Ed Sheeran Isn’t the Only One Who’s Lost His Voice

What do Harvard and Ed Sheeran have in common?

When rapper Macklemore called for a “free Palestine” as he opened for part of the U.S. leg of Ed Sheeran’s Loop tour, he drew the attention of billionaire businessman, owner of Gillette Stadium, and prominent Harvard Business School alum Robert Kraft, who allegedly gave Sheeran an ultimatum: remove Macklemore for his “hate speech,” or be banned from his venue. Sheeran capitulated; Macklemore was removed.

The same might be happening at Harvard.

The University is no stranger to his — and other donors’ — influence, and in recent years, has effectively prostrated to their whims — with real consequences for pro-Palestine activism on campus. Donations in, disruptions out. But while donors sign their checks, Harvard fails its students and surrenders its treasured institutional freedom.

Harvard has longstanding and well-documented ties to many controversial billionaires, including Kraft — whose gifts, totalling at least $44 million, have created the largest HBS fellowship fund, made him the namesake of their financial aid office, and prompted University President Alan M. Garber ’76 to call him “one of the most extraordinary philanthropists.”

But what else does Kraft’s philanthropy look like?

In 2019, he was awarded $1 million as part of the annual Genesis Prize for his commitment to Israel; at the award ceremony, Benjamin Netanyahu said “Israel does not have a more loyal friend than Robert Kraft.”

That same year, Kraft spent $20 million to found the Foundation to Combat Antisemitism — since rebranded the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate — which now has a “Command Center” that claims to analyze each day more than 500 million social media posts on antisemitism, Israel, and Judaism. It compiles data on “Anti-Zionism” online and offers to universities the authors of flagged posts “with the most recent impact, including faculty.”

And Harvard has reaped the benefits.

Last year, Garber said at an HBS dinner that University officials met with Blue Square to learn about their work and have benefitted from the “invaluable” information these tracking tools provide. In fiscal year 2024, Harvard donated over $1 million to Blue Square.

But where does information end and monitoring begin? If you share a post criticizing Israel’s genocide, would the administration find out? If your professor calls Zionism a racist ideology online, would our University step in?

With Garber’s demonstrated goal of courting donors that suspended their contributions after the University’s response to pro-Palestine campus protests following October 7, it now appears that a suite of donors like Kraft have earned a seat at the table for some of our University’s most crucial moments.

Take Bill A. Ackman ’88 — a billionaire hedge fund manager, donor, and prominent supporter of Israel — who, in 2023, waged a vocal campaign against pro-Palestine students and then-Harvard President Claudine Gay, contributing to her resignation over her handling of campus protests.

Or, consider Harvard megadonor Stuart Zimmer ’91, who this past June agreed to resume his $100 million gift — paused after the aftermath of October 7 — in light of a slew of conservative shifts by the Harvard administration.

But while Harvard sets the table for donors, they put students aside.

One such shift was Harvard’s updated anti-discrimination training — required of all Harvard students to enroll in their classes — which now uses the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which has been widely scrutinized by human rights organizations and our own peers for conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism.

In the same vein, Harvard’s new campus protest rules bolster regulations around campus demonstrations — discouraging student protests in recent months, as one Crimson op-ed points out.

Although some might argue that these changes are unfortunate results of Harvard’s settlements and legal battles, Harvard’s institutional decisions — namely, dismissing the leaders of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and effectively ending one of the only remaining Harvard programs focused on Palestine in the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights — look no different.

Harvard has stifled our ability to speak out against Israel’s decades-long violence towards Palestinians — all while Garber, in phone calls with top givers like Zimmer, lauded the University’s efforts to encourage free speech and create a safe campus environment for students.

It is true that donor support is crucial to Harvard’s mission and can yield real benefits down the line. Kraft’s fellowship fund, for instance, has tangibly uplifted students who otherwise would not be able to attend Harvard Business School. Once could argue that if Harvard chooses to be moral with its donors, we may be forfeiting the good that comes out of these contributions.

But not all gifts are created equal: Acquiescing to the unreasonable demands of Harvard’s most imperious of donors is not worth the cost. Time and time again, they contribute to real shifts in behavior that harm students and faculty’s ability to advocate for issues that affect our community and the world. In short, it’s reckless.

In leaning to donor sway, Harvard sacrifices the very institutional independence it fought so hard for last year against the Trump administration. A university cannot properly pursue its mission while under the yoke of outside influence — be it the government or our own financial benefactors.

Ed Sheeran lost something when he capitulated to Kraft. Harvard must rein in the influence of its donors — before education loses, too.

Asia M. Foland ’29, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Lowell House. Laura C. Cleves ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a double concentrator in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy in Mather House.