Editor’s Note: Maquiling is the Committee Chair for HLS Talks, a Student Government committee. Committee Chairs have no voting rights in the Student Council and are not involved in Student Government elections.
Last night, students at HLS approved a referendum (R.-207-001) brought by a petition and administered by the Student Government. That referendum asked: “Should Harvard divest from weapons, surveillance technology, and other companies aiding violations of international humanitarian law, including Israel’s genocide in Gaza and its ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine?”
With 842 votes cast, the referendum received 612 votes in favor and 230 votes against. This represents a 42% turnout rate from the law school class, which is composed of about 1,600 J.D.s, 180 L.L.M.s, and 60 S.J.D.s.
The referendum came about from a student petition not started by the Student Government, and it is unclear if that constitutional procedure allows the Student Government to reject such a petition from going to vote once it reaches the requisite 300 signatures.
The referendum’s passage comes after a year of intense organizing and frequent disagreement between student groups, as well as between students and HLS administration. In Spring 2024, the Student Government passed a resolution calling for Harvard’s divestment from all institutions “that aid the ongoing illegal occupation of Palestine.” That resolution and the process surrounding it were met with great contention, including criticisms over the elected body’s suspension of normal rules to allow for anonymous voting.
Harvard did not divest nor change its investment targets in response. In part response to this, and in part in response to suspensions from a Harvard-wide protest at Widener Library, over 100 law students sat-in at the Langdell Library reading room in November. The HLS administration responded with two-week suspensions for the protesting students.
Student Government soon after passed two resolutions, this time condemning the library bans (R.-208-002) and calling for a student-wide referendum seeking the same condemnation (R.-208-003). That referendum would query the student body for agreement on whether they condemn Harvard’s “weaponization of overbroad rules against those who speak in defense of Palestinian life.” It was never released to the student body.
Just before the new referendum voting opened, on March 10, the “HLS Administration,” as they signed, sent a school-wide email calling into question the Student Government’s voting procedures and attacking its commitment to “fostering community” and “embracing inclusion.” The administration also called this referendum, the result of a constitutional procedure allowing a petition of at least 300 students to go to vote, “needlessly divisive.” The Student Government Election Commission released a statement on their website challenging the claims from HLS administration and promising that student votes would be tabulated anonymously. (both statements can be found in full, here).
But with the win, and the announcement of the vote mere hours after polls closed, many students and organizers celebrated.
On Instagram, the Dissent Collective and Law Students for a Free Palestine, two student organizing groups, celebrated the win. “[T]he student movement cannot be suppressed,” they wrote, along with claiming that “Harvard’s $53B endowment funds mass death.”
Students also gathered today in the WCC to celebrate. “I think it’s exciting to see how much of a resounding victory [this is],” said Pablo, a 2L. He called the March 10th email “fear mongering by the administration to prevent a fair election.”
Justin, a student organizer, called the vote “exciting” as a part of organizers’ “continual effort to center Palestine on campus.” “We will not turn a blind eye to Gaza,” he said, and noted that students would continue raising awareness and pressuring the administration.
The passed referendum reflects a plurality, at least, of the student body’s agreement characterizing Israel’s actions as a “genocide” and an “illegal occupation.”
This terminology is largely aligned with international bodies, although is not without controversy. The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and military leaders from both Israel and Hamas, alleging all parties of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Israel’s war methods are “consistent with genocide,” wrote the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights. The International Court of Justice advised that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territories is unlawful.
For at least 230 students, however, this result may be frustrating. Its passage is unlikely to quell concerns from both students and the government that Harvard is insufficiently protecting students from hate, including Jewish students from antisemitism. And from the referendum’s language, there is no way to distinguish between those who may favor of divestment but disagree with calling Israel’s actions a genocide.
On March 11th, the Harvard Jewish Law Student Association (JLSA) wrote on Instagram that “Student Government’s level of obfuscation plainly indicates bad faith dealing,” referring to the claim that the Student Government did not solicit JLSA or other Jewish student perspectives. The sequence of resolutions “marginalized many of the Jewish voices in our student body,” they also wrote.
When asked for comment, JLSA reiterated the content of their open letter and stated how the referendum was “deliberately worded to single out the only Jewish state,” undermining Student Government’s principles. JSLA also opposes how the referendum is “part of the broader BDS [Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement].” That movement has “underlying roots in antisemitism,” JLSA wrote on Instagram.
“It is no wonder the administration would want no part in a referendum and [Student Government] maliciously targeting and isolating Israeli, Jewish, and pro-Israel students,” the Harvard Alliance for Israel wrote to both the Record and the Crimson.
The Dean of Students again expressed “deep disappointment with student government’s leadership’s decision to proceed with a needlessly divisive referendum” in response to the Record’s request, while still writing that “Harvard Law School strongly supports students’ free speech rights.”
What comes next is unclear. Student referenda, like Student Government resolutions, have no binding power over the administration. But they play an important normative role in representing the prevailing attitude of students. If Harvard’s email to the law school, its working groups on campus speech, and closing of Haas Lounge (commonly called Belinda Hall) are any indication, HLS administrators are likely to continue closely monitoring student protest and Student Government activities.
But Harvard administrators face a related, high-stakes battle with the federal government that will complicate their response. “All Federal Funding will STOP for any . . . University that allows illegal protest . . . American students will be permanently expelled,” President Trump wrote on Truth Social this week in his recent focus on higher education. The President cannot, of course, unilaterally expel students nor define what constitutes an illegal student protest.
Trump has already suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for Columbia University over claims that it failed to respond to antisemitism on campus. Earlier this year, he also threatened to suspend funding for schools who don’t stop diversity programs, or who otherwise promote “wokeness.”
Harvard has an interest in protecting its federal funding, which amounted to $686 million in 2024, while also respecting clear law and internal policy requiring the school to protect student protest. This referendum, and Harvard’s response, will likely put the HLS administration back in the spotlight, and perhaps under Trump’s close scrutiny.
As such, even with new Student Government elections around the corner, it may not be students who determine what comes next for Harvard.