On Harvard’s Adoption of the IHRA Definition

January 21, 2025

The Harvard Faculty and Staff for Justice in Palestine strongly opposes Harvard’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism. Conflating criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism enables violent policies—such as Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and genocide against Palestinians—by silencing dissent. 

Harvard has unquestioningly implemented the IHRA definition of antisemitism—even though its author has begged for it not to be used to silence dissent and over 1,200 Jewish scholars have publicly opposed its use to chill fact-based critiques of Israel. In accepting the IHRA definition, Harvard has proved itself to be amenable to political pressure rather than intellectual debate. Of what value are academic texts if the Geneva accords can be summarily destroyed along with the universities of Gaza? 

At this moment, Palestinian lives are under severe threat: Israel has destroyed over 90% of homes, and decimated the health and sanitation systems of Gaza. Israeli settlers are committing pogroms against Palestinians in the West Bank. Instead of protecting all human lives equally, Harvard is defending what experts from the United Nations, Doctors Without Borders, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have determined to be “genocide" in Gaza.

Critiquing the policies of nation-states is not prejudice against groups or individuals. The University has previously recognized the distinction between the material or political support for governments and ethnic or religious discrimination or bias when the Harvard Management Company appropriately divested from Chinese, Russian, and Sudanese holdings in compliance with its own Anti-Genocide Policies. Just as disapproval of Trump is not inherently anti-American, informed criticism of Israel—especially as Netanyahu undermines international humanitarian law to massacre Palestinians—cannot be automatically considered antisemitism at Harvard. 

As our organization’s Jewish members have observed, conflating criticism of Israeli state actors and policies with antisemitism also harms Jews by treating Jewish people, including Israeli Jews, as a monolith. This is a form of stereotyping that makes it more difficult to prevent and refute actual bias and discrimination against Jewish people. 

We urge Harvard to apply its Anti-Genocide Policies universally, rather than devaluing Palestinian lives through discriminatory implementation of its disciplinary and investment policies, and through its implementation of IHRA’s problematic definition of antisemitism. Harvard must foster inclusivity by recognizing that its community includes Palestinians, Jews, and numerous others afflicted by Israeli state policies. 

We remind the administration of its own Statement on Rights and Responsibilities which “places special emphasis” upon the values of “freedom of speech and academic freedom” and affirms that, “officers are expected to consult with those affected by the decisions” they make about the community in part or as a whole. We call for administrative transparency, and input from students, faculty and staff on policies impacting academic freedom and free speech on campus. Additionally, we ask Harvard to publicly outline its plans to address anti-Palestinian racism within the community and to ensure that the IHRA definition is not used as a tool to silence students and faculty who speak out against Israel’s genocide in Palestine. 

We demand a campus environment that fosters academic freedom and open debate; one that is rooted in equity, dignity, and justice for all.