Leaked Harvard University Document Addresses Unlawful Protests in Wake of Anti-Israel Demonstrations

The proposed rules include financial penalties and disciplinary actions for noncompliance.

By Dion J. Pierre, Algemeiner

Harvard University is considering a series of policies aimed at preventing the recurrence of the kinds of unauthorized demonstrations that convulsed the campus last academic year and prompted a slew of lawsuits and scandals, according to a leaked draft document.

First reported by The Harvard Crimson, the document, described as “privileged and confidential,” explicitly proscribes “camping,” a clear reference to the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” that students had set up on Harvard Yard and lived in for nearly three weeks between April and May.

It also includes rules against noise pollution, chalking messages on school grounds, and staging protests during exam season.

One proposed rule which forbids photographing protesters may serve the interests of pro-Hamas students, who have chanted antisemitic slogans and proclaimed support for terrorism, by allowing them to remain anonymous.

The Crimson says the provision will prevent doxxing, but critics maintain that identifying and preventing anti-Zionist demonstrators on Ivy League campuses from taking their place in the elite is necessary for protecting the Jewish community and keeping American institutions free of extremists.

“The purpose of this document is to establish a common set of such university rules for campus space use,” it says. “Organizations and/or individuals who do not comply with these rules may be held financially responsible for any resulting costs incurred and may be subject to other consequences for noncompliance, including referral for discipline.”

How the Crimson, Harvard’s official campus newspaper since 1873, obtained the document is not disclosed in the report.

Harvard spokesman Jason Newton told the paper it “may not accurately indicate the current status of guidance regarding a particular topic.” He added that “once the document is finalized, it will be shared with the Harvard community.”

Other Harvard officials, past and present, including former president Larry Summers, commended the document for being “fine and reasonable.”

However, Summers told the Crimson, Harvard’s official policies are often in tension with its actions.

“The issue is that the university, over the last year, has consistently failed to act and impose sanctions when policies are violated and has been slow to implement policies on behalf of Jewish student groups,” he explained. “That is why it is subject to multiple federal government investigations and civil suits.”

Summers’ skepticism is shared by the Jewish community and higher education critics who have accused Harvard University of contriving tough talk about discipline and preserving order to temper negative publicity prompted by its alleged refusal to address antisemitism on the campus.

Earlier this month, it was reported that school officials awarded most of the degrees it withheld from pro-Hamas protesters as punishment for their participating in the unlawful encampment at Harvard Yard.

The decision followed its “downgrading” disciplinary sanctions levied against several other protesters. Neither action led to contrition, however.

Instead, the amnestied students proceeded to mock and revile the university anyway, denouncing it as cynical and rapacious while vowing to continue their flouting of school rules.

“Harvard has caved in, showing that the student intifada will always prevail” one of the groups involved in the anti-Israel demonstrations, Harvard Out of Occupied (HOOP), said upon learning of the news. “This reversal is a bare minimum. We call on our community to demand no less than Palestinian liberation from the river to the sea, grounded in the rights of return and resistance. We will not rest until divestment from the Israeli regime is met.”

The past year has been described by experts as a low point in the history of Harvard University, America’s oldest and, arguably, most important institution of higher education.

Since the Oct. 7 massacre by Hamas across southern Israel, the school has been accused of fostering a culture of racial grievance and antisemitism, while important donors have suspended funding for programs.

In just the past nine months, its first Black president, Claudine Gay, resigned in disgrace after being outed as a serial plagiarist; Harvard faculty shared an antisemitic cartoon on social media; and protesters were filmed surrounding a Jewish student on campus and shouting “Shame!” into his ears.

According to the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce, Harvard has repeatedly misrepresented its handling of the explosion of hate and rule breaking, launching a campaign of deceit and spin to cover up what ultimately became the biggest scandal in higher education.

A report generated by the committee as part of a wider investigation of the school claimed that the university formed an Antisemitism Advisory Group (AAG) largely for show and did not consult its members when Jewish students were subject to verbal abuse and harassment, a time, its members felt, when its counsel was most needed.

The advisory group went on to recommend nearly a dozen measures for addressing the problem and offered other guidance, the report said, but it was excluded from high-level discussions which preceded, for example, the December congressional testimony of former president Gay — a hearing convened to discuss antisemitism at Harvard.

So frustrated were a “majority” of AAG members with being an accessory to what the committee described as a guilefully crafted public relations facade that they threatened to resign from it.

Harvard must still tend to outstanding issues which resulted from the events of this past academic year.

A congressional investigation of its handling of antisemitism is ongoing and six Jewish students are suing it for allegedly ignoring antisemitism discrimination.

In April, attorneys representing the school attempted to have the suit tossed out of court, arguing that the plaintiffs lack legal standing.