Harvard Law consistently ranks as one of the best law schools in America. When Rabea Eghbariah, a human rights lawyer and Harvard Law alum, penned an essay framing the Nakba as not just a historical event but a legal framework that makes sense of the contemporary Palestinian lived experience, it seemed like a perfect fit. At least until Harvard decided to pull the essay at the last minute.
However, Eghbariah found a new platform. Columbia’s Law Review showed interest and even published the essay, albeit briefly. The Board of Directors subsequently removed it, citing concerns about a deviation from their usual publication processes. They stated that the site had been taken down to give all CLR members a chance to read the article, and emphasized that the decision was not a final judgement on publication. You can read their statement to The Intercept here.
Not everyone is satisfied with this justification. Columbia Law Professor Katherine Franke noted, “I don’t suspect that they would have asserted this kind of control had the piece been about Tibet, Kashmir, Puerto Rico, or other contested political sites.” This incident marks a notable shift in the usual process of article submissions in academic environments and highlights the selective nature of what’s considered permissible discourse.
This instance contrasts sharply with the vocal objections from the right regarding free speech on campus. Figures like Amy Wax and Judge Kyle Duncan have often complained about facing censorship, yet still receive significant media attention and institutional support despite their controversial stances. For further reading on how established judges are perceived as victims, refer to this related article.
In an era where media control is increasingly scrutinized, attempts to censor Eghbariah’s work met with resistance, reinforcing the idea that certain views are being systematically marginalized. Interestingly, despite the takedown, the essay is still accessible online. You can read it in its entirety here.