The first time I've seen this broadly supported level of censorship across so many institutions was during Covid regarding the possible role of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. It seems like this has now become normalized and we're seeing the same thing again. Both with a strikingly similar pretense "talking about this would endanger a certain minority". Regardless of the fact that the actual subject of the discussion is causing much more harm, especially to a "minority", than talking about it would.

And once again, the actual underlying reason being """I've worked hard to get to where I am and talking about it would be uncomfortable for some of my peers, the risk of which is far more important than those who are suffering, and never mind it directly contradicting the original reason I went into this career in the first place""".

Agreed that broad pressure tantamount to censorship is being applied to prevent criticism of Israel's campaign.

I see no "terror propaganda" there either. What, people can't express a different idea or conclusion? As to the lack of facts, though - my thought was the article should be in the Harvard Crimson instead - except it would barely raise a thought there. The Law Review decision cannot be disputed.

The article does not offer much legal information. One would expect a statement of the law, a recitation of the facts and a logical expression. The novel idea that the "Nakba" is the Palestinian genocide makes the article interesting, but the article should offer proof in the legal framework; i.e., a syllogism.

Wasn't Ibrahim Bharmal, one of the attackers on a Jewish student at Harvard an editor for Harvard Law Review - https://canarymission.org/individual/Ibrahim_Bharmal ?

Looks like him and his ilk are parroting the same antisemitic trope that jews control the media.