Harvard University commits to reform following antisemitism and anti-Arab discrimination findings

Harvard University

has committed to evaluating its

academic programmes

and

admissions criteria

following two internal reports addressing

antisemitism

and

anti-Arab discrimination

on campus, prompted by pro-Palestinian demonstrations last spring.
The university published these reports on Tuesday while engaged in a significant dispute with the Trump administration regarding

campus activism

restrictions. The government's proposed reforms, aimed at addressing campus antisemitism, have resulted in a $2.2 billion federal funding freeze, leading Harvard to file a legal challenge that has drawn widespread attention in academic circles.
Harvard President Alan Garber acknowledged the university's progress over the past year whilst pledging additional measures. The comprehensive reports, spanning over 500 pages, were developed by two panels examining campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias, offering numerous recommendations for institutional change.
The university plans to implement several recommendations, including modifications to admissions procedures to ensure candidates are assessed on their ability to engage with diverse viewpoints and participate in civil discourse. A new application question about disagreement management exemplifies this approach.

Regarding academic standards, Harvard will establish new guidelines for faculty excellence, requiring professors to maintain intellectual openness and avoid political positions that might pressure students. The university will also introduce mandatory antisemitism training and expand its academic offerings in Hebrew, Judaic, Arab and Islamic studies.
Harvard's stance against the Trump administration's demands marks the first instance of a university openly challenging the government's use of federal funding to advance its political agenda. Whilst the administration criticises universities' handling of campus antisemitism, Garber maintains that yielding to these demands would compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy.