State Commission on Combating Antisemitism Praises Harvard’s Anti-Discrimination Policies in Draft Report

The Massachusetts Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism condemned federal attacks on universities over antisemitism allegations and praised Harvard for its anti-discrimination policies in a draft version of its report, which the commission approved on Thursday.

The report called for universities to more stringently enforce protest policies but lauded Harvard’s addition of training on fighting antisemitism and restructuring of its conduct office, including the hiring of a Title VI officer.

Harvard has been dogged by allegations of antisemitism since Hamas’s attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. This year, the University released reports from twin task forces on combating bias toward Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian affiliates, with students describing fear, exclusion, and a deep division over curricula and campus protests. The reports were released amid a flood of federal investigations over alleged discrimination on Harvard’s campus, which the Trump administration used to justify revoking billions of dollars in funding.

State lawmakers conducted their own analysis to better understand how antisemitism affects institutions across the state — including Harvard.

In spring 2024, the state appointed lawmakers and Massachusetts residents to the Special Commission on Combating Antisemitism to analyze antisemitism across K-12 schools, higher education, law enforcement, and the workforce. The commission approved preliminary recommendations for K-12 schools this spring, despite the opposition of some educators who feared its policy and curriculum suggestions would quash pro-Palestine speech.

Despite areas of concern over the 2024 pro-Palestine encampment and University sensitivity to Jewish religious holidays, the Commission broadly used Harvard as a positive example for anti-discrimination and anti-bias practices.

“Harvard should take pride in the implementation of the best practices that we identified,” Rep. Simon Cataldo, the House co-chair of the commission, said. He specifically praised Harvard for setting an example for other universities in the state.

“The fact that we did call out Harvard positively in some specific ways is an indication that the special commission does not think that every school is taking those particular steps,” Cataldo added.

The commission praised Harvard’s efforts on several fronts — including the introduction of broader anti-bias programming during training, and initiatives to conduct campus climate surveys on hate and bias experienced by students. The commission concluded that the surveys should be broadened to include data categories for more demographics, including Jewish students — as Harvard’s most recent Pulse Survey did.

The commission also used Harvard Business School as a strong example of effective protest policy, noting the school adopts and distributes “clear rules governing campus demonstrations and protests.” HBS — which requires organizers to register protests in advance with school administrators— was listed alongside MIT and Boston University in the report for “making their policies clear, easily accessible and publicly available.”

“These rules should include clear instruction on content neutral time, place and manner restrictions on speech and expression, requirements for registering or obtaining permits to conduct organized events,” the draft recommended for campus protest policies.

The commission said in its report that organizations should not participate in academic boycotts — protests that discourage people from supporting or interacting with certain academic institutions — that target individuals or institutions based on race, religion, national origin, or ancestry.

Harvard has not been involved in Israel-specific academic boycotts, despite calls from some students and faculty, and instead deepened its academic ties to Israel even as the country grew more isolated amid international backlash over its war in Gaza. In July, the University launched two new study abroad programs for undergraduate and postgraduate students in partnership with Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.

The recommendations from the commission mostly align with practices that the University has already implemented, according to Harvard Law School lecturer and commission member David Friedman.

“Some of our best practices actually are things that at Harvard, at least on paper, have been adopted, which I think are really good,” Friedman said.

But Rabbi Hirschy Zarchi, the president of Harvard Chabad, wrote in a statement to The Crimson that more work still needs to be done.

“Communication on policies and surveys are wonderful, but we need enforcement and decisive action when they are violated, particularly, when done so by repeat offenders in defiance of the communicated policies,” wrote Zarchi, who has been an avid opponent of pro-Palestine protesters.

The Commission specifically identified religious sensitivity and Harvard’s response to the encampment as shortcomings to be addressed.

State leaders criticized the University for “a lack of awareness and sensitivity” from administrators and student organizations on Jewish religious holidays, resulting in scheduling conflicts for students.

Commissioners looked to Harvard’s antisemitism task force for examples of a lack of religious sensitivity. The state report cited a section from Harvard’s findings, which concluded that “affiliates we met noted a persistent lack of awareness and sensitivity regarding the Jewish calendar among some faculty and administrators.”

The commission’s report also discussed moments where students felt unwelcome on Harvard’s campus because of their religious identity. They pointed to an instance where a faculty member held classes at a “protest encampment” at Harvard.

University spokespeople did not respond to a request for comment on the commission’s critiques.

Harvard Divinity School professor Shaul Magid said that the environment on campus has improved since Harvard’s internal report was released in April.

“My impression is, from people that I’ve spoken to that were on the task force, that their recommendations have been implemented,” he said.

He said that several students last year had expressed discomfort about being Jewish on campus — but that since September, he has “not had any student come to me” with concerns.

Though President Donald Trump justified his threats to withhold funding from the University as an effort to punish Harvard for nonaction on antisemitism, the Commission pushed back on the administration’s response.

The Commission condemned the federal government for “punitive measures” against Massachusetts universities, labeling them as “highly divisive” and “ineffective.” Commissioners also argue that “singling out” antisemitism efforts risks the further alienation of Jewish students and “fuels resentment against Jews by non-Jews.”

Friedman said that while people can be critical of the federal government’s attacks on higher education, they should not ignore Harvard’s need for improvement.

“They should still look at our findings. They should still look at the facts and the unpleasant truth that, like many other schools, Harvard didn’t do very well,” he said.

In the commissioners’ closing remarks at the Thursday hearing, Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination executive director Michael Memmolo said the report presents an opportunity for Harvard, and universities across the state, to shift their campus environments and combat antisemitism.

“We need to act. And we need culture change,” Memmelo said. “This report is a great start.”

—Staff writer Megan L. Blonigen can be reached at megan.blonigen@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @MeganBlonigen.

—Staff writer Frances Y. Yong can be reached at frances.yong@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X at @frances_yong_.