Two days following a lethal assault on Israel by Hamas last year, top administrators at Harvard University deliberated their response. While preparing a public statement, they removed the term “violent” to describe the attack after a dean noted it seemed to imply blame.

They also discussed whether to distance themselves from a statement by some Harvard student groups, which claimed Israel was at fault for the violence. In the end, they chose not to issue a disavowal.

This internal debate among Harvard leaders, including Claudine Gay, then the university president, was revealed in emails and text messages published Thursday by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, led by Republicans. The report is part of an inquiry by House Republicans into antisemitism on U.S. college campuses and offers insight into how university leaders’ choices were scrutinized globally.

The committee report criticizes university leaders for enabling widespread antisemitism as pro-Palestinian students organized demonstrations on campuses nationwide.

It became evident that university administrators faced challenges in reaching a consensus on sensitive moral questions, such as defining antisemitic behavior, and struggled to navigate their stances on complex, polarizing global issues.

The House report, which contains 400,000 pages of documents from Harvard, Penn, MIT, Yale, Columbia, and several other institutions (some acquired via subpoenas), contends that these universities may have breached civil rights law, which mandates that federally funded universities address hostile environments against Jewish students.

Committee Chairwoman Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina remarked, “How can university officials not recognize antisemitism and act against it?” She criticized the administrators for treating it as a public relations matter rather than as a real threat to Jewish students’ well-being.

Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton commented that the university has intensified its support for the Jewish community, affirming its importance at Harvard.

The intense public scrutiny seemed to catch many administrators off guard as they attempted to quell unrest without attracting further controversy. Over the past year, some prominent university leaders resigned following the protests, including Dr. Gay, M. Elizabeth Magill of Penn, and Nemat Shafik of Columbia.

In the spring, Northwestern University President Michael Schill testified before the committee, where it was revealed that faculty members, who some labeled “radical,” were appointed as university negotiators and may have supported the protesters’ agenda. One suggestion was to consider alternative brands of hummus to appease protesting students, given Sabra’s ties to Israel. Northwestern spokesperson Jon Yates clarified that the report misrepresented Northwestern’s actions and that the university never seriously considered such a boycott.

At Columbia, university negotiators exploring ways to resolve the pro-Palestinian encampment discussed potential concessions, including revisiting divestment proposals and creating scholarships for students connected to the West Bank or Gaza. However, student negotiators ultimately rejected these offers. Columbia’s spokesperson, Samantha Slater, stated that the university used various strategies, including direct engagement with student organizers, to try to end the encampment peacefully.

The report highlights the challenges universities face in remaining neutral. In early January, Dr. Shafik, Columbia’s president, informed school board co-chairs that Senator Chuck Schumer advised universities to stay quiet about political controversies. David Greenwald, a co-chair, replied that Columbia was likely already under scrutiny.

Dr. Foxx emphasized that the committee’s work should persist beyond party lines, stressing that antisemitism is an issue of hatred, not politics.

The report criticizes universities for allowing pro-Palestinian camps that sometimes escalated into violence and for failing to impose significant consequences, such as suspensions, on involved students. It also critiques “radical” faculty for allegedly inciting protests and faults universities for negotiating with protestors.

Among the most revealing documents in the report are those from Harvard. Dr. Gay, for example, was involved in discussions around the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is interpreted by some as a call to action but by many Jewish groups as a call for Israel’s replacement by a Palestinian state. Harvard Corporation member Penny Pritzker sought guidance on how to respond to alumni concerns about the slogan’s display, describing it as antisemitic and provocative.

Dr. Gay eventually left the issue of the slogan’s interpretation to an antisemitism advisory group, concerned that declaring it antisemitic could lead to calls for disciplinary action.

The report also reveals edits made to Harvard’s first public statement after the Hamas attack on October 9. Initially, the statement faced criticism for its mild tone, which led Dr. Gay to issue a more forceful condemnation a day later, denouncing “terrorist atrocities” and clarifying that no student group represents Harvard.

Later, Dr. Garber and Dr. Daley reflected on the statement, acknowledging the lessons learned from the public’s response.xpressed regrets about the original statement, and Dr. Daley, the medical school dean, said he had learned from the criticism of it.