Harvard Must Exercise Caution Before Cutting Ties With Birzeit

Harvard’s recent pausing of ties with Birzeit University risks weakening Palestinian scholarship at a critical moment.

Last week, the Harvard School of Public Health suspended its research partnership with Birzeit University — the largest university in the West Bank — after the partnership came under fire.

If this suspension was simply because of an ongoing regular internal review — as an internal HSPH spokesperson claimed — then fine. But as the review progresses, Harvard must ensure its decision to axe or preserve its academic relationship is predicated on the facts of the case rather than a desire to please critics.

The importance of an impartial review untainted by external pressures is underscored by the precarity of the state of Palestinian scholarship. In the West Bank, the Israeli military has detained college students and forced universities online amidst airstrikes and raids. In Gaza, Israel’s attacks have destroyed every single university, leading United Nations experts to warn of scholasticide.

As Palestinian universities are demolished and destabilized, scholarly partnerships like the one HSPH held with Birzeit become critical.

Restrictions on scholarship on Palestine have made their way to academia, too: At Columbia, the Trump administration placed the Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies — along with its Center for Palestine Studies — under tight scrutiny.

By many accounts, Birzeit University is one of the best universities in Palestine. It has topped the region’s rankings, hosted numerous Fulbright scholars, and partnered with dozens of international higher education institutions.

The Palestine Program — a program that sees frequent collaboration between Harvard and Birzeit researchers — studies the socioeconomic factors “affecting the health of Palestinians in Israel, the occupied territories, and the diaspora.” Its publications are either academic in nature or healthcare-oriented and do not appear to glorify or voice support for Hamas. As the conflict rages on, to remove the institutional seal of support for an academic endeavor would be a grave affront to scholasticism.

Criticisms of Birzeit attempt to draw connections between Hamas and the university. And yet, The Crimson’s reporting notes that such allegations are false, and no evidence links Birzeit to the terrorist organization.

One particular incident has understandably caused consternation. Two years running, a Hamas-affiliated bloc has occupied a plurality of Birzeit’s student council seats. But as Harvard themselves implied in a statement, the position of students does not impact the work of research scholars — nor does it speak for the Birzeit administration.

Harvard must not make the mistake of conflating Birzeit, the research university, with Birzeit, the student body. Consider Harvard’s own encampment saga as evidence that the positions of students often clash with those of their universities.

Ultimately, Harvard owes its students and affiliates exposure to the research and unique perspectives of Palestinians, and collaboration with Birzeit faculty appears to be a good method to achieve that goal. So Harvard — look carefully, consider the context, and refuse to sever a partnership simply because someone told you so.

This staff editorial solely represents the majority view of The Crimson Editorial Board. It is the product of discussions at regular Editorial Board meetings. In order to ensure the impartiality of our journalism, Crimson editors who choose to opine and vote at these meetings are not involved in the reporting of articles on similar topics.

Have a suggestion, question, or concern for The Crimson Editorial Board? Click here.