The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is currently caught in a complex and high-stakes situation that intertwines campus politics with national scrutiny.
Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, expressed significant concerns regarding MIT’s handling of antisemitism allegations after the center filed a lawsuit against the institution last month.
“There’s no question that people in Washington are looking at MIT,” Marcus remarked, highlighting the university’s involvement in broader national discussions.
President Lila Kornbluth, who is Jewish, now faces an intensified scrutiny of her leadership as university administrators grapple with free speech challenges juxtaposed against an increasingly polarized political backdrop, especially with President Donald Trump back in office.
Kornbluth emphasized her commitment to the university’s mission, stating, “My central responsibility is to make sure that the work of the people of MIT continues, work that’s central to America’s health, wealth, and national security.”
She has engaged with Washington officials, including Education Secretary Linda McMahon, amid a wider investigation into MIT’s affiliations with a nonprofit in the higher education space as part of a national anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiative.
The university’s extensive collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense, especially the Lincoln Laboratory, which conducts $1.3 billion annually in national security research and development, renders it particularly vulnerable to governmental pressures.
Navigating these complexities, Kornbluth must balance the divergent interests of faculty members dependent on defense funding and activists voicing concerns over MIT’s role in advancing technologies associated with controversial military actions, particularly those involving Israel.
Within the campus community, activism has escalated, giving rise to profound internal divisions.
Kornbluth faces backlash not only from MIT’s own students and faculty but also external groups.
Recent events underscore the community’s tensions; during the July Fourth weekend, the entrance of MIT’s Stata Center was defaced with the graffiti “Death to the IDF,” referring to the Israeli Defense Forces.
The group Direct Action Movement for Palestinian Liberation appeared to claim responsibility for the vandalism, which included a video accusing MIT professor Daniela Rus of complicity in genocide due to her involvement in robotics research under a contract linking the U.S. and Israeli ministries of defense.
Kornbluth has publicly defended Rus amid these accusations, reiterating a commitment to academic freedom while affirming a stance against antisemitism.
Or Hen, an associate professor of physics from Jerusalem, noted the profound implications of such rhetoric, stating, “We have people on campus who fought in Gaza last year. We have people in reserve duty. So when they talk about death to soldiers … we all did army service.”
This growing climate of discord reflects deeper educational and social divides, according to Jeremy Fleishhacker, a graduate student involved with Jews for Collective Liberation, which is part of the MIT Coalition for Palestine.
Fleishhacker highlighted that the real conflict resides not merely amongst diverse ethnic and religious groups but primarily between university administrators and those advocating for a reevaluation of MIT’s associations with Israel.
He cited a recent United Nations report that claims universities like MIT have contributed to the development of Israeli drones, a point contested by an MIT spokesperson who characterized the report’s assertions as “mischaracterizations.”
The spokesperson clarified that from fiscal years 2015 to 2024, MIT received less than $4 million in grants for individual research from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, emphasizing that the research conducted was open and publishable.
Kornbluth recently addressed the campus in a letter dated July 8, announcing an investigation into the vandalism while underscoring the university’s resolve to pursue criminal charges against the perpetrators.
She acknowledged ongoing hostility, referring to “several incidents — recent and ongoing” and condemning hostile messages, which included desecrated religious symbols, as crossing a “terrible line.”
Some students, however, perceive the administration’s actions as overly focused on public relations rather than genuine engagement.
Mila Halgren, a postdoc affiliated with the MIT Coalition for Palestine, criticized the administration for allegedly prioritizing messaging over actual concerns regarding student expression and dissent concerning Israel.
In May, the university’s administration barred class president Megha Vemuri from attending commencement for purportedly misleading officials about the content of a speech that called for severing MIT’s ties with Israel.
Halgren claimed that rather than repressing dissent, administration officials should engage in dialogue, arguing that suppression would not stop discussions surrounding military ties to Israel.
Conversely, Talia Khan, a PhD student in mechanical engineering and founder of the MIT Israel Alliance, has voiced concerns that MIT administrators may be underestimating the ramifications of their decisions.
Khan pointed out the implications of ongoing political pressures, remarking that the attention directed toward Harvard as a target by the Trump administration should serve as a warning for MIT.
The Brandeis Center’s lawsuit against MIT aims to follow up on congressional hearings that spotlighted university policies concerning antisemitism.
Marcus, from the Brandeis Center, noted, “MIT is significant because [Kornbluth] is the only university president from the congressional hearings who has apparently survived so far.”
The lawsuit includes plaintiffs such as William Sussman, a former Jewish MIT PhD student, and Lior Alon, a Jewish Israeli mathematics instructor.
They allege that MIT failed to address a hostile antisemitic environment following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel.
Also named in the suit is Michel DeGraff, a tenured linguistics professor at MIT who has been in the spotlight for comments made during a seminar.
The lawsuit contends that DeGraff created an environment that targeted Jewish students, leading to harassment of Sussman, who ended up leaving the university as a result.
In response, DeGraff has published statements denying the allegations and asserting that they misconstrue his intentions, pointing to a broader discussion around anti-Zionism versus antisemitism.
An MIT spokesperson reaffirmed the university’s rejection of antisemitism and commitment to defending itself in the court.
The recent lawsuit arises not in isolation; MIT previously fended off a similar lawsuit tied to the Gaza campus protests, which was dismissed last summer due to insufficient evidence that administrators demonstrated deliberate indifference toward the safety of Jewish and Israeli students.
In this context, some faculty members raise concerns over whether adherence to legal standards is indeed sufficient.
As Ernest Fraenkel, a professor in the Department of Biological Engineering, observed, “Even if it turns out that MIT operated within the law, that doesn’t mean it lived up to the standards that MIT would like to hold itself to.”
This moment in history appears critical for MIT, demanding urgent consideration of how to balance academic freedom, community safety, and the integrity of its commitment to inclusive education as tensions continue to mount throughout the campus.
image source from：bostonglobe
