Derek Penslar, Harvard Jewish studies professor controversy: This typifies what’s broken in antisemitism debates.

Good reflections:

It is with a heavy heart that I come to you asking you to care about something happening at Harvard.

I, too, have mocked the sheer quantity of reporting and writing and takes about what happens at a certain university outside of Boston. But this week’s Cambridge-based brouhaha neatly sums up the politicization of the conversation around antisemitism and the struggle against it.

Harvard recently announced two task forces: one on combating antisemitism and one on combating Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias. The university announced Derek Penslar, a faculty professor of Jewish history who directs the undergraduate program in that field, as co-chair of the task force on antisemitism. Shortly thereafter, some commentators denounced him for having signed an open letter that referred to Israel as an “apartheid regime” and for phrases from a book of his that was published this year. Billionaire Bill Ackman tweeted that Harvard was on a “path of darkness.” Lawrence Summers, a former president of Harvard and former U.S. treasury secretary, called on Penslar to resign. Some went so far as to call the professor an antisemite.

I do not know Derek Penslar, and whether or not he spends his time as co-chair of a task force on antisemitism at Harvard makes very little difference to me, as does what happens at Harvard generally. However, this particular sequence of events has implications beyond Harvard. The row matters not just for Jewish studies scholars, or those of us who write often about Jewish politics, but for anyone who seeks to understand antisemitism historically and in our present moment, so that they might combat it—which is to say, anyone who takes the reality of antisemitism seriously.

There have been a few lines of attack on Penslar, and there are thus a few issues at hand. First, there is the notion that he called Israel a “regime of apartheid.” In fact, Penslar, in the summer of last year, signed on to a letter by “academics, clergy, and other public figures from Israel/Palestine and abroad” who sought to “call attention to the direct link between Israel’s recent attack on the judiciary and its illegal occupation of millions of Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.” That sentence included the line “There cannot be democracy for Jews in Israel as long as Palestinians live under a regime of apartheid, as Israeli legal experts have described it. Indeed, the ultimate purpose of the judicial overhaul is to tighten restrictions on Gaza, deprive Palestinians of equal rights both beyond the Green Line and within it, annex more land, and ethnically cleanse all territories under Israeli rule of their Palestinian population.”

One can agree or disagree with this assessment, or with the decision to sign an open letter, but as Harvard government professor Steven Levitsky put it to the Harvard Crimson, “You have to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism to suggest that Derek Penslar is not a good fit for this role.” He added, “When you deliberately conflate the two, you utterly silence criticism of Israel, and you utterly silence pro-Palestinian speech—and that we can’t tolerate, not at a university in a free society.”

Others have said that while they take no issue with his scholarship, he isn’t right for this particular role. “I have no doubt that Prof Penslar is a profound scholar of Zionism and a person of good will without a trace of personal anti-Semitism who cares deeply about Harvard,” tweeted Summers. “However, I believe that given his record, he is unsuited to leading a task force whose function is to combat what is seen by many as a serious anti-Semitism problem at Harvard.” Summers went on to say that Penslar has “publicly minimized Harvard’s anti-Semitism problem, rejected the definition used by the US government in recent years of anti-Semitism as too broad, invoked the need for the concept of settler colonialism in analyzing Israel.” Although that’s all well and good for an academic, “for the co-chair of an anti-Semitism task force that is being paralleled with an Islamophobia task force it seems highly problematic.”

Summers’ argument is a long way of saying that while all of this is fine for scholarship, it feels wrong. It feels as if Penslar isn’t taking antisemitism seriously. But shouldn’t the scholarship be used to guide the sentiment? And shouldn’t the scholarship inform the struggle? Leaving aside that it seems strange to suggest that a professor of Jewish studies would downplay antisemitism for the sake of it, shouldn’t this task force’s conclusion be guided by fact? Or is the point of the task force to confirm what Summers already thinks? If its goal is the latter, that’s a bigger problem than Penslar’s appointment. And that’s true of all of us, not only those of us on a campus: that we should try to separate out the facts from our feelings and fear.

Finally, and as egregiously, there is the fact that Penslar’s critics evidently combed through his scholarship for phrases they could present as antisemitic. “Lessons in how NOT to combat antisemitism, Harvard edition,” tweeted Jonathan Greenblatt, head of the Anti-Defamation League. “Start by naming a professor who libels the Jewish state and claims that ‘veins of hatred run through Jewish civilization’ to your antisemitism task force. Absolutely inexcusable. This is why Harvard is failing, full stop.” This is a reference to Penslar’s 2023 book Zionism: An Emotional State, which is roughly 300 pages long and which looks at the emotions that have shaped Zionism, as they have—per the book’s own blurb—all national movements. The New York Post, which pulled out the “veins of hatred” line, also noted that Penslar wrote, “Jewish culture was steeped in fantasies (and occasionally, acts) of vengeance against Christians.”

I am not sure whether the focus on this line was supposed to be damning, but if it was: Yes, Jewish culture has moments of revenge fantasy. For example, Purim, which we will celebrate in about two months, concludes with Jewish vengeance. Exploring themes like vengeance or hatred is not an endorsement of seeing Jews through that lens; it’s part of the work of studying Jewish history, as it would be for any group’s history.

Penslar’s lines were cherry-picked and taken out of context, as the American Academy for Jewish Research has pointed out, but there is a larger point, too, which is that any rigorous work on Jews—like any rigorous work on literally any people, anywhere in the world, at any point in history—will feature moments in which individuals or the collective acted in ways that some might consider less than flattering, if not downright abhorrent.

None of that makes antisemitism acceptable. If a person really cares about the study of and fight against antisemitism, they need to be able to hold in their minds both the nuanced realities of history and present-day politics and the rich and varied tapestry that is Jewish existence, as well as that antisemitism is unacceptable. To write off the former as somehow in conflict with the latter is grossly unfair to scholarship—and it pretends that we can fight antisemitism in a vacuum, divorced from the real world. But it’s the real world in which real antisemitism exists. It isn’t only anti-intellectual and cynical. It’s also counterproductive to the critics’ stated goal.

Source: Derek Penslar, Harvard Jewish studies professor controversy: This typifies what’s broken in antisemitism debates.