Claudine Gay’s resignation from Harvard

In a congressional hearing, Ms. Gay was confronted by Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) with a hypothetical about whether calling for the genocide of Jews violated the university’s code regarding bullying and harassment. Ms. Gay responded that it would depend on context. Indeed, Harvard’s rules state that “speech not specifically directed against individuals in a harassing way may be protected by traditional safeguards of free speech, even though the comments may cause considerable discomfort or concern to others in the community.”

Not satisfied with Ms. Gay’s deliberate response, the crowd later dug up phrases in her publications that they called plagiarism, a conclusion disputed by many academics, including Ms. Gay’s thesis adviser.

We recently witnessed unjustified attacks on other accomplished women of color when they were considered for high office, including Vice President Harris and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Fortunately, those assaults failed, but the one on Ms. Gay hit its mark.

Stanley I. Rapoport, Washington

Referring to the resignations of university presidents Liz Magill at the University of Pennsylvania and Claudine Gay at Harvard, the Jan. 4 editorial, “What Harvard has to learn from Ms. Gay’s resignation,” said that, under “a correct exposition of free-speech doctrine,” a “call for genocide against Jews, though definitely odious, might be permissible political speech, depending on when and how it was uttered.”

The First Amendment forbids the government from prohibiting speech. It does not forbid anyone else, including universities, from condemning anyone who endorses genocide or even appears to tolerate others’ call for genocide.

Saying that calls for genocide might be permissible is abhorrent. Going light-years beyond common antisemitism, genocide is defined as “the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.” I should like The Post to provide an example of “when and how” a call for genocide of Jews — or any other group — might be permissible.

William F. Sheehan, Barnesville

The Jan. 4 editorial missed an important point regarding the uninspiring performance of Ivy League university presidents in response to the questioning of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.). She asked whether the universities’ codes of conduct allowed calls for genocide of Jews. I would think a “code of conduct” would be a slightly different matter from free-speech rights, especially in private schools, with a code of conduct having the goal of protecting “diversity” and “inclusion” — that is, if the school values diversity and inclusion.

The point might have been better made if the presidents had been asked whether their codes of conduct would allow a loud and aggressive campus “protest” comprising White students and their supporters, wearing, say, masks and pointy white hoods, calling for “death to all Blacks.”

Virginia R. Nuta, Montgomery Village