Latest news with #KennethStern
ABC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- ABC News
Antisemitism definition's lead drafter has a message for Australia
Australia's Special Envoy on Combating Antisemitism Jillian Segal is standing by a definition of antisemitism that underscores her calls to cut funding to universities, arts bodies, and public broadcasters that fail to combat hate. Opponents of the definition, outlined by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), say it would prevent legitimate criticisms of Israel and suppress free speech. Among the critics is the lead drafter of this very definition, Kenneth Stern, who says the definition has now been weaponised.
The Guardian
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Guardian
Australia must combat antisemitism, but not simply defer to demands of some voices
Australians should be appalled by the rise in antisemitism, including arson, vandalism, assaults, abuse and threats. Every person in our country has the human right to live free from fear, racism and discrimination. Many positive steps have already been taken to address it. Some measures have gone too far, like the New South Wales government's law criminalising protest outside places of worship and disproportionate, blanket bans on certain protests in universities. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, also goes too far in some ways, and not far enough in others in her recently released plan. Segal's plan goes too far in urging the widespread adoption of the definition of antisemitism prepared by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) in 2016. The definition itself is innocuous enough, essentially addressing bias or hatred towards Jews. Eleven examples are then given to illustrate it. There are three key problems with the IHRA approach. Firstly, it was intended to be a non-binding monitoring and awareness raising tool, not an operational definition for disciplining staff or students, cutting funding to universities or arts institutions, censoring the media or excluding immigrants – strategies which appear similar to the Trump Administration's. It is too vague and broad to operate as a binding instrument of enforcement and punishment. Even its key drafter, Kenneth Stern, opposed its use as a legal or regulatory tool, including in universities. Secondly, the IHRA approach is not consistent with human rights and excessively infringes on legitimate freedom of expression. International law allows free speech to be limited where a person incites violence, or national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. United Nations human rights mechanisms and the world's leading human rights NGOs, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have rejected the IHRA approach. The real problem lies in some of the examples given to illustrate the IHRA definition, which the special envoy wants adopted in Australia even though they are not part of the definition. Many of the examples are not usually problematic, such as inciting violence, harmful stereotypes, collectively blaming Jews, Holocaust denial and 'blood libel' tropes. Even these can still be misused, as where mention of 'intifada' or wearing a kaffiyeh scarf as a symbol of resistance, regardless of context, is interpreted as violently antisemitic. Other examples – particularly because of how they are weaponised against critics of Israel in practice – are controversial. Example 7, denying Jewish self-determination or claiming that Israel is a racist endeavour, can be invoked to silence, for example, legitimate discussion of a plural 'one state' solution to the conflict or lawful chants like 'from the river to the sea'. It can also be weaponised to crush critique of how Israel purports to exercise self-determination over land that does not belong to it, as well as Israeli practices of racial segregation or apartheid and religious nationalism. Example 8 refers to applying double standards by requiring of Israel behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation. This example clearly conflates criticism of Israel with racism against Jews and does not necessarily have anything to do with antisemitism, although in some cases it could do so. It is also often a red herring. Israel is not generally expected to behave differently to other democracies. It is expected to respect the same international legal standards as other democracies. The unique nature of Israel's near-60 year occupation of Palestine, unresolved human rights issues stemming from its foundation in 1948 (including refugees, property and compensation), and the severity of Israel's violations of international law – Israel's choice – are what makes it a target of accountability efforts, including lawful boycott, divestment and sanctions. Abstract definitions operate in the real world. The vaguer they are, the more they are susceptible to being instrumentalised for political goals. The United Nations human rights mechanisms, including my own, have documented the heavy repression of pro-Palestine speech, protests and organisations in western democracies, including the US, UK, Germany, France and Australia. Personally, I have seen academic conferences and colleagues self-censoring for fear of falling foul of vague and overly broad policies and disciplinary procedures on antisemitism and protest. In some ways the pendulum has swung too far in the wrong direction. It has not been helped by orchestrated campaigns by pro-Israel advocacy groups to smear and bully Israel's critics, including through aggressive lawfare, and destroy their reputations and livelihoods. The IHRA approach is divisive and controversial, including among Jews. This alone makes its adoption counter-productive, because it can never build the consensus necessary to unify national efforts to effectively combat antisemitism. There are better definitions available, including the Jerusalem Declaration on Antisemitism. Separately, Segal's plan does not go far enough because in identifying the 'drivers' of antisemitism, it simplistically blames 'extremist ideologies', as if these mysteriously appeared out of thin air. There is no mention of a totally misguided but nonetheless structural driver of antisemitism – fury at Israel's profound violations of international law in Gaza. The upsurge in antisemitism in Australia clearly correlates with the 21 months of violence since the atrocious Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. People did not just inexplicably and without context decide to become more antisemitic in that period. Israeli violations can never justify blaming and attacking Jewish Australians and do not help Palestinians. But the special envoy's plan will never be effective if it tackles only the symptoms and refuses to acknowledge let alone address a key driver. The government must act in the best interests of all Australians when combating all forms of racism, including to defend free speech and human rights, and not simply genuflect to the incessant, excessive demands of some Jewish voices. Ben Saul is Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-terrorism
The Advertiser
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Envoy rejects anti-Semitism plan's free speech concerns
Concerns that a sweeping plan to tackle anti-Semitism will stifle legitimate criticisms about Israel have been dismissed by the government-appointed envoy who authored the report. Recommendations in a report from Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism Jillian Segal are being considered by the federal government as it examines ways to combat a surge in discrimination against Jewish Australians. But contention has emerged over the report's recommendation to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. Some detractors - including the original author of the definition Kenneth Stern - argue it conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. Jewish Council of Australia executive officer Max Kaiser labelled the report a "blueprint for silencing dissent", and his organisation said the emphasis on surveillance, censorship and punitive control over funding were "straight out of Trump's authoritarian playbook". Ms Segal said those criticisms misunderstood the definition. "The train has moved on, if I might put it that way, and Kenneth Stern has been left behind," she told ABC Radio National on Friday. "The definition in its own terms clearly says if Israel is criticised, that's absolutely fine, and indeed so many Israelis are criticising the policies of their own government. But if you are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, then that is anti-Semitic." Ms Segal said the Jewish Council of Australia was a very small group that did not represent Jewish Australians. Other Jewish groups, including the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called for the plan to be adopted in full. While it suggests embedding Holocaust education into school curricula and strengthening legislation against hateful conduct, the report also recommends terminating or withholding funds from universities, broadcasters and cultural institutions that fail to address anti-Semitism. It also suggests deporting and cancelling the visas of immigrants who have been involved in discrimination against Jewish people. Ms Segal said universities needed to ensure campuses were safe spaces for all people, including Jews. "There are hotspots where we have some entrenched, I would say anti-Semitism, but I would say hatred, and we need to tackle those areas specifically, like universities," she said. National Union of Students president Ashlyn Horton questioned the way widespread student encampment protests were portrayed. "Conflating actual anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel is a massive, massive concern," she told AAP. "Most student activists who have been part of the Palestine movement have never actually been anti-Semitic ... it is just students who are concerned about the genocide in Gaza and their universities' involvement in weapons manufacturing. "Spinning it in this way of 'the encampments were anti-Semitic, we need to crack down on all freedom of speech now' is absolutely the wrong approach." While there were some cases of anti-Semitic individuals, Ms Horton said student unions were often the first to crack down. First Nations, Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities would be disproportionately harmed by the plan, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned. Walkley-award winning journalist Jan Fran said Israel had killed nearly 200 people in Gaza since Tuesday, along with ordering Palestinians into what experts labelled an "internment camp". "If the anti-Semitism envoy's plan stifles criticism of Israel for these actions, particularly at public broadcasters and in media organisations broadly, then we are headed down a very dark path," she told AAP. Ms Segal's report found threats, vandalism and physical violence against Jewish Australians tripled between October 2023 and September 2024. She and other envoys around the world had been working with social media platforms to stamp out hate, she said, adding that artificial intelligence was a potential answer to eliminate hate from the platforms without impinging on free speech. Universities Australia committed to considering the report's recommendations. Concerns that a sweeping plan to tackle anti-Semitism will stifle legitimate criticisms about Israel have been dismissed by the government-appointed envoy who authored the report. Recommendations in a report from Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism Jillian Segal are being considered by the federal government as it examines ways to combat a surge in discrimination against Jewish Australians. But contention has emerged over the report's recommendation to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. Some detractors - including the original author of the definition Kenneth Stern - argue it conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. Jewish Council of Australia executive officer Max Kaiser labelled the report a "blueprint for silencing dissent", and his organisation said the emphasis on surveillance, censorship and punitive control over funding were "straight out of Trump's authoritarian playbook". Ms Segal said those criticisms misunderstood the definition. "The train has moved on, if I might put it that way, and Kenneth Stern has been left behind," she told ABC Radio National on Friday. "The definition in its own terms clearly says if Israel is criticised, that's absolutely fine, and indeed so many Israelis are criticising the policies of their own government. But if you are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, then that is anti-Semitic." Ms Segal said the Jewish Council of Australia was a very small group that did not represent Jewish Australians. Other Jewish groups, including the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called for the plan to be adopted in full. While it suggests embedding Holocaust education into school curricula and strengthening legislation against hateful conduct, the report also recommends terminating or withholding funds from universities, broadcasters and cultural institutions that fail to address anti-Semitism. It also suggests deporting and cancelling the visas of immigrants who have been involved in discrimination against Jewish people. Ms Segal said universities needed to ensure campuses were safe spaces for all people, including Jews. "There are hotspots where we have some entrenched, I would say anti-Semitism, but I would say hatred, and we need to tackle those areas specifically, like universities," she said. National Union of Students president Ashlyn Horton questioned the way widespread student encampment protests were portrayed. "Conflating actual anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel is a massive, massive concern," she told AAP. "Most student activists who have been part of the Palestine movement have never actually been anti-Semitic ... it is just students who are concerned about the genocide in Gaza and their universities' involvement in weapons manufacturing. "Spinning it in this way of 'the encampments were anti-Semitic, we need to crack down on all freedom of speech now' is absolutely the wrong approach." While there were some cases of anti-Semitic individuals, Ms Horton said student unions were often the first to crack down. First Nations, Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities would be disproportionately harmed by the plan, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned. Walkley-award winning journalist Jan Fran said Israel had killed nearly 200 people in Gaza since Tuesday, along with ordering Palestinians into what experts labelled an "internment camp". "If the anti-Semitism envoy's plan stifles criticism of Israel for these actions, particularly at public broadcasters and in media organisations broadly, then we are headed down a very dark path," she told AAP. Ms Segal's report found threats, vandalism and physical violence against Jewish Australians tripled between October 2023 and September 2024. She and other envoys around the world had been working with social media platforms to stamp out hate, she said, adding that artificial intelligence was a potential answer to eliminate hate from the platforms without impinging on free speech. Universities Australia committed to considering the report's recommendations. Concerns that a sweeping plan to tackle anti-Semitism will stifle legitimate criticisms about Israel have been dismissed by the government-appointed envoy who authored the report. Recommendations in a report from Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism Jillian Segal are being considered by the federal government as it examines ways to combat a surge in discrimination against Jewish Australians. But contention has emerged over the report's recommendation to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. Some detractors - including the original author of the definition Kenneth Stern - argue it conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. Jewish Council of Australia executive officer Max Kaiser labelled the report a "blueprint for silencing dissent", and his organisation said the emphasis on surveillance, censorship and punitive control over funding were "straight out of Trump's authoritarian playbook". Ms Segal said those criticisms misunderstood the definition. "The train has moved on, if I might put it that way, and Kenneth Stern has been left behind," she told ABC Radio National on Friday. "The definition in its own terms clearly says if Israel is criticised, that's absolutely fine, and indeed so many Israelis are criticising the policies of their own government. But if you are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, then that is anti-Semitic." Ms Segal said the Jewish Council of Australia was a very small group that did not represent Jewish Australians. Other Jewish groups, including the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called for the plan to be adopted in full. While it suggests embedding Holocaust education into school curricula and strengthening legislation against hateful conduct, the report also recommends terminating or withholding funds from universities, broadcasters and cultural institutions that fail to address anti-Semitism. It also suggests deporting and cancelling the visas of immigrants who have been involved in discrimination against Jewish people. Ms Segal said universities needed to ensure campuses were safe spaces for all people, including Jews. "There are hotspots where we have some entrenched, I would say anti-Semitism, but I would say hatred, and we need to tackle those areas specifically, like universities," she said. National Union of Students president Ashlyn Horton questioned the way widespread student encampment protests were portrayed. "Conflating actual anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel is a massive, massive concern," she told AAP. "Most student activists who have been part of the Palestine movement have never actually been anti-Semitic ... it is just students who are concerned about the genocide in Gaza and their universities' involvement in weapons manufacturing. "Spinning it in this way of 'the encampments were anti-Semitic, we need to crack down on all freedom of speech now' is absolutely the wrong approach." While there were some cases of anti-Semitic individuals, Ms Horton said student unions were often the first to crack down. First Nations, Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities would be disproportionately harmed by the plan, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned. Walkley-award winning journalist Jan Fran said Israel had killed nearly 200 people in Gaza since Tuesday, along with ordering Palestinians into what experts labelled an "internment camp". "If the anti-Semitism envoy's plan stifles criticism of Israel for these actions, particularly at public broadcasters and in media organisations broadly, then we are headed down a very dark path," she told AAP. Ms Segal's report found threats, vandalism and physical violence against Jewish Australians tripled between October 2023 and September 2024. She and other envoys around the world had been working with social media platforms to stamp out hate, she said, adding that artificial intelligence was a potential answer to eliminate hate from the platforms without impinging on free speech. Universities Australia committed to considering the report's recommendations. Concerns that a sweeping plan to tackle anti-Semitism will stifle legitimate criticisms about Israel have been dismissed by the government-appointed envoy who authored the report. Recommendations in a report from Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Anti-Semitism Jillian Segal are being considered by the federal government as it examines ways to combat a surge in discrimination against Jewish Australians. But contention has emerged over the report's recommendation to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of anti-Semitism. Some detractors - including the original author of the definition Kenneth Stern - argue it conflates anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel and Zionism. Jewish Council of Australia executive officer Max Kaiser labelled the report a "blueprint for silencing dissent", and his organisation said the emphasis on surveillance, censorship and punitive control over funding were "straight out of Trump's authoritarian playbook". Ms Segal said those criticisms misunderstood the definition. "The train has moved on, if I might put it that way, and Kenneth Stern has been left behind," she told ABC Radio National on Friday. "The definition in its own terms clearly says if Israel is criticised, that's absolutely fine, and indeed so many Israelis are criticising the policies of their own government. But if you are calling for the elimination of the state of Israel, then that is anti-Semitic." Ms Segal said the Jewish Council of Australia was a very small group that did not represent Jewish Australians. Other Jewish groups, including the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council and the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, called for the plan to be adopted in full. While it suggests embedding Holocaust education into school curricula and strengthening legislation against hateful conduct, the report also recommends terminating or withholding funds from universities, broadcasters and cultural institutions that fail to address anti-Semitism. It also suggests deporting and cancelling the visas of immigrants who have been involved in discrimination against Jewish people. Ms Segal said universities needed to ensure campuses were safe spaces for all people, including Jews. "There are hotspots where we have some entrenched, I would say anti-Semitism, but I would say hatred, and we need to tackle those areas specifically, like universities," she said. National Union of Students president Ashlyn Horton questioned the way widespread student encampment protests were portrayed. "Conflating actual anti-Semitism with criticism of Israel is a massive, massive concern," she told AAP. "Most student activists who have been part of the Palestine movement have never actually been anti-Semitic ... it is just students who are concerned about the genocide in Gaza and their universities' involvement in weapons manufacturing. "Spinning it in this way of 'the encampments were anti-Semitic, we need to crack down on all freedom of speech now' is absolutely the wrong approach." While there were some cases of anti-Semitic individuals, Ms Horton said student unions were often the first to crack down. First Nations, Palestinian, Arab and Muslim communities would be disproportionately harmed by the plan, the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network warned. Walkley-award winning journalist Jan Fran said Israel had killed nearly 200 people in Gaza since Tuesday, along with ordering Palestinians into what experts labelled an "internment camp". "If the anti-Semitism envoy's plan stifles criticism of Israel for these actions, particularly at public broadcasters and in media organisations broadly, then we are headed down a very dark path," she told AAP. Ms Segal's report found threats, vandalism and physical violence against Jewish Australians tripled between October 2023 and September 2024. She and other envoys around the world had been working with social media platforms to stamp out hate, she said, adding that artificial intelligence was a potential answer to eliminate hate from the platforms without impinging on free speech. Universities Australia committed to considering the report's recommendations.
The Guardian
12-03-2025
- Entertainment
- The Guardian
Kenneth Stern obituary
My father, Kenneth Stern, who has died aged 96, came to the UK in 1939 as a 10-year-old refugee from Nazi Germany, and in later life played a key role in fostering relations between the place of his birth, Hamburg, and his adopted home of London. He lived a stone's throw from Marble Arch in central London for more than half of his life, but it was not until retirement that he became more involved in local affairs, largely through the circumstance of acquiring a dalmatian, William, whom he walked through Hyde Park. Subsequently he became a member of the London Diocesan Synod of the Church of England and chairman both of the Hyde Park Estate Association (1995-2000) and of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens (2000-05), helping to raise the latter's membership from 250 to 1,000. Born into a middle-class non-observant Jewish family in Hamburg, he was the second son of Ilse (nee Schoening) and Walter Stern. Always adaptable, once in the UK he learned English quickly (although, as someone once observed, he 'lost his German accent and never quite found an English one'), and converted to Christianity. After attending Uppingham school in Rutland, he went to Oxford University in 1949 to read law at Worcester College, afterwards becoming a member of Lloyds of London and working as an insurance broker alongside his father at Bleichroeder Bing until retiring in the mid-1970s. Keen to acknowledge the strong links that for centuries had existed between London and Hamburg, Michael Savory, the 2004 Lord Mayor of London, tasked Kenneth with arranging for a delegation from Hamburg to take part in the Lord Mayor's Show of that year. The move was a great success, and the Hamburg Chamber of Commerce continued to take part in the show for a number of years, while various lord mayors were invited to the Hamburger Morgensprache, an annual festival dinner descended from the 13th-century business meetings of the same name attended by Hamburg merchants living and working in London. Kenneth loved London and Hamburg in equal measure, visiting his birthplace frequently and only stopping when ill-health made all foreign travel impossible. It was a source of pride and joy to him when in 2014 the senate of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg presented him with the Silver Portugaleser, one of its highest awards, for his services in fostering links between the cities. His marriage to my mother, Elizabeth (nee Benett), ended in divorce. He is survived by me.
The Hill
13-02-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Harvard's new antisemitism policy hurts Jews, helps Trump
President Trump recently issued an executive order that purports to combat antisemitism by directing civil and criminal action against foreign students who participated in last year's campus protests. A related fact sheet, under the heading 'Deport Hamas Sympathizers and Revoke Student Visas,' issues the following warning: 'To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: Come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you.' For more than a year, Republican leaders have defamed anti-war protesters as ' antisemitic mobs.' Trump is sticking to the script. Why wouldn't he? Feigned concern about antisemitism has offered Republicans a perfect tool to sow division and discredit the voices most likely to protest Trump's assault on American democracy. Unfortunately, some of our most powerful universities — ostensible defenders of democracy — are making the Republicans' bad-faith talking points look like good-faith concerns. Roughly a week before Trump turned on foreign students, Harvard settled two antisemitism lawsuits. Harvard agreed to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's working definition of antisemitism. Human rights organizations have long criticized the this definition because it conflates antisemitism with legitimate criticism of Israel. Experts highlight the organization's examples of antisemitism, which include: 'Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.' Even Kenneth Stern, who drafted the definition, cautions against adopting the definition because 'right-wing Jewish groups … decided to weaponize it ' on university campuses. Keep in mind: framing anti-Zionism as ' presumptively antisemitic ' has been a go-to tactic to silence students and professors for years. Last spring, I co-authored a letter urging Congress to reject the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a Republican effort to codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition into federal law. Over 1,300 Jewish faculty and multiple Jewish organizations signed on with a unified message: the definition would 'delegitimize and silence Jewish Americans — among others — who advocate for Palestinian human rights or otherwise criticize Israeli policies.' Far from combating antisemitism, this is a recipe that 'promises to amplify the real threats Jewish Americans already face.' By adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, Harvard adds legitimacy to Trump's dangerous rhetoric. The inevitable consequence will be more politically motivated attacks aimed at my own students, my own colleagues and my university. This is precisely what happened last October, when individuals tried to cancel a Boston University event about how universities can navigate the post-Oct. 7 landscape. Key to the campaign: labeling the keynote speaker — a Jewish scholar of social movements in the Middle East — an 'antisemite.' Harvard's new policy invites more of these attacks and entrenches a hierarchy among its own Jewish community. The settlement includes the following FAQ: 'For many Jewish people, Zionism is part of their Jewish identity. Conduct that would violate the Non-Discrimination Policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the policy if directed toward Zionists.' The first sentence is accurate. But as a matter of anti-discrimination law — which I teach — converting a political ideology into a protected category raises serious concerns. What stops Trump from pointing to Harvard, our nation's most prestigious university, and extending similar protections to white supremacists or neo-Nazis because, for some white Americans, white supremacy and Nazism is part of their White identity? It should be easy to see why Harvard's decision to treat 'political beliefs' as a 'protected category' is troubling. Harvard might claim that I am over-reading its policy. I presume Harvard does not intend to treat Nazis as a protected category. But from Harvard's guidance, it is saying that Zionists are protected because Zionism is a political belief — or because for some Jews, that ideology cannot be severed from the person's racial/ethnic identity. If it's the latter, that just helps Trump target faculty — including Jewish professors — who criticize Israel or his own administration. This includes folks like Ken Levy, an LSU law school professor who was unconstitutionally suspended last month. But Harvard knows Jews possess diverse political perspectives. The same policy gestures to this intra-group diversity when it explains that ' Zionist, anti-Zionist, and non-Zionists are all protected.' Perhaps this is meant to reassure anti-war Jews that they can openly criticize Israel and Zionism without fear of punishment. As a progressive Jew with views critical of both, I am not reassured. To begin, Harvard explains that various forms of 'verbal … use of … anti-Zionist' speech could constitute harassment. That sounds like speech against Zionism could violate Harvard's policy? Even if unintended, Harvard's policy helps to seed a hierarchy among American Jews. Some of us will enjoy formal protection; the rest must suppress our genuine political commitments or face sanction. Really, though, I'm less concerned about what Harvard does and more concerned about the precedent it sets. Trump's desire to discredit, detain and deport pro-Palestine protesters is just the beginning. His ultimate aim appears to be rebranding the entire political Left as terrorists — and treat us as such. This strategy traces to the Heritage Foundation. Notorious for Project 2025, Heritage also released 'Project Esther,' the organization's self-proclaimed 'national strategy to combat antisemitism.' That document directs Trump to link pro-democracy and human rights organizations with Hamas under what Heritage dubs the 'Hamas Support Network.' A parallel strategy animated a widely criticized bill the House failed to pass last fall. That bill would have granted Trump's Treasury secretary unfettered discretion to strip the tax-exempt status of any U.S. non-profit it dubs a 'terrorist-supporting organization.' Trump's campaign to quash diverse perspectives and free speech is just beginning. Harvard is helping him. I pray other universities don't. Jonathan Feingold is an associate professor of law at Boston University School of Law and a faculty affiliate at Rutgers Center for Security, Race and Rights. He is an expert in antidiscrimination law and a leading authority on right-wing discriminatory censorship laws that restrict teaching about racism, gender identity and related topics.
