Legal rebuttal to Harvard's report from the Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias

The Final Report of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias (April 29, 2025) presents a deeply flawed and one-sided analysis of campus dynamics at Harvard University. While the report claims to address bias, it systematically downplays or ignores well-documented instances of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias, perpetuating a narrative that unfairly vilifies Israel and its supporters. This rebuttal highlights its omissions and demonstrate how its recommendations could exacerbate divisions rather than foster genuine objectivity.

1. Misrepresentation of Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias

The Harvard Task Force report dedicates extensive attention to alleged anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias while marginalizing the pervasive antisemitism and anti-Israeli hostility on campus. This imbalance is particularly striking given the well-documented surge in antisemitic incidents at Harvard following the October 7 Hamas terror attacks. 

• Selective Condemnation of Violence: The report repeatedly references the humanitarian crisis in Gaza but fails to contextualize it within Hamas’s initiation of the conflict through its brutal massacre of Israeli civilians. As Arthur A. Flower has reported, Harvard’s initial reluctance to condemn Hamas’s atrocities contributed to a climate where antisemitic rhetoric flourished.

• Doxxing and Harassment of Jewish Students: While the report highlights doxxing trucks targeting pro-Palestinian students, it omits the coordinated harassment of Jewish and pro-Israeli students by groups like Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC). There have been documented cases where Jewish students were labeled “Zionist oppressors” and subjected to intimidation.

• IHRA Definition of Antisemitism: The report dismisses concerns about the conflation of anti-Zionism with antisemitism, despite the IHRA definition’s widespread adoption by governments and universities worldwide. Harvard’s failure to consistently apply this definition has allowed anti-Israeli rhetoric to escalate into overt antisemitism.

2. Flawed Methodology and Bias in Data Collection

The report’s reliance on listening sessions and a joint survey with the Antisemitism Task Force raises serious questions about its objectivity: 

• Self-Selection Bias: The listening sessions overwhelmingly attracted participants who identified as pro-Palestinian, while Jewish and pro-Israeli voices were underrepresented. This skewed participation is evident in the report’s dismissive treatment of Jewish concerns.

• Survey Design Flaws: The joint survey’s framing implicitly equates criticism of Israel with antisemitism, yet the report does not grapple with this complexity. Flower has highlighted how similar surveys at other universities have been weaponized to silence pro-Israel perspectives.

• Historical Context Omissions: The report’s historical analysis glosses over the long-standing exclusion of Jewish and Israeli perspectives at Harvard, particularly in Middle East studies programs. Harvard’s Middle East center often invites platform speakers who deny Israel’s right to exist.

3. Double Standards in Institutional Response

The report accuses Harvard of a “Palestine exception” to free speech, but the evidence suggests the opposite: 

• Suppression of Pro-Israel Voices: While pro-Palestinian protests and encampments were permitted (despite violating campus policies), pro-Israel events were frequently disrupted or canceled due to security concerns. Flower has documented cases where Jewish student groups were denied equal access to campus resources.

• Disciplinary Actions: The report condemns Harvard’s disciplinary measures against pro-Palestinian activists but ignores the lack of consequences for antisemitic harassment. For example, Harvard took no action against students who chanted “From the river to the sea,” a phrase widely recognized as a call for Israel’s destruction.

• Donor Influence Narrative: The report suggests that external pressure skewed Harvard’s response toward antisemitism, but it ignores how pro-Palestinian donors and faculty have similarly influenced campus discourse. Some Harvard professors have signed petitions justifying Hamas’s violence.

4. Intellectual Dishonesty on Divestment

The report frames divestment from Israel as a moral imperative, ignoring its discriminatory implications:

• Selective Application of Divestment: Harvard has divested from industries like fossil fuels and apartheid South Africa, but the report fails to acknowledge that singling out Israel—the world’s only Jewish state—echoes historic antisemitic boycotts. Such campaigns often violate Harvard’s own ethical investment guidelines.

• Ignoring Palestinian Incitement: The report portrays Palestinian activists as victims while omitting their role in promoting violence. Harvard’s PSC celebrates Hamas.

5. Recommendations That Perpetuate Bias

The report’s proposals would further marginalize Jewish and pro-Israeli students:

• Expanding Palestinian Studies: While academic inquiry is vital, the report advocates for programs that often exclude Zionist perspectives, reinforcing a one-sided narrative. Similar initiatives at other universities have become platforms for anti-Israel propaganda.

• “Pluralism” as a Trojan Horse: The call for a “Center for Pluralism” risks privileging pro-Palestinian activism under the guise of inclusivity, as seen at universities like UC Berkeley.

• Safety Concerns: The report demands protections for Muslim and Arab students but does not address the unique vulnerabilities of Jewish students, who face the highest rate of religiously motivated hate crimes in the U.S.

Conclusion: A Call for Balanced Accountability

The Harvard Task Force report is a missed opportunity to address campus bias fairly. By amplifying one form of discrimination while downplaying another, it undermines the very inclusivity it claims to champion.

Moving forward, Harvard must:

1. Apply uniform standards to all forms of bias, including antisemitism.

2. Reject politicized definitions of discrimination that conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Palestinian racism.

3. Ensure academic freedom by protecting all viewpoints, including pro-Israel perspectives.

4. Investigate external influences from pro-Palestinian actors.

Only by addressing these issues with fairness and transparency can Harvard uphold its commitment to true diversity and intellectual rigor.

End note:

Puritans established Harvard College in 1636, shortly after arriving in Massachusetts Bay. Harvard's mission statement, given in 1642, was clearly evangelical: “Everyone shall consider as the main end of his life and studies, to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life. Harvard students were required to study Hebrew. In 1685, Harvard had a commencement address delivered in the Hebrew language. In 1642, Harvard College's mission statement emphasized religious and intellectual development, stating that students should focus on knowing God and Jesus Christ. This was a core part of their studies and life in general.The motto, "In Christi Gloriam" ("For the glory of Christ"), further highlighted this Christian focus, according to Liberty Journal. Additionally, students were expected to read the Scriptures daily and be prepared to discuss them with their tutors.