Yesterday, John looked at the partial walkback by some of the Harvard students who originally blamed the entire Hamas invasion on Israel. Described as “having second thoughts,” it appeared that some of the students really perked up their ears after Harvard grad Bill Ackman, the billionaire founder of hedge fund giant Pershing Square Capital Management, began demanding a list of names of members of the groups who wrote the letter of blame. He wanted to ensure that none of his fellow Wall Street titans ever “inadvertently hired” any of the students who would espouse such noxious views. The virtual ink was no sooner dry on Ackman’s tweet before Harvard groups were disavowing the letter and board members of other groups were quitting in protest. The New York Post rounded up some of the details of the retreat.

Four of the initial 34 student organizations attached to the inflammatory statement have already withdrawn their support — while board members of other groups have quit to distance themselves.

Late Tuesday, 17 other Harvard groups joined around 500 faculty and staff and 3,000 others in signing a counter-statement attacking the other groups’ letter as “completely wrong and deeply offensive,” according to the campus paper, the Harvard Crimson.

A third letter from nearly 160 faculty members also ripped Harvard’s response to the scandal, writing that it “can be seen as nothing less than condoning the mass murder of civilians based only on their nationality.”

I wanted to take a second bite at this apple because it seems that there is more going on under the covers than might first meet the eye. John pointed out (and I agree) that 34 “organizations” assembled and signed the original letter in support of Hamas and blaming Israel “completely.” But that probably only means that one or at most a few people in each groups were fully aware of and endorsing it. It’s possible that many members truly were unaware of the letter when it first went out.

But even if that’s true, the timing remains more than suspicious. That letter caught fire in the press and on social media as soon as it was revealed. The invasion was nearly the only thing anyone was talking about. Why did it take more than a day for four groups to withdraw their support and some (not all) board members of others to resign? If they truly understood the abhorrent nature of the letter, wouldn’t they have publicly abandoned ship immediately so as to not be associated with that crew?

I would argue that timing very likely speaks to the true nature of their “repentance” or shock at the letter’s contents. Walking away would demonstrate or at least suggest true remorse and the possible need to extend the benefit of the doubt in some cases. But that’s not what they did, at least as I see it. The reaction was not one of saying, ‘Oh my God, I was endorsing an army of baby-decapitating monsters!’ It was more along the lines of, ‘Oh my God! I’m about to be canceled from my dreams of a luxurious life among the elite!’ And how much forgiveness and “benefit of the doubt” should be offered for that?

It’s also worth noting that there are still multiple groups (including the ACLU chapter) who have not retracted. Members of other groups’ boards have not resigned. That probably adds up to hundreds of students and faculty advisors. I think it’s time for Bill Ackman to continue his quest. That full list of names should be released and revealed for all to see. And if those members still wish to stand firm on their principles of supporting Hamas and attacking Israel, let them go for it. They have the right to free speech like the rest of us, after all. But perhaps they’ll wind up doing it from their parents’ basements and not a cushy skyscraper apartment on Wall Street. I’m generally opposed to boycotts and cancel culture, but sometimes you just have to make an exception. And this seems like one of those times.