MIT alum horrified by school’s antisemitism grade
I was horrified to read that Harvard and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology both received a failing grade on the Anti Defamation League’s Campus Antisemitism Scorecard. An F? At MIT, an F would mean you turned in a blank exam book.
When I watched the presidents of these universities testify before Congress in December, I tried to give them some grace for their poor answers, e.g. not thinking quickly or being over-lawyered. As an attorney once told me, if you don’t open your mouth, you can’t put your foot in. You can’t be hurt by what you didn’t say. Or can you? But that was months ago. The administrations have had enough time to realize their mistakes and take corrective action. It is disheartening to see that of the 85 colleges rated, MIT and Harvard scored in the bottom 15%. That’s failing even if you grade on a curve!
As an MIT alum, I don’t know whether I am more embarrassed or ashamed. It is shameful that they haven’t figured out how to have civil discourse in what is supposed to be a marketplace of ideas. The lack of research and critical thinking by the students is an embarrassment. The situation in Israel is complex and not easily resolved with soundbite solutions. I have Jewish classmates who are not participating in this year’s class reunion as they say this is not the school they thought it was. With the score of an F, can I blame them?
I am sure my conservative colleagues would love to point out that this is occurring in the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, in the bluest of blue cities, Cambridge, and in the most liberal of liberal arts schools, Harvard and MIT. With an F, Harvard and MIT shouldn’t be lecturing anyone on inclusion. Perhaps they can learn something from schools with higher scores.
As of 2021, Harvard University has produced 162 Nobel laureates, more than any other institution in the world. As of October 2023, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has 101 Nobel Prize laureates. With all of that brain power, they should be able to figure out how to protect speech and academic freedom while providing safety.
Harvard has an endowment of $50.7 billion and MIT has one of $23.5 billion. So, money is not an obstacle. With that much money, you could provide Secret Service-level protection for every Jewish student and student group on campus. With brain power and money, what is preventing the development of a solution? Lack of will?
A parent who visited Tufts, another school on the list that received an F, asked about the safety of her child on campus and was told, “There are safe places on campus for Jews.” I thought at $80,000 per year, you should be safe on every part of campus. Perhaps a student can pay tuition on a prorated basis for the amount of campus he or she can safely use.
I wrote to the ADL to better understand the criteria, timing, and ability for a school to improve its score. They sent me their methodology, and said, “There are absolutely opportunities for campuses to improve their grades. First, they should commit to six key policies the ADL has been urging universities to adopt since before Oct. 7 as a pathway to combat antisemitism on campus, and the core policy priorities that are assessed in the Report Card.” These include speaking up forcefully in condemnation of antisemitism, enforcing student and faculty disciplinary rules and non-discrimination and anti-harassment policies, and investigating anti-Israel and anti-Zionist student groups glorifying terrorism, among others.
The ADL said it will report annually, and reassess when it learns of new actions taken by universities, even during the year. Finally, it said “we urge colleges to work with ADL and on the ground campus partners to discuss the issue, critically examine what is happening and adopt and enforce new policies. ADL plans to hold webinars and share resources with universities on best practices for incident response, policy development, and supporting Jewish students.”
This all seemed reasonable to me and I didn’t see why MIT or Harvard would be disadvantaged by the criteria. Why is this not an urgent issue on their campuses?
Since Brandeis received an A grade, perhaps they have some best practices they can share. With Harvard getting an F and Brandeis getting an A, this reminds me of why institutions such as Brandeis and Beth Israel were created in the first place. The thought of Jews only feeling safe at Jewish schools means we are moving in the wrong direction.
If campus communities seem unable to model the behavior they advocate, how do we expect there to be peace in the Middle East, which is far more complicated? These schools have Chief Diversity Officers and non-discrimination policies. Loudly trumpeted diversity, equity, and inclusion policies seem to protect everyone except the Jews, Muslims (and sometimes conservative and/or Christian thought).
Ivy League schools and others have excluded Jewish identity and antisemitism — whether by intention or ignorance from its DEI initiatives. This has created opportunities for the AntiDEI movement, as if it needed any help in the Anti-Woke, AntiCritical Race Theory world. Bill Ackman and Marc Rowan of the billionaire class are effectively leading anti-DEI initiatives, which has the potential to further split the Black-Jewish alliance.
I heard conservative Coleman Hughes define DEI as concerning two groups, the oppressed and the oppressors. Whites and Jews are the oppressors, and Blacks and people of color are the oppressed.
First, 30% of the Jews in the world are people of color. I see this division threatening the Black-Jewish partnership which goes back further than the founding of the NAACP. I am also concerned about what type of precedent this sets. If one remembers, a Black student put a Nazi symbol on a white banner and hung it out her window, in response to a white student being able to hang a Confederate flag. If we don’t respond to what is happening to the Jewish students, does that mean the next group also won’t be protected? All groups, Christians, LGBTQ, Muslims, or Arabs must feel safe on campus. We have to figure out a way to navigate cancel culture and hate speech and be willing to reform DEI policies where necessary.
December’s congressional hearings were successful in shaming administrations, but apparently they have not solved the problem. Instead of reacting, perhaps we can be more strategic and provide a trauma-informed response. The last thing we need is more division in the world. In terms of my class reunion, our friendship was not based on the policies and principles of the institution. We were friends before Oct. 7 and will continue to be. Perhaps we need to do more to maintain our friendships outside of the support of the institution.