I tried to skim through the two reports recently released by Harvard, one showing the results of its antisemitism task force, and one showing the results of its anti-Muslim task force. They both agreed that there was a problem at the university, but they largely had opposite recommendations. What’s a university to do?

Basically, each committee said there was too much bullying and bias against the group it was looking at, while the anti-Muslim task force said that there needs to be more teaching of the Palestinian problem, while the antisemitism task force said there needs to be more teaching of Israel.

Together, the two reports are more than 500 pages long, and there is a lot that I did not see at all. But I didn’t see (maybe it is there somewhere) any place where antisemitism and anti-Israel activities were separated, and I didn’t see anywhere where anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian activities were separated. And I think that this is one thing that must happen.

I also wonder whether it was wise to have two separate task forces looking at these two related, but different, issues. What started out as necessary studies because of polarities has now ended with reports which seem to firm up the polarities. As I said, what’s a university to do? Perhaps they should do something that I haven’t seen they are thinking about. That would be taking the two task forces, combining them into one task force, and telling them to come up a joint project. This probably will not happen.

The other thing that should be done (and as to this one, I think that Harvard will be trying) is to separate arguments pro or con Israel or the Palestinians, from attacks (either personal, live attacks, or written attacks) on fellow students. And protests, which cannot be completely stopped and maybe should not be, would be policed to make sure there were no such personal attacks (and probably also that non-Harvard students, faculty or staff, or maybe just non-students, could not take part in the protests). And clearly, the protests would have to be each way on both sides.

Standards of instruction are harder to police, I would think, because freedom of speech for instructors is important. You do not want Harvard’s administration (much less the federal government) telling tenured professors and other instructors what to teach. At least I think that you don’t. (We may come back to this later.)

One of the problems that universities have faced generally is that, as universities (putting aside the positions of individual instructors) have often taking positions as institutions on various subjects, including subjects regarding the freedom of oppressed people around the world. I think, by the way, we can agree that Palestinians surrounding Israel have been oppressed, even if we can reach different conclusions on who there oppressors are, or whether their own actions as a group justifies, or necessitates, their oppression. Many universities, including Harvard, have said that from now on they are going to be institutionally neutral. Of course, this may be easier to promise than to accomplish.

So, we have at many universities, two strains of teachers on these topics. We have the strain of “progressive” historians, who believe that the most important important change since the end of World War I (in addition to the development and then fall of Communism) has been the end of colonialist regimes throughout what has been known as the Third World. Of course, Israel was never a “colony” in the way Algeria or Barbados has been; it is a completely unique development. Yet, for many or most of those who support the destruction or end of the State of Israel, it adds to their argument to describe Israel as a colonial outpost just like former French and British colonies were, and therefore that the colonial regime must be ended.

On the other hands, those who support Israel, many of whom consider themselves Zionists, either believe that Jews have an historic or a God-given right to the land of Israel, or because they were pushed out of other places during the mid-20th century (that would include North Africa and parts of the Near East, as well as most of Europe), that they had no where else to go. And for those who believe that the Holy Land has been designated by God for the Jewish people, there are those on the other side that believe that the land of Israel is Muslim land, meaning land which has been conquered in the name of Allah, as this land has been in the past, can never been handed over to non-believers.

It may be difficult for these two groups of instructors to reconcile with each other, but it would be nice if it were possible, so that anyone taking courses on either Palestine or Israel would be able to see multiple narratives. In other words, just as the institution itself pledges neutrality, perhaps with this very volatile subject, the instructors should discipline themselves to do the same. Is that at all realistic? In other words, could the teaching staff become part of the solution, as opposed to part of the problem?

Perhaps, in normal times, this would be possible. But these are not normal times, as we know. There is a murderous war going on in Gaza, with Israel fighting an enemy that refuses to give up no matter how bad it is losing, and with actions being taken by settlers in the West Bank against Palestinian villagers and certain presumed “militants”, with the IDF and the police forces either backing the settlers, or just standing by and watching. As long as this is the situation on the ground, it becomes more difficult for academics to speak about the situation without emotion or bias.

Of course, Harvard has more problems than this. Remember that Trump is calling off all federal aid to the university, and Harvard has filed suit. I assume it will eventually win the lawsuit, but not before the administration puts additional pressure on the school, including (as they have) threatening its tax exempt status, investigating its law review and so forth. Potential acts against Harvard was even brought up today at Trump’s cabinet meeting.

In addition to actions at universities claimed to be related to antisemitism (which they don’t seem to be in reality) and not at all to anti-Muslim activity, there appears to be a continued upswing in related activity outside of the university campus. Just last week, for example, a woman was harassed by a large group of Hasidic men for participating in a pro-Palestinian rally (or just being at the rally, perhaps). There were apparently about 100 men, yelling, threatening, murder and rape, and chasing the woman, who was afraid to run home because she did not want anyone to know where she lived. I heard her report from her (she has hidden her name) and she, too, has said, like Palestinians on the West Bank, that the police simply stood by. I am sure we will learn more about this.

I wish I had a clever way to end this one, but I don’t.  Today is Israeli Independence Day, Yom Haatzmaut, and in two weeks, it will be Palestinian Catastrophe Day, the day of the Nakba. It has been 75 years. And so it goes.