Two days after the deadly Hamas attack on Israel last year, senior Harvard University administrators deliberated on their response. In drafting a public statement, they removed the word “violent” to describe the attack after a dean raised concerns it might seem like assigning blame.

They also discussed whether to explicitly reject a statement from some Harvard student groups claiming Israel was responsible for the violence but ultimately chose not to.

The intense internal debate among Harvard leaders, including then-president Claudine Gay, was revealed through emails and texts in a report published by the Republican-led House Committee on Education and the Workforce. This report, part of a nearly yearlong inquiry by House Republicans into antisemitism on college campuses, offers insight into university decision-making and shows how such decisions were scrutinized globally.

The committee accused university leadership of allowing antisemitism as pro-Palestinian demonstrations took place across campuses nationwide. Harvard and other institutions struggled to reach consensus on delicate moral judgments, such as what constitutes antisemitism and how to address global divisive issues.

The report includes 400,000 pages of documents from Harvard, Penn, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Barnard, Rutgers, Northwestern, George Washington, Berkeley, and UCLA. It argues that universities might have violated civil rights laws by not addressing hostile environments for Jewish students while receiving federal funding.

Virginia Foxx, the committee chairwoman, criticized the institutions, suggesting they treated the issue as a PR challenge rather than a matter impacting Jewish students’ well-being.

In response, Harvard’s spokesperson, Jason Newton, stated the university has increased its support for the Jewish community, reaffirming their integral place at Harvard.

Messages show that university leaders struggled with public reactions and maintaining control, as protests prompted resignations among several top administrators, including Dr. Gay, Penn’s M. Elizabeth Magill, and Columbia’s Nemat Shafik.

The report also details contentious communications at Northwestern, where President Michael Schill testified about campus negotiations, and Columbia, where university officials considered concessions in response to a pro-Palestinian encampment. Columbia spokesperson Samantha Slater defended their approach, stating they aimed to resolve the protest responsibly through direct engagement.

The documents highlight the difficulty universities face in staying neutral. For instance, Columbia’s former president, Dr. Shafik, referenced a conversation with Senator Chuck Schumer’s office, which advised “keeping heads down” regarding political issues. Columbia stated it has since improved its response to discrimination and harassment reports.

Chairwoman Foxx said the committee’s work transcends party lines, emphasizing the importance of addressing hate.

The report criticizes universities for allowing some pro-Palestinian protests to escalate to violence and claims that “radical” faculty members supported protestors. Documents show internal conversations at Harvard regarding the appropriateness of phrases like “from the river to the sea,” seen by some as a call for action but by others as antisemitic.

When Harvard’s leaders faced outrage over student statements blaming Israel for the violence, they discussed language options, ultimately issuing a statement omitting references to terrorism and hostages. After criticism, Dr. Gay released a stronger condemnation, distancing Harvard from any single student group’s views.

The report presents the immense challenge for academic institutions to navigate polarizing topics in ways that respect diverse opinions and safeguard all students’ rights to learn in a safe environment.