Bogus accusations of “antisemitism” continue to be a central feature of the march of Fascism locally and globally. Starting from the local:
There’s an open letter from some of my colleagues which, while I don’t agree with all of it, very much gets the main point right:
Of particular concern is the weaponization and misuse of the charge of “antisemitism,” which has been irresponsibly and repeatedly invoked by the administrations of Columbia, Barnard, and Teachers College against student protests related to the atrocities unfolding in Gaza.
An odd thing about the letter though is that as far as I can tell it is unsigned. It is posted on the AAUP blog by “Guest Blogger” with byline “CONCERNED FACULTY AT COLUMBIA, BARNARD, AND TEACHERS COLLEGE”, but no list of signatories. A main reason why bogus “antisemitism” accusations are so hard to fight is that people are scared. They are rightly concerned that if they say what is true about this they will come under attack from many directions as “antisemites” (if they also say anything about Gaza, it will be “antisemitic piece of shit”).
At the Wall Street Journal, there’s a call for federal criminal prosecutions of the Columbia students involved in the recent pro-Palestinian protest at Butler library:
Attorney General Pam Bondi should instruct the U.S. attorneys for the Southern and Eastern districts of New York to activate a federal law that criminalizes violence directed against the “federally protected activities” of Jewish students at Columbia and Brooklyn College.
Rise Up, Columbia has a law professor’s analysis of the recent Trump administration finding that Columbia is guilty of “antisemitism”:
We asked a member of our law faculty to read the Notice and comment. They found it shoddy, poorly argued, and unconvincing. (Remarkably, for example, the government believes that the cancellation of last year’s Commencement ceremony was… a civil rights violation.) The law professor does not think this Notice would stand up in court.
You can read more details there.
A recent NY Magazine article describes the Columbia board of trustees as having members aware the antisemitism charges are bogus (or at least overblown) but unwilling to stand up to a minority intent on using these to get policies implemented to suppress criticism of Israel. The leaders of this minority are described as Victor Mendelson and Shoshana Shendelman. Mendelson brags of his back-channel contacts with the Trump White House, which seems to me a good reason for him to be removed. No petition for that yet, but there is one for the removal of Shendelman. This is based on the information described in this article.
Moving out from Morningside Heights to the larger city, politically opportunistic bogus “antisemitism” charges are becoming the main topic in the ongoing mayoral campaign, see here. The leading candidate, Andrew Cuomo
recently joined a symbolic “legal team” defending Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from war crimes charges
and is forcefully accusing his Jewish opponent Brad Lander of “antisemitism”. The other leading candidate, Eric Adams, is running not as a Democrat but on an independent “EndAntisemitism” ballot line.
In the wider US academic world, having so far lost to Harvard in court, the Trump administration is now pausing all interviews for visas to study in the US. Possibly the stop is just until they get a new system in place to monitor all social media of visa applicants for hostility to Trump and the MAGA agenda, or for “antisemitic” sympathy to what is happening to the Palestinians. If this stop lasts very long, it will mean few foreign students in the US this fall, only those who already have set up an interview in advance.
One might think this is insane and extreme, but two of the pillars of MAGA thought are hatred of foreigners and hatred of universities, so this has a lot of appeal to them as a two-fer. I’ll recommend again following political scientist Adam Przeworski’s ongoing diary of his thoughts on the evolving Fascist dictatorship. In his latest entry, he explains something about how Trump or Mussolini-style dictatorships work:
There is no semblance of law. Yes, there are many temporary restraining order and their number increases by the day. But the government is not restrained. It launches one illegal action after another, against immigrants, against law firms, universities, government agencies, individuals. Some of these actions are announced by executive orders, the legal scope of which is murky. Notably, while all these orders begin with “By the authority vested in me in the Constitution,” some continue to say “and by laws,” which are enumerated, other orders leave it at the Constitution because there are no laws enabling the particular action. The reaction of some people I interact with is often “But this is against the law.” So what? Just consider Columbia: it could legally contest the use of Title VI by the government but processing it in the courts would take years and money. The strategy of the MAGAs is to ignore laws and let any opposition to their actions simmer for an indefinite time in the courts…
Why? Why cut funds for cancer research of universities that have Middle Eastern centers with pro-Palestinian sympathies? Why gut the weather service that provides hurricane warnings? Why withdraw Global Entry privileges of someone who thought Trump lost the 2020 election? Why pursue a specialized medical journal for being “partisan”? Why let the measles epidemic expand? The list of the why’s is endless. These measures will not make Trump richer, so this is not a viable explanation. Some of government’s actions can be explained by its desire to reduce expenditures, some by the anti-elite impetus, some by its instinct to seek revenge. But so many appear to be just stupid, undertaken without a regard for the consequences, whether political or economic. Granted, every government makes mistakes. But I think there is something systematic about dictatorships.
In somewhat stylized terms, what may be happening with the Trump regime goes as follows. There is a Leader (Duce, Führer, Vozdh) who demands absolute loyalty from his subordinates. The subordinates know that they will be rewarded for implementing the will of the Leader. They compete for his attention. Lines demarcating their authority do not matter: the head of HHS Department tries to catch Leader’s attention by doing something that formally can be done only by DoE Department and if the Leader notices and likes this action, the head of the HHS jumps in his approval above the head of DoE. Sometimes the subordinates go farther than the Leader would want; sometimes they do something the Leader does not approve. Such mistakes, however, are not due to a lack of expertise, but only the uncertainty inherent in the impossibility of the Leader to fully articulate his will. Sometimes the Leader has to step in to adjudicate conflicts. Some of his underlings may be pushing tariffs while others may want free trade; some may be concerned about deficits while others believe that they will pay for themselves. Moreover, envy and jealousy cannot be avoided when the underlings compete for the Leader’s favor. Mussolini claimed that resolving such conflicts took most of his time. Yet, whenever loyalty is the only criterion of performance, chaos must ensue. The only purpose of the subordinates is to please the Leader. Formal authority, consideration of material consequences, or compassion have no place in their competition…
Does Trump really want to destroy American research universities? Does he have revenge feelings particularly against Columbia, Harvard, or Northwestern? Or is it just a guess by his overzealous acolytes?
The trustees at Columbia may think they are negotiating about “antisemitism” with Linda McMahon, but she makes clear what the goal really is: the universities can only continue to operate as research universities if, like her, they devote themselves to figuring out what Trump wants, and doing just that:
“Universities should continue to be able to do research as long as they’re abiding by the laws and in sync, I think, with the administration and what the administration is trying to accomplish.”
The Columbia trustees are trying to negotiate with her a return to federal research funding. Will they agree that future research will be “in sync” with Trump?
Moving to the wider world, the genocidal Gaza campaign continues. The current plan (described here) is to finish flattening 3/4 of Gaza, to be taken over by Israel. The two million Palestinians would be imprisoned in the remaining 1/4 of the area and subjected to a starvation regime that would encourage them to leave. Israeli minister Bezalel Smotrich describes the genocide he welcomes as
We are being blessed with the opportunity, thank god, of seeing an expansion of the borders of the Land of Israel, on all fronts. We are being blessed with the opportunity to blot-out the seed of Amalek, a process which is intensifying.
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert writes that Israel is Committing War Crimes, so I guess he’s another example of “antisemitism”.
Update: Columbia has an update for foreign students here. Students who need a visa renewal, which needs to be done outside the US, are advised not to travel outside the US. Incoming students who already have appointments should be all right, but those who have not yet gotten an appointment may have a problem coming here in the fall if the stop on appointments is not lifted.
Update: There’s a new Harvard Law Review Forum paper coming out, about possible Title VI “antisemitism” lawsuits against universities. It concludes that grounds for such a lawsuit would be significantly weaker than generally assumed.
Update: This is really nuts. Rubio has announced that
The U.S. will begin revoking visas of Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.
This may fit into Przeworski’s explanation above that what is happening is that Trump’s underlings are just doing crazy things they think he wants. Or maybe it is just a nutty order from the top.
And, around the same time, a court has unanimously ruled that Trump’s tariff stuff is all illegal. It’s just all illegality all the time, and it seems the courts are finally stepping up to say it’s illegal. What happens now?
Update: The NYT has an opinion piece about Columbia closing public access to its campus, including what used to be a public street. The reason for the closure is to stop any possibility someone might try a pro-Palestinian protest. According to Columbia, this ensures that we “feel welcome, safe and secure on our campus.” I just got into my office and for the record want to state that having to go through two different security checkpoints (getting on to campus, getting into the math building) does not make me feel “welcome, safe and secure.” Instead it makes me depressed, angry and forcefully reminded that I work for an institution single-mindedly devoted to lies about “antisemitism” and to collaborating with Fascism instead of joining the fight against it. In particular having to deal with a security guard to get into the math building, when the campus as a whole is locked down tight as a drum, and there are few people here anyway (summer school just started) is highly disturbing. There clearly is no rational reason for this, it’s the kind of thing totalitarian regimes do to make sure everyone knows they are in an environment where they better never step out of line.
Update: The latest opinion polling of the Israeli public shows very strong support for ethnic cleansing and genocide. Support for expelling all Palestinians from Gaza at is at 82% (above 90% among the religious), for expelling all Arab citizens of Israel is at 56%. Support for killing all the inhabitants of a conquered city (e.g. Gaza or the West Bank) is at 47% (60% or so among the religious). No polling numbers on what fraction of Israeli citizens want their Arab citizen neighbors killed.
Update: The judge in the Harvard visa case has (see here) extended the temporary restraining order and said she will issue an injunction stopping the Trump administration from canceling Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students. As far as I can tell, this particular tactic of the Trump administration is at a dead end, they’re never going to get a court to allow it. The judge may also order that the Trump administration stop other tactics such as not issuing visas.
Update: The team at the Wall Street Journal acting as spokespersons for the Trump “antisemitism” people, have a long new profile of the people they’re working for. They end with their specialty, publishing anonymous threats from their sources:
Top Trump officials are closely monitoring the words and actions of university leaders. Columbia University interim President Claire Shipman in her recent commencement speech mentioned the absence of pro-Palestinian student Mahmoud Khalil, who is the custody of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His detention has drawn protests.
The following day, the university received a notice of civil-rights violation. McMahon said the notice was in the works before Shipman’s speech.
“President Shipman is trying to balance different factions, but I was disappointed,” McMahon said. Naming Khalil wasn’t “necessary for her to say, considering all of the campus unrest that had happened,” McMahon said.
White House officials told Columbia it should be mindful during its search for a permanent president that such comments from university leaders would again jeopardize federal funding, a senior administration official said.
Dhillon, head of the DOJ’s civil-rights division, said “all these schools are in the penalty box, they’re all misbehaving.”
Harvard is taking an aggressive approach, she said.
Columbia, meanwhile, “they’re playing dead,” Dhillon said. “It doesn’t mean their intentions are any different.”
Update: In a speech yesterday, Marco Rubio announced
We have implemented a vigorous new visa policy that will prevent foreign nationals from coming to the United States to foment hatred against our Jewish community.
I gather that means that if you’re not a US citizen and have criticized Israel, especially if you’ve joined calls for a boycott, you will not be able to get a visa to visit or study here. I’m wondering how this is going to affect events like the 2026 ICM.
I live in UK but have close family in USA. I have been surprised that there have not been more people on the streets of Washington DC protesting against the attempt by the Trump administration to achieve authoritarian status. If you compare what’s happened in the ex Soviet state of Georgia where tens of thousands are on the streets of Tiblisib for the 172nd consecutive day there is really no comparison with the power and presence at the centre of government where it really matters. And let’s face it Georgian police are not known for holding back in policing anti government demonstrations. Why aren’t more people on the streets of Washington DC where it really matters. Huge crowds there would give an immense profile and boost to the attempts to save what is left of US democracy.p
Brian,
I also don’t understand why there aren’t tens of thousands of people protesting in the DC streets. Even more, don’t understand why there weren’t ten people protesting in front of Low Library here at any point during the past semester. Now that the spring semester is over and we’re in summer session, zero chance of any significant number of people here protesting anything. We do however still have a very large number of security employees patrolling in case anyone gets the idea to try something…
Oh boy…
https://x.com/sfmcguire79/status/1927890038164988340
Btw Ian Kershaw had a way of describing how Nazis in the government tried to implement what they thought Hitler wanted: “working towards the Fuhrer.”
What the hell is Amalek?
anon,
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/11/benjamin-netanyahu-amalek-israel-palestine-gaza-saul-samuel-old-testament/
Dave,
Hoping that the trustee’s policy of cowering and boot-licking while Harvard gets punched in the face is just a temporary tactic, not their plan for our future. If you want to longingly read about what it’s like to be at a unified institution one could take pride in, see
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2025/05/29/us/harvard-trump#trump-attacks-unify-divided-harvard
>Hoping that the trustee’s policy of cowering and boot-licking while Harvard gets punched in the face is just a temporary tactic, not their plan for our future.
Exactly as I said a couple of days ago here. I agree completely.
Hi Peter,
You probably use the word “genocide” not strictly in the legal sense of the word.
It seems to me that it is best to not use that word, and I hope more people who really just want the slaughter of Palestinian civilians to stop (above all else) would exercise more caution in using that phrase. There are a lot of synonyms that have a similar effect, in conveying the same message.
What has been happening is that the pro-Israel-warcrime lobby immediately starts to litigate the definition of the word, and you end up spending just way too much time arguing about defintions. This takes away valuable time and effort that is better spent on advocating for the actual killings to stop. This is just one of the myriad tactics that have been employed to shield Israel from international pressure, in its absolutely horrendous slaughter campaign.
Tony,
My use of the word “genocide” is very much intentional and in the strict legal sense of the word, as for instance given here
https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition
I’ve avoided use of this word in the past. Just checked and search doesn’t show it appearing in my blog postings before about 10 days ago. At that point what I was seeing of Israeli actions changed my mind to the opinion that the term is clearly appropriate for what is happening.
At this moment, I don’t think it’s possible to look at the opinion polling on views of the Israeli public, the public statements by Israeli cabinet ministers, the ongoing actions of the IDF killing and starving innocent civilians, and reach any other conclusion than that we are seeing genocide happening right now in Gaza.
In the past the Israelis may have had a viable argument against the use of the word to describe what they were doing. I don’t think that they have such an argument any longer.
Dave,
You might want to look at the latest update I added. Evidently the Trump people are unhappy that Shipman said the name Khalil. What they think now about the Columbia trustees is that the boot-licking act is not in earnest, that “they’re playing dead”, secretly intend to, like Harvard, resist. I hope that’s right. I also hope that if the trustees realize the playing dead tactic is not fooling the Trump people, maybe they’ll stop it and start fighting…
Rereading what the Trump people say about Columbia, I see that they are paying close attention to the presidential search. Any candidate for this position must realize that at the moment they’re applying for a job of boot-licking and serving at the behest of the Trump people. One reason the trustees need to change tack soon is that it would be disastrous to hire anyone who wants that job.
Something else I hope the trustees see: things happening at Yale that one would not have believed possible…
https://bsky.app/profile/fishkin.bsky.social/post/3lqczuub52k2d
A random thought, no idea if it makes sense.
Harvard has gone to a judge with strong evidence (the crazy things Trump has said publicly) that the Trump administration is illegally retaliating against them for litigating the grant cancellations by stopping foreign students from enrolling. It looks like they will soon have an injunction, possibly strong enough to force Trump to give students visas to go to Harvard.
Columbia instead has public statements from Trump that we’ve done bad things, acknowledged them and he likes how we are behaving. With our incoming students possibly not able to get visas, we have nothing like what Harvard has to go to court to fight that. Maybe they’ll be able to enroll foreign students this fall, but not us. Shouldn’t we immediately start litigating and piss him off so that he’ll attack us publicly? Then maybe we’d have a case to go before a judge and get the same kind of injunction Harvard gets, no?
The threats to academic freedom are mounting. We’ve seen it in increasingly restrictive executive branch decrees, politically charged campus controversies, and a general climate of fear surrounding open inquiry. While individual universities like Harvard have bravely attempted to defend their principles, the reality is stark: operating in isolation leaves them vulnerable. To truly safeguard the bedrock of higher education, it’s time for American universities – public and private alike – to unite under a formal consortium for academic freedom. The scenario is clear: a situation demanding significant, unified response. Facing pressure from authoritarian forces – whether they manifest as executive branch overreach, political interference, or ideological intolerance – individual institutions stand little chance. The problem isn’t one of lack of individual bravery; it’s a classic collective action problem. A single institution protesting finds itself isolated, facing disproportionate retaliation. But a united front? That’s a force to be reckoned with.
The potential benefits of a coordinated response are enormous. American universities represent a colossal economic engine, employing millions and driving hundreds of billions in economic activity. A unified consortium could wield significant economic leverage, making coordinated resistance a politically costly endeavor for those seeking to suppress academic freedom. Further amplifying that influence, a united voice from the entire American higher education system would resonate far beyond our borders, carrying moral weight on the global stage and putting international pressure on those attempting to undermine academic freedom. The interconnectedness of modern universities only underscores the issue. Attacking one institution doesn’t just harm that institution; it weakens the entire research ecosystem. A consortium can explicitly demonstrate these interdependencies, highlighting how targeting Harvard’s medical research, for example, ultimately harms patients everywhere. History provides compelling precedent, too. During McCarthyism, coordinated efforts by faculty unions and professional organizations proved more effective than isolated individual protests.
Building a truly effective consortium won’t be easy. Several significant obstacles stand in the way. Public universities face the constant threat of state political interference, while private institutions grapple with different funding structures. Research-intensive universities have different priorities than teaching colleges. These differences require careful consideration and compromise. The university landscape is inherently competitive; institutions vie for students, faculty, and research funding. Cooperation, therefore, often feels counterintuitive. Adding to the complexity, legal frameworks often treat universities as separate entities, making coordinated action logistically complex.
What a formal consortium could look like goes beyond good intentions. It could offer shared legal resources, providing support and expertise to institutions facing legal challenges. It could coordinate public messaging, crafting joint statements that carry genuine consensus and avoid watered-down compromises. It could also establish a mutual aid system, providing support to institutions facing targeted retaliation – whether it’s financial assistance, faculty exchanges, or public relations support.
Ultimately, the success of this initiative hinges on one critical factor: the political will of university leaders. Are they willing to prioritize the collective survival of higher education over institutional self-interest? Building that kind of alliance requires a profound shift in mindset and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths. The time for incremental approaches is over. We need bold action, a unified front, and a formal commitment to safeguarding academic freedom.
Peter, your ignorance of the law is showing. Harvard’s participation in the SEVP program and individual Harvard students getting visas are two different things. A judge cannot *force* the Executive branch to issue visas.
robertjw,
Yes, the universities should be fighting this together, and I assume there have been some discussions between university leaders about doing this. At the beginning, we were told bitterly by top administrators here that Columbia had tried to get other universities to help them fight, with no success. Then, when Harvard decided to fight, Columbia has refused to join them. So, collaboration is clearly a problem…
Jeremy,
I’m well aware these are two different things. My ignorance of the law may be showing, but I find it hard to believe your claim that the executive branch can do whatever it wants in this area without judicial review. If the President publicly announces that he is retaliating against an organization he’s unhappy with by refusing to issue visas to people associated with that organization, I seriously doubt the organization has no legal recourse.
In any case, presumably we’ll find out soon enough, seeing what sort of injunction this judge issues and what further litigation brings.
Peter, the Supreme Court has affirmed it as recently as 2024 that visa issuance is not subject to judicial review.
The case is called “Department of State vs. Munoz” and you can read it here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/23-334/
Here is the quote:
“For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the admission and exclusion of foreign nationals is a ‘fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.’ ” Trump, 585 U. S., at 702 (quoting Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977)). Congress may delegate to executive officials the discretionary authority to admit noncitizens “immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–591 (1952). When it does so, the action of an executive officer “to admit or to exclude an alien” “is final and conclusive.” United States ex rel. Knauff v. Shaughnessy, 338 U.S. 537, 543 (1950); see also Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. 103, 138–139 (2020); Mandel, 408 U. S., at 765–766; Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651, 659–660 (1892). The Judicial Branch has no role to play “unless expressly authorized by law.” Knauff, 338 U. S., at 543. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not authorize judicial review of a consular officer’s denial of a visa; thus, as a rule, the federal courts cannot review those decisions.[4] This principle is known as the doctrine of consular nonreviewability.”
Jeremy,
My ignorance of the law may be showing, but the Munoz case you quote specifically states that:
“We have assumed that a narrow exception to this bar exists “when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen.” Trump, 585 U. S., at 703.”
This refers to Trump v. Hawaii, an earlier Trump and visas case, see
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/585/17-965/
The relevant text there seems to me to be:
“Although foreign nationals seeking admission have no constitutional right to entry, this Court has engaged in a circumscribed judicial inquiry when the denial of a visa allegedly burdens the constitutional rights of a U. S. citizen. That review is limited to whether the Executive gives a “facially legitimate and bona fide” reason for its action, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U. S. 753, 769, but the Court need not define the precise contours of that narrow inquiry in this case. For today’s purposes, the Court assumes that it may look behind the face of the Proclamation to the extent of applying rational basis review, i.e., whether the entry policy is plausibly related to the Government’s stated objective to protect the country and improve vetting processes. Plaintiffs’ extrinsic evidence may be considered, but the policy will be upheld so long as it can reasonably be understood to result from a justification independent of unconstitutional grounds. Pp. 30–32.”
Look, obviously I am not a lawyer. I don’t know who you are, but it seems to me that you’re engaging in a common Trump dictatorship era move of insulting everyone’s intelligence with claims that US citizens have no rights in the face of obviously unjust actions taken against them by the executive branch.
wow kicked him out because of ‘MS13 tattoo ‘ , sounds like it was a trial run.
from wikipedia
“However, the Supreme Court had made a narrow exception when the denial impairs the constitutional rights of someone else who is a U.S. citizen.[6] When that exception applies, the government must give a “facially legitimate and bona fide reason” for the visa denial.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_of_State_v._Mu%C3%B1oz
i dont see how this doesn’t effect someone else who is a US citizen.
Peter, let’s follow that thought through to its logical conclusion. Which “U. S. citizen” is having his or her constitutional rights “burdened”? Harvard University, as a private institution, does not have a constitutional right to bring foreign nationals into the country and lacks standing to challenge visa denials of its students.
Jeremy,
I’m not a lawyer and will leave issues of standing to them, but I just don’t believe that Harvard University and the US citizens associated with it don’t have constitutional rights that are plausibly violated here. Again, it’s just implausible on its face that the executive can arbitrarily pick an institution and those associated with it and take punitive highly damaging action against them and that they have no legal recourse. I understand that Trump and the idiot MAGAites around him believe he can do this, but I don’t.
I am sorry, I was not clear. The exception is where a “U.S. citizen” has their constitutional rights burdened. Harvard, as a corporation, is not a “U.S. citizen”. Remember, Harvard is the entity suing, not individual U.S. citizens associated with Harvard (and even they, they have a high bar to clear as Munoz makes it clear that not even familial reunification counts as a “burden”).
You seem to be saying “this feels wrong, so therefore it is illegal.” I (sort of) get the sentiment, but that’s not how the law works.
Jeremy,
You’re telling me that no one has standing to go to court if a President takes highly damaging actions against the constitutional rights of Harvard University and the US citizens associated with it in retaliation for not letting him take control and run the place. I just don’t believe this, on grounds not of feelings but of inconsistency with what I do know of how the US legal system works.
Your grievance is very broad. My explanation is very narrow.
Here is what I am saying: “Harvard University does not have standing to bring suit against the U.S. government for denying visas to incoming international students.”
In addition, you made an incorrect statement (“…highly damaging actions against the constitutional rights of Harvard University..”) To be clear, Harvard does *not* have the “constitutional rights” to secure U.S. visas for their students.
It is very important to precise here on what we are saying.
You may not believe it (and it may feel wrong), but that is the law.
Jeremy,
You’re editing out words that I wrote. If the visa denial impairs the constitutional rights of someone else who is a U.S. citizen., the U.S. citizen can go to court. I don’t believe that the fact that we’re talking about the constitutional rights of not a single U. S. citizen but of the group of them making up Harvard University can possibly mean no one has standing to go to court. If I had to guess I’d guess the Harvard Corporation, but I’m not a lawyer and could very well be wrong about that.