To The Editor: On Antisemitism, Plagiarism, and Claudine Gay

In Response to “For the Safety of Jews and Palestinians, Stop Weaponizing Antisemitism,” by Bernie Steinberg

In a recent op-ed in The Crimson, Bernie Steinberg cites his prior experience serving as Harvard Hillel’s executive director to argue that Harvard Hillel is weaponizing antisemitism to silence Palestinian activists. This specious argument is now gaining traction and undermining efforts to support our students on campus: A second article in The Crimson this week referenced Dr. Steinberg’s piece, and an Israeli outlet mentioned it in their coverage.

As the current campus rabbi at Harvard Hillel, I am obliged to dispel Dr. Steinberg’s mistaken beliefs which do not accurately represent the current reality on a campus he has not served in over a decade.

I arrived at Harvard in 2012, two years after Steinberg’s tenure at Hillel. Back then, antisemitism was hardly a major concern. While it may have been present in some corners of the University, it did not seriously trouble most students, and we devoted little attention to it at Hillel.

Tragically, that era of complacency is long past. The last several years have seen a slow buildup of antisemitism — hateful speakers invited to our school, snide remarks uttered in common rooms, Israelis targeted over their nationality — that burst out into the open on Oct. 7.

Oct. 7 wasn’t only the biggest massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, it was the day many Jewish students suddenly began to feel like a shunned minority. Social media posts (including one anonymous post recently that shamed a student who went on Israeli media for her “crooked nose”) and rallies containing hurtful messages became a frequent phenomenon.

That a long-retired Jewish leader would dismiss student concerns when social media posts speak of Jewish control over the media, or when students chant in Arabic “Palestine will be Arab,” is mind-boggling. Dr. Steinberg is out of touch with campus and seems to be unaware of the hatred Jewish students face here routinely.

At Hillel, we’ve taken the concerns of the last few months seriously. We’ve called on the University to implement antisemitism training and promote credible information on the conflict in Israel with multiple viewpoints to advance a constructive conversation on campus. We requested the school fund security to protect students in our campus center. We have called for clarity and accountability on Harvard’s policies regarding what speech is tolerated and the exact forms of speech that are considered bullying and harassment.

We recognize the diversity of perspectives on Israel within the Jewish community, and are proud of the difficult conversations we have hosted at Hillel. The road ahead is not easy, but Harvard Hillel will stand with its Jewish students in this difficult time. Commenting from afar in a way that confuses the issues and fuels antisemites, does nothing to help the students who are right here, right now.

— Rabbi Getzel Davis, campus rabbi at Harvard Hillel

In Response to “President Gay Plagiarized, but She Should Stay. For Now.” by The Crimson Editorial Board

There is an image from G. K. Chesterton’s “Orthodoxy” of “reason swaying upon her throne,” which came to mind as I read the recent piece from this outlet’s Editorial Board declaring, “President Gay Plagiarized, but She Should Stay. For Now.”

As an alum of Harvard College and of The Crimson, as a student of history, and — perhaps most importantly — as someone committed to the view that truth has its own unimpeachable value, some of what I read in that essay left me startled and, frankly, nervous that reason nearly lost her perch entirely.

Readers may review the essay for themselves. A few aspects are quite striking.

First, although the Editorial Board rightly concludes that former president Claudine Gay committed instances of plagiarism — a refreshing admission — they then locate her specific infractions at the lower end of a supposed “spectrum.” Besides taking for granted a meaningful difference between, as the Editorial Board puts it, “passing off another’s academic ideas as one’s own” and “failing to insert quotation marks in a summary of a cited study,” it tells readers little of why either practice is excusable, or why the president of a vaunted university should not be held to account for such acts.

Then, later on, one finds a quite astonishing line of reasoning which suggests that one should oppose the president’s resignation because the first plagiarism allegations were ventured by conservative critics. Here is the Crimson’s own Editorial Board, properly cited: “We also oppose President Gay’s resignation because we are not blind to what has driven this news cycle — a national outrage manufactured by conservative activists intent on discrediting higher education.” Surely, if the Editorial Board intends to defend the integrity of a college education, they would do best not to downplay the importance of academic ethics in this matter. (Nothing that I can think of would do more, as the Board puts it, to “discredit higher education.”)

Finally, I echo the sentiments shared recently in opinion pieces in the New York Times and The Atlantic that some of the Editorial Board’s reasoning smacks of a double-standard — specifically, the kind of exception-making that ingratiates its proponents with those in power while turning a cold shoulder to the rest. I worry, for instance, that the standard nearly laid down in this case would set apart students — for whom the age-old plagiarism norm still applies — from the president of the University.

As the dust settles on former president Gay’s brief tenure, some will undoubtedly ask what — if any — were the lessons of her final weeks in office. I would offer the following: that at Harvard University, even a powerful administrator and a longtime dean is answerable for her academic infractions just like any old campus freshman.

— Henry N. Brooks ’19, a former Crimson Opinion columnist

In Response to the Editorial Board’s Coverage of Former University President Claudine Gay’s Resignation

We are rabbis who are also alumni of Harvard University, writing to express our deep sorrow at the events surrounding the resignation of Dr. Claudine Gay.

We are heartened to see that our pain is shared by many in the Harvard community who have written in these pages, from students for whom Gay’s presidency was an inspiration (“Go Tell It on the Mountain, Claudine Gay”) to faculty who were at times critical of her leadership (“To Move Forward, Harvard Must Refocus on its Mission”).

We understand that a variety of issues were at play in her decision, and that missteps were made by many, including by Dr. Gay and the Harvard Corporation. But it is also clear that Dr. Gay has been the target of a vicious campaign to intimidate and devalue her, as part of a wider assault on efforts to promote diverse and inclusive university leadership.

While we understand the seriousness of the charges of plagiarism, we also cannot overlook the fact that the first Black woman to lead Harvard has been the target of a concerted effort to attack not just her legitimacy, but the legitimacy of racial justice efforts on campus and the enterprise of higher education as a whole.

We are distressed that some in the Jewish community are applauding this decision as a victory for our community. We are deeply concerned about the antisemitism that many students are experiencing on campus, even as we recognize that Jewish trauma has been weaponized in the culture wars that are roiling our society. We want to make clear that as Jewish leaders and as members of the broader Harvard community, we do not rejoice in the end of Dr. Gay’s tenure as president.

Dr. Gay is not — and was not — an enemy of the Jewish people. We see this as a sad moment in Harvard’s history, and one that calls for deep reflection on the part of Harvard’s leadership.

What is important is to create a campus culture that honors the dignity and worth of all of its students and faculty and that is able to tolerate — and even celebrate — the diversity of opinions and cultures that make up the broader Harvard community.

Voices of intolerance and intimidation must not be allowed to rule the day.

— Rabbi Caryn Broitman ’83, Rabbi Jonathan Brumberg-Kraus ’81, Rabbi Kenneth Carr ’89, Rabbi Emma Kippley-Ogman ’03, Rabbi Malkah Binah Klein ’94, Rabbi Neil Kominsky ’66, Rabbi David Rosenn ’89, Rabbi Gerald Serotta ’68, Rabbi Drorah Setel HDS ’83, Rabbi Rona Shapiro ’83, Rabbi Jeremy Sher HDS ’16, Rabbi Toba Spitzer ’85, Rabbi Danielle Stillman, HDS ’99, Rabbi David Teutsch ’72

In Response to “Harvard Must Learn The Lessons of President Gay’s Troubled Tenure.” by The Crimson Editorial Board

In its Jan. 3 editorial, the Editorial Board argues that “opinions should be the province of people on campus — not the University itself,” implying the University should not take positions on global issues.

However, there is a moral imperative for Harvard to speak out when innocent civilians suffer horribly. Violence against civilians is wrong — and can be an internationally recognized war crime.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines war crimes to include “intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.” This definition also includes the “taking of hostages.”

I do not write to opine on conflict in the Middle East but to argue that Harvard should condemn violations of international law and other grave affronts to basic human rights.

Then-University President Claudine Gay was absolutely correct to condemn the “barbaric atrocities perpetrated by Hamas.” Any delay in the delivery of such condemnation was wrong and an embarrassment.

Likewise, the University needs to express specific concern for the heartbreaking circumstances in Gaza.

The United Nations reported that half of Gaza’s population is at risk of starvation and 90 percent say “they regularly go without food for a whole day.” Gazan authorities said over 20,000 people have died, and Israeli authorities, as well as the UN, have expressed general confidence in the accuracy of these death reports.

While sustainable peace is a complex goal, and I do not expect Harvard to have specifics, at the minimum, amidst such widespread suffering, the University should recognize the crisis and express empathy and hope for humanitarian relief.

Harvard has found its voice before, such as when Gay condemned Hamas and then-President Lawrence S. Bacow condemned “the deplorable actions of Vladimir Putin” for invading Ukraine and recognized an institutional “responsibility to condemn such wanton aggression.”

These issues are not political, but rather tests of our commitment to the most basic human empathy.

I hope that Harvard will find its voice for every humanitarian tragedy that it can identify.

— Ian M. Moore ’26, a Crimson Editorial editor

In Response to “Harvard’s Old Presidential Model Is Dead. Here’s a New One.” by Lorenzo Z. Ruiz ’27

Contrary to what Lorenzo Z. Ruiz ’27 claims, it strikes me that a purely academic president is not what Harvard had long had — though perhaps it is exactly what Harvard now needs.

First, Ruiz’s claim that “over the last century,” Harvard has “evolved from a mere university into an intellectual engine with a distinct social purpose and heightened social sway,” and that it should therefore avoid having a “purely academic leader,” puzzles me, from a historical perspective.

As the Harvard Divinity School’s website reports, our university was founded “to advance learning and perpetuate it to posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches, when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.” Surely that is, as Ruiz calls it, a “distinct social purpose.”

Indeed, during the first two centuries of Harvard’s existence, it wielded considerable political power: Eight of the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Harvard men, including John Adams, Class of 1755, who went on to become the first vice president and second president of the United States.

Furthermore, as the world has become more egalitarian, Harvard’s importance as an engine of social power has diminished rather than increased. For instance, as Frank Bruni points out, it is often overlooked that many successful politicians are graduates of schools with names less well-known than Harvard's — President Joe Biden and former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, for instance, went to the University of Delaware.

Another qualm with Ruiz’s history: He announces the death of an old model of Harvard president but prescribes long-ago University President Derek C. Bok as an exemplar of a new one — all while seeming to understand Gay as representative of the outmoded “purely academic” model even though she seems to have been chosen for her administrative rather than academic prowess.

On the merits, it seems to me that Dr. Gay’s performance in the face of public controversy suggests that what Harvard needs in its presidents is precisely the quality of being “academic.” Her response to Oct. 7, for example, might have been stronger had she had more experience from academic work publicly staking out difficult positions with nuance but with confidence. A more academic president’s oeuvre would also, one hopes, be less vulnerable to accusations of plagiarism.

— Jonathan A. Schneiderman ’25

The Editorial Board values responses to our published opinions and other Crimson content. Letters to the Editor must respond directly and explicitly to either an opinion piece recently published on the Editorial page, or else to The Crimson’s manner of coverage within any section of the newspaper. Letters that respond to the subject matter of a non-opinion Crimson article, rather than The Crimson’s coverage of that matter, will not be accepted.

Letters to the Editor are evaluated at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. They should be submitted to editorial@thecrimson.com and should run between 150 and 350 words. We require Letters to the Editor to be signed, with the signatures appearing on the page or as a hyperlinked list at the discretion of the Editorial Chairs. We do not accept Letters to the Editor from organizations or anonymous writers.