A Harvard scholar’s ouster exposes a crisis of institutional integrity

The recent departure of Dr. Mary T. Bassett, a highly respected public health expert, from her position as director of the François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights at Harvard, has sparked controversy. Dean Andrea Baccarelli's announcement last Tuesday presented the move as a shift in focus towards children's health, thanking Bassett for her service. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. a Harvard Crimson source revealed that Bassett was asked to resign just hours before the announcement and was instructed to leave her office by year's end.

This decision, far from a routine administrative change, followed a year of increasing pressure concerning the Center's work on Palestinian health and human rights. Figures both inside and outside Harvard, including former president Larry Summers, criticized the work, alleging it promoted antisemitism. Bassett's removal suggests that her dedication to racial justice, poverty, HIV, and global inequality became politically inconvenient when applied to the Palestinian issue.

The outcry following Bassett's ouster, including condemnation from hundreds of Harvard faculty and students, points to a larger problem. It exposes a crisis within human rights organizations, global public health bodies, and American universities, all of which claim to uphold universal values but have shown conditional commitment when dealing with Palestine.

The Illusion of Universalism

Global public health and human rights institutions often portray themselves as champions of equality, asserting that every life has equal worth. That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. as historians have noted, the concept of universal human rights arose within a geopolitical framework dominated by Western powers and has often served to legitimize, rather than challenge, postcolonial inequalities. Their supposed universalism has been selective in practice. Nations that present themselves as leaders of the free world often condemn abuses by rivals while excusing those committed by their own leaders or allies.

Global health shares a similar history. Modern global health institutions evolved from colonial medicine, Cold War politics, and philanthropic endeavors that position wealthy countries as benefactors and poorer countries as recipients. These initiatives frequently prioritize the expansion of profit-driven medical technologies without addressing the underlying political and economic factors that determine health disparities.

Elite universities contribute to these contradictions. They promote universal access to knowledge, but their political boundaries are shaped by their relationships with donors, governments, and the economic system they support. American universities market themselves as neutral spaces, even as this neutrality serves to protect the status quo. Harvard, while cultivating an image of global leadership, has often prioritized the sensitivities of powerful groups over those of vulnerable populations.

In these areas, universalism has been less a guiding principle and more a narrative that obscures inequality and reinforces existing power structures. These frameworks retain value because they represent a demand to expand the scope of concern and rights. Their ethical strength lies in their ability to critique, expose oppressive power, and insist on acknowledging and correcting exclusions.

The real danger is that these institutions are retreating from even the pretense of universality when confronted with the issue of Palestine.

The Palestine Exception

Under Bassett's leadership, the FXB Center examined the health consequences of political violence and inequality, regardless of political pressures. Its partnership with Birzeit University in the West Bank produced research on early childhood development under occupation and the public health effects of Israeli policies in Palestine.

That said, the reality is a bit more complicated. after October 7, 2023, the Center became a target for those seeking to justify Israeli actions against Palestinians. Larry Summers criticized the Birzeit partnership and called for its dissolution. The Trump administration demanded an audit and froze funding when Harvard refused. An internal taskforce criticized the Center's programming, and Harvard suspended the Birzeit partnership.

While Harvard has positioned itself as a defender of academic freedom against government interference, it has simultaneously curtailed programming on Palestine, censored faculty and students, and suspended partnerships. On issues where academic freedom is most threatened, Harvard has capitulated to power.

Bassett's removal, following her publications and statements condemning Israeli actions in Gaza, represents a concession to reactionary forces at Harvard. It suggests that the university's commitment to academic freedom is conditional. The same institution that teaches students to analyze structures of domination has demoted a scholar for doing so when it is most needed. Bassett will remain a professor in the School of Public Health.

This "Palestinian exception" extends beyond Harvard. Across the US, medical professionals who speak about Gaza face reprimands and threats. Hospitals have fired clinicians for speaking out, and non-profits have avoided supporting Palestinians. Universities now police speech about Israeli actions with zeal.

These actions reveal that universalist rhetoric has depended on a tacit understanding: the universal applies unless it threatens powerful interests. Palestine has become the focal point where this understanding is enforced.

The devastation in Gaza cannot be ignored. The destruction of hospitals, the killing of medical workers, and the spread of famine and disease represent a public health catastrophe. To prevent scholars from naming these realities is to demand that global public health abandon its principles and become a tool for whitewashing violence.

Instead of confronting its history of selective morality, the US appears determined to further limit its commitments. The choice is no longer between a flawed universalism and a more honest one, but between flawed universalism and none at all.

A Call to Action

While some may argue that human rights and global health projects are not worth saving, even a compromised universalism provides a framework for demanding equality. Institutions that acknowledge their failures can correct them, while those that deny their obligations cannot. Abandoning universalism would confirm the cynical view that ethical commitments extend only as far as strategic alliances allow.

Bassett's removal demonstrates the consequences of prioritizing short-term protection over integrity. It also highlights what is worth fighting for. A public health field that ignores the destruction of Gaza's health system loses credibility. A human rights discourse that excludes Palestinians cannot defend anyone. And a university that punishes scholars for naming violence becomes a malign force.

Human rights, global health, and elite universities have never fully lived up to their ideals, but their value lies in the possibility of improvement. Their legitimacy requires the courage to expand their moral horizon, starting by refusing to treat Palestinians as an exception and fighting for their rights as a vanguard of ethical legitimacy.

Bassett's removal is an act of cowardice that should serve as a call to action. It underscores that universal rights are not guaranteed but must be constantly defended against violence and the interests of powerful actors.