 |
| Pix Credit New York Times |
On 5 December 2023, NPR posted its reporting on a U.S. House of Representatives hearing that had produced national interest and substantial coverage by U.S. press organs of a variety of distinctive grounding points of view.
Claudine Gay of Harvard, Elizabeth Magill of Penn and Sally Kornbluth of MIT spoke before the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce for several hours on Tuesday, condemning the rise in antisemitic incidents and defending their administrations' responses. * * * The hearing — which was titled "Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism" — turned combative at times. Republican lawmakers grilled the administrators on topics like ideological diversity, foreign university funding and specific disciplinary actions. Committee chair Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., described the hearing in her opening remarks as an opportunity for leaders to "answer to and atone for the many specific instances of vitriolic, hate-filled antisemitism on your college campuses that have denied students the safe learning environment they're due."(Rachel Triesman, "Lawmakers grill the presidents of Harvard, MIT and Penn over antisemitism on campus," NPR 5 Dec. 2023).
 |
| Pix Credit Wall Street Journal |
Opinions of course had likely hardened long before the delivery of the testimony and the performance of verbal exchanges that were video recorded and transcribed for the consumption of the masses, and toward the dueling constitution of narrative that might serve the interests and ideologies of the participants, stakeholders, and their respective circles (see, e.g., here, here).
Nonetheless, it is useful for those interested to consider the text of the statements crafted for delivery by the presidents of these institutions. Each of them follows below. They may also be accessed here: Penn; MIT; and Harvard.
They are worthy of deep study for what they tell of of the discursive style of social leaders and high-level functionaries within the structures (in this case in the academic field) of national vanguard elites as they craft discourse to serve ends and in the process shape and reshape both principle and the context (context was a critically important semiotic marker throughout the hearings) in which those principles might be manifested in the service of whatever it is that each of the statements identified. Indeed, in the fields of narrative curation and deployment, contextually relevant discourse appears to have assumed the role that administrative discretion has come to signify in the fields of public and private governance. That, in turn, permits a broad scope of choice in application of the principles, by those with the power to identify and signify context, subject only to the interpretation of the limiting principles themselves or discipline by a body with greater authority. Context can then represent a phenomenological engagement (we are the aggregation of our actions) with principle, an epistemological identification (we know what can be known in the way we can come to know it) of relevant spaces, or a dialectical embrace of something that is both emerging and as yet indeterminate in the fullness of its implications (the ontology of "semitism" and its semiotic synonyms, antonyms, homonyms, and homophones). What is certain is that one encounters here contextually relevant discourse within contextually relevant applications creating a continually relevant engagement of something that can be better understood through a dialectical process of oppositions. The result is the complicated inter-weaving, that weaving together, which lies at the heart of the origins of the term context, and which forms the essence of what was offered. But at the same time the presidential texts also serve as an invitation (in their own context) to a contestation on the same basis as the one in which the statements were offered.
Consideration of all of these points are left to the reader. I offer no views on the text or the performances in the space in which they were presented; I offer only text within that con-text. Semiotics, however, suggests that a close reading, in context, will reward the reader with the signification of its object (there are multiple objects the balancing of which occupies much of the text of the statements) the interpretation of which provides the contextual foundations within which the sense attempted to be conveyed are deployed.
President M. Elizabeth Magill, University of Pennsylvania
Testimony before the
United States House of Representatives
Committee on Education and the Workforce on
“Holding Campus Leaders Accountable and Confronting Antisemitism”
December 5, 2023
Thank you, Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this Committee, for the opportunity to discuss the important issue of rising antisemitism in our society and the actions we are taking in response at the University of Pennsylvania (Penn).
My name is Elizabeth Magill. For just over a year, I have had the honor of serving as the 9th President of the University of Pennsylvania, a 283-year-old institution founded by Benjamin Franklin. Prior to joining Penn, I was Executive Vice President and Provost of the University of Virginia, the Dean of the Stanford Law School, and for many years a professor of law at the University of Virginia. Early in my career, I worked as a law clerk for J. Harvie Wilkinson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Let me begin by saying that I, and the University of Pennsylvania, are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s abhorrent terrorist attack on Israel on October 7th. There is no justification—none—for those heinous attacks. The loss of life and suffering that are occurring in Israel and Gaza during the ensuing war are heartbreaking. The pain extends to our campus. I know it from my daily conversations with our students, faculty, and staff, as well as parents and alumni.
This hearing was called to discuss antisemitism on college campuses. I value this opportunity to reaffirm my and Penn’s unyielding opposition to antisemitism and to outline the urgent, university-wide actions we are taking to combat this centuries-old and resurgent threat.
As President, my first priority is to members of the Penn community and, above all, to their safety and support. I must also ensure that our academic mission thrives; that academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas endure; and that we swiftly address any violation of the law or our University’s policies. These are the priorities Penn is seeking to achieve in the actions I will discuss today.
Penn’s Relationship with the Jewish Community
The vibrant engagement of Jewish faculty, students, staff, and alumni has long been an integral part of Penn. To see this sense of belonging shaken by recent events is deeply troubling. We trace our history back to 1772 with the enrollment of Penn’s first Jewish student, Moses Levy, who later became the first Jewish Trustee of the University. The Jewish Students’ Association at Penn was established in 1924. In 1970, Martin Meyerson became the first Jewish Ivy League President. Since 2012, we have partnered with the USC Shoah Foundation Institute’s Visual History Archive to make available to students and researchers more than 50,000 video testimonials of Holocaust survivors and other witnesses.
We—and I—are proud of our history and the prominent role our Jewish community plays in campus life and, broadly, in Penn’s academic excellence. Under my leadership, we will never shrink from our moral responsibility to combat antisemitism and educate others to recognize and reject hate.
Addressing Antisemitism
Prior to October 7th, antisemitism—a pernicious, viral evil—was already rising in our society, and global events have dramatically accelerated the surge. No place is immune, and campuses, including ours, have recently experienced an unacceptable number of antisemitic incidents. We are combatting this evil head on with immediate action.
I have condemned antisemitism publicly, regularly, and in the strongest terms possible and today want to reiterate my and Penn’s commitment to combatting it. For decades our Division of Public Safety has learned from and worked with the Anti-Defamation League office in Philadelphia, and we are working closely with them, as well as local, state, and federal law enforcement to promptly report and investigate antisemitic acts against any member of the Penn community. Where we have been able to identify individuals who committed these acts in violation of existing University policy or law, we have initiated disciplinary proceedings and referred these matters to law enforcement where appropriate.
We have also acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near campus. We have expanded the presence of Penn Public Safety and Allied Security at our religious life centers including Penn Hillel, the Herbert D. Katz Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, and the Lubavitch House. We also enhanced security at every event, rally, protest, and vigil on campus. Penn Public Safety works in close collaboration with law enforcement, including the Philadelphia Police Department.
Like many communities around the world, Penn has also experienced protests, rallies, and vigils related to the terrorist attack and the subsequent war. Protest—and all it entails—has long been a feature of university life. Penn’s approach to protest is guided by the U.S. Constitution, outlined in decades-old open expression policies, and supported and upheld by trained Open Expression Observers. We recognize the right of peaceful protest and assembly, and we give broad protection to free expression—even expression that is offensive. At the same time, we have zero tolerance for violence or speech intended to incite it. Our public safety officers are present at every protest, rally, or vigil, trained in de-escalation techniques, and, if necessary, they are ready to act.
Protests playing out on campuses and in cities worldwide demonstrate the challenges of fostering robust debate during difficult times. In addition to respecting the right of protest, Penn is offering many ways for students to come together in classrooms and in small groups to discuss these issues. Making space for this sort of debate is in keeping with the best traditions and educational missions of institutions like Penn. Educating citizens requires engagement with real-world challenges and hard topics—topics that often inspire passionate responses. University leadership must provide guardrails that encourage free and open expression while also ensuring a secure environment, and that is what I am seeking to do.
These immediate actions are only the first step. I am also committed to lasting change and laying the foundation for a Penn that leads on these issues. On November 1, 2023, I announced Penn’s Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism, which builds on our anti-hate efforts to date and is anchored in the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. Developed in collaboration with faculty, staff, students, campus leaders, alumni, and national organizations like the American Jewish Committee, our Action Plan centers on three key areas: (1) Safety and Security, (2) Engagement, and (3) Education. In each of these areas, we announced both immediate and medium-term actions.
As part of that Action Plan, I have convened and charged an Antisemitism Task Force, with membership across Penn’s schools and communities, to identify concrete, actionable recommendations. I have directed the Task Force to provide me with their recommendations in real time and to deliver their final report by this spring.
We are making certain that all our educational efforts aimed at addressing bigotry include antisemitism and other forms of hate.
To ensure our Jewish students have a direct channel to share their experiences with me, I have invited and received over 80 applications for membership to a new Student Advisory Group on the Jewish Student Experience.
I also sent a delegation of university leaders to attend the Brandeis Leadership Symposium on Antisemitism in Higher Education. They have reported back to me and are already contributing best practices and lessons learned toward our efforts.
As these efforts progress, I know we will have more to report.
The Rise of Other Forms of Hate
While I know this hearing is focused on antisemitism, we, and society broadly, are facing another significant challenge in this moment as well. We are seeing rising harassment, intimidation, doxing, and threats toward students, faculty, and staff based on their identity or perceived identity as Muslim, Palestinian, or Arab. Some have lost family members in this war, and many are worried about the safety of their loved ones in the region. Many are also afraid for their own safety, and the horrifying shooting of three Palestinian students in Vermont has only deepened their fears.
I am appalled by and have publicly condemned these acts of harassment, threats, and intimidation. We are investigating all allegations, even when threats have come from outside our campus. We are providing resources and advice to assist individuals with online doxing, harassment, and threats. Safety and security for individuals and places of worship has been increased across the board, and we are deploying all necessary resources to support any member of our community who is the target of hate.
In addition to these immediate steps, I have created a Presidential Commission on Countering Hate and Building Community to empower our campus leaders to address antisemitism, Islamophobia, and hate in all forms, and to lay the groundwork for a stronger, more connected community. I will direct the Commission to provide me their recommended actions by spring.
Changing Penn for the Better
In challenging times, leaders must make many choices. The most important choice is to take the full measure of what we face, act decisively, communicate clearly, and lay the foundation for a stronger institution in the years to come. Our immediate actions—safety and support of our community, investigation and enforcement of policies and laws, and condemnation of hate—are essential. We will remain vigilant. We are also setting the stage for long-term change. I am committed to ensuring that Penn not only takes immediate action to combat antisemitism, but also creates lasting change and emerges as a higher education leader in this regard. Penn’s all-in efforts today, I believe, will bring about that better tomorrow.
Closing
Higher education institutions create knowledge, share it for good, and educate the next generation—missions that have never been more essential. Leading Penn is the honor of a lifetime because, even in these challenging times, we have never been stronger than we are today. Penn has attracted and is home to more-talented faculty, students, and staff than ever before. Each day, our faculty educate students while producing life-changing and award-winning insights and discoveries. Our health system provides world-class clinical care. Our students grow in their respective fields and go on to lead.
If you visited Penn’s campus today, you would see vibrant university life. Students are walking to class and preparing for exams. Faculty are teaching seminars and undertaking research. Doctors, nurses, and health care providers are tending to thousands of patients. Dedicated staff are enabling the work of the University. You would also see many people engaged in serious and respectful conversation—despite disagreement—about difficult topics, including those related to the Israel-Hamas war.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the topic of this hearing, the disturbing rise of antisemitism. As the President of Penn, I join you—emphatically—in addressing these concerns and fostering solutions. That is why we are urgently taking both immediate and lasting action to make Penn an even better, stronger institution now and for the future. We must and we will stand together in unyielding opposition to antisemitism, hate in all its forms, and all forces that would seek to divide us.
I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Opening Statement for US House Committee on Education and Workforce Hearing
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott and Members of the Committee,
Thank you for this opportunity to describe how MIT is fighting the scourge of antisemitism.
My name is Sally Kornbluth. I have been president of MIT since January of this year.
As an American, as a Jew, and as a human being, I abhor antisemitism, and my administration is combatting it actively. Since October 7th, my campus communications have been crystal clear about the dangers of antisemitism and about the atrocity of the Hamas terror attack.
Let me repeat what I said in my very first message to campus. In that video, I said, “The brutality perpetrated on innocent civilians in Israel by terrorists from Hamas is horrifying. In my opinion, such a deliberate attack on civilians can never be justified.”
I also made clear that students were feeling unsafe “because of their Jewish faith, or their ties to Israel” and said, “That should trouble every one of us deeply.”
I have reinforced this message, including in a November 14th campus video.. As I said then, “Antisemitism is real, and it is rising in the world. We cannot let it poison our community.”
I have been direct and unequivocal – and such leadership statements are important. But they must be paired with action. This is just what we’re doing at MIT.
- Months before October 7th, MIT joined the International Hillel Campus Climate Initiative, which helps universities build awareness of and action against antisemitism.
- We have launched an MIT-wide effort called “Standing Together Against Hate.” It will emphasize both education and community building, especially in our residence halls. In addition to fighting antisemitism, it will address Islamophobia – also on the rise, and also underreported. MIT will take on both, not lumped together, but with equal energy and in parallel.
- Importantly, as is clearly visible on campus, we have increased the MIT police presence. Safety has been our primary concern.
Nonetheless, I know some Israeli and Jewish students feel unsafe on campus. As they bear the horror of the Hamas attacks and the history of antisemitism, these students have been pained by chants in recent demonstrations.
I strongly believe there’s a difference between what we can say to each other – that is, what we have a right to say – and what we should say, as members of one community.
Yet as president of MIT – in addition to my duties to keep the campus safe, and to maintain the functioning of this national asset – I must, at the same time, ensure that we protect speech and viewpoint diversity, for everyone, in keeping with the Institute’s principles on freedom of expression.
Meeting those three goals is challenging, and the results can be terribly uncomfortable. But it is essential to how we operate in the United States.
Those who want us to shut down protest language are, in effect, arguing for a speech code. But in practice, speech codes do not work. Problematic speech needs to be countered with other speech and with education, and we are doing that.
However, the right to free speech certainly does not extend to harassment, discrimination or incitement to violence in our community. MIT policies are clear on this. To keep the campus functioning, we also have policies to regulate the time, place and manner of demonstrations. Reports of student conduct that may violate our policies are handled through our faculty-led Committee on Discipline.
Our campus actions to date have protected student safety, minimized disruption to campus activities and protected the right to free expression. We are intensifying our central efforts to combat antisemitism – the vital subject of this hearing. I note that I am also deeply concerned about the rise in prejudice and hatred against Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, nationally and in our community, and we are determined to combat that as well. We are also supporting faculty, staff and student initiatives to counter hate. And thanks to an inspiring group of faculty members, we are seeing more discussion among students with conflicting views.
We know there is further work to do. But we are seeing progress. And MIT’s vital mission continues.
Thank you. I’m happy to answer your questions.
* * *
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members of
the Committee, I appreciate your leadership on this important issue and
welcome the opportunity to discuss it today.
My name is Claudine Gay, and I am honored to serve as the 30th
President of Harvard University. My parents immigrated to America from
Haiti with very little, but they believed in this country and in the
transformative power of education. With their support, I pursued my own
education passionately, eventually earning my doctorate at Harvard. I
have since dedicated my career to educating today’s students and
building upon Harvard’s tradition of excellence.
I am privileged to appear before this Committee representing the full
Harvard community. Founded more than a century before the Declaration
of Independence was signed, Harvard is America’s first institution of
higher learning. Today, the Harvard community includes more than 25,000
undergraduate and graduate students, 19,000 faculty and staff, and more
than 400,000 alumni worldwide, including multiple Members of this
Committee.
On October 7, Hamas brutally attacked and murdered over a thousand
civilians in Israel, including American citizens. I condemn that attack
unequivocally. That terrorist attack, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza
that followed, and reactions to these events in the United States and
across the world have shone a spotlight on ancient forms of hate that
continue to fester in our societies and, unfortunately, persist on
college campuses.
We at Harvard reject antisemitism and denounce any trace of it on our
campus or within our community. Harvard must provide firm leadership in
the fight against antisemitism and hate speech even while preserving
room for free expression and dissent. This is difficult work, and I
admit that we have not always gotten it right. As Harvard’s President, I
am personally responsible for confronting antisemitism with the urgency
it demands.
I am grateful for the chance to share the meaningful steps that we are taking to address this challenge.
I. OCTOBER 7 ATTACKS AND THEIR AFTERMATH
Words cannot express the horror and monstrosity of the atrocities
committed by the Hamas terrorist group on October 7 or the disgust I,
and all of us, feel in response to them. Hamas’s premeditated murder,
torture, and hostage-taking of civilians reflects unimaginable cruelty
and contempt for human dignity.
The pain in the wake of October 7 has been compounded by reports of
rising incidences of antisemitic and Islamophobic hate crimes and
attacks in the United States and elsewhere. The combination of violence
in the Middle East and prejudiced speech and hateful actions at home
have left many fearful and distraught.
That is true at Harvard as well. Many, including myself, feel a profound sense of loss and sadness. Some are angry. Others are frightened. These feelings are being exacerbated by the rise in antisemitism, including on our campus.
In the immediate aftermath of the attack, my colleagues and I focused
on determining whether any Harvard community members, or their
families, were in Israel or the larger region and in need of assistance.
The following night, I visited Harvard Hillel to share in our Jewish
students’ grief and shock. On Monday, October 9, I led a joint statement
with all the Deans of Harvard’s schools expressing sorrow and
compassion for the victims of this attack, including their friends,
families, and loved ones. The next morning, I added a personal statement
underscoring my condemnation of the inhumane and abhorrent atrocities
perpetrated by Hamas.
In the days and weeks that followed, I met with members of our Jewish
community to offer my administration’s full and unwavering support. I
shared Shabbat dinner at Harvard Chabad and Hillel on October 13 and 27,
respectively, and I met separately with Harvard’s rabbis at both Hillel
and Chabad. At these events, we mourned together, and many shared their
fears and concerns with me. At Hillel, I announced steps my
administration would take to combat antisemitism.
Over the last several weeks, I have continued speaking with students,
faculty, and alumni in our community about how the events of October 7
and its aftermath were affecting them, with a focus on those who were
feeling vulnerable or isolated. I have attended Friday Prayers with our
Muslim community, met with Harvard’s Muslim chaplains, and met with
multiple groups of Muslim undergraduate and graduate students.
Over the last two months, there have been numerous demonstrations on
campus protesting the violence in the Middle East and showing support
for those affected. Impassioned reactions to these events are
understandable. But there is no excuse for hate or harassment within our
community.
I am deeply troubled by instances of inflammatory rhetoric and
division on campus. Individuals are reporting feeling threatened by
others in our community. The chilling effect created by these tactics
threatens to turn our community of learning and trust into an
environment of alienation and fear. Reckless and thoughtless rhetoric—in
person and online, on campus and off—is undermining feelings of
belonging among members of the Harvard community.
Efforts to threaten or intimidate members of our community betray
Harvard’s core values. Harvard’s mission stretches back centuries, has
endured wars and depressions, and has outlasted difficulties and strife
across eras because we upheld foundational principles. Chief among them
are freedom of speech and open academic inquiry. They are fundamental to
our ability to foster curiosity, creativity, and academic discovery.
We believe the best path to uncover truth is through open inquiry and
robust debate. Harvard understands that hatred is a symptom of
ignorance. The cure for ignorance is knowledge. But the pursuit of truth
is possible only when freedom of expression is protected and exercised.
At Harvard, we will not allow discomfort or disagreement with opinions
fairly expressed to impede this pursuit.
At the same time, true open discourse requires respect for our
community, and we must do more to ensure such respect is shown. We
encourage the vigorous exchange of ideas, but we will not, under any
circumstances, permit speech that incites violence, threatens safety, or
violates Harvard’s policies against bullying and harassment. My
administration has repeatedly made crystal clear that antisemitism and
other forms of hate have no place at Harvard. Threats and intimidation
have no place at Harvard.
Nor will Harvard allow actions that interfere with its core teaching
and research mission. The vital work of the University—educating leaders
for the future and pursuing knowledge for the benefit of
humanity—continues. And it will continue even as we face these
challenges. There is a time and place for protests, but it is not in the
classroom. Let there be no confusion: Harvard’s top priority is to
protect every student’s physical safety and their right to learn without
disruption. Respect, compassion, and freedom of expression are mutually
reinforcing values that must all be present for Harvard to carry out
its educational mandate.
Harvard’s strength comes from its diversity of ideas and identities.
The open exchange of views is essential to our work and to building a
community of leaders, something we have been working to perfect over
four hundred years. But these successes can occur only when our
community feels safe and heard. Betrayal of our core values of free
expression and mutual respect serves only to sow division, stoke fears,
and undermine a sense of belonging in our community.
II. HARVARD’S RESPONSE TO THE EVENTS OF OCTOBER 7 AND THEIR AFTERMATH
The past two months have shown that Harvard must always strive to do more to facilitate productive, civil discourse in moments of crisis. We must actively teach our community how to engage constructively on complex and divisive issues, and to do so in a way where all our students feel safe and welcome in our community. We must accelerate efforts to make our community a model for how to talk and listen, to educate and learn across lines of difference.
With these principles in mind, my administration has been mobilizing and engaging stakeholders in our community to combat antisemitism, as well as ensuring the safety and security of all members of our community. Here are just a few examples of actions we have taken over the past two months:
- Increased Security: We have increased campus security in important and potentially vulnerable University spaces like student residences. When necessary, we have been closing the gates to Harvard Yard to limit the ability of outside actors and groups to use our campus as a platform. We and our University Police have also engaged in close coordination with local, state, and federal law enforcement to assess and respond to any threats to our community. Our University Police have likewise been monitoring a hotline 24/7 to address online harassment.
- Policies For On-Campus Events: We have provided clear requirements for on-campus events, including engaging in broad efforts to remind our students and community about the University’s policies and requirements for demonstrations and protests, and the disciplinary implications for violating those policies.
- Increased Reporting Mechanisms: We have increased outreach to our community regarding ways to report discrimination, harassment, and abusive behavior, and we have widely disseminated these tools to the Harvard community. This includes increased monitoring of online harassment by our information security department. We also have a hotline for community members to report incidents anonymously.
- Enhanced Counseling Resources: We have robust mental health and counseling resources, including a 24/7 care line, and a dedicated team specifically prepared to help our undergraduates navigate these resources. We have also added additional trauma-informed counseling resources through our Counseling and Mental Health Services.
- Religious Community Support: We have organized
community support sessions through our counseling team and Harvard’s
chaplains, which comprise more than thirty faith leaders representing
many of the world’s religions, including Judaism and Islam.
Harvard’s efforts to combat antisemitism on campus, which is the
focus of today’s hearing, do not prevent Harvard from fighting other
forms of hate within our community. It is possible to feel deeply
concerned for all students affected by recent events and to balance free
expression on campus with the right of all our students to feel safe
and included. Compassion is not a finite resource.
III. HARVARD’S COMMITMENT TO COMBATING ANTISEMITISM AND HATE ON CAMPUS
While we are proud of the initial steps Harvard has taken in the immediate aftermath of October 7, much work remains. Antisemitism has deep roots that grew long before Hamas’s attack. It will take time and focused efforts by my administration and our community to heal the divides on campus, and build the solidarity and collective action necessary to counter this hatred. But we are in it for the duration, and we will not cease our work until all members of our community feel safe and respected so they can learn and thrive.
In addition to the steps outlined above, we will take the following steps to combat religious hate in all its forms:
- Antisemitism and Islamophobia Education: Harvard will implement a robust program of education and training for students, faculty, and staff on antisemitism and Islamophobia broadly and at Harvard specifically. These educational programs will provide history and context about the roots of certain rhetoric that has been heard on our campus in recent weeks, and its impact on Jewish and Muslim members of our community. The goal is to identify antisemitism and Islamophobia in daily life and interrupt its harmful influence.
- Efforts from Individual Schools: Several of our Schools have announced their own efforts and commitments. Last month Harvard Business School launched four working groups—on (1) Antisemitism, (2) Islamophobia and Anti-Arabism, (3) Classroom Culture, and (4) Free Expression—tasked with proposing both short and long-term actions to address these issues. Harvard’s Business School and Kennedy School likewise recently hosted a panel discussion on the history of the Israel-Palestine conflict and possible paths forward. Later this month, the Harvard Radcliffe Institute will host a panel discussion regarding universities’ responses to conflict and protest, including efforts to address concerns about antisemitism and Islamophobia.
- External Partnerships: Harvard is actively working
to identify and build partnerships with outside organizations,
especially those with well-established track records of fighting
antisemitism. For instance, we are discussing a collaboration with the
Foundation to Combat Antisemitism, and Deans of Harvard’s Schools
recently met with the Foundation President to further discuss
partnership opportunities. A team from Harvard visited the Foundation
last week to plan for specific collaborations.
I will continue to mobilize my full authority as President to confront antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hate. It is my top priority to foster a community that exercises free speech with tolerance, respect, and compassion.
Harvard’s strength is its engaged community. I want to thank our
alumni—including those on this Committee—and other valued members of the
Harvard community who have spoken out and offered suggestions or
encouragement during this difficult time. Harvard values that input and
will continue to work with, and listen to, members of the community to
ensure that its approach to these issues is as robust as possible.
IV. CONCLUSION
I’d like to again thank the Committee for the chance to discuss this important work at this critical moment. I have no illusions that these challenges will resolve quickly or easily, just as no one is under any illusions that antisemitism will be extinguished within mere months or with a few focused actions. But that is precisely why we must commit to this work, both in our universities and throughout the country.
I began my tenure as Harvard’s President with an address in which I encouraged our community to ask “Why not?” when imagining Harvard’s future. “Why not?” is a call to act courageously and to take on difficult, entrenched problems with energy, creativity, and resolve. It is a call to put one’s resources and unique talents to their highest possible use. So, I now ask again: “Why not?” Why not show how a campus can take on antisemitism and also preserve freedom of speech? Why not be a model for the world on how to engage across difference, how to embrace both open inquiry and inclusion as community values?
I know Harvard has the tools it needs to achieve these goals, and I am proud to lead this effort. We have the resolve to be a force for good in the world. We have faced moments of divisiveness in the past and have emerged stronger. Through determined effort and guided by our shared values, I have faith we can face adversity as a community to learn, grow, and heal together.
No comments:
Post a Comment