YOU can’t get all your news from headlines. I was reminded of this last month in the US, when reading stories about Harvard president Claudine Gay’s resignation following allegations of plagiarism. In reality, her resignation was the result of a well-coordinated campaign which had to do more with race and misogyny than upholding academic principles. But you wouldn’t think so reading the headlines.

This campaign to oust the first Black president at Harvard was led by conservative activist Christopher Rufo, who is against DEI (diversity equity inclusion initiatives) and Bill Ackman, Harvard alum and hedge fund billionaire. They were then joined by donors and Republican Elise Stefanik, who headed a Congressional committee looking into accusations of antisemitism on elite campuses. Essentially, they were enraged by Gay’s “failure” to condemn antisemitism; ie, pro-Palestinian student demonstrations on Harvard.

“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?” asked Stefanik, who herself is a Harvard alum and was removed from an advisory board after she said the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump.

“The rules around bullying and harassment are quite specific,” replied Gay, “and if the context in which that language is used amounts to bullying and harassment, then we take — we take action against it.”

Innocuous thinking can be framed as antisemitic in the US.

The backlash to Gay’s response was swift and calls for her to be removed were amplified. (Incidentally all three universities called to the hearing were headed by women, and only the MIT president still has her job.)

However, there was little mention of how, in those hearings, Stefanik was framing protest to Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land as genocide. At one point, Stefanik described the “call for intifada as a call to commit genocide against the Jewish people”. Even a basic internet search will show that intifadas have not called for eliminating Jewish people. But it was clear no one in the press wanted to make this distinction, perhaps fearing it would be seen as antisemitic. Unfortunately, the most innocuous or seemingly obvious thinking can be framed as antisemitic in the US.

Gay didn’t stand a chance.

When the hearings weren’t able to produce the desired results, her detractors amplified the accusations of plagiarism. An investigation by Harvard into those claims found “few incidents of inadequate citations” but no wrongdoing. In reality, the right-wing (read rich men) cannot tolerate a Black woman in charge of an institute whose history is rooted in protecting white interests.

Gay resigned on Jan 2, but the trifecta of Ackman, Rufo and Stefanik — as MSNBC’s Ali Velshi called them — has vowed to pursue probes into “deep institutional rot” at Harvard. I read this as protecting elite interests, one of which they say is freedom of speech on campuses. But whose speech do they want to protect?

US colleges have never been bastions of free speech because Palestinians, and other marginalised voices, have struggled to tell their stories. However, this is changing as DEI initiatives have allowed new perspectives, and younger generations no longer accept mainstream media narratives, especially about genocide. The establishment continues to bully them into silence, but I don’t know how much longer for.

Advocates of free speech are often the ones who suppress the most marginalised voices. These are usually the same people against DEI initiatives which, they claim, is the only reason Gay got the job. Men like Ackman, with access to formidable resources, are now trying to equate DEI initiatives as racist and/ or antisemitic. On the other side are Palestinians and their supporters with far fewer resources but with truth on their side.

The media’s focus on Gay’s ‘plagiarism’ should remind us how easy it is to distract from coverage on Palestine. I’m not here to say that Gay’s story isn’t important, but surely there’s space in newspapers about Israel’s war that is now starving Palestinians. It is also a reminder of how elitist the media is — more keen to talk about palace intrigues at Harvard than starvation in Gaza because that’s what its audience wants. This serves politicians like Stefanik well because they don’t have to answer questions about their Israel policies. The media aids them in this.

The interest in Gay’s future or Harvard’s policies will wane when journalists, editors and media owners realise they can’t just serve elite interests. The tide is turning, albeit slowly, and the resistance to this change is immense. The Israel lobby has upped the ante on keeping its narrative alive, but a new audience is emerging that isn’t buying their Kool Aid anymore. This number will grow and won’t rely on the media for information. They’re already on TikTok; how long before everyone else is too?

The writer is an instructor in journalism.

X: @LedeingLady

Published in Dawn, January 21st, 2024