House committee reveals private deliberations behind Harvard's disastrous Oct. 9 statement | News

Updated November 1, 2024 at 3:20 p.m

IIn a tense exchange of emails and text messages two days after Hamas's attack on Israel, 18 senior Harvard administrators co-authored — and watered down — a public statement that backfired, sparked widespread condemnation and ultimately led to the resignation of Claudine Gay contributed as president.

As much of the world reacted with horror and outrage to the killing of more than 1,000 Israelis, administrators debated whether to disavow a social media post signed by more than 30 student groups that called Israel “completely responsible for the unfolding conflict.” Violence” was blamed. Ultimately, her statement said nothing about it.

While the student groups made national headlines, Gay, then-Provost Alan M. Garber '76, and their top deans agonized over minute language. Harvard Medical School Dean George Q. Daley declined to use the word “violent” to describe the Hamas attack. After further debate, it was ultimately removed from the final version.

The internal deliberations were revealed in a 325-page report released Thursday by the Republican-led House Education and Workforce Committee, the latest update to its nearly year-long investigation into campus anti-Semitism at Harvard.

The documents released in the report offer a remarkable behind-the-scenes look at how Harvard officials struggled for weeks to strike the right tone as they tried to appease students, faculty members and donors sharply divided over the war in Gaza .

The report also showed how Gay's administration came under increasing pressure from alumni and members of the university's governing boards, months before Gay's grip on the presidency became increasingly precarious following her disastrous testimony before Congress.

For Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the Education and Workforce Committee, the report showed that universities like Harvard failed to protect Jewish students on campus and were reluctant to condemn anti-Semitism.

“Our investigation has shown that these 'leaders' bear responsibility for the chaos that likely violates Title VI and endangers public safety,” she said in a news release.

“It is time for the executive branch to enforce the law and ensure that colleges and universities restore order and provide a safe learning environment for all students,” Foxx said.

Although most of the material released by the committee is several months old, the report dealt Harvard its biggest public relations blow to date since the committee began releasing documents in a drip-feed earlier this year.

In a statement to The Crimson, Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny S. Pritzker '81 expressed her confidence in Garber and the university's current direction.

“I have every confidence that President Garber and his administration, working with the provost, deans and faculty, will continue to support Harvard in learning and growing from the challenges it has faced, recognizing that “Our work is not done and that Harvard will continue to address them.” “They are addressing these issues with the dedication and humility they require,” Pritzker wrote.

Harvard spokesman Jason A. Newton wrote in a statement: “Anti-Semitism has no place on our campus, and across the university we have intensified our efforts to listen to, learn from, support and promote our Jewish community and theirs important place at Harvard.” .”

“At the same time, the university has taken steps to strengthen and clarify rules governing the use of campus space, disciplinary policies and procedures, and to engage our community in civil dialogue to bridge divides,” Newton added. “This work is ongoing, and Harvard is fully committed to it and confident that we are moving in the right direction.”

However, the report revealed how the university found it difficult to respond to protests on campus and determine when rhetoric from pro-Palestine activists had crossed a line, even though it did not clarify its policies and rules governing spaces on campus had.

In particular, the committee released emails showing Gay and Garber advising Pritzker not to label the phrase “from the river to the sea” as anti-Semitic because it would raise questions about why student protesters had not been disciplined because they used it in songs.

Pritzker, who fielded questions from alumni in the weeks after Oct. 7, said she understood the phrase, seen on signs at student protests, as “clearly an anti-Semitic sign calling for the destruction of the Jewish state and Jews.” “. ”

“Can you please help me understand and explain how we handled the situation and how we respond to such signage on campus?” she asked. “Some ask me why we would tolerate that and not signs calling for lynchings by the Ku Klux Klan. Would we do something different now?”

In response, Garber said the decision was “not as easy as some of our friends would like” and argued that it depended on the speaker's intent.

“The bottom line is that the term can be anti-Semitic, but if we do not explain it with nuance, many members of the Harvard community will dispute the claim,” Garber wrote.

Pritzker, who is Jewish and has supported Jewish causes throughout his life, pushed back against Garber in a response.

“I must confess that it feels very anti-Semitic to me, especially since it is used by the anti-Israel terrorist groups Hamas and PFLP,” Pritzker wrote. “So I’m struggling with why it’s not hate speech and why it’s acceptable on our campus and why we don’t condemn it.”

Gay later responded, asking Pritzker to characterize the sentence as “offensive” but not anti-Semitic.

Less than three weeks later, when pressed by members of her anti-Semitism advisory group to condemn the phrase, Gay condemned the use of “from river to sea” in a university-wide message but refrained from directly calling it anti-Semitic .

Penny S. Pritzker '81, a senior fellow at the Harvard Corporation, gave the opening remarks at Gay's inauguration last year. In private emails, Pritzker advocated for the university to label the phrase “river to sea” as anti-Semitic. By Julian J. Giordano

Recently, Pritzker said in a transcribed interview with the committee that she believes “from the river to the sea” is anti-Semitic and that use of the phrase — now that the university has clarified its anti-bullying and protest policies — would result in disciplinary action Action.

A university spokesman did not respond to whether “River to Sea” chants would currently result in disciplinary action.

“I am fully committed to helping Harvard continue to foster a safe and inclusive community that is free from anti-Semitism and hatred of any kind,” Pritzker wrote in a statement to The Crimson on Thursday. “And as a Jewish person whose ancestors fled to this country from anti-Semitic pogroms in Ukraine, these issues have deep personal meaning for me.”

However, the most damning episode in the committee's report remained the process of drafting the university's initial response to the Hamas attack on Israel. As administrators engaged in a language debate, Gay described her goal in an email to Garber as simply “getting to a yes vote.”

University Marshal Katherine G. O'Dair, who also served as Gay's chief of staff, suggested the statement specifically denounce the Hamas attack, but the sentence was ultimately omitted from the final draft, as was language suggested by University Secretary Marc L. Goodheart In 1981, the university distanced itself from the student groups' social media post.

Daley, the dean of HMS, also called for the word “violent” to be removed from the statement, expressing concern that it could be interpreted as the university choosing a side in the conflict.

“When I first read it, it sounded like the best way to express one's horror at the carnage that is unfolding is to assign blame,” Daley wrote.

Harvard Graduate School of Design Dean Sarah M. Whiting agreed with Daley, but both Harvard Kennedy School Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf and Harvard Divinity School Interim Dean David F. Holland disagreed .

In a private conversation with Gay, Garber took aim at Daley over his suggestion.

“I don’t love it, but I can live with the change,” Garber wrote. “To be honest, his logic bothers me more than the change in wording.”

When Harvard finally released the statement shortly before 8 p.m. on October 9, 2023, there was a major backlash.

“Instead of moral clarity and courage, they offer committee-approved word salad,” wrote Rep. Jake D. Auchincloss ’10 (D-Mass.).

Under pressure, Gay released another message the next day condemning “the terrorist atrocities committed by Hamas” and distancing the university from the student groups' statement. Weeks later, Daley also released his own message, calling October 7 a “terrible terrorist attack” and denouncing the statement of the controversial student groups.

But the damage was done.

In a November 2023 interview with The Crimson, Garber expressed regret over the initial statement.

“Our goal is to ensure our community is safe and feels well supported – and this initial statement has not been successful in that regard,” he said.

– Staff Writer Emma H. ​​Haidar can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @HaidarEmma.

—Editor Cam E. Kettles can be reached at [email protected]. Follow her on X @cam_kettles or on threads @camkettles.