Many universities have been reluctant to embrace a definition that, among other things, considers some criticisms of Israel as antisemitic. The university’s decision was part of a lawsuit settlement.

Critics say the definition Harvard adopted conflates criticism of Israel with antisemitism and could chill pro-Palestinian speech.

The litigation piece of the effort to hold Harvard accountable is, fortunately, not yet over. The only non-anonymous plaintiff in the case, Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, who spoke at the Republican National Convention and has repeatedly testified before Congress on the topic, is moving ahead with discovery in the case.

Many well-intentioned people still struggle to understand what exactly constitutes antisemitism and when anti-Israel rhetoric ‘crosses the line.’