RSS
Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews
April 20, 2025, Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University and Harvard Square scenes with students and pedestrians. Photo: Kenneth Martin/ZUMA Press Wire via Reuters Connect.
Last week Israel commemorated Yom HaShoah, the country’s Holocaust Remembrance Day.
As I stood at silent attention along with an entire country, listening to the one minute long commemorative siren and thinking of the role the Holocaust has played in our collective past, I couldn’t help but hear its haunting echoes in our present.
Harvard University recently filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, purportedly in defense of “academic freedom.” The specific “freedom” Harvard is defending is to harass, intimidate, and physically assault Jewish students with impunity, and in violation of Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act. Harvard now claims that the White House’s actions violate the university’s First Amendment rights. They do not.
A quick note: at RealityCheck we encourage our readers to support (and oppose) policies, rather than people. How one feels about any politician (including President Trump) should be irrelevant to one’s opinion on the safety of Jewish students, and the proper enforcement of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Here’s what you need to know to build your own, well-informed opinion.
Since October 7, 2023, Harvard University has been host to more than a year and a half of attacks on Jewish students, including: physical assaults, vandalism, harassment, demonstrations, divestment resolutions, classroom disruptions, calls for “intifada” and other death threats, and a disgraced university president who infamously testified before Congress that calling for the genocide of Jews might not be antisemitic because, “it depends on the context.”
The Trump administration has demanded that Harvard University comply with a list of requirements to ensure basic safety and equal protection for all students on campus, including: banning masks by protesters, cooperating with law enforcement, reviewing disciplinary policies, increasing accountability by those responsible for student safety, and an end to so-called “Diversity Equity and Inclusion” (DEI) programs, which for years have been used to limit Jewish and Asian admissions to Harvard (and which have been rejected by the United States Supreme Court).
Upon Harvard’s refusal to comply with its demands, the administration made good on a threat to pull $2 billion in Federal funding, with the promise of more cuts to come, as well as a request that the IRS consider revoking the university’s tax exempt status.
In its lawsuit, Harvard claims it has a First Amendment right to refuse the White House’s Title VI demands. It does not.
As a general matter, the First Amendment guarantees the right to all manner of abhorrent personal expression, including: racism, obscenity, outright lies, victim blaming and victim shaming, and even the right to oppose basic American values. However, nothing in the US Constitution obligates the American people to pay for such activities.
More specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act requires that, “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
In this case, Jewish students at Harvard most certainly suffered exclusion, and were most certainly denied the benefits of a safe education, at an institution that is Federally funded to the tune of billions of US taxpayer dollars.
Harvard has objected not only that the funding cuts are illegal under the First Amendment, but also immoral because they will impact a variety of research programs that provide positive benefits to the world, including in fields like health care. Yet a long line of Supreme Court cases, following the 1974 precedent of Bob Jones University v. Johnson, disagree. These cases hold that, by choosing to violate the Civil Rights Act, a university endangers Federal funding for all of its programs, and that it is absolutely appropriate for the Federal government to use such funding as leverage to ensure compliance. In effect, the Supreme Court’s view is that it is the university, and not the White House, that is endangering its own programs: by permitting racism within its ranks, in violation of Federal funding rules.
Harvard does have a potentially successful argument that the White House did not follow certain procedural requirements, such as providing notice and an administrative hearing. However, even if successful, this argument will not prevent Federal funding cuts, but will merely require the White House to fulfill the mechanical requirements before moving forward.
Harvard’s campus newspaper has touted an open letter signed by some 100 Jewish students objecting to the White House’s demands, claiming that President Trump is causing more harm than good. However, those 100 signatures comprise only 4.6% of Harvard’s approximately 2,300 Jewish students. In other words, over 95% of Harvard’s Jewish population did not sign the letter, including students such as Shabbos Kestenbaum, who is pursuing one of several ongoing Title VI lawsuits against the university, and students like Yoav Segev and Moshe Y. Dembitzer, who were recently a part of related suits.
The case has been set for oral arguments on July 21 before US District Court Judge Allison Burroughs, an Obama appointee, who previously ruled in favor of Harvard’s racially motivated admissions policies. Judge Burroughs’ decision was subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court.
To get an idea of how Harvard’s lawsuit is likely to play out, either at the trial level or eventually on appeal, one may look to the ongoing case of Gartenberg v Cooper Union, the New York college where students attempted to hide in a library while under violent, antisemitic attack, just weeks after the massacre of October 7. In February, Judge John P. Cronan vigorously denied the college’s motion to dismiss stating, “The Court is dismayed by Cooper Union’s suggestion that the Jewish students should have hidden upstairs or left the building, or that locking the library doors was enough to discharge its obligations under Title VI. These events took place in 2023—not 1943—and Title VI places responsibility on colleges and universities to protect their Jewish students from harassment, not on those students to hide themselves away in a proverbial attic or attempt to escape from a place they have a right to be.”
I could not have said it better myself, and so I won’t attempt to: these events took place in 2023 — not 1943.
Excluding Jews from academic life through violence and intimidation, all while cloaked in the garment of arrogant moralizing, was one of the most notable hallmarks of early Nazi Germany, long before such exclusion became codified into Nazi law. Whether history will repeat itself depends on what America does next.
This year, on Yom HaShoah, “never again” must mean now.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
The post Yom HaShoah and Harvard’s Complete Refusal to Address Hatred and Attacks on Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran Says Direct Nuclear Talks With US Possible Under Suitable Conditions
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian speaks during a meeting in Ilam, Iran, June 12, 2025. Photo: Iran’s Presidential website/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
Iran could hold direct nuclear talks with the United States if conditions are suitable, first Vice President Mohammadreza Aref said on Tuesday, according to state media.
But he said US demands for Tehran to drop uranium enrichment entirely were “a joke.”
A sixth round of talks between Tehran and Washington was suspended following Israeli and US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June.
Both powers accuse Iran of seeking nuclear weapons, an accusation Tehran has rejected.
“Iran is ready for negotiations under equal conditions in order to safeguard its interests … The Islamic Republic’s stance is in the direction that people want and, should there be suitable conditions, we are even ready for direct talks,” Aref said.
Previous rounds of negotiations, which started in April, were indirect, mediated by Oman. Washington says uranium enrichment in Iran constitutes a pathway to developing nuclear weapons and should be dropped.
On Sunday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian made a controversial statement in favor of resuming negotiations with the US regardless of current levels of distrust.
“You don’t want to talk? Well then, what do you want to do? Do you want to go to war? … Going to talks does not mean we intend to surrender,” he said, adding that such issues should not be “approached emotionally.”
A senior commander of Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards, Aziz Ghazanfari, reacting to Pezeshkian’s comments on Monday, said foreign policy requires discretion, and careless statements by authorities can have serious consequences for the country.
RSS
Australia’s Albanese Says Netanyahu ‘In Denial’ Over Gaza Humanitarian Situation
Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese speaks at a Labor party election night event, after local media projected the Labor Party’s victory, on the day of the Australian federal election, in Sydney, Australia, May 3, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Hollie Adams
Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said on Tuesday his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu was “in denial” about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, a day after announcing Australia would recognize a Palestinian state for the first time.
Australia will recognize a Palestinian state at next month’s United Nations General Assembly, Albanese said on Monday, a move that adds to international pressure on Israel after similar announcements from France, Britain, and Canada.
Albanese said on Tuesday the Netanyahu government’s reluctance to listen to its allies contributed to Australia’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state.
“He again reiterated to me what he has said publicly as well, which is to be in denial about the consequences that are occurring for innocent people,” Albanese said in an interview with state broadcaster ABC, recounting a Thursday phone call with Netanyahu discussing the issue.
Australia’s decision to recognize a Palestinian state is conditional on commitments received from the Palestinian Authority, including that Islamist teoor group Hamas would have no involvement in any future state.
Right-leaning opposition leader Sussan Ley said the move, which breaks with long-held bipartisan policy over Israel and the Palestinian territories, risked jeopardizing Australia’s relationship with the United States.
SENTIMENT SHIFT
Albanese said as little as two weeks ago he would not be drawn on a timeline for recognition of a Palestinian state.
His incumbent center-left Labor Party, which won an increased majority at a general election in May, has previously been wary of dividing public opinion in Australia, which has significant Jewish and Muslim minorities.
But the public mood has shifted sharply after Israel said it planned to take military control of Gaza, amid increasing reports of hunger amongst its people.
Israel recently increased the flow of humanitarian supplies into Gaza, after imposing a temporary embargo in an effort to keep them out of the hands of Hamas, which often steals the aid for its own use and sells the rest to civilians at inflated prices. While facilitating the entry of thousands of aid trucks into Gaza, Israeli officials have condemned the UN and other international aid agencies for their alleged failure to distribute supplies, noting much of the humanitarian assistance has been stalled at border crossings or stolen. According to UN data, the vast majority of humanitarian aid entering Gaza is intercepted before reaching its intended civilian recipients.
Nonetheless, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched across Sydney’s Harbour Bridge this month calling for aid deliveries in Gaza.
“This decision is driven by popular sentiment in Australia which has shifted in recent months, with a majority of Australians wanting to see an imminent end to the humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” said Jessica Genauer, a senior lecturer in international relations at Flinders University.
Opposition leader Ley said the decision was “disrespectful” of key ally the United States, which opposes Palestinian statehood.
“We would never have taken this step because this is completely against what our principles are, which is that recognition, the two state solution, comes at the end of the peace process, not before,” she said in an interview with radio station 2GB.
Neighboring New Zealand has said it is still considering whether to recognize a Palestinian state, a decision that drew sharp criticism from former prime minister Helen Clark on Tuesday.
“This is a catastrophic situation, and here we are in New Zealand somehow arguing some fine point about whether we should recognize we need to be adding our voice to the need for this catastrophe to stop,” she said in an interview with state broadcaster RNZ.
“This is not the New Zealand I’ve known.”
RSS
Iran Says It Arrested 21,000 ‘Suspects’ During 12-Day War With Israel
Rescue personnel work at an impact site following a missile attack from Iran, in Bat Yam, Israel, June 15, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
Iranian police arrested as many as 21,000 “suspects” during the country’s 12–day war with Israel in June, a law enforcement spokesperson said on Tuesday, according to state media.
Following Israeli air strikes that began on June 13, Iranian security forces began a campaign of widespread arrests accompanied by an intensified street presence based around checkpoints and “public reports” whereby citizens were called upon to report on any individuals they thought were acting suspiciously.
“There was a 41 percent increase in calls by the public, which led to the arrest of 21,000 suspects during the 12–day war,” police spokesperson Saeid Montazerolmahdi said. He did not say what those arrested were suspected of, but Tehran has spoken before of people passing on information that may have helped direct the Israeli attacks.
The Israel–Iran conflict has also led to an accelerated rate of deportations for Afghan migrants believed to be illegally in Iran, with aid agencies reporting that local authorities had also accused some Afghan nationals of spying for Israel.
“Law enforcement rounded up 2,774 illegal migrants and discovered 30 special security cases by examining their phones. 261 suspects of espionage and 172 people accused of unauthorized filming were also arrested,” the spokesperson added.
Montazerolmahdi did not specify how many of those arrested had since been released.
He added that Iran‘s police handled more than 5,700 cases of cyber crimes such as online fraud and unauthorised withdrawals during the war, which he said had turned “cyberspace into an important battlefront.”