Harvard’s adoption of IHRA isn’t enough

The announcement that Harvard University has agreed to implement the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism, along with other measures, in response to two Title VI lawsuits may appear at first glance to be a landmark victory against campus antisemitism. However, to characterize this development as a true “settlement” is not only misleading but risks obfuscating the deeper systemic issues. The adoption of IHRA, while a positive step, falls short of addressing the full scope of the problem or delivering a lasting resolution.
The misconception of a ‘settlement’
Calling this agreement a settlement implies a resolution that fully addresses the grievances of Jewish students and ensures meaningful protections against antisemitism. However, what Harvard has done is effectively meet a minimum standard that should have been in place long before these lawsuits. The IHRA definition, while a critical tool in identifying antisemitism, is not a panacea for the pervasive and entrenched hostility faced by Jewish students on many campuses. The lawsuits brought forward by the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Students Against Antisemitism revealed not isolated incidents but an ongoing culture of tolerance for antisemitic behavior, including harassment, vandalism, and even physical assaults.
By agreeing to adopt IHRA and provide annual reports, Harvard signals progress but sidesteps deeper accountability. The fact that some noteworthy plaintiffs refuse to join the settlement underscores this point. Harvard’s response must be seen as a starting point, not an endpoint, in the fight against antisemitism on campus.
Why IHRA isn’t enough
The IHRA definition is an essential framework for identifying and combating antisemitism, particularly in its contemporary forms, such as the vilification of Israel and Zionism as proxies for anti-Jewish hatred. Yet, it is ultimately a tool, not a comprehensive strategy. Here’s why relying solely on IHRA falls short:
- Implementation Gaps: Harvard’s agreement to adopt IHRA does not guarantee effective implementation. Universities often adopt definitions or policies that remain dormant, never translated into actionable measures. Without robust enforcement mechanisms, training, and accountability, the IHRA definition risks becoming another box checked in the administrative process.
- Systemic Bias and Academic Antisemitism: The lawsuits highlighted that antisemitism at Harvard extends beyond student actions to include faculty and institutional culture. Professors who espouse anti-Israel propaganda or condone antisemitism under the guise of academic freedom perpetuate an environment where hatred flourishes. IHRA, while helpful in identifying antisemitic behavior, does not dismantle the systemic bias that allows such rhetoric to thrive unchecked. What are the consequences for these teachers and administrators?
- Broader Educational Gaps: Adopting IHRA does not address the profound lack of education about Jewish history, Zionism, and the Holocaust among students and faculty. Many perpetrators of antisemitism operate from a place of ignorance, fueled by misinformation or the acceptance of biased narratives. A meaningful response requires comprehensive education initiatives to counteract this ignorance.
- Exclusion of Broader Protections: While Harvard agreed to clarify that Jewish and Israeli students are protected under its existing non-discrimination policies, this protection is not uniformly applied across higher education. Many institutions fail to recognize antisemitism as a form of discrimination, leaving Jewish students vulnerable. A true solution must establish consistent standards for all universities, backed by federal enforcement. This should include a complete examination of critical race theory and critical social justice curriculum.
- Antisemitism Beyond Policy Definitions: The IHRA definition focuses on identifying antisemitism but does not inherently address the power dynamics and social pressures that perpetuate it. For instance, Jewish students at Harvard reported being spat on, harassed, and intimidated. These are not abstract examples of bias; they are acts of targeted hatred. Combating such behaviors requires a cultural shift that goes far beyond adopting a definition.
What real progress looks like
If Harvard’s agreement is to be more than a symbolic gesture, several additional steps must be taken:
- Mandatory Education and Training: Faculty, staff, and students must undergo training that incorporates the IHRA definition and provides context for understanding antisemitism in all its forms. This training should include a focus on contemporary manifestations of anti-Zionism and its impact on Jewish communities.
- Zero-Tolerance Policies: Harvard must adopt and enforce clear zero-tolerance policies for antisemitic behavior, including harassment, vandalism, and physical violence. Consequences for violations should be swift and transparent.
- Institutional Accountability: The annual reports agreed upon in the settlement are a good starting point but must be comprehensive, including detailed accounts of complaints, resolutions, and corrective actions taken. These reports should be subject to independent review to ensure accuracy and accountability.
- Empowering Jewish Students: Beyond reactive measures, Harvard must proactively support its Jewish community. This includes funding for Jewish student organizations, creating spaces for Jewish students to express their identity, and facilitating dialogue between Jewish students and other campus groups.
- National Oversight: Harvard’s actions set a precedent, but the federal government must ensure that other universities follow suit. The Department of Education should establish clear guidelines for addressing campus antisemitism, with consequences for non-compliance.
The settlement between Harvard and the plaintiffs of the Title VI lawsuits may be hailed as a victory, but it is a partial one at best. The IHRA definition is a valuable step forward, but it is not sufficient to combat the deeply rooted antisemitism that Jewish students face daily. Harvard’s agreement must be the beginning of a broader, sustained effort to change campus culture, enforce meaningful protections, and ensure that Jewish students can pursue their education free from fear and discrimination.
Anything less risks turning this so-called settlement into a symbolic gesture, devoid of real impact. Harvard, as one of the most prominent academic institutions in the world, has a unique opportunity to lead. But leadership requires action, not just promises. Only by going beyond IHRA can we hope to create campuses where Jewish students feel safe, valued, and respected.