A conversation with Miles Carter and Beth (ChatGPT) edited by Grok and Gemini
Teaser
In this post, Miles Carter returns from a short break to tackle one of the most charged headlines in American higher education today: allegations of antisemitism at Harvard and other universities. What does government oversight look like when campus protest, global conflict, and civil rights collide?
Main Conversation
Miles’ Question
Beth, it’s good to be back from a short holiday, and I want to dive into the topic of government oversight—specifically, what level is appropriate when it comes to colleges and universities. This is all over the headlines right now, especially with the controversy surrounding Harvard and similar institutions.
I’m trying to make sense of the news. The headlines claim Harvard is fostering antisemitism because it’s not doing enough to ensure Jewish students feel safe and respected—particularly in the wake of protests over Israel’s actions in Gaza. I understand that there’s immense suffering in Gaza, that Israel was attacked, and that hostages and peace talks are still ongoing.
What I don’t understand is: why is all of this playing out so intensely on U.S. college campuses? Can you break it down for me in a simple and concise way, so I can better understand what’s really happening?
Beth’s Initial Response
Absolutely, Miles—and welcome back.
What you’re seeing unfold is the collision of three powerful forces: global conflict, student activism, and the obligations of American universities to maintain inclusive and safe environments.
🌍 1. The Global Conflict: Israel and Gaza
Since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, followed by Israel’s military response in Gaza, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has once again captured global attention. With tragic images and escalating violence dominating the news cycle, emotions are running high worldwide—including on U.S. campuses.
🎓 2. The Campus as a Mirror of Global Tensions
U.S. universities are traditionally seen as bastions of free expression and political engagement. So when a major geopolitical event like this unfolds, campuses often become flashpoints for protest. Students organize demonstrations, publish open letters, and demand institutional responses.
At Harvard, over 30 student groups signed a letter perceived as blaming Israel exclusively for the conflict. While intended as political critique, this sparked widespread backlash. Jewish students reported feeling unsafe—not just because of the statement, but due to chants, harassment, and acts of hostility that followed.
⚖️ 3. Where Free Speech Becomes Harassment
Protesting a government’s actions—like those of Israel—is protected speech. But when that protest morphs into:
- Threatening Jewish students
- Equating all Jews with Israeli policy
- Desecrating Jewish symbols or excluding Jewish students
…it crosses into the territory of antisemitism.
🏩️ 4. The Administration’s Reaction
In May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security suspended Harvard’s certification to enroll international students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The stated reasons included failure to address antisemitic incidents, “pro-Hamas activism,” and alleged coordination with the Chinese Communist Party—though no direct evidence supports the latter. The move affects approximately 6,800–7,000 international students, about 27% of Harvard’s population.
💥 Why It’s Exploding Now
This controversy reveals deeper societal questions:
- What role should universities play in policing political speech?
- When does protest cross into hate?
- How much power should the government have to intervene?
This isn’t just about Harvard. It’s about whether our academic institutions reflect open debate—or become targets of federal punishment for ideological dissent.
Miles’ Follow-Up Question
Beth, I understand there were protests, but were any students actually injured or threatened in a way that’s been considered believable or credible?
Beth’s Response: Injury, Threats, and the Line Between Protest and Harm
So far, no major injuries tied directly to the protests have been reported at Harvard or similar institutions. Most demonstrations have been nonviolent. However, that doesn’t mean harm hasn’t occurred.
Jewish students at several universities have reported:
- Being doxxed
- Receiving verbal abuse
- Being followed or filmed in intimidating ways
- Exclusion from events or chats
- Exposure to antisemitic graffiti or hate symbols
These actions, while often not rising to the level of legal “credible threats,” have created a hostile environment—leading to lawsuits under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
The core issue isn’t just legality. It’s about whether the emotional and psychological harm inflicted warrants federal intervention.
Miles’ Next Question
Harassment is harassment, and it should never be condoned. But have these colleges truly been given the time and opportunity to address the issue? Or are we watching the government use this moment as a pretext to seize control over higher education?
Has the harassment reached a level that justifies this kind of federal intervention—or is it being exaggerated for political purposes? Especially when some of the rhetoric from the executive branch includes claims like immigrants eating pets in Ohio. How do we judge proportionality and credibility here?
Beth’s Response: Due Process or Power Grab?
You’re asking the right question, Miles.
Most of the campus incidents began in late 2023. Schools like Harvard, MIT, and Penn responded with task forces, new policies, and in some cases, disciplinary action.
But critics—including the Trump administration—called these efforts too little, too late. They argue that universities enabled a hostile culture by acting too slowly.
The federal government’s suspension of Harvard’s SEVP certification affects more than 6,800 international students. Precise numbers of students involved in controversial protests have not been disclosed, making it difficult to verify the proportion affected.
This is a collective punishment approach. Legal scholars widely view it as excessive and unconstitutional.
And yes, the executive branch’s own rhetoric—such as claims about immigrants or public accusations of “traitors” in its own party—creates a hostile national climate, arguably more damaging than anything happening on a college quad.
Miles’ Final Question
Can we draw a direct comparison between the harassment coming from the executive branch and the behavior seen in student protests? What has been the timeline and measurable impact of university responses since late 2023? And how many students were truly affected by the visa ban?
Beth’s Response: Rhetoric, Response, and Real Consequences
We absolutely should compare national rhetoric to campus conduct. Leadership sets the tone.
⚠️ Comparing Rhetoric: Executive Branch vs. Campus Protesters
| Source | Statement/Action | Fear Score (1–10) | Impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump Administration | “Immigrants are animals” (2018) | 9 | Dehumanizes immigrants; incites hostility |
| Trump Administration | “They’re eating pets in Ohio” (2024) | 8 | Spreads xenophobic fear |
| Trump Administration | “RINOs,” “traitors” for GOP dissenters | 7 | Suppresses political speech |
| Trump Administration | Harvard “coordinating with Chinese Communist Party” (2025) | 8 | Escalates geopolitical tensions; targets academia |
| Campus Protesters | “Globalize the intifada” | 8 | Perceived as incitement or glorification of violence |
| Campus Protesters | “From the river to the sea” | 9 | Seen as denying Israel’s right to exist |
| Campus Protesters | Sole blame of Israel for October 7 attack | 7 | Heightens sense of isolation among Jewish students |
Note: Fear scores are subjective and for illustrative purposes.
📅 Protest Timeline & Impact
- Oct 7, 2023: Hamas attacks Israel
- Oct–Dec 2023: Campus protests escalate
- Early 2024: Task forces formed, policies updated (e.g., Harvard’s antisemitism task force)
- Mid-2024: Protests subside, disciplinary actions issued
- April 2025: DHS threatens to revoke Harvard’s SEVP certification
- May 22, 2025: DHS formally suspends certification, impacting ~6,800 students
Many protests have since quieted. Universities report some improvements, but DHS continues to cite unresolved issues.
Beth’s Final Response: Should the Government Step Back?
If colleges are addressing harassment, the federal government should allow that process to continue. The May 2025 action, following an April threat, targets thousands of uninvolved students and risks America’s global academic standing.
This isn’t justice—it’s political theater that threatens academic freedom.
Beth’s Summary
This conversation reveals a deeper truth: real governance demands nuance, not spectacle. Protest and harassment must be separated. Accountability must be specific. And when institutions are making reforms, the federal response should be careful and constitutional—not punitive and political.
If the U.S. is to remain a global leader in education and values, it must demonstrate the difference between strong leadership and impulsive overreach.
The Human AI View 
Leave a comment