• The first black president of Harvard University resigns after antisemitism claims
• How morality is subdued with institutional double standards in America
The president of Harvard University has resigned after serving just six months of her term. Claudine Gay had come under heavy scrutiny last month during and after a congressional hearing in which she gave testament to how her colleges were combating antisemitism. Claudine was not alone, as she was also joined by the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to give testimony. The testimonies had made all presidents targets of Israeli supporters, with multiple calls for resignation and legal action.
What was said in the testament exactly?
In the 5-hour congressional hearing, all three institutions were questioned about what kind of values and expressions they allow on campus. All three presidents maintained the idea that they believe in free expression and diversity of viewpoints regardless of whether comments are ‘offensive’ so long as the speech does not lead to calls for violence or conduct. They later spoke about the threats facing students and holding code of conduct violators accountable. They specifically noted that Muslim and Arab students have also been experiencing high levels of threat since October 7th, along with Jews. This is something that is factually correct, as many large firms have indirectly censored students by threatening the denial of future opportunities. Although all of this was factual and being vocal about it would not really provoke an uproar, it was what happened later that created the biggest reaction. During this congressional hearing, Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, Harvard’s toughest critic on the panel and a Harvard alum herself, said that on campus there are students who call for the genocide of Jews and chant phrases such as ‘from the river to the sea’ or ‘intifada’. She described ‘intifada’ as a term used to call for ‘violent armed resistance’. The term ‘intifada’ was a word used to describe the Palestinian resistance when their rights were abused or violated to breaking point. However, the president of Harvard, Claudine Gay, said that such words and statements are at odds with ‘Harvard values’ and ‘abhorrent to her, but do not violate the code of conduct. Claudine and the two other presidents were later asked if calling for the genocide of Jews counts as bullying and harassment. The three presidents said it would only violate rules if it was directed at an individual and was ‘severe and pervasive’. This was not the personal view of the presidents, but rather the code of conduct set in the universities before they were born. Unfortunately, what followed was a cataclysmic wave of hate and backlash.
Not too long after the congressional hearing, President Claudine Gay released a statement on X saying, “There are some who have confused a right to free expression with the idea that Harvard will condone calls for violence against Jewish students. Let me be clear: calls for violence or genocide against the Jewish community, or any religious or ethnic group are vile, they have no place at Harvard, and those who threaten our Jewish students will be held to account.” One day later, the president of the University of Pennsylvania released a video on X promising a review of the code of conduct. However, it was all too little, too late, as pressure kept mounting with the Pennsylvania governor showing heavy dislike for the president’s comments in the hearing, and with a petition with 8,000 signatures calling for resignation, it was only a matter of time before she would resign. The president of Pennsylvania resigned first, but the president of Harvard had initially continued for a good month before the pressure reached breaking point. After the hearing, many Harvard donors paused their donations as a response. One of them is famous billionaire Len Blavatnick, whose family foundation has given 270 million dollars to Harvard throughout the years. It was the continuous buildup of this unpredictable pressure that made President Claudine rethink her position for both the betterment of the university and herself. Sadly, she was a victim of one of the biggest political double standards today.
The double standard
With the ongoing genocide in Gaza, with more than 22 thousand people killed and millions starving, it becomes apparent that the US, being the only country that voted against a ceasefire in the UN Security Council, is complicit in this genocide. A never-ending genocide against Palestinians is supported, propagated, and funded by the United States of America, whose majority democratically elected power players are responsible for and support vocally. Yet why is it that in Congress the power to call for the genocide of Jews is seen as intolerable but the action to carry out one against an entire race is acceptable? From the most high-profile and public faces in the nation to the most powerful and influential, why is it that calls and support for a genocide in Gaza are deemed appropriate and deemed a code of conduct that is permissible within institutions but calling for the genocide of Jews is not? This is a double standard that exists today that many are too emotionally blind to see. A genocide of an entire race of any race should be deemed intolerable under this understanding rather then only on the Jewish race. We can therefore conclude that President Claudine Gay was a victim to a selective bias of morality that is mainstream amongst the elites of America.
