points it is still occupying along the border in southern Lebanon. Hezbollah says that it has ended its military presence along the border with Israel south of the Litani River, in accordance with terms of the ceasefire deal.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store