On December 5, the presidents from Harvard, Penn, and MIT testified at a congressional hearing on the rise of antisemitism on their campuses. Everyone expected them to field questions from those politicians with ease, like professors fielding questions from their students. 

University presidents failed

That’s why everyone was shocked when one simple question made them all look so clueless.

Support for the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and MIT eroded quickly on Wednesday, after they seemed to evade what seemed like a rather simple question during a contentious congressional hearing: Would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews?

Their lawyerly replies to that question and others during a four-hour hearing drew incredulous responses.

(The New York Times, December 6, 2023)

The answer is obvious: Yes, I would discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews. Yet, remarkably, all three presidents got it wrong.

Simply put, they were too clever by half. Mind you, they were legally correct. Because discipline should always “depend on the context.” It’s just that they were too politically incorrect. Because this context required them to say calling for the genocide of Jews would warrant not just expulsion but arrest. 

University presidents had fair notice

In this context, I put these presidents on notice nearly three weeks before their congressional hearing. I did so in “CEOs Demand Harvard Name Students Who Blamed Israel for Hamas Attack” on October 14: 

• I argued that speech might be free, but it is not without costs; 
• I noted that far too many university presidents failed to learn this basic lesson; and
• I suggested that their failure explains why far too many students think they are free to call for the genocide of Jews.

But it wasn’t just me giving a heads-up. Heads of law firms, banks, and other corporations were also putting them on notice. Moreover, they were teaching these student protesters the hard lesson their university presidents weren’t: 

Davis Polk, one of the country’s most prestigious law firms, recently rescinded employment offers made to three students who the firm believed led organizations at Harvard and Columbia that issued statements blaming Israel for the October 7 attack by Hamas that left more than 1,400 Israelis dead.

(The New York Times, October 18, 2023)

Of course, I have no delusions about these university presidents even noticing the notice I served. However, they could not fail to see the notice these companies served by rescinding job offers. Yet they answered that fateful question during their congressional hearing as if they had no friggin’ clue.

Calls to resign reek of sexism and racism

Congressional Republicans swiftly demanded their resignations. Donors also threatened to pull funds if they didn’t step down. Their fates appeared sealed. 

Sure enough, Penn’s President Liz Magill fell on her sword four days after the hearing. But Harvard’s President Claudine Gay and MIT’s President Sally Kornbluth are still standing. 

Truth be told, this was a firing offense. But, with all due respect to Magill, she should’ve raised the specter of double-standard sexism to resist resigning. After all, there’s a dubious legacy of men serving as university presidents. Therefore, it’s arguable that she and the other presidents got this backlash because they are all women.

That might be why so many Harvard faculty and staff rallied to support their president. 

Harvard faculty members submitted a letter to the Harvard Corporation, which oversees the institution’s academic and financial resources, opposing calls to remove Gay. The petition, which has over 700 signatures, urges the university ‘in the strongest possible terms to defend the independence of the university and to resist political pressures that are at odds with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.’

(CBS News, December 11, 2023)

No doubt the overseers at nearby MIT got the message to leave their president alone, too. 

Then, of course, there’s the inevitable role racism played. Jewish billionaire Bill Ackman was leading the donor threats aimed at forcing Gay to resign. But it wasn’t enough for him to cite Gay’s disqualifying performance at that congressional hearing. He added insult to that ignominy by insinuating that she was not qualified for the job in the first place.

Billionaire hedge fund manager Bill Ackman has accused Harvard of hiring president Claudine Gay solely because of its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiative — instead of ‘identifying the best leaders for our prestigious universities.’

(The New York Post, December 7, 2023)

In effect, this chauvinistic racist was insinuating that this is what happens when you let a Black woman do a White man’s job.

But only in Trump’s America would a white Jew think it makes sense to call out antisemitism by hurling racist insults. Recall that White supremacists thought Barack Obama was the worst president – simply because he was the first Black president of the United States.

Likewise, this White supremacist thinks Claudine Gay has “done more damage to Harvard’s reputation than any other person” – simply because she’s the first Black president of Harvard.

Republican political pressure

The manifest absurdities of life in Trump’s America know no bounds. 

In this case, Republican politicians are calling on these university presidents to resign. They claim they’re doing so because these presidents failed to discipline students who engaged in antisemitic protests on their campuses.

Yet, these same Republicans are refusing to call on their party leader, Donald Trump, to resign. This, even though they could claim they’re doing so because Trump blithely dined with an antisemite and a racist – among his many other antisemitic and racist transgressions. 

Even closer to home, Republicans made a show of finding the lying fraudster George Santos unfit to serve as a congressman from New York.

Yet, these same Republicans are supporting the lying fraudster Donald Trump as the most fit to serve as president of the United States.

I maintain that only one thing explains this inconsistency. For Republicans, hypocrisy in the pursuit of power is a virtue, not a vice.

Universities should call donors’ bluff

Donors gain both personal and reputational benefits from their contributions. Thus, withdrawing donations would be tantamount to cutting off the nose to spite the face. 

Reports abound about the scandal of legacy admissions. But there’s a sleight of hand afoot. After all, when it comes to perpetuating White privilege and racial inequality, legacy admissions have nothing on legacy donations. 

No college would dare reject the child of a parent who made a significant donation to its endowment fund. That’s how dumb kids like Jared Kushner get into elite schools like Harvard. 

Indeed, current donors would likely compensate for any donations universities lose in this context. In short, donors want to retain the entitlements their donations confer.