It seems these days there is always some imperative for organizations and institutions to make a statement about the latest headline.  For groups that already have a stake in the issue, it makes sense. Consider the days, weeks and months after the death of George Floyd. That event clearly raised issues of police action, racism, justice, and much more. Without a doubt there are civil, governmental and private institutions that already had a voice in the arenas. These statements were often accompanied by actions such as policy reviews, educational initiatives, and support for protests and advocacy work. Other voices joined in.

Among the institutions releasing statements was Harvard University. I don’t envy university leadership and their communications departments when faced with events in the public realm. Should they make a statement? Does silence condone the action? Is silence a judgment that somehow the event did not rise to the level of importance (?) that a statement was needed – which will raise its own response from people/groups that did not agree with the implied assessment. Perhaps the statements should be limited to events and circumstances that impact the campus community – but then there is likely an on-campus group that is sure to bring the outside event into the campus community in the form of statements, protests, demonstration or other actions. It is not surprising to note that several prominent universities have announced they are no longer issuing statements as a matter of course unless they feel it pertains to the university and its educational mission.  And yes, that announcement brought about its own repercussions.

The events of October 7, 2024 were horrific and rightly called terrorism – worthy of condemnation “full stop” without any trailing caveat. Joining in the condemnation does not then forfeit the right to (later) engage the complicated circumstances in Gaza that brought about Hamas leadership and Israeli policy. It was and will continue to be a contentious, fiery, passionate conversation (debate, clash, shouting match, etc.) – fueled by the ensuing incursion (invasion, counter-offensive – label it as you will) and the toll of human life.  A dear friend of mine, a combat veteran and retired US Marine, understands the milieu well: “When a war starts, both sides think they will win, and one is always wrong and most often the other paid too dearly for victory and found they were far worse for the experience.”

The unfolding events on US college campuses were perplexing to ordinary Americans – or so it seemed to me. Not the fact of the protest but how quickly control/security/safety was lost as some campuses descended into calls for the genocide of Jews.  Then the university administration, quick to comment on many issues, was silent about clear violations of their own student code of conduct in what was blatant anti-Jewish sentiment (couched in the language of anti-Zionist rhetoric). The university leadership was later on full display in testimony before Congress when they were unable to  admit to Congress that calls for the genocide of Jews violate their universities’ codes of student conduct. I didn’t think it was a hard or tricky question. First Amendment and free speech issues aside, most people are able to say that the call for genocide or murder of any group and persons is wrong.

Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts, Judge Richard Sterns, put Harvard University (and all university administrations) on notice: when it comes to combating antisemitism: talk is cheap. The judge gave the go-ahead to a student organization’s case against Harvard that alleges the university failed to protect the civil rights of Jewish students even as they were harassed, intimidated, and violently attacked by their peers. “The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students,” Stearns wrote in his 25-page decision.

Harvard urged the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that campus administrators had done enough to combat antisemitism by issuing condemnations of it, holding listening sessions about it, pulling together a task force on it, and pledging to take action against it. But Judge Stearns rightly observed that federal civil rights law demands more than denunciations—it requires meaningful action. Dismissal of the case, he reasoned, “would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the [Plaintiffs], proved hollow.”