SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Pro-choice protesters march down Congress Avenue at a protest outside the Texas state capitol on May 29, 2021 in Austin, Texas. Thousands of protesters came out in response to a new bill outlawing abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected signed by Texas Governor Greg Abbot. (Photo: Sergio Flores/Getty Images)
WTF: Texas Has Made It Legal to Sue Anyone Who Helps a Woman Get an Abortion
Under this law, anyone, anywhere in the United States, can sue anyone who helps a patient in Texas access abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
Sep 02, 2021
With one of the most extreme abortion bans this country has ever seen now in effect, politicians, neighbors, and even complete strangers can sue anyone who helps a person access an abortion in Texas after six weeks. This is a full-scale assault on abortion access.
1. What is Texas's six-week abortion ban (S.B. 8)?
It's a dangerous law set that took effect on September 1, and which rewards people who block a Texan from getting an abortion.
If allowed to take effect, S.B. 8 will ban abortion in Texas after about six weeks of pregnancy-- which is well before many people even know they're pregnant.
But it's not just a ban. It's a ban with a BOUNTY. Under this law, anyone, anywhere in the United States, can sue anyone who helps a patient in Texas access abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
2. A 'bounty'? Are cowboys getting rewarded for stopping abortions?!
Texas officials wrote the law to encourage vigilantes--legally. An unprecedented provision within the abortion ban emboldens ordinary citizens to enforce it. In fact, the abortion ban offers a cash incentive to people who file lawsuits against someone they think is breaking the law.
The law awards at least $10,000 for every lawsuit that successfully blocks a pregnant person from getting an abortion in Texas. And there are no limits on the number of lawsuits, so there could be a rush of suits from organized anti-abortion activists.
"If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion, and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there."
-- Melissa Murray, New York University law professor, via New York Times
3. Who can sue to block a pregnant person from an abortion?
Under Texas's abortion ban, literally anyone from any state would have the authority to go to court and get an order to block a patient's abortion in Texas. That means ANY private individual--such as an abusive boyfriend, a controlling parent, random strangers or even abortion protesters--could block a Texan from getting an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
4. Who could get sued?
Lawsuits could target a doctor, friend of a person seeking abortion, taxi driver, health center, nonprofit group (such as a church or abortion fund), or anyone else who helps assists a patient get a safe, constitutionally protected abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
5. What's happening in the courts?
A broad range of plaintiffs represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU, and others filed a lawsuit asking a federal district court to block Texas's six-week abortion ban before its scheduled effective date of September 1.
6. What are the far-reaching consequences of Texas's six-week abortion ban?
Beyond banning abortion in Texas, this law could serve as a blueprint for other states to take away your rights. Today it's abortion, but tomorrow it could be the rights of LGBTQ+ couples, religious communities, gun owners, undocumented immigrants, or Black families.
7. How could federal courts rule on Texas's six-week abortion ban?
If the federal courts let the Texas law stand, then we could take this fight to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, conservative justices make up a solid majority on the Supreme Court. And they're set to hear arguments later this year in a case that challenges Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.
If the courts rule against abortion access in these two cases, it will radically alter abortion access for generations to come.
8. What was the current state of abortion access in Texas before S.B. 8?
It was already extremely difficult to access safe, constitutionally protected abortion in Texas because the state imposes many burdensome restrictions and obstacles. This includes forcing patients to receive in-person state-mandated "counseling" (which discourages abortion); forcing patients to make two trips to a health center 24 hours apart to receive care; banning telemedicine for medication abortion; banning public and private insurance coverage for abortion; and requiring parental consent and notification to obtain an abortion.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2021 Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc.
Miriam Berg
Miriam Berg is a digital content writer and producer at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
With one of the most extreme abortion bans this country has ever seen now in effect, politicians, neighbors, and even complete strangers can sue anyone who helps a person access an abortion in Texas after six weeks. This is a full-scale assault on abortion access.
1. What is Texas's six-week abortion ban (S.B. 8)?
It's a dangerous law set that took effect on September 1, and which rewards people who block a Texan from getting an abortion.
If allowed to take effect, S.B. 8 will ban abortion in Texas after about six weeks of pregnancy-- which is well before many people even know they're pregnant.
But it's not just a ban. It's a ban with a BOUNTY. Under this law, anyone, anywhere in the United States, can sue anyone who helps a patient in Texas access abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
2. A 'bounty'? Are cowboys getting rewarded for stopping abortions?!
Texas officials wrote the law to encourage vigilantes--legally. An unprecedented provision within the abortion ban emboldens ordinary citizens to enforce it. In fact, the abortion ban offers a cash incentive to people who file lawsuits against someone they think is breaking the law.
The law awards at least $10,000 for every lawsuit that successfully blocks a pregnant person from getting an abortion in Texas. And there are no limits on the number of lawsuits, so there could be a rush of suits from organized anti-abortion activists.
"If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion, and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there."
-- Melissa Murray, New York University law professor, via New York Times
3. Who can sue to block a pregnant person from an abortion?
Under Texas's abortion ban, literally anyone from any state would have the authority to go to court and get an order to block a patient's abortion in Texas. That means ANY private individual--such as an abusive boyfriend, a controlling parent, random strangers or even abortion protesters--could block a Texan from getting an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
4. Who could get sued?
Lawsuits could target a doctor, friend of a person seeking abortion, taxi driver, health center, nonprofit group (such as a church or abortion fund), or anyone else who helps assists a patient get a safe, constitutionally protected abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
5. What's happening in the courts?
A broad range of plaintiffs represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU, and others filed a lawsuit asking a federal district court to block Texas's six-week abortion ban before its scheduled effective date of September 1.
6. What are the far-reaching consequences of Texas's six-week abortion ban?
Beyond banning abortion in Texas, this law could serve as a blueprint for other states to take away your rights. Today it's abortion, but tomorrow it could be the rights of LGBTQ+ couples, religious communities, gun owners, undocumented immigrants, or Black families.
7. How could federal courts rule on Texas's six-week abortion ban?
If the federal courts let the Texas law stand, then we could take this fight to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, conservative justices make up a solid majority on the Supreme Court. And they're set to hear arguments later this year in a case that challenges Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.
If the courts rule against abortion access in these two cases, it will radically alter abortion access for generations to come.
8. What was the current state of abortion access in Texas before S.B. 8?
It was already extremely difficult to access safe, constitutionally protected abortion in Texas because the state imposes many burdensome restrictions and obstacles. This includes forcing patients to receive in-person state-mandated "counseling" (which discourages abortion); forcing patients to make two trips to a health center 24 hours apart to receive care; banning telemedicine for medication abortion; banning public and private insurance coverage for abortion; and requiring parental consent and notification to obtain an abortion.
Miriam Berg
Miriam Berg is a digital content writer and producer at Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
With one of the most extreme abortion bans this country has ever seen now in effect, politicians, neighbors, and even complete strangers can sue anyone who helps a person access an abortion in Texas after six weeks. This is a full-scale assault on abortion access.
1. What is Texas's six-week abortion ban (S.B. 8)?
It's a dangerous law set that took effect on September 1, and which rewards people who block a Texan from getting an abortion.
If allowed to take effect, S.B. 8 will ban abortion in Texas after about six weeks of pregnancy-- which is well before many people even know they're pregnant.
But it's not just a ban. It's a ban with a BOUNTY. Under this law, anyone, anywhere in the United States, can sue anyone who helps a patient in Texas access abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
2. A 'bounty'? Are cowboys getting rewarded for stopping abortions?!
Texas officials wrote the law to encourage vigilantes--legally. An unprecedented provision within the abortion ban emboldens ordinary citizens to enforce it. In fact, the abortion ban offers a cash incentive to people who file lawsuits against someone they think is breaking the law.
The law awards at least $10,000 for every lawsuit that successfully blocks a pregnant person from getting an abortion in Texas. And there are no limits on the number of lawsuits, so there could be a rush of suits from organized anti-abortion activists.
"If the barista at Starbucks overhears you talking about your abortion, and it was performed after six weeks, that barista is authorized to sue the clinic where you obtained the abortion and to sue any other person who helped you, like the Uber driver who took you there."
-- Melissa Murray, New York University law professor, via New York Times
3. Who can sue to block a pregnant person from an abortion?
Under Texas's abortion ban, literally anyone from any state would have the authority to go to court and get an order to block a patient's abortion in Texas. That means ANY private individual--such as an abusive boyfriend, a controlling parent, random strangers or even abortion protesters--could block a Texan from getting an abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
4. Who could get sued?
Lawsuits could target a doctor, friend of a person seeking abortion, taxi driver, health center, nonprofit group (such as a church or abortion fund), or anyone else who helps assists a patient get a safe, constitutionally protected abortion after six weeks of pregnancy.
5. What's happening in the courts?
A broad range of plaintiffs represented by the Center for Reproductive Rights, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the ACLU, and others filed a lawsuit asking a federal district court to block Texas's six-week abortion ban before its scheduled effective date of September 1.
6. What are the far-reaching consequences of Texas's six-week abortion ban?
Beyond banning abortion in Texas, this law could serve as a blueprint for other states to take away your rights. Today it's abortion, but tomorrow it could be the rights of LGBTQ+ couples, religious communities, gun owners, undocumented immigrants, or Black families.
7. How could federal courts rule on Texas's six-week abortion ban?
If the federal courts let the Texas law stand, then we could take this fight to the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, conservative justices make up a solid majority on the Supreme Court. And they're set to hear arguments later this year in a case that challenges Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Mississippi has asked the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.
If the courts rule against abortion access in these two cases, it will radically alter abortion access for generations to come.
8. What was the current state of abortion access in Texas before S.B. 8?
It was already extremely difficult to access safe, constitutionally protected abortion in Texas because the state imposes many burdensome restrictions and obstacles. This includes forcing patients to receive in-person state-mandated "counseling" (which discourages abortion); forcing patients to make two trips to a health center 24 hours apart to receive care; banning telemedicine for medication abortion; banning public and private insurance coverage for abortion; and requiring parental consent and notification to obtain an abortion.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Trump May 'Fabricate a National Emergency' to Extend DC Takeover Without Congressional Support
"Emergency powers are the lifeblood of authoritarians," said a former Republican congressman.
Aug 14, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump suggested Wednesday he may declare a national emergency to circumvent Congress and continue his military occupation of Washington, D.C. indefinitely.
Under the Home Rule Act, the president is allowed to unilaterally take control of law enforcement in the nation's capital for 30 days. After that, Congress must extend its authorization through a joint resolution.
The authorization would need 60 votes to break the Senate filibuster, meaning some Democrats would need to sign on. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said there's "no fucking way" they would, adding that some Republicans would likely vote against it as well.
During a speech at the Kennedy Center on Wednesday, Trump said that if Congress won't approve his indefinite deployment of the National Guard, he'll just invoke emergency powers.
"If it's a national emergency, we can do it without Congress, but we expect to be before Congress very quickly," Trump said.
"I don't want to call a national emergency," Trump said, before adding, "If I have to, I will."
Announcing his federal takeover of the D.C. police, Trump said he would authorize the cops to "do whatever the hell they want" when patrolling the city.
On Wednesday, a day after troops deployed to D.C., federal agents set up a security checkpoint on the busy 14th Street Northwest Corridor, where Newsweek reports that they have been conducting random stops, which have previously been ruled unconstitutional.
One eyewitness described seeing agents "in unmarked cars without badges pulling people out of their cars and taking them away."
Other similar scenes of what appear to be random and arbitrary stops and arrests have been documented around the city.
"President Trump fabricated the 'emergency' that's required to exist for a president to federalize D.C. Police," said Eleanor Holmes Norton, the District of Columbia's nonvoting congressional delegate on X. "He admitted to reporters today that he's willing to fabricate a national emergency in order to try to extend his power."
It would not be the first time Trump called a national emergency in an attempt to suspend the usual checks on his power.
In 2019—despite border crossings being at historic lows—he declared a national emergency to reroute billions of dollars to construct his border wall after Congress refused to approve it. He has also declared a national emergency at the U.S. border.
He has used national emergency declarations even more liberally in his second term, including to send U.S. troops to the Southern border, to expedite oil drilling projects, and to enact extreme tariffs without congressional approval.
According to Joseph Nunn, a legal scholar at the Brennan Center for Justice, Trump is already abusing the language of the Home Rule Act, which only allows D.C. law enforcement to be federalized in "special conditions of an emergency nature."
Though the law does not explicitly define what constitutes a "national emergency," Nunn says, "the word 'emergency' has meaning. An emergency is a sudden crisis, an unexpected change in circumstances." That would be at odds with the facts on the ground in D.C., where crime has fallen dramatically over the past year.
After Trump floated using a national emergency to extend his occupation of D.C., Justin Amash—a former Republican congressman who was ousted in 2021 after breaking with Trump—wrote on X that "emergency powers are the lifeblood of authoritarians."
"Once established in law, they're nearly impossible to revoke because a president can veto any bill curtailing the power," Amash said. "We always live under dozens of active 'national emergencies,' almost none of which are true emergencies."
Trump also said he was working with congressional Republicans on a "crime bill" that will "pertain initially to D.C." but will be expanded to apply to other blue cities like Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles. Despite Trump's portrayal of these cities as crime-ridden hellscapes, crime is falling in every single one of them.
"What Donald Trump is doing is, in some ways, a dress rehearsal for going after others around the country. And I think we need to stop this—certainly by the end of the 30 days," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.). "This should never have started, so I definitely want to make sure it doesn't continue."
With Reported Trump Backing, Israel to Approve Settlement Aimed at 'Burying' Potential for Palestinian State
The Palestinian foreign ministry called the E1 plan "an extension of crimes of genocide, displacement, and annexation."
Aug 14, 2025
One of Israel's biggest proponents of breaking international law by expanding settlements in the West Bank claimed Thursday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Trump administration have both given their approval for an expansion scheme that has been blocked for decades and that threatens the possibility of ever establishing a Palestinian state.
Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich held up a map showing a corridor known as E1, which would link Jerusalem to the settlement of Maale Adumim, at a press conference in the illegal settlement where he proclaimed that the proposal "buries the idea of a Palestinian state."
"This is Zionism at its best—building, settling, and strengthening our sovereignty in the Land of Israel," said Smotrich. "This reality finally buries the idea of a Palestinian state, because there is nothing to recognize and no one to recognize. Anyone in the world who tries today to recognize a Palestinian state will receive an answer from us on the ground."
The announcement followed recent statements from leaders in France, the United Kingdom, and Canada saying they were prepared to join the vast majority of United Nations member states in recognizing Palestinian statehood.
In a statement with the headline, "Burying the Idea of a Palestinian State," the finance minister said Israel plans to build 3,401 homes for Israeli settlers in the E1 corridor.
The plan still needs the approval of Israel's High Planning Council, which is expected next week. After the project is approved, settlers could begin housing construction in about a year.
The Israeli group Peace Now, an anti-settlement watchdog, said Thursday that "government is driving us forward at full speed" toward "an abyss."
"The Netanyahu government is exploiting every minute to deepen the annexation of the West Bank and prevent the possibility of a two-state solution," said Peace Now. "The government of Israel is condemning us to continued bloodshed, instead of working to end it."
Smotrich, whose popularity in Israel has plummeted in recent months, claimed U.S. President Donald Trump and Mike Huckabee, Trump's ambassador to Israel, reversed the United States' longstanding opposition to the E1 plan, which would cut off Palestinian communities between Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley, including an historic area called al-Bariyah.
The proposed settlement would also close to Palestinians the main highway going from Jerusalem to Maale Adumim.
"The Israeli government is openly announcing apartheid," Aviv Tatarsky, a researcher at the Israeli rights group Ir Amim, told Middle East Eye. "It explicitly states that the E1 plans were approved to 'bury' the two-state solution and to entrench de facto sovereignty. An immediate consequence could be the uprooting of more than a dozen Palestinian communities living in the E1 area."
Netanyahu and the Trump administration have not confirmed Smotrich's claim that they back the establishment of E1, but the White House has signaled a lack of support for the longstanding U.S. policy of working toward a two-state solution.
Huckabee said in a June interview with Bloomberg News that the U.S. is no longer seeking an independent Palestinian state.
"The Israeli government is openly announcing apartheid. It explicitly states that the E1 plans were approved to 'bury' the two-state solution and to entrench de facto sovereignty."
Smotrich said Thursday that Huckabee and Trump believe "a Palestinian state would endanger the existence of Israel" and that "God promised [the West Bank] to our father Abraham and gave [it] to us thousands of years ago."
He added, using the biblical term for the West Bank, that Netanyahu "backs me up in everything concerning Judea and Samaria, and is letting me create the revolution."
The U.S. State Department was vague in its response to questions from The Times of Israel about the E1 settlement on Thursday.
"A stable West Bank keeps Israel secure and is in line with the Trump administration's goal to achieve peace in the region," said the agency. "We refer you to the government of Israel for more information."
Countries including the U.K., New Zealand, Canada, and Australia imposed sanctions on Smotrich in June for inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, the rate of which has doubled over the last year.
In a statement, the Palestinian foreign ministry called the new settlement plan "an extension of crimes of genocide, displacement, and annexation."
Tatarsky said Smotrich's announcement on Thursday showed how international supporters of Palestinian statehood must "understand that Israel is undeterred by diplomatic gestures or condemnations" and take "concrete action" to stop the expansion of illegal settlements.
Speaking to The Guardian Wednesday, Francesca Albanese, the U.N. special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, said countries that have recently signaled plans to recognize Palestinian statehood must also focus on ending Israel's assault and blockade in Gaza, which has killed more than 61,000 Palestinians so far—including at least 239 people who have starved to death.
“Of course it's important to recognize the state of Palestine," Albanese said. "It's incoherent that they've not done it already."
"Ending the question of Palestine in line with international law is possible and necessary," she added. "End the genocide today, end the permanent occupation this year, and end apartheid. This is what's going to guarantee freedom and equal rights for everyone."
'Censorship and Discrimination': 200+ Scholars Slam Canceling of Harvard Journal Issue on Palestine
They wrote that "it exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza," where students and educators face scholasticide.
Aug 14, 2025
As Israel continues its U.S.-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip and Harvard University weighs a deal with the Trump administration, the Ivy League institution came under fire by more than 200 scholars on Thursday for recently canceling a journal issue on Palestine.
"We, the undersigned scholars, educators, and education practitioners, write to express our alarm at the Harvard Education Publishing Group's (HEPG) cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and Education in the Harvard Educational Review (HER)," says the open letter. "Such censorship is an attempt to silence the academic examination of the genocide, starvation, and dehumanization of Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its allies."
Last month, The Guardian revealed how, after over a year of seeking, collecting, and editing submissions for a special issue on "education and Palestine" in preparation for a summer release, HEPG scrapped plans for the publication in June.
"The Guardian spoke with four scholars who had written for the issue, and one of the journal's editors," the newspaper detailed. "It also reviewed internal emails that capture how enthusiasm about a special issue intended to promote 'scholarly conversation on education and Palestine amid repression, occupation, and genocide' was derailed by fears of legal liability and devolved into recriminations about censorship, integrity, and what many scholars have come to refer to as the 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom."
The new letter also uses that language:
Contributing authors of the special issue were informed late into the process that the publisher intended to subject all articles to a legal review by Harvard University's Office of General Counsel. In response to this extraordinary move, the 21 contributing authors submitted a joint letter to both HEPG and HER, protesting this process as a contractual breach that violated their academic freedom. They also underscored the publisher's actions would set a dangerous precedent not only for the study of Palestine, but for academic publishing as a whole. The authors demanded that HEPG honour the original terms of their contractual agreements, uphold the integrity of the existing HER review process, and ensure that the special issue proceed to publication without interference. However, just prior to its release, HEPG unilaterally canceled the entire special issue and revoked the signed author contracts, in what The Guardian notes as "a remarkable new development in a mounting list of examples of censorship of pro-Palestinian speech."
These events reflect what scholars have termed the "Palestine exception" to free speech and academic freedom. It exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza—precisely when Palestinian educators and students are enduring the most severe forms of "scholasticide" in modern history.
In a lengthy online statement about the cancellation, HEPG executive director Jessica Fiorillo said that "we decided not to move forward with the special issue because it did not meet our established standards for scholarly publishing. Of the 12 proposed pieces, three were research-based articles, two were reprints of previously published HER articles, and seven were opinion pieces."
"As a student-edited, non-peer-reviewed publication, HER manuscripts, nonetheless, undergo internal review by experienced, professional staff," she continued. "During this review, we determined that the submissions required substantial editorial work to meet our publication criteria. We concluded that the best recourse for all involved was to revert the rights to the pieces to authors so that they could seek publication elsewhere."
The scholars wrote Thursday that "it is unconscionable that HEPG have chosen to publicly frame their cancellation of the special issue as a matter of academic quality, while omitting key publicly reported facts that point to censorship. Perhaps most disturbingly, HEPG leadership has sought to displace responsibility for their actions onto the authors and graduate student editors of the journal, calling into question the integrity of the journal's long-standing review processes, and dismissing the articles as 'opinion pieces' unfit for publication."
"The latter claim ignores that HER explicitly welcomes 'experiential knowledge' and 'reflective accounts' through their Voices submission format," they noted. "When genocide is ongoing, personal reflections and testimonies are not only valid but vital. Dismissing such contributions as lacking scholarly merit reflects an exclusionary view of 'whose knowledge counts'—valuing Western and external academic perspectives over lived experiences of violence and oppression."
The scholars—whose letter remains open to signatures—said that they "stand in solidarity with the authors and graduate student editors of the special issue, who are facing and confronting censorship and discrimination," and concluded by calling for "HEPG to be held accountable."
HEPG is a division of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. While a spokesperson for the latter did not respond to The Guardian's request for comment on the new letter, signatory and University of Oxford professor Arathi Sriprakash told the newspaper that the cancellation mobilized scholars "precisely because we recognize the grave consequences of such threats to academic freedom and academic integrity."
"The ongoing genocidal violence in Gaza has involved the physical destruction of the entire higher education system there, and now in many education institutions around the world there are active attempts to shut down learning about what's happening altogether," Sriprakash said. "As educationalists, we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and learning without fear or threat."
HEPG's cancellation has been blasted as yet another example of higher education institutions capitulating as President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on schools where policies and speech on campus don't align with the White House agenda—including students' and educators' condemnation of the Israeli assault on Gaza and U.S. complicity in it. The Trump administration is also targeting individual critics, trying to deport foreign scholars who have spoken out or protested on campus over the past 22 months.
Harvard won praise in April for suing the federal government over a multibillion-dollar funding freeze. However, last month, the university "quietly dismantled its undergraduate school's offices for diversity, equity, and inclusion," and reportedly "signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House."
Amid fears of what a settlement, like those reached by other Ivy League institutions, might involve, Harvard faculty argued in a July letter that "the university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel—that is, to dictate who can be the officials who lead the university or its component schools, departments, and centers."
While the HER issue was canceled during Harvard's battle with Trump, outrage over how scholarship on Palestine is handled on campus predates the president's return to power in January. In November 2023, The Nation published a piece about Israel's war on Gaza that the Harvard Law Review commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after an internal debate.
At the time, the author of that essay, human rights attorney Rabea Eghbariah, wrote in an email to a Law Review editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.