Harvard Law School students voted to demand the university’s $53 billion endowment divest from “weapons, surveillance technology” and other companies tied to Israel, a symbolic vote that brings renewed attention to a protest movement that has drawn the Trump administration’s ire.
Harvard’s administration said last year it won’t divest and the student vote carries no enforcement, but the move puts anti-Israel protests back in the spotlight at a time when President Alan Garber is trying to reassure Republicans they’re taking seriously criticisms of the school, which includes its handling of antisemitism.
The move comes days after the administration pulled $400 million from Columbia University and immigration officials arrested an organizer of anti-Israel protests. Harvard said last week it would temporarily freeze faculty and staff hiring amid concerns over federal funding.
“The Trump administration’s threats are meant to scare us into submission, but this referendum shows that those efforts only strengthen our solidarity with Palestine,” Irene Ameena, an organizer with Law Students for a Free Palestine, said in a statement. The note said that 73% of the 842 students that voted chose divestment. The law school has almost 2,000 students.
Pro-Palestinian students have long called for universities to cut ties with Israel, moves that have almost entirely been ignored by administrators, even after protests on campus intensified in the wake of Hamas’s October 2023 attack on the Jewish state and Israel’s retaliation.
Schools and lawmakers have rejected the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, or BDS, movement against Israel, viewing it as antisemitic because it calls into question the legitimacy of the Jewish state and singles out the policies of one country.
Harvard Law School said in a statement that it strongly supports students’ free speech rights. It added that the administration had no role in the referendum conducted by student government.
“As explained in a message to students, the administration expressed deep disappointment with student government’s leadership’s decision to proceed with a needlessly divisive referendum which runs contrary to student government’s stated objectives of “fostering community” and “enhancing inclusion,” Harvard Law said.
