Demonstrators take part in an “Emergency Rally: Stand With Palestinians Under Siege in Gaza,” amid the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US, Oct. 14, 2023. Photo: REUTERS/Brian Snyder

With 80% of its $53 billion endowment restricted by donors, Harvard announced plans to borrow $750 million as “contingency planning,” while facing a $2.26 billion freeze in Federal funding.

Harvard has spent two years throwing tantrums, making excuses, and avoiding accountability while Jewish students faced unprecedented bigotry on campus since October 7, 2023 — an event that prompted more than 30 student groups to issue a statement blaming Israel entirely for the massacre.

Harvard is widely regarded as a prestigious Ivy League school, a hedge fund with a campus, or the world’s top university. But its refusal to address anti-Jewish hatred reveals an undeniable truth: Harvard is the ultimate trust fund kid. 

Playing by Different Rules

Trust fund kids operate by a simple principle: rules apply to others, not them. Harvard exemplifies this attitude in its response to campus hatred against Jews.

When the Department of Health and Human Services issued a 34-page Notice of Violation on June 30 documenting Harvard’s “deliberate indifference” to anti-Jewish harassment, the findings spoke for themselves. Federal investigators found Jewish students were spit on, stalked, physically assaulted, and excluded from campus spaces while Harvard administrators debated “context.”

The most revealing example, according to the federal Notice, is that Harvard police “essentially refused to investigate” the videotaped assault of Israeli student Yoav Segev in October 2023. Despite footage from multiple angles, including a news helicopter, police wouldn’t cooperate with prosecutors seeking to identify additional attackers.

When one officer showed determination to pursue justice, the Notice states that Harvard “swiftly removed him from the investigation” and told officers “to halt their investigation and not to cooperate with local authorities.”

Assistant District Attorney Ursula Knight called Harvard’s behavior “a surprise to the Commonwealth,” telling the court that Harvard police “essentially refused to do that work.” This wasn’t mere incompetence. It was a deliberate strategy to protect perpetrators of anti-Jewish violence.

When prosecutors agreed to a pretrial diversion allowing the students to avoid conviction entirely — they walked away with little more than 80 hours of community service for assault — Harvard still declined to discipline or even investigate the students under its own policies.

On the contrary, Harvard rewarded the two students that the prosecutor said were responsible for the assaults. One received a $65,000 Harvard Law Review fellowship to work at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization whose executive director said he was “happy to see” Gazans “break the siege” on October 7 and declared that Israel “does not have that right to self-defense.” The other became a class marshal for graduation. This isn’t institutional failure. It’s institutional protection of bigotry.

Hollow Gestures

When pressured, Harvard responds with performative charity work. The university announced “partnerships” with Israeli universities that amount to existing exchange programs with new branding. It’s a masterclass in creating the appearance of action while changing nothing.

More telling is Harvard’s timing. The university published its antisemitism report the same day as its Islamophobia report, treating both communities’ suffering as equivalent public relations problems to be managed simultaneously. This wasn’t about reckoning with systemic issues. It was about damage control.

Harvard’s idea of accountability? Offering a course called Palestine 1000 Years, taught by three professors who participated in the illegal encampments that harassed and denigrated Jewish students in the spring of 2024. Imagine the outrage if Harvard offered a course on “Confederate Heritage” taught by professors who participated in white supremacist rallies.

Selective Compliance

Trust fund kids show a remarkable ability to choose which rules apply to them. When the Biden administration investigated Harvard for civil rights violations over legacy admissions in 2023, Harvard cooperated quietly without lawsuits or public complaints. An investigation that could justify admitting more full-tuition-paying international students while burnishing Harvard’s diversity credentials? No problem.

But when the Trump administration investigates Harvard for enabling anti-Jewish hatred, using Harvard’s own task force findings as evidence, suddenly Federal oversight becomes an assault on academic freedom requiring immediate legal action, especially to free Federal funding that Harvard wants. 

The difference reveals Harvard’s calculation. Investigations that align with Harvard’s political positions and financial interests are acceptable. Investigations that threaten to expose institutional failures and demand real accountability? Outrageous government overreach.

Harvard’s selective enforcement reveals its true priorities. When removing professors for research misconduct, the university moved swiftly and publicly. Francesca Gino became the first tenured professor fired in 80 years after allegations of data falsification, a decision Harvard announced with fanfare and defended vigorously.

But when Harvard quietly removed professors connected to anti-Jewish hatred on campus, it did so without public announcements or victory laps. The message was clear: some forms of misconduct deserve public accountability, while others merit quiet protection.

The HHS Notice of Violation documented this pattern extensively. Students who violated identical campus policies received wildly different punishments depending on which of Harvard’s 13 schools they attended. When even these minimal consequences faced faculty criticism, Harvard reversed suspensions and downgraded sanctions. The Palestine Solidarity Committee, which repeatedly violated campus rules, faced the same ineffectual temporary probation year after year, restrictions that barely limited activities during the academic year.

Real Consequences Arrive

Trust fund kids can’t be trusted to change. They double down on anything that maintains their fragile appearance of respectability among their peers. Harvard’s been prioritizing its fight against the Trump administration. It fights the Trump administration harder than it ever fought antisemitism.

The government’s Notice of Violation gives Harvard a choice: implement meaningful reforms or face US Justice Department intervention.

Given Harvard’s track record of broken promises and cosmetic changes, Federal enforcement may be the only opportunity for a new path. For an institution claiming to educate leaders, Harvard’s own leadership has been conspicuously absent when moral courage mattered most. Harvard would strengthen its case against government overreach if it had actually protected Jewish students instead of enabling their harassment.

Roni Brunn is a writer and advocate for Jewish life in higher education.

The Iranian flag is seen flying over a street in Tehran, Iran, Feb. 3, 2023. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

When Iran became the Islamic Republic in 1979, one of its first acts was to redesign the national flag. Gone was the Lion and Sun, an emblem with centuries of history. In its place appeared a stylized “Allah,” where one of the letters forms a sword.

Overnight, the regime declared to its people — and the world — that it was a state built not on protection, but on the threat of force.

That sword has defined the Islamic Republic ever since.

What does it represent? A warning to enemies? A tribute to the Prophet’s conquests? A nod to Imam Ali’s legendary double-edged blade, a symbol of both faith and ferocity? Whatever the interpretation, the message is unmistakable — power through offense, not defense.

And 46 years later, Iran still clings to the sword — while leaving its people without a shield.

We saw this contrast play out during the recent war, when Iran unleashed waves of ballistic missiles on Israel. The attacks were indiscriminate, designed to hit densely populated areas and rack up civilian casualties. If not for Israel’s layered missile defense — the Iron Dome, Arrow, David’s Sling, bomb shelters in the vast majority of civilian buildings — those strikes would have killed tens of thousands, or even more.

That’s the difference between a state that invests in defense and one that idolizes martyrdom. Israel’s national emblem is the Shield of David — a fitting symbol for a country that prioritizes civilian protection. Iran, by contrast, boasts a sword on its flag, and acts accordingly.

Iran’s rulers pour billions into missiles, drones, and proxy militias from Yemen, to Gaza, to Lebanon. They brag about offensive power. But what about defense? Where are the shelters, the warning systems, the plans to protect 85 million people from the wars their leaders keep inviting?

Iran insists that its nuclear ambitions are peaceful. But before the recent war, the regime already had all the materials and uranium it could need for peaceful purposes. It also refused (and refuses) to accept civilian nuclear fuel from other nations. Combined with the regime’s obsession with “resistance,” martyrdom, and slogans like “Death to America” and “Death to Israel,” the truth is clear: the atomic bomb is the ultimate sword.

Meanwhile, the shield is nowhere to be found. A country that regards nuclear enrichment as a national imperative is currently reeling from unprecedented water and electricity shortages, primarily caused by the government’s own mismanagement.

I grew up in Iran during the war with Iraq feeling unsafe and vulnerable. Back then, we told ourselves that the absence of bomb shelters was because the country was caught off guard. Saddam Hussein’s invasion came early in the regime’s life; maybe Iran wasn’t ready.

That excuse doesn’t work anymore. After four decades in power, Iran still has no civil defense strategy. It has built underground bunkers — but they are for its leadership, not for its people.

During the recent war, civilians relied on WhatsApp messages and satellite TV to figure out where missiles might land. The government issued vague instructions: go to mosques, schools, subway tunnels. But when civilians sought shelter, some were locked out. Some people in the shelters demanded bureaucratic permission slips — during an air raid. And when Iran cut its Internet access, people couldn’t get basic information about how to stay safe (despite warnings from Israel).

The regime not only failed to protect civilians from the Israeli strikes — but is going even further and entrenching that policy with new legislation that will interrupt Internet access during wartime to prevent the spread of “false information” that could benefit the enemy during military conflict. But that’s not the real story.

The legislation has been widely criticized because it will prevent civilians from accessing vital information regarding warnings and communications with their loved ones. Iran is putting its people in direct danger — because it values victory over their lives.

Evidently Iran’s leaders have a clear message: You’re on your own.

This isn’t incompetence. It’s a choice.

The Islamic Republic thrives on victimhood. It wants to be seen as besieged, heroic, and sacrificial. High civilian casualties aren’t a bug — they’re a feature. A bloodied population strengthens the regime’s narrative of resistance, and invites international sympathy.

So instead of building shelters, the regime builds slogans. Instead of enhancing their warning systems, it invests in propaganda.

When Iran changed its flag in 1979, it wasn’t just art — it was policy. The sword in the center declared that this state would not be a fortress, but a weapon. Four decades later, that choice still dictates strategy.

Iran could learn something from the country it calls its enemy. Israel’s greatest innovation isn’t its missiles — it’s its shields. Technology can save lives, but so can the decision to value life over death.

Until Iran makes that choice, its people will remain exposed — sacrificed on the altar of a regime that prizes the sword and martyrdom.

Born and raised in Iran, Marjan Keypour Greenblatt is a human rights advocate and an Iran analyst.

The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Nearly 25 years ago, HonestReporting began its mission by taking on The New York Times over a photo it published of a young man — bloodied and battered — crouching beneath a club-wielding Israeli policeman. The caption identified him as a Palestinian victim of recent riots — with the clear implication that the Israeli soldier was the one who beat him.

The effort to fix the incorrect reporting started with the boy’s father writing a letter to the Times, explaining the truth about his son, a Jewish student from Chicago who was pulled from his Jerusalem taxi by a mob of Arab people who beat and stabbed him and his friends.

A half-hearted correction was issued about “an American student in Israel” — but not a Jew beaten by Arabs. Only after additional public outrage did the Times reprint Tuvia Grossman’s picture — this time with the proper caption — along with a full article detailing his near-lynching at the hands of Palestinians.

Fast forward to last Thursday, when the Times put on its front page a moving photo of a skeletal child, Muhammad Zakariya Ayyoub al-Matouq, cradled in his mother’s arms. The photo, taken by a photographer for a Turkish news agency, looked like a gut-wrenching snapshot of starvation in Gaza.

The underlying message was that Israel was deliberately starving Gazan children.

It took five days of pressure from the Israeli consulate in New York and organizations like HonestReporting for the Times to admit their mistake.

“After publication of the article, The Times learned from his doctor that Mohammed also had pre-existing health problems,” an editor’s note added to the article said.

A New York Times spokeswoman issued this statement on Tuesday night:

Children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, as New York Times reporters and others have documented. We recently ran a story about Gaza’s most vulnerable civilians, including Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, who is about 18 months old and suffers from severe malnutrition. We have since learned new information, including from the hospital that treated him and his medical records, and have updated our story to add context about his pre-existing health problems. This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation. Our reporters and photographers continue to report from Gaza, bravely, sensitively, and at personal risk, so that readers can see firsthand the consequences of the war.

In other words, The New York Times ran a picture without properly checking the truth behind it. The Times continues to stand behind the underlying message against Israel that it tried to convey by running the photo in the first place.

Instead of being self-critical about its reporters and photographers who got the story wrong, the Times praised their bravery and sensitivity.

No, New York Times, the new information does not merely add context about Mohammed’s pre-existing health problems. It proves that the way he looks has nothing to do with Israel and the war that began with the October 7 massacre.

Thank you for your non-apology, but the damage of this blood libel has already been done. It has been weaponized and used to demonize Israel around the world, resulting in dangerous policy changes by the leaders of France, Canada, and the United Kingdom and the president of the United States saying “That’s real starvation. I see it, and you can’t fake that.”

The New York Times’ lies about the photograph and the resulting international condemnation of Israel led to Hamas hardening its positions in negotiations to end the war. There are up to 20 live Israeli hostages, who are actually known to be starving, whose horror has been prolonged by the irresponsibility of the Times and other media outlets that ran the photo without doing their due diligence.

There have also been antisemitic incidents throughout the world since the photo ran, and the connection between the rapid rise in anti-Jewish violence and its connection to dishonest reporting since October 7, 2023, has been well documented.

Instead of running a front-page apology online and in print and showing true accountability, the Times hid its correction by posting it on its PR account, which has 89,000 followers on X, not its regular account with 55 million followers.

The Times also has not taken back another incorrect report, published Saturday, claiming in a headline that is shameful since it’s not satirical: “No Proof Hamas Routinely Stole U.N. Aid, Israeli Military Officials Say.”

The article quotes unnamed, anonymous “military sources.” Even after official IDF spokesperson Nadav Shoshani said and proved that the opposite was true, there has still been no admission from the Times that it made yet another dangerous mistake. There has been no statement by the newspaper’s spokeswoman and no editor’s note.

But at least with its statement about the photo, The New York Times did somewhat more than nothing to update its readers. Other media outlets have not even done that.

The Daily Express issued this editor’s note: “Following the publication of this article, we have learned that Muhammad was also suffering pre-existing health problems that affected his brain and his muscles. We have updated the article to reflect this.”

The author is the Executive Director of HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.