Harvard University has announced plans to reassess its academic programs and admissions procedures following the release of two internal reports addressing antisemitism and anti-Arab prejudice on campus. These reports were commissioned after pro-Palestinian protests in the spring.
The reports were made public on Tuesday amidst ongoing disputes between Harvard and the Trump administration, which is seeking to limit campus activism as a strategy to combat antisemitism. In response to the administration’s demands, which include suspending $2.2 billion in federal funds, Harvard has filed a lawsuit, igniting a critical debate followed closely by higher education institutions.
Harvard President Alan Garber emphasized the university’s commitment to fostering an environment conducive to diverse ideas and debates in pursuit of truth. “We will intensify our efforts to make the University a place where ideas are freely exchanged,” he stated. Garber had initiated studies on campus antisemitism and anti-Muslim bias, culminating in recommendations shared last June. The final reports, detailed over 500 pages, propose numerous changes.
The university intends to adopt some recommendations, considering updates to admission, hiring, and disciplinary systems.
Representative Tim Walberg, chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, criticized Harvard’s past tolerance of antisemitism, urging stricter measures. “Despite Harvard’s assurance against bigotry, the leadership has shown weakness,” Walberg remarked.
Harvard plans to refine its admissions criteria to evaluate applicants on their ability to engage with diverse perspectives and maintain civil discourse. A recent addition to its application process asks students to describe a disagreement they have navigated. This aligns with task force suggestions to scrutinize applicants with a history of bias and avoid those displaying hostility.
However, this may not satisfy the Trump administration’s calls for altering admissions to eliminate any race or origin-based preferences and adopt merit-based policies by August. Although the Supreme Court has dismissed racial considerations in admissions, many institutions consider economic and geographical factors to attract diverse student groups.
Addressing complaints about politicization and anti-Israel bias in Harvard’s teaching, the university aims to enforce “excellence” standards among professors. Deans will oversee faculty to ensure they foster intellectual openness without pushing any political agendas that might pressure students to conform.
Curricular reviews will be conducted to align with these new academic expectations. Other proactive steps include mandatory antisemitism training for students and faculty, expanded course offerings in Hebrew, Judaic, Arab, and Islamic studies, and funding a research initiative on antisemitism. Additionally, a historical review concerning Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians at Harvard will be established.
Garber underscored the importance of accelerating viewpoint diversity across the campus, a significant area of interest for the White House, which also urged Harvard to engage an external auditor to evaluate the breadth of perspectives in the student body and academic departments.
Harvard stands as the first university to resist the Trump administration’s approach of leveraging federal funding to advance its agendas. The administration contends that institutions have failed to adequately address antisemitism during campus demonstrations last year. Garber, however, argues that complying with these demands threatens academic freedom and institutional independence.