US President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House in Washington, DC, USA on Dec. 17, 2025. Photo: Reuters Connect

The US government has launched two new investigations into campus antisemitism and racial preferences — popularly known as “affirmative action” — at Harvard University, continuing the Trump administration’s legal barrage against the institution for allegedly not adhering to federal civil rights laws.

“Harvard University should know better. Its name will always be tied to the landmark Supreme Court case that found sweeping racial discrimination in admissions and the campus has been in the spotlight for tolerating egregious antisemitic harassment for years now,” US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement on Monday announcing the federal actions. “No one — not even Harvard — is above the law. If Harvard continues to stonewall as we try to verify its basic compliance with antidiscrimination statutes, we will vigorously hold them to account to ensure students’ rights are protected.”

This week’s newly announced inquiries will be led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

In a press release, the department said Harvard has “refused” to cooperate with OCR’s attempts to verify that it no longer confers admission based in part on racial identity, as stipulated by a 2023 US Supreme Court ruling which said that the enterprise is unconstitutional.

“OCR will investigate whether Harvard continues to use illegal race-based preferences in admissions despite the Supreme Court’s definitive ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard,” the department said in Tuesday’s statement. “OCR will also investigate alleged ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students. The Trump administration will evaluate both complaints and, if continued discrimination is found, take action to hold Harvard accountable for any illegal policies or actions.”

Writing to The Harvard Crimson, the university’s campus newspaper, Harvard said the racial preferences investigation is “the government’s latest retaliatory” move “against [the school] for its refusal to surrender our independence and constitutional rights.”

McMahon announced the probes just three days after the Trump administration filed a lawsuit in federal court in Massachusetts arguing that Harvard ignored antisemitism while extreme anti-Zionist activists subjected Jewish students to harassment and discrimination in violation of civil rights laws as well as the institution’s own purported commitment to anti-racism.

The complaint demanded the recovery of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants and other federal support Harvard received during the years in which it allegedly neglected to correct the hostile campus environment.

The lawsuit marked a shift in the Trump administration’s previous strategy of confiscating Harvard’s federal money and then defending the action in court. That policy has yielded mixed results, making a strong political statement while leaving Harvard strong enough to mobilize its GDP-sized wealth to sidestep the worst potential consequences by issuing bonds or bringing the matter before judges who have been sympathetic to their case.

As previously reported, by The Algemeiner, US federal judge Allison Burroughs ruled in September that Trump acted unconstitutionally when his administration impounded more than $2 billion in research grants from Harvard, charging that he had “used antisemitism as a smokescreen for a targeted, ideologically motivated assault on this country’s premier universities.” Burroughs went on to argue that the federal government violated Harvard’s free speech rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment.

The Trump administration maintains that pervasive antisemitism has been a major issue at Harvard,

“Harvard has been and remains deliberately indifferent to what its own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israel Bias deemed the ‘exclusion of Israeli or Zionist students from social spaces and extracurricular activities,’” US Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon argued in Friday’s filing. “Harvard has failed to enforce its rules or meaningfully discipline the mobs that occupy its buildings and terrorize its Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard instead rewarded students who assaulted, harassed, or intimidated their Jewish and Israeli peers.”

In a statement, Harvard contested the government’s account of the facts, saying it “deeply cares about members of our Jewish and Israeli community and remains committed to ensuring they are embraced, respected, and can thrive on our campus.” It also argued that it enacted “substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism and actively enforces anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies on campus.”

As previously reported by The Algemeiner, Harvard’s Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism acknowledged that the university administration’s handling of campus antisemitism fell well below its obligations under both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its own nondiscrimination policies.

Jewish members of the Harvard community have expressed concern about the climate on campus.

Last week, a new report issued by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance (HJAA) revealed Jewish undergraduate enrollment at the university has plummeted to lows not seen since the eve of World War II and the Holocaust, falling to just 7 percent.

Yale infamously adopted racial preferences under the leadership of President Kingman Brewster in the 1960s, despite growing evidence that the practice created an environment of academic maladjustment and racial division. This led to the creation of segregated programming and amenities for African Americans, as well as a summer remedial program for minority students — PROP (Pre-Orientation Program) — that was eventually rebranded in the late 1990s when its apparent subtext proved unpalatable to a new generation of students.

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks on Aug. 14, 2025. Photo: Mike Blake via Reuters Connect

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has expressed regret about recent comments characterizing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians as an example of “apartheid,” while reaffirming his concern for the country’s trajectory under its current leadership.

In an interview with Politico published on Tuesday, Newsom said he regretted suggesting earlier this month that it was “appropriate” to describe Israel as an “apartheid state” during an event to promote his new memoir.

Newsom was asked in his latest interview if he “regretted” using the term “apartheid” to describe Israel.

“I do in this context. I said it, and I referenced why I used it — a Tom Friedman article [in the New York Times] — in that same sentence where Tom used it in the context of the direction that Bibi is going,” Newsom said, using the nickname for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

For clarification, Newsom was then asked if Israel is currently not an apartheid state

“Correct. And that is a legitimate concern I have, that I share with Tom — that that direction, if that vision and that direction of the far right that Bibi is indulging, that if they see the full annexation of the West Bank, then that’s not something — that’s a word you may hear others use,” the governor responded.

Newsom also reiterated his support for Israel when pushed to say if he considered himself a Zionist but noted he strongly opposed Netanyahu’s leadership.

“Do I consider myself Zionist? I revere the state of Israel,” Newsom said. “I’m proud to support the state of Israel. I deeply, deeply oppose Bibi Netanyahu’s leadership, his opposition to the two-state solution and deeply oppose how he is indulging the far-right as it relates to what’s going on in the West Bank.”

Newsom’s comments came after he said during a book event in Los Angeles earlier this month that recent policies pursued by Israel’s current government have made the term “apartheid” increasingly common in international discourse. While framing his comments as reluctant, the Democratic governor argued that the trajectory of Israeli leadership left the United States with “no choice” but to reconsider aspects of its longstanding support such as providing military aid.

“I mean, Friedman and others are talking about it appropriately – sort of an apartheid state,” Newsom said. “It breaks my heart because the current leadership in Israel is walking us down that path where I don’t think you have a choice but to have that consideration.”

The comment sparked immediate backlash from pro-Israel advocates and some political leaders who characterized the label as misleading and unfair to a democratic US ally.

Israel, a key US partner in the Middle East, has long rejected comparisons to apartheid, arguing that such claims ignore the country’s democratic institutions and the equal rights afforded to its Arab citizens. Officials also contend that security measures in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority exercises limited self-governance, are driven by real threats rather than systemic discrimination. 

Critics point to growing Israeli settlements in the West Bank as an example of Israel encroaching on the territory of a potential future Palestinian state.

Much of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law.

Israel disputes this claim, however, citing historical and biblical ties to the area. It says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Defenders of Israel also note that, while about one-fifth of the country’s population is Arab and enjoys equal rights, Palestinian law forbids selling any land to Israelis.

Newsom’s comments come at a time when US policy toward Israel is becoming an increasingly central debate within the Democratic Party, particularly among figures such as Newsom seen as potential contenders in the 2028 presidential race.

The Democratic Party’s traditional position has emphasized strong support for Israel’s security and its status as a key democratic ally. However, in the two years following Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel, amid the ensuing war in Gaza, a growing number of left-wing voices within the party have pushed for more vocal criticism of Israeli government policies and the country’s status as a US ally.

This evolution reflects broader shifts among Democratic voters, with recent polling showing younger and more progressive constituents expressing greater skepticism of pro-Israel policies, while establishment figures continue to stress the importance of the US-Israel alliance.

When the Iowa City Yiddish Group began meeting at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, I was one of the absolute beginners. Six years later, I lead the enthusiastic group of some 12-15 retirees and produce lesson plans for each class that incorporate a variety of activities to promote listening and Yiddish speaking skills.

Each class draws from printed, auditory, and visual texts: songs, excerpts from interviews in the Wexler Oral History Project at the Yiddish Book Center, advertisements in old issues of Der Forverts, poems, folk tales, film clips, and the like. For each text, I design activities to promote comprehension, get students interacting with the text and with each other, and learn a bit of grammar, much as I did for many years when I taught Spanish to college students.

When I discovered that the Forverts had introduced a podcast intended for intermediate-level students, Yiddish with Rukhl, I knew I could use it to help the group learn.

One of the challenges of working with authentic texts — that is, texts produced by native speakers for native speakers, not for language learners — is that they are often frustratingly difficult for students. In addition, there are particular challenges with texts that students listen to rather than read or view, since listening happens in real time with no way to pause to look up a word or ask a question, nor can listeners rely on visual elements (as one could do with a film) to get clues to meaning. But Yiddish with Rukhl avoids those issues.

The format is straightforward: In each episode, editor Rukhl Schaechter reads two articles on a topic clearly at a relatively slow pace. Because the articles were previously published in the Forverts, I could use the audio recording and printed texts in tandem, which our group particularly appreciates.

A frequent topic of conversation among language teachers is how to come up with class activities that can bridge the gap between students’ comprehension levels and texts that the students would struggle to understand on their own. This is especially true for authentic texts, but also applies to any text students find somewhat difficult. With the first podcast episode, devoted to coffee, I created activities for the first half of the first article, Di kave-hoypshtot fun der velt (“The Coffee Capital of the World”) by Leyzer Burko.

This was my lesson plan:

1. I started with a pre-listening activity, whose purpose was to introduce students to the themes of the audio text so that some of the information they would then hear would already be familiar to them. In this case, I wrote some open-ended questions to get the students talking (oyf yidish) about their feelings about coffee as children, their current coffee-drinking routines, and what the term kave-kultur means to them. The Iowa City Yiddish group is made up of smart people, and they had a lot to say about coffee culture in Europe, both past and present, that they then heard in the podcast.
2. Then, I played five minutes of the podcast, which corresponded to the first half of the article. Depending on the platform one chooses (Spotify, Apple Podcasts, etc.), you can modify the playback speed, which can be helpful if a group finds the pace too fast. Although the students had the printed text in front of them, I asked them to close their eyes and focus just on comprehension. A quick self-assessment revealed that most understood 70-80%, which I consider ideal for learning.
3. I played the recording again, and this time asked the students to follow along in their printed texts and circle words they did not know.
4. We then read the text aloud, stopping at words that needed explanation. Each time I asked someone who already knew the word to derklern oyf yidish; that is, explain the meaning of the word without recourse to English. Paraphrasing, or using language you know to explain something you do not have the words for yet, is a skill that language learners at all levels need, and it is also a way for me to conduct as much of the class as possible in Yiddish.
5. Finally, I used the printed text to teach grammar. Our group has never warmed to learning grammatical patterns in isolation, so I have turned instead to teaching such topics as inflection of nouns and pronouns, word order, and separable-prefix verbs by showing students how they work in texts to make meaning. This activity is the only one we did in Yiddish; the rest of the class was conducted almost entirely in Yiddish.

When we worked on Zikhrones fun an unterban-pasazhir (“Memories of a Subway Passenger”) by Rukhl Schaechter, I opted to focus exclusively on listening comprehension. Rather than activities based on the printed text (lesson plan steps 3, 4 and 5), I designed a series of collaborative listening activities. The narrative structure of the article was a good match for collaborative listening, because events in chronological sequence are often easier to understand and remember.

After a couple of pre-listening activities to orient students to the content of what they were about to hear, they focused on understanding as much as they could while listening to the audio of the article.

I then divided them into breakout rooms, where their task was to collaboratively create a list in simple Yiddish of the pieces of information they had understood in the six-minute article. We then got back together and I played the audio again with the goal that they would confirm their comprehension, notice and understand what their group mates had contributed, and pick up additional new pieces of information. They then returned to their breakout groups to expand on what they had written earlier. The final step was to return to the whole group once again and combine the groups’ lists to recreate as full a picture as possible of the content of the article.

The members of the Iowa City Yiddish group have expressed enthusiasm for working with the podcasts, and I plan to design lessons for more of them over the coming months. The relatable topics, appropriate difficulty level, and clear audio quality make them ideal for a community Yiddish group.

The post How our Yiddish group uses the Forverts podcast to learn the language appeared first on The Forward.