The Blogs: Harvard rules

If it weren’t for double standards, the liberal media and the academic elite might have no standards at all.

Israelis and Jews are no strangers to double standards.

We understand, because we have listened to students from the best universities, and even the presidents of some of them, explain to us that antisemitism, alone among the scourge that is race hatred, must be evaluated in context.

We understand, because we hear heads of international organizations and NGOs clarify for us that murdering 1,200 innocent civilians (of the Jewish variety) might be justifiable, given a context of colonial oppression, while erroneously (and tragically) killing aid workers (of the non-Jewish variety) suspected of being combatants is yet another war crime, and further proof of a Zionist genocidal agenda.

We have been carefully taught that offenses against Muslims, African-Americans, women, and Asians are widely considered more offensive than mistreatment of Jews, which is often no more than a wholly understandable expression of disapproval of Israel’s policies, and thus not a hate crime at all.

We know that only one type of “refugee,” with respect to whom the Jews are deemed culpable, is classified as such in perpetuity, while Jewish refugees from Arab lands receive no such dispensation, no coddling, and no attention whatsoever.

This isn’t our first dance.

And yet, and yet . . .

Sometimes the disparity just seems so obvious, so overwhelming, so unfair, that you feel compelled to exhibit your outrage, hold it up for public view in the futile expectation that right-thinking people will see and understand, that the world will nod and say, “Now I get it.”

But it never does. Some pigs are just more equal than other pigs. And, notwithstanding our well-known dietary restrictions, we have become the less equal pigs.

So, fully cognizant that pointing it out one more time is unlikely to move the needle, let’s just take a look at what happens when two United States presidents aggressively, and perhaps unwisely, pursue agendas against perceived deficiencies at institutions of higher learning.

In 2011, the Obama administration’s Department of Education promulgated a letter–not a rule, just guidance–seeking to address sexual assault on campuses, whose existence was certainly real, though its prevalence was probably a bit exaggerated. It directed universities to adopt adjudication procedures to make findings of responsibility for such assaults more likely, and defenses for accused students severely limited. There was a strong bias in favor of female victims and against male perpetrators.

The “Dear Colleague” letter under Title IX required institutions to address sexual violence more rigorously, using the “preponderance of evidence” standard in investigations. Due process, rights to counsel, ability to confront accusers and other typical procedural safeguards were jettisoned. The letter did not explicitly threaten sanctions for non-compliance. It simply and strongly reminded the universities that the receipt of federal funding required adherence to the requirements of Title IX, which, of course, demanded strong responses to sexual harassment and violence. The letter noted that failure to comply could result in investigations by the Office of Civil Rights and the possible loss of federal funding.

Faced by this significant pressure to submit, most, if not all, of the universities that received the letter adopted policies in compliance with the demands of the letter. Terrified that they might lose federal funding and sympathetic to women on campus, most universities quickly adjusted their policies to comply. (The adjusted policies were regularly rejected in court when challenged, prior to the revocation of the “Dear Colleague” letter a few years later by Betsy DeVos in the Trump administration.)

As we alumni proudly recall, Harvard, true to its traditions, did not take this assault on due process and fairness lying down. Sprinting to the courthouse, the university sued the Obama administration, arguing that the federal government’s attempt to punish it for failing to accede to demands for such sweeping changes was unconstitutional. Harvard was not about to allow the government to micromanage an academic institution. Its president said, “ . . . we cannot compromise on basic principles like defense of our First Amendment Rights.”

Just kidding. Actually, despite objections from some members of the law school faculty, which resulted in a separate set of procedures for the law school, Harvard folded like an accordion, adopting all of the policies “recommended” by the Obama administration and removing substantially all procedural and substantive protections from the accused. No right to an attorney. No right to confront the accused or cross-examination. Accusers allowed to appeal not guilty verdicts, creating the specter of double jeopardy. Conviction, suspension, and expulsion on the basis of relaxed standards of proof.

Faced by the threat of federal sanctions, Harvard immediately jettisoned any principled objection it might have had.

We understand. Sexual harassment is bad and federal funds are essential.

Fast forward to 2025 and the Trump administration. This time the heavy hand of the federal government was aimed at antisemitism on campus, unlawful discrimination in admissions policies, and various other alleged violations related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs. The institutions were threatened, in an even more explicit and intrusive way, with loss of federal funds.

Harvard, contrite over its moral failures of the past, and sensitive to the injustice that had been inflicted on its Jewish students, immediately agreed to comply with the government’s demands.

Just kidding. See that quotation from President Garber five paragraphs earlier? I didn’t make it up. But he said it in connection with the evil President Trump and not the benign President Obama. He was apparently distraught over violations of Harvard’s constitutional rights to refrain from protecting Jews on campus, to continue unlawful preferences based on race, or to maintain departments and faculty that nurtured sedition and class hatred. No one–certainly not President Trump–was going to tell Harvard what it could and couldn’t do with its Jews.

You want me to violate constitutional rights in order to defend women? Where do I sign up?

You want me to surrender constitutional rights in order to protect Jews? You must be hallucinating. See you in court.

In 2011, Harvard took immediate and effective steps to end harassment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects, as required by the letter. It completely revamped its sexual harassment and assault policies. It established an Office for Sexual and Gender-Based Dispute Resolution. Harvard knows how to make sweeping reforms . . . unless Jews are involved.

In 2025, after a humiliating performance before Congress that cost its president her job, after forming ineffectual committees to “examine” the issue of antisemitism on campus, and after being threatened with significant loss of funds if it failed to comply, Harvard . . . did essentially nothing and sued the federal government when it objected.

In all fairness, the litigation is probably justified. Both presidents overstepped their authority. It just leaves a bad taste, on this Holocaust Remembrance Day, to have it so vividly demonstrated to us that people and institutions just don’t seem to care about the rights of Jews as much as they value the rights and privileges of so many other groups.

Harvard is within its rights to seek to protect what it perceives as its academic freedom and its constitutional rights, because the government’s overreach exceeded its appropriate powers. But it is hard not to notice which causes Harvard deems worthy of defending and which it was prepared to surrender without a murmur.

And it is hard not to notice that it is only our remembrance of what happens when Jews are discriminated against that might prevent the next Holocaust. No one else is likely to care.