Harvard University’s decision to adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism sparks debate over free speech, criticism of Israel, and the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism.

• Harvard settles lawsuit with Jewish students who accused pro-Palestine protesters of antisemitism.

• The IHRA definition, adopted by Harvard, has been criticized for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

• The move comes amid nationwide campus protests against Israel’s war on Gaza and efforts to suppress dissent.

• Constitutional scholars argue the IHRA definition and related legislation threaten First Amendment rights and stifle legitimate political discourse.

Harvard University chills student protests by unilaterally claiming their speech is antisemitic

Harvard University has agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, settling a lawsuit brought by Jewish students who alleged that pro-Palestine protests on campus in 2024 created a hostile environment. The decision, announced in May 2024, has reignited debates over free speech, the boundaries of political criticism, and the role of universities in navigating contentious geopolitical issues.

The lawsuit, filed by the group Students Against Antisemitism in January 2024, accused Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The complaint specifically cited pro-Palestinian protests against Israel’s war on Gaza, which began after the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, as a source of antisemitic rhetoric.

As part of the settlement, Harvard agreed to incorporate the IHRA definition into its non-discrimination and anti-bullying policies, provide training on combating antisemitism, and use the definition when reviewing discrimination complaints. Marc Kasowitz, counsel for Students Against Antisemitism, praised the resolution, calling it a “meaningful action to combat antisemitism, hate, and bias on college campuses.”

The new IHRA definition: a controversial framework

The new IHRA definition, formulated in 2004 and published in 2005, was initially developed by antisemitism expert Kenneth Stern in collaboration with the American Jewish Committee. While it has been adopted by numerous governments and institutions, including the U.S. under both the Trump and Biden administrations, it has faced significant criticism for its broad application.

Constitutional scholars argue that the IHRA definition conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel, particularly its policies toward Palestinians. The definition includes examples such as “claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” and “applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.” These provisions, critics say, risk stifling legitimate political discourse and equating anti-Zionism—opposition to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state—with antisemitism.

Harvard’s decision comes amid a wave of protests on college campuses across the U.S., where students have mobilized against Israel’s war on Gaza, which has killed more than 46,000 Palestinians, according to Palestinian health authorities. Many of these protests have called for universities to divest from companies profiting from the conflict, echoing the divestment campaigns of the 1980s against South African apartheid.

However, these protests have often been met with harsh responses from university administrations, including the deployment of police to dismantle encampments and the implementation of new speech guidelines. In August 2024, New York University declared Zionists a “protected class,” further fueling concerns about the suppression of pro-Palestinian voices.

“Antisemitism Awareness Act” seeks to outlaw criticism against Israel’s genocidal actions

The Antisemitism Awareness Act, passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2024, represents the latest effort to codify the IHRA definition into federal law. The bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in October 2023 by Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. It passed the House on May 1, 2024, with a vote of 320-91, with significant bipartisan support.

Critics argue that the bill, which is now moving to the Senate, is part of a broader strategy to criminalize anti-Israel sentiments and shield Israel from criticism.

This time around, attacks against the First Amendment are supported by several members of both political parties. Congress may actually decide to shred the First Amendment all to protect the genocide taking place in Gaza.

Sources include:

MiddleEastEye.net

Kasowitz.com

MiddleEastEye.net