Yesterday, I linked to an essay about the problems of our universities—on which the current burst of anti-Israel agitation has shone a spotlight—by the scholar and writer Peter Berkowitz. Today, I’m sharing a very different, but complementary, perspective on the same subject by the hedge-fund manager Bill Ackman, who recently publicized an open letter he wrote to the president of Harvard. His letter deftly identifies the problems and offers some practical solutions:

When you explained in your October 12th video address that Harvard “embraces a commitment to free expression,” you sent a clear message that the eliminationist and anti-Semitic statements of the protesters are permissible on campus. Putting aside the legal limitations on free speech that include restrictions on fighting words and true threats, . . . if Harvard indeed had a strong track record of protecting free speech, many would have taken your support for free speech more seriously. Unfortunately, Harvard has not embraced a serious commitment to free speech, particularly so in recent years.

I have heard from many members of the Harvard community that Harvard’s Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging (“OEDIB”) is an important contributing factor to the problem. I was surprised to learn from students and faculty that the OEDIB does not support Jewish, Asian, and non-LGBTQIA white students. . . . The DEI statement [likewise] makes clear that Harvard’s conception of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging does not include Jews (at least those that are not in one of the other welcomed DEI groups).

[Moreover], your failure to condemn the barbaric acts of October 7th opened the door for a wave of anti-Israel attacks on campus that have led to a growing number of anti-Semitic protests and actions.

Because Harvard students are notoriously focused on their job and career prospects post-graduation, disciplinary actions by the administration for failure to meet the university’s standards for appropriate conduct that become part of a student’s permanent record should serve as an effective deterrent to overt anti-Semitic acts on campus.

If there is to be peace, Palestinians will have to unlearn the hatred of Israel they have imbibed during nearly two decades of Hamas rule. This will be a difficult task, but Cole Aronson argues, drawing on the experiences of World War II, that Israel has already gotten off to a strong start:

The population’s compliance can . . . be won by a new regime that satisfies its immediate material needs, even if that new regime is sponsored by a government until recently at war with the population’s former regime. Axis civilians were made needy through bombing. Peaceful compliance with the Allies became a good alternative to supporting violent resistance to the Allies.

Israel’s current campaign makes a moderate Gaza more likely, not less. Destroying Hamas not only deprives Islamists of the ability to rule—it proves the futility of armed resistance to Israel, a condition for peace. The destruction of buildings not only deprives Hamas of its hideouts. It also gives ordinary Palestinians strong reasons to shun groups planning to replicate Hamas’s behavior.