Summary
- Harvard Law Review (HLR) solicited an article by a Palestinian academic on the genocide in Gaza.
- In an “unprecedented decision” HLR editors held an emergency meeting and voted to cancel the article.
- Supportive editors were “unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way.”
- Editors noted the climate of fear and “suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy”.
- The Nation published the article.
HLR approve and then cancel article on genocide in Gaza
In an “unprecedented decision”, Harvard Law Review (HLR) editors held an emergency meeting to kill an article entitled “The Ongoing Nakba” related to Israel’s war on Gaza. The HLR’s online editors originally solicited the scholarly essay from Rabea Eghbariah — a Palestinian doctoral candidate at Harvard Law School and human rights lawyer.
As reported by Natasha Lennard in The Intercept, the piece went through all standard procedures for approval before being delayed due to an intervention by HLR president Apsara Iyer. An emergency meeting was called for the 104 editors on the journal body wherein the majority voted against publishing the essay.
Some editors noted the crackdown against pro-Palestinian views and a climate of fear.
“I can only speculate about the reasons of individual editors,” said Ryan Doerfler, a law professor at Harvard who attended a meeting with Law Review staff about the Palestine article. “What I can observe, though, is that the vote took place amidst a climate of suppression of pro-Palestinian advocacy.”
A second editor who asked for anonymity to speak freely about the process said that fear of backlash played a key role in their personal decision to vote “no” on Eghbariah’s piece.
Published in The Nation
The full essay by Rabea Eghbariah was eventually published in The Nation with further context provided on the nature of HLR’s decision to axe the piece, including a statement shared by 25 editors expressing concerns about the decision:
“At a time when the Law Review was facing a public intimidation and harassment campaign, the journal’s leadership intervened to stop publication,” they wrote. “The body of editors—none of whom are Palestinian—voted to sustain that decision. We are unaware of any other solicited piece that has been revoked by the Law Review in this way.”
Eghbariah also shared an email from a supportive editor Tascha Shahriari-Parsa noting the cynical and self-preserving nature of the discussion at the emergency meeting:
“The discussion did not involve any substantive or technical aspects of your piece.”
…
“Rather, the discussion revolved around concerns about editors who might oppose or be offended by the piece, as well as concerns that the piece might provoke a reaction from members of the public who might in turn harass, dox, or otherwise attempt to intimidate our editors, staff, and HLR leadership.”