On Monday, Harvard University’s acting President Alan Garber blasted a missive about the institution’s anti-Israel encampment to the extended campus community. Garber, who took over from the deposed Claudine Gay, obviously meant to strike a tone of “now we’re getting serious.” In truth, the letter begins sensibly enough. But that only highlights the problems with what follows.

Garber begins:

Over the last 12 days, the encampment in Harvard Yard has disrupted our educational activities and operations. The right to free speech, including protest and dissent, is vital to the work of the research university. But it is not unlimited. It must be exercised in a time, place, and manner that respects the right of our community members to do their work, pursue their education, and enjoy the opportunities that a residential campus has to offer. The encampment favors the voices of a few over the rights of many who have experienced disruption in how they learn and work at a critical time of the semester.

A pretty clear statement of principles, though one can’t help but wonder why an occupation that violates them has been permitted to continue for 12 days. That’s especially true when one considers the vast sums in federal funding Harvard collects each year, all contingent on institutional promises to ensure nondiscrimination, prevent harassment, and so forth.

Indeed, Garber starts to list the detrimental effects of the encampment. He writes:

The disruptions from this encampment at the heart of the University have been numerous. Harvard College exams and other important activities and events have had to move elsewhere. Safety concerns over the past two weeks, including those raised as a result of students sleeping outdoors overnight, have required us to sharply limit access to Harvard Yard . . . We continue to hear reports of students whose ability to sleep, study, and move freely about the campus has been disrupted by the actions of the protesters. 

So, occupiers have disrupted academic pursuits, raised safety concerns, and impeded the ability of students to move freely. Why exactly is the encampment still standing?

Garber continues:

We are especially troubled by increasing reports that some within, and some supporting, the encampment have intimidated and harassed other members of our community. When Harvard staff have requested to see IDs in order to enforce our policies, supporters of the encampment have at times yelled at them, tried to encircle them, and otherwise interfered with their work. We have also received reports that passers-by have been confronted, surveilled, and followed. Such actions are indefensible and unacceptable.

So, occupiers have intimidated community members, harassed staff, and confronted and surveilled others traversing Harvard’s campus. Garber sees behavior that’s “indefensible” and “unacceptable.” Why exactly is the encampment still standing?

With graduation fast approaching, Garber says it’s time for order to be restored. He writes:

The individuals participating in the activities of the encampment have been informed repeatedly that violations of University and School policies will be subject to disciplinary consequences and that further violations and continued escalation will result in increasingly severe sanctions. Last week, faculties across the University began delivering disciplinary notices to students who continued to participate in unauthorized, disruptive activity in the Yard despite these notices.

So, there’ve been lots of threatened consequences for students who nonetheless continue to engage in “unauthorized, disruptive activity.” Given all these repeated warnings, why is the encampment still standing?

Indeed, Garber sounds rather at the end of his tether. He insists:

The continuation of the encampment presents a significant risk to the educational environment of the University. Those who participate in or perpetuate its continuation will be referred for involuntary leave . . . Students placed on involuntary leave may not be able to sit for exams, may not continue to reside in Harvard housing, and must cease to be present on campus until reinstated.

One challenge for Garber is that many of those in encampments have turned out not to be students, lessening the sting of such threats. And, given Harvard’s vacillation to date, one can forgive the occupiers for suspecting this is another empty threat. Heck, based on recent history, one can imagine students assuming that reinstatement will be quick, painless, and fairly automatic.

Even when trying to act tough, Harvard’s leadership comes across as overmatched. I mean, Garber has officially conceded that the institution has been tolerating indefensible and unacceptable conduct. While it will be interesting to see how the occupiers respond, more revealing will be how the US Department of Education follows up on the sustained harassment that Harvard’s president has just publicly documented.

The post This Is Harvard Getting Serious? appeared first on American Enterprise Institute – AEI.