On Monday afternoon, a group of approximately twenty students gathered outside Harvard’s Widener Library to mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day while protesting newly adopted disciplinary guidelines. These guidelines stem from the university’s recent settlement of two antisemitism lawsuits and include the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism.
Organized by Harvard Jews for Palestine (J4P), an unrecognized student group, the demonstration took a markedly different approach from past pro-Palestine rallies. Instead of call-and-response chants, participants stood in silence for over two hours, holding banners reading “Jews Against Zionism” and “The Holocaust Does Not Justify the Nakba.”
A Controversial Settlement and Its Implications
The University’s decision to incorporate the IHRA definition of antisemitism as part of its settlement agreement has drawn sharp criticism from faculty and students who argue that it could suppress legitimate discourse on Israel and Palestine. The IHRA definition includes certain critiques of Israel as examples of antisemitism, sparking concerns that the University’s new policies might be used to stifle pro-Palestinian activism.
As part of the settlement, Harvard committed to recognizing Zionism as a protected identity under its non-discrimination policies. The updated guidelines state that targeting Zionists with exclusionary speech, such as imposing a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in university activities, could be considered discriminatory harassment.
A Symbolic Act of Defiance
At the conclusion of the demonstration, protesters recited the Mourner’s Kaddish, a traditional Jewish prayer for the dead, stating that it was in remembrance of both Holocaust victims and Palestinians killed in Gaza. J4P also distributed pamphlets criticizing Harvard’s recent agreements, including its partnership with an Israeli university and the extension of anti-discrimination protections to Zionists.
In their written statement, J4P condemned the University’s stance, asserting that Zionism is inherently linked to the displacement of Palestinians, destruction of Palestinian homes, and the erasure of Palestinian history. Their statement further rejected what they described as “the memory of the Holocaust being abused to justify another holocaust.”
Navigating the Boundaries of Speech and Policy
J4P organizer Violet T.M. Barron ’26 acknowledged that the pamphlet’s comparisons between the Holocaust and Israel’s military actions in Gaza likely violate Harvard’s new guidelines. However, she expressed skepticism about how the University would enforce these rules, pointing to previous instances of what she described as inconsistent rule-making and enforcement.
“Harvard probably still has a choice as to how they can enforce the rules,” Barron said. “Even before they adopted this definition, there was arbitrary rule-making and rule enforcement. I’m not any more afraid than I already was. I don’t think anyone else is.”
Past J4P demonstrations have already drawn scrutiny under similar policies. In November, a protest outside Harvard Hillel included chants of “Zionists not welcome here,” which prompted criticism from both Harvard Hillel’s leadership and the Harvard Chaplains Executive Committee.
Harvard’s Response and the Future of Campus Protests
The University has not issued a direct response to Monday’s demonstration, but Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton reiterated the administration’s commitment to free speech and open inquiry. “The University stands strongly for reasoned dissent and the free exchange of ideas, beliefs, and opinions,” Newton stated, directing inquiries to previous statements on the settlement agreement.
Despite the potential risks of disciplinary action under the updated guidelines, J4P leaders remain undeterred in their activism. “We are just emboldened to demonstrate just how ridiculous the terms of the settlement were,” Barron added.
As tensions over free speech, antisemitism policies, and Palestinian solidarity continue to escalate on campus, Harvard’s handling of these issues will likely face further scrutiny in the coming months.