The two settlements announced this week of antisemitism lawsuits against Harvard are modest steps forward for that university, but the bigotry against Jews is so entrenched at Cambridge and Boston that it will take a lot more than court documents to force change.

A measure of how unrepentant Harvard is comes in the press releases announcing both settlements, which declared, “Harvard has not admitted to any wrongdoing or liability.” Well there’s a statement typical of the defensiveness that has characterized Harvard University’s responses on antisemitism for far too long. 

Prospective students, prospective faculty and staff, and officials in Congress and the Trump administration will know that Harvard is actually serious about combating antisemitism when the university stops denying “any wrongdoing” and finally confronts publicly and officially its own embarrassing performance on this issue.

As it is, community members can read the signals loud and clear. The Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee — recently restored by Harvard administrators to officially recognized student organization status after a brief suspension — posted to social media that “Harvard will protect Zionism — a racist, genocidal political ideology — over its students’ right to demand an end to occupation.”

The social media post itself falls afoul of the definition of antisemitism that Harvard supposedly adopted, a definition that includes, “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.” 

Anyone hoping to hold the anti-Israel activists accountable for their Jew-hate is directed to a kafkaesque adventure through the Harvard bureaucracy, which requires a formal complaint to a “LDR” — local designated resource — under the “NDAB”—a nondiscrimination policy that requires an offense to rise to the level of either severe or pervasive harassment or interfering with a student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the institution’s programs and activities.

The Crimson, a student newspaper, is full of articles by students and quotes from professors denouncing the United States government definition of antisemitism that the Harvard settlement adopts, and dismissing allegations of antisemitism at Harvard as exaggerated. 

The settlement agreement says Harvard “will host an annual academic symposium on the topic of antisemitism, including at American universities.” For a flavor of what to expect from that, check out Harvard Magazine’s report on a December 10, 2024, symposium at Harvard on that topic.

Its covener, the co-chairman of Harvard’s antisemitism task force, Frost professor of Jewish history Derek Penslar, is quoted by the magazine as declaring, “Campuses don’t have an antisemitism problem — America has an antisemitism problem.” The magazine reports that another professor at the event, UCLA’s Dov Waxman, “feels the media often exaggerated campus antisemitism.”

The litigation piece of the effort to hold Harvard accountable is, fortunately, not yet over. The only non-anonymous plaintiff in the case, Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, who spoke at the Republican National Convention and has repeatedly testified before Congress on the topic, is moving ahead with discovery in the case.

He is assisted by new counsel, including Douglas S. Brooks. Mr. Brooks is a graduate of Harvard Law School and has a reputation in the Boston trial bar as an aggressive and highly capable attorney. 

In addition to the litigation part of the story, there is also a regulation aspect. The senior counsel to the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division, Leo Terrell,  posted, “Harvard, I start work next week!”

Harvard’s decentralized structure and vast endowment have slowed efforts to get the university into better shape, but the prospect of the university endowment having a personalized tax rate set by Mr. Terrell and his Trump administration colleagues may help concentrate some minds.

What may be even more effective than litigation and regulation are the forces of competition. Yes, the situations at some other Ivy League universities are also bad.

The same week Harvard settled, a pro-Israel student at Yale, Netanel Crispe, reports that pro-Israel students were kicked out of the Hillel building there, known as the Slifka Center, for videoing students inside the building who were protesting an appearance by the former prime minister of Israel, Naftali Bennett.

At Columbia, the class of a visiting Israeli faculty member attempting to teach about the history of modern Israel was disrupted by masked protesters. 

Well, there are a lot of other top universities in America. While Harvard was busy alternately trying to rein in antisemitism and not admitting wrongdoing, the president of Yeshiva University, Rabbi Ari Berman, was delivering a benediction at the inauguration. Johns Hopkins, the University of Chicago, MIT, Stanford, Duke, even George Mason University are all gaining on Harvard in various dimensions. 

Faculty-level talent, including postdoctoral researchers, may also figure there’s less nonsense, and better pay, in private industry. The best motivation for improvement at Harvard won’t be any court settlement, welcome though it may be, but a widespread realization that a flourishing Jewish community is a requirement for sustaining the institution’s academic excellence.