Harvard Crimson Refuses to Publish Letter Critical of President Gay

A guest post by Professor Alan Dershowitz

Alan Dershowitz, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Law School. Source: AP Photo/Sergei Chuzavkov

Editor’s Note: Professor Dershowitz published a shorter version of this article in the New York Post on December 21st. This extended version is published here with his permission.

Criticism of President Gay, especially about her double standard of free speech, is being stifled at Harvard, while it is increasing around the world. As an example, the Harvard Crimson has refused to publish a letter I wrote critical of President Gay’s testimony in Congress. Here is the story: On December 12, the Crimson published an article by law professor Charles Fried providing a legalistic defense of her claim that those who call for genocide against Jews cannot be disciplined without considering “the context.”¹

Here is my response:

The problem with Charles Fried’s defense of President Gay’s “context matters” statement, is that he fails to acknowledge that for Gay context apparently matters only for genocidal threats against Jews. Context does not matter for micro-aggressions against Blacks, gays and other minorities protected by the Diversity Equity Inclusion bureaucracy that she has long championed.

Under the DEI regime, admissions have been withdrawn, lectures canceled, and students admonished—at Harvard, Penn, MIT and other universities—for their speech—without regard to the context in which they were said.²

Fried fails to see the broader context of the double standard employed by so many universities—including Harvard—against Jews and other minorities that are excluded by DEI.

Yes, context matters, and in this broader context Gay was wrong to brag to Congress about Harvard’s commitment to free expression, without also telling them that Harvard’s selective application of free speech standards earned it a last place rating for free speech by FIRE.³ It is in that context that Gay’s new and selective double standard for protecting the free speech of Jew haters should be evaluated.

It is to be hoped that Gay’s new contextual standard will in the future be universally applied to all speech at Harvard, and that the DEI bureaucracy will henceforth be denied the power to censor and cancel expression that is directed against protected minorities.

Despite my forward looking and positive conclusion, the chairperson of the editorial board wrote that “they are not interested in publishing it.” I think this is the first time in my 65 years of writing letters to the editor that one has been turned down. And this one is from a professor who has been on the Harvard faculty for 60 years and has published numerous articles and letters in the Crimson.

It is a telling irony that the same editorial board that reassured its readers that “free speech is [its] guiding principle” refuses to publish a letter calling for less censorship and viewpoint discrimination on campus.⁴ That seems to be reflective of Harvard’s double standard approach to free speech: contextual free speech for the enemies of Jews and their state; censorship for supporters of Israel and critics of Harvard.

By refusing to publish my short reply to Professor Fried, it was not my free speech that was denied. It was the right of Crimson readers to hear all sides of a controversial issue—because the Crimson decided to shut down the marketplace of ideas. When the media refuses to publish legitimate criticism of the institution it covers, the checks on the biases of that institution are weakened.

Nor has the faculty served as an effective check. Many signed uncritical letters of support for President Gay, demanding that corporations ignore “outside forces,” including alumnae contributors. But they did not respond to the substantive criticism of these contributors and others about the double standard being applied by President Gay to attacks on Jews.

In light of this pervasive double standard, it is not surprising that so many Jewish students feel that Harvard does not value and protect them.

In recent years, the Crimson has become the megaphone for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic extremism on campus.⁵ It has also become the censor of pro-Israel and balanced views. Last year, for instance, the Crimson’s editorial board called for the support of the BDS movement against Israel. In its editorial, the Crimson explicitly distanced itself from a 2002 editorial, which called divestment too blunt of a tool and the comparison to South Africa apartheid offensive. It wrote, “In the past, our board was skeptical of the movement (if not, generally speaking, of its goals), arguing that BDS as a whole did not ‘get at the nuances and particularities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.’ We regret and reject that view. It is our categorical imperative to side with and empower the vulnerable and oppressed.”⁶ It then goes on to paint a false picture that pro-Palestinian viewpoints are being suppressed on campus. The Crimson of today writes that, “We have a certain community-wide tendency to dismiss opposing views as inherently offensive and unworthy, straw-manning legitimate arguments and obfuscating difficult but necessary discussions. Yet civil discourse and debate, even when trying, are fundamental steps towards a better reality.” Yet it does not seem to apply these standards when it comes to Jews.

Harvard students, faculty and other readers should make their voices heard in the name of veritas and the open marketplace of ideas. Competing Harvard newspapers and media should be established to assure that all reasonable views can be heard. The Crimson is part of the problem of growing anti-Semitism at Harvard. It does not serve the Harvard community well in this time of deep divisions and hate.

The marketplace of ideas should be open to all relevant voices—alumnae, students, potential students, dissenting faculty and others. The Crimson and faculty who support President Gay should not have a monopoly on opinions concerning such important issues.

1. Charles Fried, “President Gay Was Right: Context Matters,” The Harvard Crimson, Dec. 12, 2023, available at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/fried-free-speech-context/.

2. At Harvard, a lecture invitation was rescinded against a woman who said that were only two genders and an acceptance rescinded for a high school student who made a racist comment.

See Caroline Downey, “Feminist Philosopher Disinvited from Speaking at Harvard Over Trans Views,” National Review, Apr. 25, 2022, available at https://www.nationalreview.com/news/feminist-philosopher-disinvited-from-speaking-at-harvard-over-trans-views/; and Anya Kamenetz, “Harvard Rescinds Offer to Parkland Survivor After Discovery of Racist Comments,” NPR, Jun. 18, 2019, available at https://www.npr.org/2019/06/18/733809263/harvard-rescinds-offer-to-parkland-survivor-after-discovery-of-racist-comments.

3. Sean Stevens, “Harvard Gets Worst Score in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings,” FIRE, Sep. 6, 2023, available at https://www.thefire.org/news/harvard-gets-worst-score-ever-fires-college-free-speech-rankings.

4. The Crimson Editorial Board, "Harvard and President Gay Must Not Yield,” The Harvard Crimson, Dec. 12, 2023, available at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2023/12/12/editorial-gay-harvard-partisan-attacks/.

5. The Crimson Editorial Board, “In Support of Boycott, Divest, Sanctions and a Free Palestine,” The Harvard Crimson, Apr. 29, 2022, citing “Do Not Divest from Israel,” May 8, 2002, available at https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/4/29/editorial-bds/; and https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2002/5/8/do-not-divest-from-israel-there/.

6. Ibid.