by Charles Siegel
In one of my first columns for 3 Quarks Daily, Don’t Deport Protesters, or Defund Universities, in My Name, I lamented the Trump administration’s efforts to, in its own words, “combat antisemitism” and “protect Jewish students from harassment and violence in the United States.” The administration purported to be vindicating these goals by deporting student protesters — and protesters who weren’t students, such as our client Leqaa Kordia — and by indiscriminately cutting grant funding to universities. I thought that such pious intonations from Trump and his henchmen were hypocritical in the extreme, given the presence of many blatant antisemites in the administration and in Republican circles generally. I also wondered what on earth the connection was between ostensible concerns about antisemitism on the one hand, and slashing grant funding for medical, scientific and technological research on the other. Finally, I noted that many, many Jewish organizations have denounced the funding cuts, as have thousands of Jewish professors.
Three weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston ruled in favor of Harvard, in one of the suits brought by the government against it over these feigned concerns. This lawsuit is just one front in the larger battle between the administration and Harvard. So far, the university is standing up to Trump, and refusing to cave by settling. And Yale has not settled either, although it is said to be considering a settlement.
I realize, of course, that with the largest endowment of any university in the world by far, Harvard is uniquely able to stand up to Trump’s bullying. One hopes that Yale, whose own endowment is the second-largest, will continue to resist as well. The likes of Brown and Columbia will live in shame forever for capitulating, although they recently signed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Harvard.
The ruling on August 13th by Judge Richard Stearns came in a case officially entitled United States of America v. President and Fellows of Harvard College. In this particular case, the government brought an “enforcement action” under the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Yes, I know — it makes my head explode, too, when I read that Trump alleges that Harvard violated the Civil Rights Act. Such a lawsuit might more properly be entitled Pot v. Kettle.
This ridiculous lawsuit alleged that all federal aid to institutions such as Harvard is conditioned upon compliance with federal law, and that Harvard had failed to comply with federal law by violating the provisions of Title VI forbidding discrimination “on the ground of race, color, or national origin.” The administration contended that after the Hamas atrocities of Oct. 7, 2023, many “demonstrations [that] featured outward hostility, harassment, intimidation, sometimes physical violence directed at Jewish and Israeli students intended to effectively exclude them from these academic spaces and deprive them of equal educational opportunities” occurred, and Harvard did nothing in response. Harvard was vigilant in protecting the rights of other groups of students, the government argued, but not those of Jews. Thus the government asked the court, among other things, to “rescind and award the United States restitution of all grant payments made to Harvard during the time of Harvard’s noncompliance with Title VI.”
Judge Stearns dismissed the case on a narrow ground: that “the purpose of an enforcement action” under Title VI is not to penalize a wayward funding recipient but instead to incentivize it to bring itself into compliance.” The administration “focused almost entirely on incidents that took place during the 2023-2024 school year, and “only three incidents are alleged to have occurred after this period, all of which took place nearly a full year later” (and more than one full academic year before the case was even filed). Accordingly, the judge found that “without diminishing any concern arising from these occurrences,” they were “singly and collectively, too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized non-compliance with Title VI persists at Harvard these days.”
Harvard had raised other independent bases for outright or partial dismissal of the case, but Judge Stearns did not reach them. He thus did not address, for example, whether the government’s claims were purely a pretext for retaliation against Harvard for its DEI programs.
Judge Stearns also did not need to describe in detail the allegations relating to the 2023-24 school year incidents. He mentioned in a footnote that he had described these alleged incidents in an opinion in another case in 2024. This case had been filed earlier that year by Shabbos Kestenbaum, a recent graduate of the Harvard Divinity School. Kestenbaum alleged that immediately after Oct. 7, “more than 30 Harvard student groups issued a joint statement purporting to ‘hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.’” Thereafter, according to Kestenbaum, rallies, class walkouts, “die-ins” and other demonstrations proliferated, and “persisted and, if anything, intensified into the spring 2024 semester.” Many Jewish students were said to “fear for their personal safety and ability to complete their academic studies.” Kestenbaum alleged violations of Title VI and other claims. Judge Stearns granted Harvard’s motion to dismiss the case in part. Eventually, in 2025, Kestenbaum and Harvard reached a confidential settlement.
I had forgotten about Kestenbaum until I read Judge Stearns’ opinion. I remember that when I first heard about him, back in early 2024, he seemed like an interesting, even admirable figure. And at first, at least, I didn’t necessarily discount the notion that Harvard perhaps wasn’t enforcing its own anti-discrimination rules and policies in a way that fully matched how it responded to violence and antagonism experienced by other groups (to be clear, I don’t believe that has been true for some time now). I liked the way he stood up. But I can also recall that even then, something just seemed a little off.
And sure enough, before too long, things began to curdle, in the standard MAGA way. He became a regular Fox talking head, spoke at the 2024 RNC convention, and endorsed Trump. This from someone who said he was still a registered Democrat and had previously voted for Bernie Sanders. And he commented on an Instagram post by a pro-Palestinian Harvard group by saying “if you guys love the intifada so much, have you considered blowing yourselves up too?” (He later deleted that comment).
Kestenbaum is now connected to the notorious Prager University. His web bio there says that he “experienced a political transformation after witnessing the left’s reaction to the October 7 Hamas terrorist attacks. He began speaking out and gained national attention for his keynote speech at the Republican National Convention. He later joined the Trump 2024 campaign, focusing on youth outreach and free speech advocacy. Today, Shabbos is a leading voice against the radical ideology influencing America’s youth.”
“Free speech advocacy”? It does not appear to me that Kestenbaum’s freedom of speech has ever been abridged in the slightest. And while he is vigorously exercising his right to speak freely, has he ever, even once, called attention to the overt Christian nationalism of his newly – adopted political party? Somehow I doubt it.
When Kestenbaum spoke at the 2024 convention, another Jewish student at Harvard Divinity School, Zev Mishell, wrote a column in the Forward, I’m a Jew at Harvard. Shabbos Kestenbaum doesn’t speak for me – The Forward. The closing paragraphs of this column are well worth repeating here:
Despite their professed care for Jews, the majority of the Republican party has moved to embrace white Christian nationalism, a movement working to transform the United States into a Christian state with limited rights for religious minorities. By propping up Jewish speakers to advocate their talking points, they can create an appearance of broad-based support for their agenda, even though their policies would work to enshrine one supremacist interpretation of Christianity into our government.
We need to be clear: Individuals who support the antisemitic great replacement theory, Project 2025, and white Christian nationalism are not Jewish allies.
Kestenbaum’s stunt, as well as his rhetoric and policy positions, do not speak for the Harvard Divinity School’s Jewish community. Instead, they only reflect how Republicans have weaponized his individual story and experience to conceal their very real antisemitism. As we approach the November election, it’s essential to know what’s really at stake.
Precisely.