For those curious, you can find the essay that HLR refused to publish here:
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/harvard-law-review-gaza-israel-genocide/
In North Korea, academics are prevented from publishing their work if their conclusions are politically unpopular. Some people even threaten to kill scholars and journal publishers if they publish papers which embarrass the ruling party.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
A week after Hamas’s October 7 massacre, by which time Israel’s all-out assault on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip had killed thousands of civilians, the online editors of the prestigious Harvard Law Review reached out to Rabea Eghbariah.
Following an intervention to delay the publication of Eghbariah’s article by the Harvard Law Review president, the piece went through several committee processes before it was finally killed by an emergency meeting of editors.
In an email to Eghbariah and Harvard Law Review President Apsara Iyer, shared with The Intercept, online chair Tascha Shahriari-Parsa, one of the editors who commissioned the essay, called the move an “unprecedented decision.”
With careers potentially on the line, the Harvard Law Review’s decision on Eghbariah’s essay came amid a crackdown in academia, in Ivy League schools and elsewhere, against pro-Palestinian speech following the October 7 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent onslaught against the Gaza Strip.
Eghbariah’s article was published Tuesday night at The Nation, under the headline “The Harvard Law Review Refused to Run This Piece About Genocide in Gaza.”
“The Law Review specifically had just gone through an incident in which one of its members was doxxed after participating as a safety marshal at a ‘die in’ at the Harvard Business School campus organized by student activists,” said Doerfler, the professor.
The original article contains 1,670 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 87%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The Nation version is click bait garbage. The original was denied both for safety concerns and it simply wasn’t good enough.
deleted by creator
Still stupid to repeat a word over and over without knowing what it means. Words are important.
If you agree with the article, use war crimes instead. That makes sense. Don’t feed the stupid people.
deleted by creator
I have no idea what you are saying. I have little doubt you had no idea what you read. End of story.
That doesn’t mean what you think it means
deleted by creator
It’s perfectly reasonable to assume you do not understand what you are reading, but please do excuse yourself.
