It was never just ignorance. It was never just a few radicalized students shouting slogans in Harvard Yard. And despite the platitudes, it was never only about “dialogue.”
Harvard’s problem with antisemitism is systemic—woven through bureaucracy, educrat-speak, and the cowardice of a once-prestigious institution that chose progressive ideology over integrity. We no longer need to speculate. Harvard has admitted as much—reluctantly, and only under pressure.
On April 29, 2025, Harvard released the final report of its Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias—a panel formed in the wake of Hamas’s October 7, 2023, terrorist attack on Israel, the pro-Hamas demonstrations that erupted on campus, and the institutional collapse that followed.
The report is damning—not for its tone, which remains bureaucratically restrained—but for its substance. What it reveals, quietly and plainly, is a pattern of institutional antisemitism: enabled by DEI dogma, sustained through administrative evasion, and tolerated by a university leadership more interested in optics than accountability.
This was not Harvard’s first response. In late 2023, it hastily formed an Antisemitism Advisory Group—a gesture that proved to be hollow. What followed was more process, more delay, and finally, a formal task force that confirmed what Jewish students and faculty already knew: antisemitism at Harvard isn’t incidental.
It’s entrenched. Structural. Institutional. And in some quarters, unrepentant.
Seeking balance—or at least the appearance of it—Harvard launched two parallel efforts in 2024: the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, and the Presidential Task Force on Combating Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, and Anti-Palestinian Bias.
The goal was symmetry—an equal and opposite response to every constituency; however, when both reports were released on the same day, that symmetry was disrupted.
Only one prompted federal enforcement.
The Department of Education issued a Notice of Violation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act—not based on politics, but on documented civil rights violations: a hostile environment, widespread discrimination, administrative inaction, and a climate of fear for Jewish students.
Still, Harvard continues to present both panels as matching reforms—equal in weight, urgency, and outcome.
But moral clarity cannot be reduced to matching acronyms and choreographed press releases.
Harvard, in short, is guilty on its terms. The final report on antisemitism makes that unmistakable and unassailable. What began as a flawed exercise in reputational damage control became an institutional confession.
The findings are quantitative, categorical, and appalling.
Harvard’s Own Report Confirms the Following:
What began as a working group to ease campus tensions has become Harvard’s own indictment—its clearest admission of institutional failure. But the rot runs deeper still.
Now, the federal government has taken notice—and this time, there are consequences.
On April 11, 2025, the United States Department of Education demanded corrective action—dismantle Harvard’s discriminatory DEI apparatus, safeguard Jewish civil rights, and restore equal access and merit-based standards. Harvard refused.
Within weeks, the Trump administration issued a formal Notice of Violation under Title VI, citing Harvard’s failure to prevent and address race- and religion-based discrimination.
One senior federal official put it bluntly: Harvard had become “one of the most prominent and visible breeding grounds for race discrimination in American higher education.”
Federal funding is not a birthright. And Harvard—despite its pedigree and endowment—must not be exempt. No amount of curated branding, legacy donors, or wine-soaked administrator retreats can shield it from the law.
Cornered by its findings, Harvard points to the very task force that exposed it, as if disclosure alone were sufficient to absolve it. Yes, President Claudine Gay resigned amid mounting scandal.
But beyond that? There have been no broader resignations, no meaningful reforms, a refusal to cooperate with the federal government—just more bureaucracy and the hope that headlines fade faster than subpoenas arrive.
That strategy may no longer work. The pattern is too visible. The public is too aware.
For years, Harvard preached inclusion while practicing exclusion—treating Jewish students not as equals, but as liabilities to be marginalized or cast aside.
Indeed, intifada—from the Arabic for “to shake off”—is a dehumanizing term, implying that the Jewish people of Israel are an infestation to be cast aside. All too often, it seems the prevailing culture at Harvard shared the sentiment.
The reckoning has arrived. Harvard isn’t merely accused—it has indicted itself.
If it still refuses responsibility, then the question is no longer whether Harvard should lead.
It’s whether it should be funded.
Charlton Allen is an attorney and former chief executive officer and chief judicial officer of the North Carolina Industrial Commission. He is founder of the Madison Center for Law & Liberty, Inc., editor of The American Salient, and host of the Modern Federalist podcast. His commentary has been featured in American Thinker and linked across multiple RealClear platforms, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearWorld, RealClearDefense, RealClearHistory, and RealClearPolicy. X: @CharltonAllenNC
Image created by Andrea Widburg.