‘Prospective’ Jewish Students Are Among Those Suing Harvard In Newest Legal Twist
Plus, Biden’s ‘political malpractice,’ California's plastic bag ban backfires, and a U.S.-proposed alternative to Israel invading Rafah
When Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum and Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. filed their initial federal lawsuit against Harvard on January 10, 2024, the complaint was 77 pages long. On Friday, March 29, 2024, Kestenbaum and Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. filed an amended complaint that is 108 pages. (It’s being reported, I believe, first here at The Editors, notwithstanding the significant national press attention that the Harvard campus antisemitism case has attracted.)
What are the main differences between the original complaint and the amended one?
Some of it is merely chronological—there are now three additional months worth of antisemitic incidents, and Harvard’s nonresponse to them, to recount to the judge.
Yet there’s at least one significant if subtle shift in the filing. The initial complaint described Students Against Antisemitism as including “current Jewish students who are experiencing a severe and pervasive hostile educational environment at Harvard that causes them to lose the benefits of Harvard’s educational and extracurricular opportunities.”
The new complaint expands the group to include “current, former, and prospective Jewish Harvard students who are experiencing (or who have experienced, in the case of former students) a severe and pervasive hostile educational environment at Harvard that causes them to lose the benefits of Harvard’s educational and extracurricular activities.”
Further to the “prospective Jewish Harvard students” theme, the amended complaint also includes new language about how “over the past ten years, Harvard has instituted admissions policies that have severely reduced—from approximately 1,675 in 2013 to 700 in 2023—the number of Jewish students, an enormous decline that evinces an intentional effort, much like Harvard’s quotas one hundred years ago, to exclude Jews.”
Expanding the suit to include, as plaintiffs, prospective students rejected from Harvard, admitted students who chose to go elsewhere, or prospective applicants who decided to apply elsewhere and not to Harvard based on the Harvard campus climate could change the complexion of the case, potentially making it more similar in some ways to the ultimately successful lawsuit brought over discrimination against Asian-American applicants. The same law firm, WilmerHale, that lost for Harvard in that case is representing Harvard again in this one.
The new complaint also faults Harvard for its appointment of Professor Derek Penslar to co-chair an Antisemitism Task Force. “Despite clear evidence that Penslar is unsuitable to lead the Antisemitism Task Force, Penslar remains co-chair,” the complaint says, noting that “he had publicly minimized antisemitism and engaged in antisemitic canards regarding Israel.”
Relatedly on the Harvard front, there is video of the celebration at Harvard Law School on Friday of the passage of a law school student government resolution calling for divestment from “genocide” in Gaza. A student in the video talks about “bloodlust” and notes, “war is profitable,” providing more evidence for a point I’ve been making here that Israel’s enemies are against profits, too.
Harvard Hillel issued a statement in response to the law school vote: “Harvard Hillel is deeply disappointed that the Harvard Law School student government passed a hateful anti-Israel resolution. Such efforts are intended to delegitimize Israel and target Jewish life — and Jewish students — on our campus.” The statement went on, “Antisemitic student government legislation practically means that no matter who ”wins” the vote, everyone on campus loses. These votes marginalize Jewish students who have been under increasing threat from sharply rising antisemitism since October 7, and divide friends, peers, and campus communities. This effort was rammed through irregularly, in violation of the Student Government Constitution, suppressing any good-faith dialogue. We urge Harvard university leadership to condemn this hateful effort.” It’ll be interesting to see whether such a condemnation materializes.
Recommended reading: The Sunday print New York Times has a kids section focused on mistakes of all sorts. Among the errors: a California state law banning grocery stores from giving away plastic bags. The Times reports, “The idea was that if those flimsy, single-use bags weren’t available, people would bring in their own cloth, canvas or paper bags. Those bags could be used over and over again, which would mean less plastic waste!”
The article goes on, “Except that’s not what happened. Instead, last year, Californians threw away more plastic bags (by weight) than when the law first passed, according to California’s recycling agency. Oops!”
The law allowed grocery stores to sell thicker, “reusable” plastic bags, which they did.
The Times kids section makes the lesson plain: “sometimes, even when you’re trying to do something good, it ends up backfiring.”
The kids section cover carries a warning: “Editor’s note: This section should not be read by grown-ups.” It’s also not available online. Perhaps the Times is trying to prevent its progressive paying parent readers from finding out about the law of unintended consequences?
The Times did run a version of the story back in February for its adult readers, but the takeaway was more soft-pedaled: “By some accounts, California’s initial plastic bag ban was a well-meaning but failed experiment, an environmental rule that backfired and inadvertently made the matter worse.”
More recommended reading: Israel’s allies have been rhetorically asking the Biden administration for weeks now, if you don’t want us to go in and clear the remaining Hamas terrorist battalions out of Rafah, what is your proposed alternative? Something approaching an answer comes in an article from JNS, “U.S. presents Israel with alternatives to Rafah battle.” It pieces together a variety of clues about a March 27 phone call between the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General CQ Brown, Jr., and the chief of the Israeli General Staff, Herzi Halevi, including an apparent American proposal for “the establishment of a joint U.S.-Israeli command center to coordinate activities in the Gaza Strip.”
I’m not sure I see the national security logic of such a joint center from Israel’s point of view, except perhaps if the Israelis figure the intelligence and weapons gained by agreeing to it will exceed the costs of slowing and complicating Israel’s self-defense. And I’m not sure I see the national security logic of it from America’s point of view, except perhaps if the Americans figure the risk of being blamed for Israel’s actions is somehow offset by the reduction in collateral damage or accidental strikes that might be gained by the imposition of the joint command center. America can barely handle what it has on its hands already. The last thing it needs is any more formal responsibility for Gaza.
But the political logic of it, from both sides, may have attractions. If Israel accepts it, it then Israel’s generals and politicians have gained a new ability to blame anything short of a full victory on the Americans. “We wanted to kill Sinwar and rescue the hostages, but the American side of the joint command center vetoed it.” If Israel rejects it, Biden can say, “hey, we offered them a joint command center, and they rejected it, so whatever is happening in Gaza is not our fault.” If Netanyahu rejects it, he can say, “Biden—the guy who proudly opposed the raid that killed Osama Bin Laden—wanted us to accept a joint command center that would have given him a veto over our ability to go after Hamas in Gaza.” If Israel accepts it, Biden may figure it reduces the chances of a protracted war in Gaza stretching deep into the American election season and contributing to the sense that his national security leadership overall has been disappointing.
More recommended reading: Jonathan Martin, in Politico, has a list of politicians who haven’t heard from President Biden: Chris Christie, George W. Bush, Mike Pence, Paul Ryan, Larry Hogan. “I reached out to every current Republican lawmaker who has refused to commit to Trump in the general election. Sens. Susan Collins (Maine) Mitt Romney (Utah), Todd Young (Indiana), Bill Cassidy (Louisiana) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) all said the same: they’ve not heard from Biden.” Martin calls it “political malpractice” on Biden’s part. He says part of the explanation may be that “The president’s staff… have been particularly consumed with trying to mollify progressives.”
Thanks for reading. A happy Easter to those who are celebrating today. If you appreciate this newsletter, please forward it to friends along with a suggestion that they subscribe.
I recommend college applicants who are Jewish to consider seriously applying to my alma mater, Brandeis. You will get a great education and be respected by everyone. President Liebowitz and the leaders there do not put up with anti-semitism of any form, even in admissions. If Harvard or any college cannot recognize Israel’s right to defend itself, they are not worth a penny of anyone’s money.