Confused at the Crimson

The Alegemeiner has published Alan Dershowitz’s column responding to the Harvard Crimson’s pro-BDS editorial “in support of a free Palestine.” It turns out that Dershowitz’s column was to be published in the Crimson itself, but editorial minds at the Crimson are confused or clouded, as one might infer from the editorial itself. The Algemeiner includes this explanatory preface by Professor Dershowitz (link to the Crimson editorial omitted):

On April 30, I submitted to the Harvard Crimson a detailed op-ed refuting its recently-published blood libel against Israel. Over the next several days, the Crimson first said they were “reviewing” my submission; then that they were “interested in running it;” and, on May 4, that they would run my piece “probably tonight,” promising to “reach out with edits later today if needed.” As a result of these assurances, I withdrew my op-ed from any other publications. Then, on May 4, they “decided not to publish” my piece, using the phony excuse of “very high number of submissions … combined with our currently limited production schedule.”

When I protested their breach of journalistic ethics, they changed their minds again and agreed to run it in the form of a much-shortened letter to the editor. They asked me to eliminate the accusation that their editorial encouraged the current form of antisemitism; I refused. Then they demanded documentary proof of my opinions — something they did not provide for their own egregiously false statements. When I provided the documentation, they finally ran out of excuses, and reluctantly published the shortened letter. This bait and switch compounded their unethical action in knowingly publishing defamatory lies about Israel. Here is the full op-ed they accepted and then rejected[.]

William Buckley explained Robert F. Kennedy’s refusal to appear for an interview on Firing Line by asking “Why does baloney reject the grinder?” The same applies here.