Harvard University, a prestigious institution where 33 student groups recently held Israel accountable for the October 7 attacks by Hamas, has now declared that labeling someone as a "terrorist sympathizer" could potentially infringe upon the university's anti-discrimination policies.
This information was revealed through a compulsory training program for all Harvard students, as reported by The Washington Free Beacon.
The training material, which was obtained by The Washington Free Beacon, states, "Accusing an individual of being a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, supporting genocide, or urging them to self harm based solely on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristic" could be a violation of the university's policies.
The training also warns against mocking various religious institutions, including the Mormon Church, and "denying the ancestral history of another person or group." Actions such as teasing, mocking, and ridiculing are categorized as "verbal abuse."
This training, conducted by Harvard's anti-discrimination office, also addresses anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. It seems to be a response to the Trump administration's campaign against the university. However, legal experts argue that the guidance exceeds legal requirements and could potentially suppress protected speech, including criticism of the protesters who have made Harvard a prime example of campus radicalism.
Nadine Strossen, a former head of the American Civil Liberties Union, expressed concern over the potential for bias in the enforcement of these policies. "Because each provision essentially vests unfettered discretion in the enforcing officials, they canand, predictably, willexercise that discretion in accordance with their own subjective values," Strossen said.
"And that will in turn lead certain members of the campus communitydefined in terms of both identity and ideasdisproportionately to engage in self-censorship."
David Bernstein, a law professor at George Mason University, warned about the potential chilling effects of the training's language. He pointed out that the phrase "based solely on" might not sufficiently mitigate the potential for self-censorship.
Bernstein used the example of someone wearing a keffiyeh, a symbol often associated with the Palestinian cause, and questioned whether labeling such a person a terrorist supporter would be considered discrimination based on ethnicity.
Title VI, applicable to all recipients of federal funds, prohibits discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. It does not, however, ban discrimination based on religion, except when religious groups, such as Jews, are also considered an ethnicity.
The Harvard training extends beyond these requirements by offering protection to other faiths, including the Church of Latter Day Saints. Bernstein warned that this could potentially turn even lighthearted jokes into potential infractions.
Harvard University has not responded to requests for comment on how it would handle such cases. This training comes amidst the Trump administration's pursuit of a $500-million settlement with Harvard to restore federal funding that was cut from the university in April. Despite a federal judge blocking the cuts, Harvard has been negotiating with the White House and has agreed to some of its demands, including changes to the anti-discrimination bureaucracy that oversaw the training.
The university has merged its Title VI and Title IX compliance efforts into a single office and hired a dedicated Title VI coordinator to address complaints of discrimination based on race and national origin. This move mirrors actions taken by other universities that have found themselves targeted by the Trump administration.
The training highlights how this new layer of bureaucracy could potentially fuel censorship, a concern long voiced by critics of higher education, particularly those on the political right. It also demonstrates how a system designed to combat anti-Semitism could ironically suppress criticism of anti-Semites as schools strive to include more groups in their protected classes.
The term "terror sympathizer" became a point of contention at Harvard when, less than 24 hours after the October 7 attacks, a coalition of 33 student organizations signed a statement blaming "the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all the unfolding violence."
Anti-Israel protesters at the university chanted "long live the Intifada," and an editor at the Harvard Law Review was even charged with assaulting an Israeli business school student who was attempting to walk through a "die-in" protest to reach his dorm.
The editor, Ibrahim Bharmal, was ordered to perform 80 hours of community service and attend anger management classes as part of a pretrial diversion program. In April, the law review awarded him a $65,000 fellowship.
This incident, among others, raises questions about the balance between freedom of speech and the need to maintain a respectful and inclusive campus environment.
Login