Harvard and Penn faced controversy over antisemitism, but the responses from their respective universities and communities were vastly different.
Last Tuesday, Claudine Gay, Liz Magill, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth testified before Congress, failing to clarify if calling for Jewish genocide violated their conduct code. This stance was largely supported by Harvard faculty members, despite the calls to oust Gay from her position. In contrast, the University of Pennsylvania community demanded Magill's resignation due to her perceived failure to protect Jewish students and foster a safe campus environment.
Institutional support and trust mean a lot to university presidents. Last week, MIT Corporation's Executive Committee publicly supported Kornbluth, stating their "full and unconditional support" and asserting that she was leading the community in combating antisemitism, Islamophobia, and other forms of hatred. Harvard's governing body, the Corporation, remained silent about Gay's future, despite holding a meeting on Sunday.
However, Gay had more vocal support than Magill. Over 650 Harvard faculty members signed a petition urging the educational leaders to resist calls for Gay's dismissal. Harvard University's annual report states that it has 1,068 tenure-track faculty members and 403 tenured faculty members.
In the petition, the faculty members urged the university to defend its independence and resist political pressure, asserting that the defense of free research culture in diverse communities cannot be compromised at the expense of external interference.
Since Magill's resignation has been a topic for months, she had already faced criticism. In September, Penn allowed individuals approved by their administration and with a history of antisemitic remarks to participate at Palestine Writing Festival events on campus. Magill and other university leaders released a statement condemning antisemitism but also expressing support for the free exchange of ideas.
This stance was criticized as weak and led to calls for Magill's removal, particularly with the start of the war between Israel and Hamas. When Gay took over in July, she addressed the concerns of Jewish students by forming an advisory group consisting of faculty, alumni, and religious leaders from the Jewish community. She aimed to explore all possibilities of combating antisemitism on campus and in the campus culture.
In a speech before the Jewish Student Organization of Harvard, Gay announced the formation of the advisory group, emphasizing its role in being comprehensive and specific in addressing antisemitism. She also expressed regret for her words in the heated exchange over guidelines and procedures, acknowledging that she should have reverted to her core principle: addressing violence against Jewish students.
This apology may not have saved Gay from criticism, but it does demonstrate her willingness to take responsibility for her actions during a sensitive period. While some continue to demand Gay's resignation, her readiness to acknowledge her mistakes and address the concerns may influence her ultimate fate.
Interestingly, there are disparities in the treatment of university presidents facing antisemitism allegations. Supporters and critics differ in their expectations and response strategies:
- Resignations vs. Expulsion: Harvard's Claudine Gay stepped down as president, while Penn's Liz Magill did not lose her position but faced strong pressure to do so.
- Public Support: Harvard's leadership publicly supported Gay even as controversy swirled around her, while Penn's community demanded Magill's resignation.
- Allegations and Controversies: Claudine Gay faced controversies related to plagiarism and her handling of antisemitism, while Magill faced criticism due to her equivocal response to calls for Jewish genocide.
- Community Response: Harvard's community was divided, with supporters and opponents voicing strong opinions. In contrast, Penn's community was united in demanding Magill's resignation.
While some see Gay's case as a failure of leadership, others maintain that her dismissal would represent a significant blow to diversity in higher education. No matter the outcome, the controversy surrounding these university leaders raises questions about institutional support, community expectations, and the role of free speech in addressing antisemitism on campus.
