Harvard University now warns students that calling someone a “terrorist sympathizer” could potentially violate school policy. This guidance is part of a mandatory anti-discrimination training, raising new concerns about free speech restrictions and ideological enforcement on campus.
The training slide—reported by the Washington Free Beacon and Legal Insurrection—tells students that labeling others as “terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, supporting genocide, or urging them to self-harm based solely on their race, ethnicity, religion, or other protected characteristic” may be considered discriminatory. The policy is vague and broad, appearing to suggest that such speech could trigger disciplinary action even if based on political or ideological disagreements.
The university’s guidance follows recent pro-Hamas student protests and statements from over 30 Harvard-affiliated student groups that blamed Israel for the Hamas-led October 7 attacks. In response, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Health and Human Services found Harvard in violation of Title VI, citing the school’s failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students from targeted harassment.
Legal analysts have criticized the policy’s ambiguous language. David Bernstein, professor at George Mason University, warned that Harvard’s phrasing, including the clause “based solely on,” gives administrators leeway to censor speech based on subjective judgments. Bernstein questioned whether criticism of political symbols like the keffiyeh or even satire from Monty Python could now be considered harassment.
Nadine Strossen, former ACLU president, also raised alarm, noting that such overbroad rules can suppress constitutionally protected speech and allow ideological bias to shape enforcement. Critics argue the school is imposing rules that extend beyond what federal civil rights laws require.
The training also targets other forms of expression. It warns students that mocking institutions such as the Mormon Church or denying the ancestral history of other groups could qualify as verbal abuse. This includes statements challenging identity-based historical claims—a category so open-ended that it could encompass theological disagreements or public policy debates.
This expanded approach to speech policing appears to reflect a broader shift at Harvard and other elite institutions toward regulating student expression under the banner of “equity” and “inclusion.” However, the implications stretch far beyond academic etiquette. By enforcing vague and ideologically charged policies, universities risk suppressing dissenting viewpoints—including religious, conservative, and pro-Israel perspectives—while emboldening radical activism that escapes scrutiny.
