Remember the article, I wrote about Meetha Nikhil Dharmaraj, the Harvard scholar who found himself amidst a whirlpool of controversy for his anti-Israel stance? Dharmaraj, an eloquent supporter of Palestine, has been a vocal critic of Zionism, drawing parallels between it and settler-colonialism, reflecting a broader sentiment among some Harvard factions. His involvement with the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee and his endorsement of a pro-Palestine statement alongside 33 student groups, stirred a notable outcry, especially amidst the lethal skirmishes between Israel and Hamas in October.

This Harvard Undergraduate Ghungroo group initially backed a pro-Palestine resolution, retracting only after a wave of criticism. Dharmaraj's narratives, often blending technology with critical race theory, hint at a deep-seated disapproval of India's right-leaning politics, a sentiment shared by several of his Indian counterparts at Harvard. His articles and social media posts, often veering into Hinduphobia, have been a point of discussion. Yet, amidst all this, he's also been diving into the realms of facial recognition technology, AI, and their societal implications, a journey that reflects the multidimensional discourse at Harvard.

Now, as we step into the recent developments at Harvard, a university revered for its intellectual rigor, the debates have taken a new turn. The discourse seems to be ever-evolving, with layers of ideological, political, and social complexities that continue to unravel. The fall of Harvard, as some might say, is not just a fall from academic grace, but a dive into a tumult of divisive narratives. The controversies surrounding the university's student-led initiatives reflect a microcosm of the larger socio-political landscape, making Harvard a fertile ground for exploring the interplay of academia, ideology, and the real world. Stay tuned as we delve deeper into the new intriguing developments at this esteemed institution.

Harvard's Billionaire Exodus: The High Price of Playing Favorites

In a move that reeks of irony, the prestigious Harvard University finds itself in an academic quagmire of its own making. The illustrious institution, known for its rigorous academia and molding some of the world's sharpest minds, seems to have overlooked the fine line between free speech and the repercussions of taking sides.

The university's lukewarm response to a student union coalition's letter, which pointed fingers at Israel for the Hamas terrorist attack, has not gone down well with several patrons. The latest to join the exodus is Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer and the Wexner Foundation. Their departure paints a vivid picture: Harvard's prestigious halls are not immune to the consequences of political posturing.

Idan Ofer, with a staggering net worth approaching $20 billion, ranks 80th on Bloomberg's billionaire index. But beyond the numbers, it's the principle that stands out. "Unfortunately, our faith in the University’s leadership has been broken, and we cannot in good faith continue to support Harvard and its committees," voiced the couple in a poignant statement to CNN. Their decision to step back from the executive board of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government only adds fuel to the firestorm ignited by the controversial student letter.

In a satirical twist, Harvard's stance, or lack thereof, seems to be its own Achilles heel. For a university that prides itself on producing leaders who shape the world, it's almost comical how its own leadership appears to be faltering. The letter, which placed the blame squarely on Israel for the Hamas-led attacks, has not only irked billionaire patrons but also led many students to dissociate themselves from it.

It's a classic case of "tit for tat." As the saying goes, "If you play with fire, you're bound to get burned." And right now, Harvard seems to be feeling the heat. How many more billionaire ties will Harvard sever before it realizes the price of its actions? Only time will tell. But for now, Harvard serves as a cautionary tale, reminding institutions worldwide of the perils of playing favorites in a world that values balanced perspectives.

While an anti-Israel student letter certainly fanned the flames, the heart of the Ofer couple's dissatisfaction lies in the university leadership's response to the Hamas attacks on Israel.

The Ofers were explicit in their statement, underscoring, "We denounce those who seek to place blame on the people of Israel for the atrocities committed by the terrorist organization, Hamas." Their anguish was palpable when they declared, “Our decision to resign from the board has been precipitated by the lack of clear evidence of support from the University’s leadership for the people of Israel following the tragic events of the past week, coupled with their apparent unwillingness to recognize Hamas for what it is, a terrorist organization,” as they told the press.

A source close to the matter conveyed to CNN that it wasn't the controversial student letter but Harvard's handling of the situation that fueled the couple's resignation.

Adding a touch of irony, the prestigious Kennedy School board, chaired by billionaire David Rubenstein and comprising business and philanthropic giants, finds itself in the midst of a leadership challenge. The board members, who are not just advisers to the dean but also the significant financial pillars of the institution, will certainly feel the weight of this departure.

A glimpse into the Ofer lineage reveals the gravity of this fallout. Idan Ofer, a stalwart in the global business domain, is the progeny of shipping magnate Sammy Ofer, once dubbed Israel's wealthiest individual. Idan's business prowess is manifest in his majority stake in Israel Corp., a conglomerate encompassing energy, shipping, and chemicals sectors. Additionally, he boasts a controlling interest in Kenon Holdings, a notable New York-listed holding company.

Israeli billionaire Idan Ofer quits Harvard board, blasts university’s president over Hamas student letter

In an era where misinformation runs rampant on social media platforms, clarity of voice from revered institutions becomes paramount. The Ofer couple underscored this very sentiment, stating, “With so much disinformation being spread by social media it is essential that the world’s great institutions speak with a clear and unequivocal voice at this critical time.”

Harvard's response, or rather the lack of a direct one, to the Ofers' pointed criticism, speaks volumes. Instead of addressing the resignation and concerns head-on, the institution chose to redirect attention to a video statement by Harvard President Claudine Gay.

In her statement, Gay articulated, “People have asked me where we stand. So, let me be clear. Our University rejects terrorism — that includes the barbaric atrocities perpetrated by Hamas.” She further emphasized the university's stance against hate and discrimination, highlighting, “Our University rejects hate — hate of Jews, hate of Muslims, hate of any group of people based on their faith, their national origin, or any aspect of their identity.”

Gay's commitment to free expression was evident as she said, “That commitment extends even to views that many of us find objectionable, even outrageous. We do not punish or sanction people for expressing such views. But that is a far cry from endorsing them.”

As the storm of controversy continued to brew over Harvard's anti-Israel statement, the ripples of dissent reached the boardrooms and private offices of industry moguls. In a bold move, hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman joined the chorus of voices demanding transparency. He, along with other business leaders, called for the public disclosure of the names of students associated with organizations that endorsed the contentious statement. This, even as murmurs emerged that some students had either distanced themselves from the letter or claimed they hadn't even laid eyes on it.

Adding fuel to the fire, in a move reminiscent of old-school public shaming techniques, a "doxing truck" took to the roads near Harvard. This vehicle, equipped with a billboard, paraded the names and faces of students allegedly connected to the statement. This dramatic display only heightened the tension on campus, raising questions about the boundaries of privacy, freedom of expression, and the consequences of taking a stand.

Wexner Foundation's Bold Departure from Harvard

A longstanding relationship of 34 years has come to a dramatic end. The Wexner Foundation announced its decision to sever ties with Harvard University and the Harvard Kennedy School. This move stems from their profound disappointment with the University's handling of the Hamas attack on Israel.

In a strongly-worded letter addressed to the Board of Overseers - Harvard's second-highest governing institution - the top brass of the Wexner Foundation didn't mince words. Wexner Foundation President Elka Abrahamson, Director General Ra’anan Avital, and chairpersons Abigail S. Wexner and Leslie H. Wexner expressed their disapproval of University President Claudine Gay's response. They described it as "tiptoeing, equivocating" to the joint proclamation by over 30 Harvard student groups that held Israel accountable for the ongoing conflict.

The Wexner Foundation's letter conveyed their sentiment succinctly: “In the absence of this clear moral stand, we have determined that the Harvard Kennedy School and the Wexner Foundation are no longer compatible partners.”

This controversial student proclamation drew significant international attention, with over 4,000 Harvard affiliates denouncing it through two open letters.

It appears the age-old proverb, "actions speak louder than words," is echoing around the corridors of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) following the Wexner Foundation's decision to cut ties. For many, this isn't just another institutional reshuffle but rather a testament to the power of principle over partnership.

Having significantly bankrolled HKS, the Wexner Foundation's generosity ensured that 10 deserving fellows had their annual tuition covered for the school’s one-year Master in Public Administration program. This Wexner Israel Fellowship, which now sees an unfortunate discontinuation, had a noble vision. It aimed to sculpt Israel’s forthcoming public leaders, providing them with robust leadership and public management training. If you're looking for impact, look no further than the more than 280 Israeli public officials who benefited from this fellowship. One might say, in the world of educational philanthropy, the Wexner Foundation wasn’t just a player; they were the game.

Reacting to this move, HKS spokesperson Sofiya Cabalquinto, probably with a heavy heart and heavier keyboard, mentioned that both Gay and HKS Dean Douglas W. Elmendorf had vociferously "rejected the terrorist atrocities perpetrated by Hamas." She continued, expressing gratitude towards the foundation for their unwavering support over the years, "We are grateful to the Wexner Foundation for its very longstanding support of student scholarships."

But it wasn't just Cabalquinto who felt compelled to speak. In a rather pointed statement to HKS affiliates, Elmendorf didn't hold back, firmly condemning Hamas and terming the attacks on Israel as "terrorist atrocities." He stated, "I am outraged by the savageness and brutality of the crimes perpetrated by Hamas against defenseless Israeli civilians."

Echoing these sentiments, Gay doubled down on her criticism of Hamas in video remarks, marking her third statement on the attacks in just four days. The frequency and intensity of these responses underline the gravity of the situation.

Now, as the dust begins to settle, one thing is clear: while institutions might be built on bricks, mortar, and endowments, they truly stand tall on values, principles, and the courage to uphold them.

University President Claudine Gay's statement was unequivocal. She proclaimed, “Let me be clear: Our University rejects terrorism — that includes the barbaric atrocities perpetrated by Hamas.” Furthermore, she emphasized the university's broad stance against hate, whether that's towards Jews, Muslims, or any group based on faith, origin, or identity. It's a powerful sentiment, one that should resonate universally. Yet, the timing and perceived hesitance in reaching this position have not gone unnoticed.

The Wexner Foundation's decision to sever its 34-year relationship with Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) has undoubtedly sent shockwaves across academic circles. This departure is not a mere parting of ways but a pointed critique of Harvard's response to the situation. The foundation’s announcement that the current class of Wexner Israel Fellows would be the last struck a somber note, especially when reflecting on the decades of collaboration between the two entities.

Beyond the immediate cessation of financial ties, the Wexner Foundation's letter sheds light on an evolving campus atmosphere. It suggests that over the years, Wexner Israel Fellows have felt "increasingly marginalized" and that their voices have been "shouted down." This raises a crucial question about academic environments: Are they truly fostering open dialogue and diverse perspectives?

While Harvard has been quick to condemn Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, the initial delay in its response has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters. Political leaders and prominent scholars have questioned the university's apparent hesitancy in taking a clear stance.

“We have observed that this cherished tolerance for diverse perspectives has slowly but perceptibly narrowed over the years,” the Foundation's letter poignantly stated. It further expressed disappointment in HKS, noting, “Disappointingly, HKS has been slow to craft a strategy to enable Israeli students to engage in productive - even if difficult - dialogue within the school.”

Wexner Foundation cuts ties with Harvard over ‘dismal failure’ to condemn Hamas’ terrorist attacks

This critique is not isolated. Israel’s National Security Minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, had previously expressed concerns about the Wexner Foundation, going so far as to ban Israeli police and firefighters from its fellowship due to its perceived "left-wing political bent."

Leslie Wexner, a retail magnate and co-founder of the Wexner Foundation, has generously donated to Harvard, with his contributions to the Kennedy School exceeding $42 million before 2012. However, recent controversies surrounding his leadership roles and associations have put him in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons.

The widening rift between Harvard and some of its most influential Israeli supporters, as evident from the Wexner Foundation's stance, is a telling sign of the challenges the esteemed institution faces in maintaining its global reputation and credibility.

With prominent Israeli billionaires, Idan and Batia Ofer, their recent decision to step down from the Kennedy School's executive board has added fuel to the raging controversy surrounding the university's response to the Hamas-Israel conflict.

“Unfortunately, our faith in the University’s leadership has been broken and we cannot in good faith continue to support Harvard and its committees,” the Ofers announced in a statement to CNN. Their decision, while significant, doesn't stand alone. It's part of a broader narrative of mounting dissatisfaction among influential figures over Harvard's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

HKS Dean Elmendorf, no stranger to controversy, earlier faced intense scrutiny and calls for his resignation. His initial decision to veto a fellowship for Kenneth Roth, former head of Human Rights Watch, came under fire due to perceived anti-Israel bias. Though Elmendorf eventually reversed his call, the incident didn't go unnoticed. Roth, never one to mince words, accused Harvard of having a clear "pro-Israel tilting" during a February Institute of Politics forum.

While universities are traditionally seen as bastions of free speech and diverse viewpoints, Harvard's repeated entanglements suggest a deeper struggle in navigating these choppy waters.

April 2022 saw a significant uproar when protesters from the Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee, operating under the banner of 'Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine,' staged a walkout during a talk with the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Herzog. The protesters didn't mince words, accusing the institution of rolling out the red carpet for "perpetrators of apartheid."

Dean Elmendorf, increasingly finding himself at the eye of the storm, sought to clarify the school's position in a May interview with The Crimson. “The school is not pro- or anti- any particular position on public policy issues,” he stated emphatically. According to him, HKS remains a neutral ground, providing a platform for individuals to learn, engage, and form their own opinions on pressing public policy matters.

But the saga doesn't end there. The corporate world decided to weigh in, with significant ramifications for students involved in the pro-Hamas statement. Bill Ackman, the CEO of Pershing Square, led the charge, announcing that his firm, along with other corporate behemoths, would blacklist students who endorsed the controversial statement. Unsurprisingly, this led to a hurried retraction by several signatories, who removed their names from the statement.

Amid the broader debate and critique surrounding Harvard's response to the Israel-Hamas conflict, the university's student union coalition further fueled the fire. On October 7th, the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Groups, with the backing of 33 student associations, released a statement squarely placing the blame on Israel for the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

The statement was stark in its condemnation: “The apartheid regime is the only one to blame. Israeli violence has structured every aspect of Palestinian existence for 75 years. From systematized land seizures to routine airstrikes, arbitrary detentions to military checkpoints, and enforced family separations to targeted killings, Palestinians have been forced to live in a state of death, both slow and sudden.”

This pointed critique adds yet another layer to the unfolding saga at Harvard, showcasing the passionate and polarized sentiments of its student body. As the university grapples with the backlash from influential donors and the corporate world, it's evident that the student community is not shying away from making its voice heard, further intensifying the spotlight on the esteemed institution.

The essence of a university is to be a sanctuary for open thought, a place where ideas can be freely exchanged and explored without the imposition of a specific narrative. However, it seems that in recent times, some universities have strayed from this ideal. Rather than being beacons of enlightenment, they have started to resemble institutions from a bygone era, where specific doctrines were enforced.

The ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict presents a pertinent example. Universities should remain neutral platforms, focusing on the holistic development of their students rather than pushing a particular political viewpoint. In such trying times, universities should have shown the maturity and wisdom to prevent polarizing student letters, to begin with. If a university cannot stand by its foundational principles, it loses its core essence.

In the modern academic landscape, it's distressing to see that certain sections of academia have started practicing what can only be termed as 'indoctrination'. This is a stark deviation from the democratic ethos of education. The primary goal should always be to teach students 'how' to think rather than 'what' to think. It's crucial to maintain an environment where students are encouraged to form their own opinions rather than being nudged towards a 'politically correct' viewpoint.

While many in academia still uphold these values, it's essential to highlight and applaud them. As renowned academic Stanley Fish rightly pointed out, the true essence of academic freedom is allowing academics to study and analyze any idea, but it's crucial to ensure that this freedom isn't misused to push personal agendas. The classroom should be a place of inquiry, not a platform for political recruitment.

In the grand tapestry of academia, a once-glittering star named Harvard seems to have lost its sheen, dimming amidst a backdrop of cosmic blunders. What was once the zenith of intellectual pursuit now appears more like a novice's first attempt at stargazing. As whispers of its decline rustle through the hallowed halls, one can't help but wonder if this is merely the overture to a grander opera of errors. Oh, Harvard, how the mighty have been caught in their own web of hubris! In this satirical symphony, it's becoming clear that the grand maestro might have misplaced the sheet music.