The Holy Bible. Photo: Joshimer Biñas, pexels.com
In 1636, America’s first educational college was established in Massachusetts. Named ‘New Citizens College’ this centre had a specific mandate. It was actually a seminary, established for training Christian ministers and leaders, undergirded by firm spiritual values and standards. Three years after its establishment, a Puritan clergyman named John Harvard became the college’s first major benefactor, donating half of his estate, resulting in the institution being re-named after him.
Murray Smith
Secularisation of both curriculum and student body diluted Harvard’s purpose in upholding Christian teaching and standards. That drift prompted the formal establishment of the ‘Collegiate School’ some years later which in turn became Yale University. Yale’s aim as an alternative institution was to correct what was perceived as Harvard’s departure from Christian foundations and increasing liberalism. Today neither institution bears any resemblance to their early beginnings.
With the chaplain, (an ‘interfaith’ leader) at Harvard University stating he does not believe God’s existence, it indicates significant drift from original values described as foundational. That drift and general trend of eradicating traditional religious influence and values from higher education, suggests how it’s come about that Harvard University currently faces a lawsuit filed by the US government – the Department of Justice.
Harvard has built a reputation for tolerance of diversity, with entire administrative structures devoted to ensuring that many protected groups feel welcomed, supported, and heard. But when Jewish students began reporting being stalked across Harvard Yard, spat on for wearing a yarmulke, jeered with calls of “Heil Hitler” and told by a professor to leave a classroom because of their Israeli nationality, that tolerance for diversity reveals itself to be highly selective.
This inequity lies at the heart of the claim, ‘Harvard earned this lawsuit, and it is well-deserved.’ When a gay law student was assaulted, Harvard immediately sent a campus-wide email condemning the attack. Yet when a Jewish student was physically assaulted while trying to film a demonstration – one attacker nonetheless received a $65,000 scholarship and another was appointed to a significant student leadership role. Little wonder, 39 per cent of Jewish students at Harvard report feeling uneasy attending the university, 26 per cent feel physically unsafe and 67 per cent reported discomfort expressing their opinions.
Harvard’s own in-house analysis acknowledges they lack response mechanisms and “foundational awareness” of how to handle antisemitism. Meanwhile Jewish and Israeli students experience escalating “dire” conditions, being subjected to “social exclusion’, “widespread” discrimination by peers and professors alike. Who wouldn’t feel vulnerable? When asked for help, Harvard’s diversity office staff, locked their doors. Token passive responses like sending emails to “clarify” rules have done nothing throughout more than a year of escalating harassment.
History informs where this trajectory of prejudicial hatred will take us. Think of the Holocaust – a reminder of where unchecked prejudice leads. Rising antisemitism points to broadening societal decay, the breakdown of tolerance and increased political violence. It never ends with the Jews.
New Zealand beware.
