Two days after Hamas's attack on Israel last year, senior administrators at Harvard University engaged in internal discussions regarding their public response. During the drafting of a statement, they opted to remove the term "violent" to describe the attack after a dean expressed concerns that it could imply blame.
Harvard leaders debated whether to explicitly reject a declaration from some student groups attributing responsibility for the violence to Israel but ultimately chose not to do so. This internal struggle among administrators, including Claudine Gay, then president of Harvard, was revealed in emails and text messages released in a report by the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The report, stemming from a yearlong inquiry into antisemitism on university campuses, highlights the challenges faced by university leaders in making moral judgments about antisemitism and responding to global issues. The committee accuses university leadership of allowing antisemitism to flourish as pro-Palestinian demonstrations took place nationwide.
The report includes 400,000 pages of documents from multiple universities, arguing that these institutions may have violated civil rights laws requiring them to address hostile environments for Jewish students. Representative Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the House committee, criticized the universities for treating the issue as a public relations matter rather than a serious concern for Jewish students.
In response to the report, a spokesman for Harvard stated that the university has intensified efforts to support its Jewish community. The internal messages among university leaders suggest that they were caught off guard by the intensity of the protests and struggled to find effective responses. Several university presidents resigned following the protests.
The report also details how Northwestern University’s president appointed faculty members perceived as "radical" to negotiate with protesters. Additionally, at Columbia University, negotiators considered concessions to protesters that included reviewing divestment proposals and establishing a scholarship fund for students from the West Bank or Gaza, though these offers were ultimately rejected.
The report emphasizes the difficulties universities face in maintaining a neutral stance amid politically charged situations. It reveals internal communications indicating that some university leaders were aware of the potential backlash they faced from both sides of the conflict.
The report criticizes universities for allowing protests that led to violence and for failing to implement promised disciplinary actions. It highlights the internal deliberations at Harvard regarding the meaning of controversial phrases and the crafting of their public statements, which faced scrutiny for being inadequate.
Initially, Harvard’s statement did not include strong language condemning the attack, which drew criticism. Following backlash, a stronger statement was issued the next day, but administrators expressed regret over the initial response.