Blocking the former head of Human Rights Watch stirred debate over academic freedom and donor influence

Kenneth Roth, the former director of Human Rights Watch, in New York last April. The Harvard Kennedy School recently reversed its early decision to reject his fellowship application because of his criticisms of Israel. (Todd Heisler/The New York Times)

Jennifer Schuessler and Marc Tracy, New York Times, Jan. 19, 2023

The Harvard Kennedy School reversed course on Thursday and said it would offer a fellowship to a leading human rights advocate it had previously rejected, after news of the decision touched off a public outcry over academic freedom, donor influence and the boundaries of criticism of Israel.

The controversy erupted earlier this month, when The Nation published a lengthy article revealing that last summer, the school’s dean, Douglas Elmendorf, had vetoed a proposal by the school’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy to offer a one-year fellowship to Kenneth Roth, the recently retired executive director of Human Rights Watch. At the time, Elmendorf told colleagues that he was concerned about perceptions that Human Rights Watch had a bias against Israel, according to two faculty members.

The revelation prompted sharp rebukes from prominent free expression groups; a letter signed by more than 1,000 Harvard students, faculty and alumni criticizing what it called “a shameful decision to blacklist Kenneth Roth”; and private complaints from faculty.

In an email to the Kennedy School community on Thursday, Elmendorf said his decision had been an “error” and the school would be extending an invitation to Roth.

Elmendorf, an economist who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2009 to 2015, also pushed back against the charge that donors had influenced his initial decision, which was suggested in the Nation article and reiterated in public statements by Roth.

“Donors do not affect our consideration of academic matters,” he said in the statement. “My decision was also not made to limit debate at the Kennedy School about human rights in any country.”

He did not specify why he had rejected Mr. Roth’s fellowship except to say that it was “based on my evaluation of his potential contributions to the school.”

As for Roth, who after Harvard’s about-face accepted an offer from the University of Pennsylvania, where he is now a fellow at Perry World House, Elmendorf said, “I hope that our community will be able to benefit from his deep experience in a wide range of human rights issues.”

Roth, reached by phone after the reversal was announced, said he was pleased by the decision, which he attributed to “overwhelming” concern from the faculty, and that he would use the fellowship to work on a book about his decades of human rights advocacy. But he also called for more transparency.

“Dean Elmendorf has said he made this decision because of people who ‘mattered’ to him at the university,” Roth said, referring to published accounts by faculty members. “He still refuses to say who those people who mattered to him were.”

And he called on Harvard to make a stronger commitment to academic freedom, including for people who aren’t in a position to mobilize public opinion.

“Penalizing people for criticizing Israel is hardly limited to me,” he continued. “What is the Kennedy School, and Harvard more broadly, going to do to show this episode conveys a renewed commitment to academic freedom, rather than just exceptional treatment for one well-known individual?”

The Harvard Kennedy School, a public policy school in Cambridge, Mass., is home to a dozen research centers, including the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. (Kayana Szymczak)

The incident was the latest flare-up in the ongoing debate about when criticism of Israel shades into antisemitism, and when charges of antisemitism, in turn, are used to shut down criticism.

In interviews (and on Twitter), Roth, a Jew whose father fled Nazi Germany as a child, said that Elmendorf’s initial decision reflected the influence of those who seek to delegitimize Human Rights Watch, which has monitored abuses in more than 100 countries, as an impartial observer on Israel. And he has described it as a case of “donor-driven censorship,” though he said he had no proof.

Continue reading →

Beating back anti-Palestinian prejudice, which shouldn’t even exist in the first place, doesn’t feel like a win.

SHAHD ABUSALAMA (FACEBOOK)

MONA ABUAMARA, MONDOWEISS, AUGUST 20, 2022

Anti-Palestinianism has been increasingly witnessed worldwide but especially within western liberal democracies. It presents itself in every attempt to portray any act carried by Israel and its lobby against Palestine, the Palestinians, and those advocating for Palestine, as inevitable for the protection of Jewish communities.

Antisemitism is a grave assault on humanity, and the world has witnessed firsthand its atrocious ramifications. But Never Again in no way contradicts striving for a free Palestine—if anything, these principles of universal rights, freedoms, and values go hand in hand. Using accusations of antisemitism to suppress voices advocating for the legitimate rights of the Palestinians dilutes the accusation of antisemitism and empowers real antisemites.

In the past few years, exploiting the working definition of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) for antisemitism has become one of the latest acts of subterfuge practiced by Israel and its lobby.

By employing its fluid, Israel-centered description, coupled with its vague language and the baseless association between Palestine advocacy and antisemitism, the Israel lobby used its newfangled definition to label and smear Palestine advocates, including Jews, as either antisemites or self-hating Jews.

Clearly, being exposed for being an apartheid state is disgruntling. But Israel’s supporters seem to be laboring under the delusion that the Palestinians will simply roll over and accept their lot and embrace their place within the apartheid system. All of this is to circumvent the bad press that might disrupt the charade of “the only democracy in the Middle East”

With the help of its lobby, Israel has been at work covering up its atrocities, weaponizing its distorted depiction of the IHRA definition of antisemitism to urge the international community to normalize discrimination and prejudice against the Palestinians. The act is both selfish and appalling.

Recently Maram Mansour, a Palestinian journalist, won a lawsuit against her wrongful dismissal by Deutsche Welle. Before her, Shahd Abusalama, a Palestinian associate lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University, was reinstated after being unlawfully suspended and investigated by her university. These cases only represent those who were able to successfully fight the injustices done to them. Unfortunately, there are countless other Palestinians and world activists who have and continue to be wrongly prosecuted. You might have heard of some of their agonizing tales, but there are so many that no one will ever encounter. 

They were acquitted of allegations that were clearly baseless and should never have been taken seriously in the first place, and they were reinstated into positions that should never have been stripped from them. Not your typical win.

Indeed, although Maram and Shahd were ultimately vindicated, they shouldn’t have been on the proverbial stand in the first place. Let us pause here to examine what they have theoretically won. They were acquitted of allegations that were clearly baseless and should never have been taken seriously in the first place, and they were reinstated into positions that should never have been stripped from them. Not your typical win.

Why were the attacks against them warranted to begin with? The answer, simply, is anti-Palestinianism. And of course, the fact that they eventually “won” doesn’t erase the damage that has been done, after the slander has been made public. Who will be held accountable for spewing such accusations? No one. A quiet settlement occurs, followed by a noiseless admission of the falsehood of those accusations. Little more.  

In a way, this shouldn’t be surprising, as the campaigns have by now become rather predictable—the goal was never about delivering a guilty verdict; the tortuous, punishing battle to overturn it was the whole point. These women persevered in the face of this adversity, but who else might balk in the face of a similar threat? Who might think twice, from now on, knowing that they may be put through the ringer like Maram and Shahd?

Israel and its lobby use the smear of antisemitism to defend their aggressions and to warrant their anti-Palestinianism. 

Of course, Israel has much to fear from people like Shahb and Maram. It needs shielding simply because these advocates have dared to stand with Sheikh Jarrah, Silwan, or Masafer Yatta—demanding a stop to the ongoing Palestinian Nakba. Israel is afraid when free voices call for the release of Palestinian political prisoners and for an end to the 15-year blockade on Gaza. 

Jews have nothing to do with this, and none of the above is a threat to Jews. It is, however, a threat to the continuation of a brutal apartheid regime. 

Ask yourself: would the Palestinians have acted differently had the religion or nationality of their oppressor been different? Or maybe Palestinians, like any oppressed group, are simply demanding their legitimate rights?

Continue reading →