Office for Community Support, Non-Discrimination, Rights and Responsibilities: Non-Discrimination and Anti-Bullying- Frequently Asked Questions

Relevant Excerpt

6. What are examples of conduct that may violate the Non-Discrimination Policy?

...

As noted above, under the Non-Discrimination Policy, conduct constitutes harassment when it is severe or pervasive and so objectively offensive that it denies access to the workplace or educational environment. When a factfinder considers a complaint, the factfinder will examine all the relevant circumstances, including, among other things, what the conduct was and how often and for how long it occurred; whether the conduct was targeted to a particular person or persons; whether the conduct occurred in the context of academic discourse; or whether the conduct represented a credible threat of violence. 

The Non-Discrimination Policy includes among its protected categories religion, national origin, shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics, and political beliefs. For many Jewish people, Zionism is a part of their Jewish identity. Conduct that would violate the Non-Discrimination Policy if targeting Jewish or Israeli people can also violate the Policy if directed toward Zionists.

The following are instructive examples of conduct that may violate the Non-Discrimination Policy, provided that the conduct meets the requirements for discriminatory disparate treatment or discriminatory harassment.

• Verbal abuse or use of antisemitic, racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-Zionist, anti-Arab, Islamophobic, anti-LDS, or anti-Catholic slurs or hostile behavior, which could include insulting, teasing, mocking, degrading, or ridiculing or denying the ancestral history of another person or group regardless of whether the person is actually a member of the group (e.g., Jewish, Israeli, Arab, or Muslim), including but not limited to displays or electronic transmission of derogatory, demeaning, or hostile materials based on one or more protected or perceived protected characteristics (e.g., Jewish, Zionist, Arab, or Muslim identity;
• Denying access to or refusing to allow an individual to participate in a program or activity of the University, including, for example, refusing to grant a student some expected benefit (e.g., a letter of recommendation) or denying admission into an open event because of how an individual looks (e.g., because the individual has or lacks stereotypical physical features of a certain ethnic group or conforms or fails to conform to gender stereotypes) or dresses (e.g., because the individual wears religious or ethnic attire such as a cross, kippah, Star of David, turban, or hijab or kufi); or on the basis of the individual’s language (e.g., because the individual speaks a particular language or English with a certain accent); or on the basis of the individual’s actual or perceived national origin, religious or ancestral identity or political beliefs (e.g., because they are a Zionist or a Republican or a Democrat or wear a keffiyeh); or the individual’s actual or perceived association with an ethnic, cultural or religious organization or ethnic, cultural or religious student club or political organization or political student club; or because that individual is actually or perceived to have a particular shared ancestry or be from a particular country or region;
• Defacing property with hateful symbols, such as a swastika or noose, denying the Holocaust or invoking Holocaust imagery or symbols to harass or discriminate, or advocating genocide;
• Excluding Zionists from an open event, calling for the death of Zionists, applying a “no Zionist” litmus test for participation in any Harvard activity, using or disseminating tropes, stereotypes, and conspiracies about Zionists (e.g., “Zionists control the media”), or demanding a person who is or is perceived to be Jewish or Israeli to state a position on Israel or Zionism to harass or discriminate.
• Treating a person differently based on the country, world region, or place where a person or their ancestors come from or are perceived to come from; or due to a person’s English proficiency; or based on certain perceptions of, which may be described as hatred toward, religious and ethnic groups, such as Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Arab, Hispanic, or Latinx students;
• Physical assault, intimidation, or stalking on the basis of one or more protected or perceived protected characteristics;
• Inappropriate physical contact (e.g., forcibly removing another individual’s religious or ethnic jewelry or clothing), comments, questions, advances, epithets, or demands based on one or more protected or perceived protected characteristics;
• Accusing an individual of supporting genocide based solely on their race, ancestry, national origin, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristic; and
• Accusing an individual of being a terrorist or terrorist sympathizer, or urging them to self-harm based solely on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristic.

...

7. Is discrimination based on antisemitism and Islamophobia impermissible under the Non-Discrimination Policy?

The Non-Discrimination Policy’s protected categories (e.g., race, national origin, religion, political beliefs) establish protections for members of the Harvard community from discriminatory disparate treatment or discriminatory harassment based on antisemitism and Islamophobia.

“Antisemitism” is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

“Islamophobia” is a fear, prejudice, or hatred of Muslims that leads to provocation, hostility, and intolerance by means of threatening, harassment, abuse, incitement, and intimidation of Muslims and non-Muslims, both in the online and offline world.

8. How does the definition of antisemitism used in the NDAB Policies relate to the definition of antisemitism used by the U.S. Department of Education?

The NDAB Policies and Procedures encompass Harvard’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), and Harvard considers the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) guidance in complying with Title VI. The definition of antisemitism used by Harvard in the NDAB Policies is the same definition of antisemitism used by OCR. Harvard, like OCR, uses the definition of antisemitism endorsed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA definition) and considers the examples that accompany the IHRA definition to the extent that those examples might be useful in determining discriminatory intent.

9. What is the IHRA framework on which the U.S. Department of Education relies?

International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) adopted the following working definition of antisemitism:

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

These are the IHRA examples that the U.S. Department of Education identifies as relevant to the extent that they are useful in determining discriminatory intent:

• “Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
• 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.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”