In April 2025, the Trump regime’s “Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism” froze more than $2 billion in Harvard University’s federal research funds. The Task Force, a weaponized agency for targeting universities rather than engaging on justice issues, suggested that Harvard had failed to crack down sufficiently on students, faculty, and staff who opposed the Gaza genocide and/or Zionism. (In fact, Harvard’s efforts to crack down on Palestine support included bringing in police to repress Palestine protest, creating new rules to shut down political speech, suspending students, revoking positions, firing faculty, and dismantling its Center for Middle East Studies.) The Task Force falsely characterized Harvard as permitting “harassment of [Zionist] Jewish students”, and in that way violating U.S. civil rights law, as a rationale for freezing federal funds. In June 2025, Harvard pressed a lawsuit against the Trump regime for the return of the funds.
Jewish scholars filed two amicus briefs in the case, each laying out how the IHRA definition of antisemitism violates the rights of Jews not to be told that their Jewishness must include support for Israel and Zionism. Key points include:
27 Jewish Studies scholars amicus brief
Adopting the IHRA definition as policy…
- Changes the character of Jewish identity for political ends
- Uses government and universities to exert control over Jewish identity
- Violates Title VI by imposing stereotypes (akin to “femininity requirements” for pink-collar jobs)
- Harmfully suggests that Jewish or Israeli students’ safety requires violating others’ rights
- Violates the academic freedom of Jewish Studies scholars and other scholars
- Erases the long history of Jewish antizionist community on campus
- Misrepresents academic exploration and complex study as ‘antisemitism‘
- Encourages campus administrators to violate Title VI antisemitism protections
Jewish Voice for Peace amicus brief
Much of U.S. Jewry is antizionist, and opposes or is uncommitted to a Jewish state. Therefore, adopting the IHRA definition as policy…
- Unconstitutionally restricts Jews’ practice of religion
- Unconstitutionally dictates Jewish religious belief
- Unconstitutionally dictates that Jews must have certain political beliefs
- Discriminates against Jews whose antizionism is central to their Judaism and Jewish identity
- Factually misrepresents Jewish history for nationalist political purposes
- Ignores Jewish student & faculty opposition to IHRA campaigns themselves
- Ignores Zionist campus organizations antagonism toward campus Jewish communities
- Misappropriates civil rights protections for marginalized groups, misapplies them to a nation-state
- Has already materially harmed Jews, Palestinians, scholars, academic freedom, and the university