In a move that could reverberate across American higher education, Harvard University has agreed to adopt a controversial definition of antisemitism to settle two lawsuits alleging discrimination against Jewish students. The decision to embrace the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition, which defines antisemitism in ways that critics say could stifle legitimate criticism of Israel, comes amid increasing scrutiny of how colleges handle tensions over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The lawsuits, filed by two separate groups of Jewish students, accused Harvard of failing to shield them from what they described as severe and pervasive antisemitism in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The complaints cited alleged harassment and intimidation stemming from campus protests over Israel’s deadly bombardment of Gaza in October 2023 and the university’s purportedly inadequate response.
Defining Antisemitism, Protecting Israel?
While proponents tout the IHRA definition as a crucial tool for combating antisemitism, detractors argue it conflates anti-Jewish bigotry with political speech critical of Israel and Zionism. Several of the definition’s illustrative examples reference Israel, such as claiming that the state’s existence is a “racist endeavor” or applying “double standards” not demanded of other nations.
The IHRA definition is so overbroad it would classify any and all criticism of Israel’s policies as antisemitic.
– Yousef Munayyer, Arab Center Washington DC
Civil liberties advocates fear codifying this interpretation could chill constitutionally protected speech and academic inquiry surrounding one of the world’s most contentious geopolitical issues. In November, the ACLU denounced efforts to enshrine the “vague and overbroad” IHRA definition in law, encouraging lawmakers to reject a congressional antisemitism awareness bill.
Trump Administration Showdown
The specter of losing federal funding has hung over universities since the turbulent fall protests, as Republicans accused administrators of failing to safeguard Jewish students and stamp out anti-Israel sentiment. Amid congressional hearings and threats to restrict aid, several prominent university presidents resigned, including former Harvard leader Claudine Gay.
With the Trump administration poised to aggressively police campus antisemitism using the IHRA definition favored by pro-Israel groups, observers predict more institutions may follow Harvard’s lead to inoculate themselves. But this defensive posture could invite backlash from faculty, students, and Palestinian rights advocates who view the definition as a pretext to police activism and insulate Israel from opprobrium.
Balancing Inclusion and Open Debate
Beyond agreeing to the IHRA standard, Harvard consented to enhanced reporting on antisemitic incidents and reviewing its non-discrimination policies. But the settlements leave unresolved how the university can uphold both its commitments to an inclusive educational environment and the free exchange of ideas — values that increasingly seem in tension.
Adoption of the IHRA definition by Harvard or other universities would likely violate the free speech principles recognized by the Supreme Court.
– Dima Khalidi, Palestine Legal
As the new academic year approaches, Harvard’s path forward on antisemitism and Israel will be closely watched from lecture halls to the halls of power. With the polarizing definition poised to be a flashpoint, the ability to balance legitimate concerns over hate and harassment with open discourse and debate will be put to the test — not only in Cambridge, but on campuses nationwide.
