In a major blow to free expression in academia, Harvard university has redefined antisemitism to include any criticism of Israel and will expel violators who are students and fire professors.
Harvard Redefines Antisemitism To Include Everything
Ted Rall
Ted Rall is a syndicated political cartoonist for Andrews McMeel Syndication and WhoWhatWhy.org and Counterpoint. He is a contributor to Centerclip and co-host of "The Final Countdown" talk show on Radio Sputnik. He is a graphic novelist and author of many books of art and prose, and an occasional war correspondent. He is, recently, the author of the graphic novel "2024: Revisited."
5 Comments. Leave new
Ted, in all fairness to truth, and I, too, am sympathetic to the residents of Gaza, do you recognize when your arguments are loaded with falacies?: The agreement Harvard made was that “The definition includes some criticisms of Israel as examples of antisemitism, including calling Israel’s existence a ‘racist endeavor’.”
This is the link to the 23-paragraph (forgive me if I’m off by a paragraph or two; I ran out of fingers and toes) article the New York Times published on the issue a week ago.
It contains NO link to the Harvard definition. The print edition didn’t contain the complete Harvard definition either. However, the Harvard definition appears to be the IHRA definition, and when you read it at their site, it is — as these things usually are (see the legally clear definition for “pornography” for instance or read the Miller test for obscenity) — simply too subjective in many ways. The IHRA itself calls it a “non-legally binding working definition.” If there’s a more-recent, “legally binding complete definition” I would welcome the information as to where to find it.
Why is the definition both “non-legally binding” and “working”? Because the IHRA probably realizes, you can’t get the “working definition” to the point where the definition works for objective purposes, especially not in a classroom. Too many instances will be context driven for their to be a single uniform rule.
The article takes until the 11th paragraph (in journalism, that’s the waste lands) to provide any explanation of what the Harvard statement contains: “The definition from the group is uncontroversial. It defines antisemitism as a ‘certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred’ toward them. But it also lists examples that include holding Israel to a ‘double standard’ or describing the creation of Israel as a ‘racist endeavor.’ ”
The article doesn’t discuss the ramifications in a classroom setting. Will all classrooms be recorded now? If not, what prevents one student’s assertion from ruining another student’s entire academic career? What will protect me from a student who simply wants to cause me trouble, either as another student or as an instructor? Am I the only one who remembers college? There are professional outrage takers of all persuasions in the classrooms.
And this is the thin edge of the wedge. Every group will want a “statement” now. The blacks, the gays, the Romany, the left-handed, those with peanut allergies, the MAGA crowd, the Cliveden set, the people who know who the Cliveden set were …
Ah, yes, a reminder that many of those who are opposed to Trump and call him a tyrant have no problem with instituting Newspeak. They just want THEIR candidate to be Big Brother/Sister.
So much for the value of a Harvard “education.”
The Ivy League schools, in general, and Harvard, in particular, are increasingly considered, in the most “disreputable” circles, of course, to be the premier incubators of imperialism. Harvard seems to be coming-out in full stride.
Not all citizens of the USA, nor even all members of a political party, are responsible for the actions of any given president, and likewise not all Israelis nor all Jews are responsible for the actions of the Netanyahu government, and likewise for Gazans and the Sinwar government. To avoid painting the wrong people as evil, simply name the actions that upset you and the leader who instigated them.
As a plus, those who disagree with you will find it harder to throw around words like antisemitic, islamophobic, etc. They might have to actually opine about the actions and the leaders.