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.

Yesterday, the Iranian foreign minister flew to Geneva to meet with European diplomats. President Trump, meanwhile, indicated that cease-fire negotiations might soon begin with Iran, which would presumably involve Tehran agreeing to make concessions regarding its nuclear program, while Washington pressures Israel to halt its military activities. According to Israeli media, Iran already began putting out feelers to the U.S. earlier this week. Aviram Bellaishe considers the purpose of these overtures:

The regime’s request to return to negotiations stems from the principle of deception and delay that has guided it for decades. Iran wants to extricate itself from a situation of total destruction of its nuclear facilities. It understands that to save the nuclear program, it must stop at a point that would allow it to return to it in the shortest possible time. So long as the negotiation process leads to halting strikes on its military capabilities and preventing the destruction of the nuclear program, and enables the transfer of enriched uranium to a safe location, it can simultaneously create the two tracks in which it specializes—a false facade of negotiations alongside a hidden nuclear race.