Back, Congress. Your probe is useless. | Opinion

Once again, Congress is in Harvard's hair – and this time the allegations are even more absurd than before.

Last month, Rep. Virginia A. Foxx (R-N.C.), chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce Committee, attacked Harvard for easing sanctions against pro-Palestinian protesters and accuses the university of failing to provide a safe learning environment for Jewish students in violation of its obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

The House investigation is a prime example of political theater. After subpoenaing a whopping 57,000 pages of documents, our lawmakers found nothing of substance. The committee's main criticism? That the Harvard College Board of Regents has decided to relax disciplinary rules for the students who were originally sanctioned last spring for their participation in the pro-Palestine camp.

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits universities receiving federal funding from discriminating on the basis of “race, color, or national origin.” The committee alleges that Harvard discriminated against Jewish students by not sufficiently punishing pro-Palestinian students.

This argument is clearly flawed and highlights how out of touch our legislators are with the reality of our campus climate. Even more troubling, the Title VI assertion represents a dangerous government intrusion into higher education and threatens the foundations of academic freedom and open discourse that universities are designed to promote.

First, the camp itself wasn't discriminatory – take it from a real Harvard student who walked past it every day. The protests were peaceful and non-violent. There were no direct threats against Jewish students. Unlike protests by peer institutions that were covered in the media, there was never a need to call the police.

Congress needs to know all these things – they certainly have enough information from us. And yet the committee continues to theatrically insult higher education and make the same vague, vicious, and vitriolic accusations at Harvard that it made over a year ago. Unlike the Committee's investigation at Columbia, where university administrators themselves perpetuated discriminatory stereotypes against Jews, the Committee's investigation at Harvard revealed nothing of the sort.

Of course, many Harvard students probably disagreed with the camp's goals, including eliminating investment from Israel. But disagreements with protesters — or even discomfort with their rhetoric — are not enough to constitute discrimination.

If the action in question is not the university's speech itself, but rather its sanctions against student speech, the bar should be exceedingly high to determine that a university is violating Title VI. Punishing students is a significant step – Harvard rarely does this – and it clearly has a chilling effect on discourse on campus.

If Harvard were a public university, protesters' speech would be protected by the First Amendment. Therefore, it appears extremely problematic for the government to penalize Harvard with a Title VI violation because it chose not to penalize speech that would almost certainly be protected at our partner institutions. To achieve this, private institutions would have to restrict speech more than is required by the Constitution, which would create a perverse incentive for private universities to excessively censor student speech out of fear of losing federal funding.

Furthermore, Congress's civil rights argument is actually much easier to apply in the opposite direction: had Harvard chosen to severely discipline pro-Palestinian protesters, it would have treated them differently than student protesters like those in the United States Harvard Living Wage Campaign or the Occupy Harvard movementwho set up camps without major disciplinary consequences.

And even if Congress could somehow justify its insistence that Harvard monitor its students' speech, it has conveniently failed to acknowledge how Harvard acted against the protesters both during and after the encampment.

University President Alan M. Garber '76 issued a statement ordering protesters to clear the encampment, placed at least 22 students on involuntary leave, and managed to successfully and peacefully clear the encampment before it began. In addition, the Board of Directors of Harvard College was initially responsible suspended five students and barred 15 seniors from graduating at the start of their studies. While the The bans were eventually liftedThese punitive measures indicate that Harvard responded to the camp in a serious and measured manner.

Finally, if there are legitimate concerns about discrimination on campus, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, not Congress, is the appropriate place to investigate.

In particular, the Ministry of Education is currently investigates Harvard over allegations of anti-Palestinian discrimination – but Congress did not see fit to launch its own investigation. It appears their investigation is more politically motivated than a desire to protect students.

Foxx's allegations show why lawmakers should not interfere in university affairs. It is not the job of Congress to pressure universities to censor or excessively punish student speech for fear of losing federal funding. In doing so, the legislature completely undermines universities, which should be a melting pot of ideas, even – or perhaps especially – controversial ones.

We must resist these misguided attempts to weaponize civil rights laws for political power and ensure that higher education protects free expression and promotes open dialogue. Harvard's measured response to last semester's protests demonstrates a commitment to these principles rather than a heinous violation of civil rights.

This is not the first time Congress has interfered in Harvard's affairs, nor will it be the last. But for the sake of higher education, Congress must take a step back and allow our competent educational institutions to address these complex issues without the threat of political retaliation. The health of our democracy and the integrity of our education system depend on it.

Calvin D. Alexander, Jr. '27, editor at Crimson Editorial, is a Comparative Literature and Music Specialist at Adams House.