Letter to Alan Garber, President of Havard

June 4, 2025

Alan M. Garber
President
Office of the President
Harvard University
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Re: Final Report of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias

Dear President Garber:

We are appalled at the procedural and substantive deficiencies that discredit the above-referenced Final Report’s finding of antisemitism and anti-Israel bias at the University (Chapter 3, pp. 120-138). The exercise smacked of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland: “Sentence first, verdict afterwards.” The Task Force’s assumption before investigation was antisemitism and anti-Israel bias infected the University.

We share our critique to encourage Harvard to reconsider.

1. Principles of free speech. United States Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas elaborated on free speech in Terminiello v. City of Chicago, 337 U.S. 1 (1949): “[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea.”

In other words, protected expression that causes students discomfort, anxiety, or anger are no cause for alarm. It shows free speech is alive and well.

2. Unreliable Investigative Protocol. The investigative protocol employed by the Task Force mocked due process safeguards against error or injustice. It conducted “listening sessions” and an “online survey” of students, faculty, and staff. No effort was made to validate complaints. None was subject to cross-examination, the “greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,” according to evidence maven John Henry Wigmore. Responses were anonymous, which invites falsehoods or exaggerations. Not a single response would have been admissible evidence to prove antisemitism or anti-Israeli bias in a court of law.
3. Findings. The Task Force unearthed not a single instance of actionable defamation, assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or other tort or crime against Jews. That evidentiary void disproves antisemitism or anti-Israeli bias. The Task Force did find that several Jews felt ostracized, uncomfortable, fearful, or induced to silence. Exemplary was the finding (pp. 122, para. 5), “Many Israeli students reported experiencing heightened social isolation, ostracism, and hostility following the events of October 7, with several feeling unfairly labeled as ‘soldiers’ due to Israel’s mandatory conscription policy.”

That is a far cry from assault or even a racial slur. Charlottesville in 2017 was far worse featuring swastikas on banners and Nazi slogans like “blood and soil.” Even assuming a handful of antisemites at Harvard, that would not prove an epidemic of antisemitism on campus. Bigots are inevitable in any large organization. At a May 7, 2025 hearing before the House Committee on Education and Workforce, Georgetown law professor David Cole noted the absence of any documented antisemitic incidents at elite universities, a claim which he also noted on Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now.

Freedom of association, moreover, protects a right not to associate. See Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (Souter, J.). The Congressional Black Caucus excludes white members.

In conclusion, we are dismayed at your repeated fact-free declarations that antisemitism flourishes at Harvard, including against yourself. Your repeated written attempts to appease President Donald Trump in this manner has not only emboldened him to more excesses. It has also legitimized his concocted charge of rampant antisemitism at the University. Learn from that experience.

Sincerely,

Bruce Fein, Esq.

Ralph Nader, Esq.

Lou Fisher