Last year, Idrakpost published a piece that investigates the concept best termed “Zionism in Academics.” The article featured concerns over how financial and ideological influences tied to Israel have permeated academic institutions, particularly in the US and generally in the world. At a time when pro-Palestinian student encampments were spreading across American campuses, the article revealed how Zionist-aligned funding streams have shaped collaborations and curriculums, prompting calls for universities worldwide to reconsider or disinvest from such ties.
The issue has regained urgency with a series of crackdowns on pro-Palestinian international students and the intensifying feud between Harvard University and the Trump administration. But then, not to be overly simplistic, in reality, the unfolding drama reflects deeper tensions within American politics—Trump's right wing and Liberal establishment in academia.
The Harvard Uproar
Harvard, one of the world’s most prestigious and well-resourced universities, has now become a symbolic battleground. The institution recently filed a lawsuit to halt a federal freeze on more than $2.2 billion in grants, following efforts by President Donald Trump’s administration to pressure universities into dropping diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) measures and disciplining student protesters. While some institutions have given in, Harvard seems to be pushing back publicly and legally.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security further escalated tensions by threatening to revoke visas for international students if Harvard refused to follow presidential directives. This may be denting to the university, whose international students comprised 27.2 per cent of its student body, 6,793 students in total in the 2024–2025 academic year. At stake is not just ideological alignment but institutional autonomy and financial stability. Harvard, after all, is no ordinary university. With an endowment of over $53.1 billion, it is the wealthiest academic institution in the world.
One of the most controversial dimensions of the conflict is the way antisemitism is being invoked. The Trump administration has cracked down on students across the country, including Rumeysa Ozturk of Tufts University and Mahmoud Khalil of Columbia, many of whom had been profiled by Canary Mission. This Zionist-affiliated website compiles and publishes lists of individuals it deems hostile to the U.S., Israel, or Jewish people.
The politics of Antisemitism
Institutions like Harvard have not explicitly positioned themselves as pro-Palestinian in institutional policy or rhetoric. Their perceived neutrality has not shielded them from state scrutiny. “The Zionists want to leverage the prestige of academic institutions to legitimise their cause and their framing of key terms,” noted a Harvard professor who requested anonymity. In this context, the pressure campaign appears less about existing university stances and more about pre-emptive control of language, alliances, and permissible discourse.
If Harvard and similar institutions bow to political demands by punishing students for advocating Palestinian rights, under the guise of curbing antisemitism, it would deepen the conflation between criticism of Israel and hatred of Jews. This not only undermines free speech but expands an already dangerously vague definition of antisemitism. Such a precedent would mark a win for those who seek to silence Palestinian advocacy and a significant blow to academic independence.
These ideological battles are not new, but they have taken on renewed vigour in recent years. Harvard’s internal politics offer a window into the broader cultural conflict. Claudine Gay, who served as Harvard’s president for only six months, resigned in January 2024 following her congressional testimony on “rising antisemitism.” Notably, her resignation occurred under the Biden administration, not Trump’s—a reminder that bipartisan political forces are at play. Her fall from grace suggests that the battle between Harvard and the White House may not solely be about antisemitism, but about ideological loyalty and institutional resistance.
From the lens of Political divides
Harvard, like many elite institutions, leans heavily liberal. Reports consistently show that faculty members overwhelmingly support Democratic candidates. According to Times Higher Education, nearly 93 percent of campaign contributions from higher education employees nationwide during the 2023–2024 election cycle went to Democrats. At Harvard specifically, faculty and board members donated more than $2.3 million to political causes, 94 percent of which supported Democratic candidates, including presidential nominee Kamala Harris. This political tilt has long fuelled conservative criticism of academia as out of touch or hostile to conservative values.
Thus, the crackdown on Harvard and its peers may reflect a broader political vendetta. One demand from the Trump administration has been particularly revealing: a push to commission third-party audits of universities to assess “viewpoint diversity,” with a special focus on increasing conservative representation.
Still, portraying Harvard as a newly minted ally of Palestine would be misleading. Despite growing student demands, the university continues to maintain significant financial ties with entities linked to Israeli settlements. In 2020, reports estimated that Harvard held nearly $200 million in investments connected to such companies—investments it has not divested from. Even when student protesters demanded divestment from firms linked to Israel last year, Harvard’s response was limited to pledging greater transparency about how its endowment is managed.
Conclusively, the standoff between Harvard and the U.S. government is not just about one university or issue. It is about the future of academic freedom, the politicisation of education, and the weaponisation of antisemitism as a tool to suppress dissent. Whether viewed as a cultural reckoning or an ideological tug-of-war, one thing is clear: this battle is far from over.
0 Comment