Derivative-Thinking Among Harvard's Activist Class

An inspection of the intersectionality, hypocrisy, and solidarity in The Harvard Crimeson

Harvard’s pro-Palestine paper, named after the Crimson

Last month, The Harvard Crimeson, a pro-Palestine paper modeled after The Harvard Crimson, released its newest edition, consisting of ten articles and one speech. Readers were blessed with pieces discussing the safety of queer Palestinians, the lack of solidarity within the Asian-American community, and—prepare yourself—how demilitarizing Gaza alleviates climate change.

It would be easy to write a line-by-line breakdown of each inaccuracy the paper contains. But that would not be constructive. An investigation of foundational themes, defenses, and history is far more valuable.

Most pervasive is the reliance on intersectional theory, a framework coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw that examines how social categories can intersect to produce unique discrimination and privilege. For example, the article “In the Name of Love” argues that Israel is “pinkwashing” its acceptance of LGBTQ+ individuals to court support. To explain Palestine’s repressive laws on sexuality, the authors note that this is merely a product of “Western homophobia” imported by the British.¹ Note that it is not merely homophobia from the West. It is the intersectional combination of the two that creates a special kind of terrible.

Their instinct to connect distinct systems of critical thought extends beyond identity. In an article about climate change, the authors note that emissions from the first 120 days of the “genocide” exceeded “the annual emissions of 26 individual countries and territories.” In classic intersectional fashion, the war in Gaza (a progressive issue) must somehow relate to climate change (another progressive issue). Intersectionality has become muscle memory, a natural reflex to call on when the authors run out of ideas. Since they lack the knowledge to write a fulsome critique of Israeli military strategy, they turn to emissions reports instead.²

Another throughline is hypocrisy. Returning to the “In the Name of Love” article, the authors cite the words of a self-proclaimed “‘trans-Palestinian drag artist” named Mama Ganuush. He argues that queer Palestinians worry less about other Palestinians and more about Zionism, verified by his family that “loves [his] drag.”

Readers may be shocked that the esteemed Mr. Ganuush feels so comfortable taking pride in his transgender identity until they learn that he lives in San Francisco, California. That’s right: only in the West can a so-called transgender Palestinian live in safety.

Solidarity, too, runs rampant throughout the articles. Even the caption of the article “Why Solidarity?” notes that members of the Tohono O’oodham Nation, a Native American tribe, were present at the protest in Gaza. To the activist, it is useful to analogize the Native Americans and the Palestinians because it is difficult to defend the actions of Hamas from first-principles. Equating Palestinians to other people groups, including those engaged in less morally dubious activities, becomes a way to justify their stance.

A similar strategy is employed in the article “Palestine is our Future." The article argues that “orientalist anxieties and Western imperial legacies within Asia” cause anti-Asian sentiment, which includes anti-Palestinian sentiment because Palestine is in Asia.

If the authors want to make a semantic argument, then yes, Palestine is in Asia, and Palestinians are Asian. But seldom does the colloquial term “Asians” include Arabs, just as it seldom includes Russians. Semantics aside, the argument is still hollow. That Asian-Americans should somehow feel solidarity with Palestinians purely because they are descendants of the same continent that houses 4.7 billion people and 60% of the world’s population is preposterous. Not to mention, Israel is also in Asia and, by their logic, deserves solidarity.

In a generous read, The Harvard Crimeson is the byproduct of too much ego and too little substance; in a critical read, it is manic and fantastical. Its authors have created a mythos of Palestine, no more real than Narnia or Tatooine. It is rife with derivative-thinking–the blind acceptance of opinions found on social media, repeated by the authors in melodramatic language and watered-down substance. Leave The Harvard Crimeson to where it belongs: on your table as a coffee coaster, or as an instruction manual for political satire.

1. In fairness, it is a historical fact that the laws on sexuality were produced by the British. But the British left three-quarters of a century ago. Are the Palestinians truly so inept and dysfunctional that they can’t repeal this law? Or is it possible they are not the socially progressive champions the authors claim, and they keep the law because they actually support it?

2. Even funnier is the reason the authors cited “26 countries” instead of the percent of global emissions. The 26th lowest polluting nation is Eritrea, which accounts for a mere 0.0021% of global emissions.