Harvard Law School awarded Ibrahim Bharmal $65,000 Fellowship - Harvard’s Shameful Embrace of Antisemitism: Rewarding Assault with Honors

 How Harvard Divinity School and Law School Celebrate Assailants of Jewish Students

In a grotesque display of moral bankruptcy, Harvard University has once again proven itself a haven for antisemitism, elevating two students who assaulted a Jewish classmate to positions of prestige. Harvard Divinity School named Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, one of the assailants, a class marshal for its 2024 graduation, while Harvard Law School awarded Ibrahim Bharmal, the other perpetrator, a $65,000 fellowship to work at the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). These decisions are not mere oversights—they are a slap in the face to Jewish students and a chilling endorsement of violence against them.

The incident in question occurred in October 2023 during an anti-Israel protest on Harvard’s campus. Yoav Segev, a Jewish student, was surrounded by Bharmal and Tettey-Tamaklo, draped in keffiyehs, and subjected to chants of “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in a clear act of intimidation. The two were charged with misdemeanor assault and battery in May 2024, but a Boston Municipal Court judge let them off with a slap on the wrist: 80 hours of community service and anger management classes. No real consequences, no accountability—just a green light to continue their behavior.

Yet, instead of distancing itself from these students, Harvard doubled down. Tettey-Tamaklo, a divinity student no less, was chosen to lead the 2024 Harvard Divinity School procession as a class marshal, rubbing shoulders with faculty and scholars as if his actions were irrelevant. Meanwhile, Bharmal, a law student, was handed a $65,000 fellowship by the Harvard Law Review to work at CAIR, an organization whose leaders have a well-documented history of defending Hamas and spewing anti-Israel rhetoric. This isn’t just tone-deaf; it’s a deliberate signal that Harvard prioritizes appeasing anti-Israel activists over protecting its Jewish community.

The timing couldn’t be more damning. A 2025 internal Harvard report revealed that nearly 60% of Jewish students on campus experienced discrimination or prejudice tied to their views—a statistic that lays bare the university’s failure to foster a safe environment. The Trump administration, citing this incident among others, took the unprecedented step of briefly revoking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students in May 2025, accusing the university of enabling antisemitism. Though a federal judge paused the order, the message was clear: Harvard’s inaction has consequences.

Harvard’s response? Empty platitudes about “combating antisemitism” and vague promises of governance changes. These are nothing but PR stunts from an institution that has consistently failed to hold its own accountable. Rewarding assailants with prestigious honors isn’t just negligence—it’s complicity. Jewish students, alumni, and observers are rightly outraged, with many calling for boycotts and divestment from an institution that seems to revel in its moral decay.

The elevation of Bharmal and Tettey-Tamaklo isn’t an isolated misstep; it’s a symptom of a deeper rot. Harvard’s leadership has shown it would rather coddle those who intimidate and assault Jewish students than take a stand against hate. By honoring these individuals, Harvard sends a clear message: antisemitic behavior will not only be tolerated but celebrated. This is not the legacy of a world-class institution—it’s the hallmark of a university that has lost its way.

Why Catholics Should Dismiss the Absurd Claim That Islam Holds Lessons for Happiness

 

A Firm Rejection of U.S. Catholic’s Misguided Comparison

On May 23, 2025, Robert Spencer, known as @jihadwatchRS on X, brought attention to an outlandish article published by U.S. Catholic titled “What Catholics Can Learn from Islam About the Pursuit of Happiness.” Spencer shared the article in a post, linking to his own commentary on Jihad Watch. The U.S. Catholic piece cites the World Happiness Report’s claim that the United States is growing less happy, suggesting that lessons from the Muslim tradition can help. This piece is a baffling mix of theological ignorance, shallow comparisons, and relativistic nonsense that undermines the richness of Catholic doctrine. Faithful Catholics should reject it outright as irrelevant and misguided. Here’s why this claim is not only wrong but an insult to the Catholic faith.

1. Catholic Happiness Is Found in Christ, Not Worldly Metrics

The U.S. Catholic article leans on the World Happiness Report to frame its argument, but this secular metric of happiness—based on subjective well-being and societal factors—has little to do with the Catholic understanding of true joy. Catholicism teaches that happiness, or beatitude, is found in union with Jesus Christ, not in chasing fleeting emotions or borrowing from other faiths. The Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12) offer a divine roadmap to eternal fulfillment through virtue and grace. Suggesting that Islam, which denies Christ’s divinity and the salvific power of the Cross, can teach Catholics about happiness is absurd. The article’s reliance on a secular report to justify its premise only highlights its disconnect from Catholic theology.

2. Theological Differences Render the Comparison Ridiculous

Catholicism and Islam are fundamentally incompatible in their views of God, salvation, and the human person. Catholics believe humans are made in God’s image, redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice, and called to eternal life through the sacraments. Islam emphasizes submission to Allah’s will, with no concept of divine sonship or sacramental grace. The U.S. Catholic article’s claim that Catholics can learn from Islamic perspectives on happiness ignores these irreconcilable differences. It’s as if the author thinks spiritual traditions are interchangeable recipes you can mix and match—utterly incoherent and disrespectful.

3. Catholic Practices Are Profound, Not Interchangeable

The article’s suggestion that Catholics adopt Islamic practices like prayer or fasting to enhance their pursuit of happiness is laughable. Catholic prayer, particularly the Eucharist, is a direct encounter with Christ’s real presence, not merely a mindfulness exercise as the article implies about Islamic prayer. Catholic fasting, rooted in penance and union with Christ’s sacrifice, carries a depth that Ramadan’s fasting cannot replicate in a Catholic context. These practices stem from entirely different theologies, making them incompatible. The article’s vague appeal to “shared values” like charity or community is so generic it could apply to any belief system—or none. Catholics already embody these values through the Gospel, with no need to look elsewhere.

4. Relativism Undermines Catholic Truth

The U.S. Catholic article drips with religious relativism, implying that all faiths are equal paths to the same end. This is not just theologically false—it’s a betrayal of the Catholic Church’s claim to the fullness of truth through Christ. By suggesting Catholics can “learn” from Islam’s approach to happiness, the article dismisses the unique role of the Church as the guardian of divine revelation. Catholics profess that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6), not one of many options for personal satisfaction. The article’s failure to uphold this truth renders its arguments irrelevant to any serious Catholic.

5. Shallow Scholarship and Empty Platitudes

The article lacks any serious engagement with Catholic theology or Islamic texts, cherry-picking superficial similarities without referencing the Catechism, Scripture, or the Quran. It tosses around buzzwords like “happiness” without defining them or grounding them in Catholic teaching. The result is a flimsy, feel-good comparison that collapses under scrutiny. Catholics have a 2,000-year tradition of saints, theologians, and mystics who have deeply explored the pursuit of happiness. To claim that Islam offers something novel or superior is not just nonsense—it’s an insult to the Church’s intellectual and spiritual heritage.

6. Syncretism Is a Dangerous Dead End

The article flirts with syncretism, the misguided attempt to blend religions into a spiritual smoothie. This erodes Catholicism’s distinctiveness, which holds that Christ is the sole path to salvation. While interfaith dialogue can promote respect, suggesting Catholics adopt Islamic practices to improve their spiritual lives crosses a line into betrayal. Faithful Catholics should reject this muddled thinking and hold fast to the clarity of their faith, which offers all they need for true happiness.

Conclusion: Toss This Article, Embrace the Faith

The U.S. Catholic article, with its baseless claim that Catholics can learn from Islam about happiness, is a theological trainwreck. Its reliance on the World Happiness Report, shallow comparisons, and relativistic undertones make it utterly dismissible. Catholics have a rich, Christ-centered understanding of happiness rooted in Scripture, tradition, and the sacraments. There’s no need to scavenge ideas from another faith, especially one that fundamentally differs in its view of God and salvation. Skip this article and turn to the Gospels, the saints, or the Catechism for true guidance on eternal joy. Anything else is just noise.

T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Disgraceful Failures: Antisemitism, Student Harm, and CCP Collusion Under Justified Federal Scrutiny

From Prestigious Institution to Pariah: How HSPH’s Antisemitic Culture and CCP Ties Betrayed Students

Harvard University, once a beacon of academic excellence, has transformed its T.H. Chan School of Public Health (HSPH) into a hotbed of chaos and disruption, fostering a toxic environment of antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias that has justifiably drawn the full weight of federal scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, and Congress. The university’s egregious failures, as detailed in the Final Report of the Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias released on April 29, 2025, reveal a shameful betrayal of its students, particularly Jewish and Israeli affiliates, who endured a living hell of discrimination, harassment, and institutional neglect. Harvard’s complicity in allowing faculty and programs to perpetuate hate, coupled with its unethical collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), warrants not only the government’s aggressive interventions but also civil rights lawsuits from students for the profound harm inflicted. Every available law should be leveraged to hold Harvard accountable, and affected students deserve compensation for the university’s gross violations of their rights.

The 321-page report explicitly identifies HSPH as a primary site of antisemitism, with Harvard acknowledging on page 8 that the school’s leadership inherited significant challenges during the 2023-24 decanal transition, underscoring its problematic practices. HSPH’s collaboration with the CCP’s Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC) a sanctioned entity complicit in the Uyghur genocide further stains its reputation, intensifying federal investigations and a $2 billion funding freeze by the Trump administration. This article examines HSPH’s shameful treatment of students, its problematic practices as acknowledged by Harvard, the CCP’s corrosive influence, and the justified government response, alongside financial context.

Harvard’s Ties to the CCP and Why the U.S. Government Is Cracking Down

 

Uncovering the Controversy Behind Harvard’s Chinese Connections and DHS’s Unprecedented Action

Harvard University, one of the world’s most prestigious schools, is under fire for its connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), particularly a group called the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (XPCC). This controversy has led to a shocking decision by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll new international students starting in the 2025-2026 academic year. In this article, we’ll break down what’s happening in simple terms, explain the allegations about Harvard’s ties to the CCP, and clarify why DHS is taking such a drastic step. We’ll also look at whether students are directly involved and what this means for Harvard’s future.

What’s the Issue with Harvard and the CCP?

Harvard has been accused of working with the XPCC, a CCP-controlled paramilitary group tied to serious human rights abuses in China’s Xinjiang region. The XPCC is involved in the Uyghur genocide, where millions of Uyghur Muslims have faced forced labor, mass detention, and cultural erasure. In 2020, the U.S. government sanctioned the XPCC under the Global Magnitsky Act, banning American institutions from doing business with it.

Despite these sanctions, Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health reportedly hosted training programs for XPCC officials in 2019, 2023, and as recently as 2024. These programs, part of the China Health Partnership, were designed to teach Chinese officials about healthcare systems, like how to set up insurance programs. The problem? Some of the participants were from the XPCC, a group the U.S. considers a major human rights violator. Critics argue that Harvard’s actions not only broke U.S. sanctions but also gave legitimacy to a group responsible for atrocities.

Beyond the XPCC, Harvard has broader ties to China that raise eyebrows. Since 2012, the university has received over $1.1 billion in foreign funding, with a significant chunk coming from Chinese sources, including $151 million from foreign governments since 2020. Harvard has also partnered with Chinese universities like Tsinghua and Zhejiang, which are linked to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), China’s military. Some of these collaborations, oddly enough, were even funded by the U.S. Department of Defense, raising concerns about whether Harvard’s research could be helping China’s military.

Unmasking Slavespeak: Decoding the Power of Words in Political and Social Control

SLAVESPEAK - DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS?

IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK OR IS IT?

What Is Slavespeak, Really?

The term "Slavespeak" comes from L. Neil Smith, a libertarian writer who used it to describe how powerful people—whom he called "terrocrats" (a mix of "terror" and "bureaucrat")—use language to control others. It’s all about linguistic domination: words and phrases are carefully designed or twisted to keep power structures in place, stop people from thinking critically, and control groups or individuals. This idea isn’t new—it echoes George Orwell’s 1984, where concepts like "doublethink" and "Newspeak" show how language can be a weapon of control.

Slavespeak isn’t just for politics; it sneaks into daily life, too. Take terms like "snowflakes" or "Karens," which this article mentions. These words started as neutral or simple descriptions but have been hijacked to carry heavy, often negative meanings. They’re now used to shame, stereotype, or divide people, often pushed by media, politicians, or influencers with agendas. This process, called semantic shifting, changes a word’s meaning to fit a new story. It’s especially sneaky in places like schools, where kids are more likely to absorb these altered meanings without questioning them.

A document called "Slavespeak," which expands on Smith’s ideas, explains how language shapes the way we think and act. It argues that if you learn to spot Slavespeak, you can push back against manipulation by questioning what words really mean and who’s behind them. The document also ties Slavespeak to psychological tactics, showing how governments, corporations, and institutions use it to stay in power. This connects to the article’s points about programs like SEL (Social-Emotional Learning) and CRT (Critical Race Theory), which might be used to spread these controlling words.

Looking back in history, Slavespeak has roots in propaganda from oppressive regimes. For example, the Soviet Union labeled peasants as "kulaks" to dehumanize them, and Nazi Germany twisted language to justify its actions. Today, you see it in corporate buzzwords, political catchphrases, and even social media trends—words that quietly push you to conform or silence those who disagree. As this article suggests, understanding Slavespeak means paying close attention to language so you can take back control of your own thoughts and choices.

Doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms; in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable. It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning.
Doublethink is a process of indoctrination whereby the subject is expected to simultaneously accept two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in contravention to one's own memories or sense of reality. Doublethink is related to, but differs from, hypocrisy.

Political Slavespeak consists of terrocrat words -- words that give terrocrats advantages over their victims; words that -- if accepted, believed, and used -- put victims at a disadvantage.

________________________________________________________________

DoubleSpeak, Double Talk, Double Think and SlaveSpeak all in which are brainwashing tactics to make you think differently and they know how it works. Who makes up words? People. Who says those words and meanings? People.

Benefits of Understanding Slavespeak - Once you understand political Slavespeak (the language used to establish and maintain master-slave relationships), you become very aware of how those who don't understand Slavespeak can be dominated, subjugated, and controlled by words -- essentially enslaved by words. Correspondingly, you become impervious to external control through words. In other words, you enjoy more freedom -- you have more options available to you.

Examples: Snowflakes and Karen's and Woke Left and Woke Right. You might think those words are just a fad but they are not they are placed into the Political Arena and in Social Society Arena to have a particular meaning.

• Snowflakes are Whites who whine - Snowflakes is Snow that fall from the sky.
• Karen's are White Women who complain. - Karen is a Name of a female.
• Woke Left refers to progressive individuals or groups overly focused on social justice issues, often seen as excessively politically correct—originally "woke" meant being aware of injustice, but now it’s used to mock or criticize. Example: Calling someone "woke left" for supporting climate policies might imply they’re blindly following a trend.
• Woke Right refers to conservative individuals or groups who claim to be "awakened" to cultural or political threats, often used sarcastically to highlight perceived hypocrisy—e.g., opposing "woke" culture while promoting their own moral agenda. Example: Labeling a politician "woke right" for pushing traditional values might suggest performative outrage.
• Whitopia:
  Topia Extracted from utopia -the name of a fictional island possessing a seemingly perfect socio-politico-legal system in the book Utopia (1516.)
• Place White with Topia derived from Utopia and it's fictional made to be non fiction. 
• DoubleSpeak - distorts from the truth or fact from even the origins of the word and it's meaning. Utopia A world in which everything and everyone works in perfect harmony. Doesn't exist - Non Reality.

One would be Political Slavespeak and the other Society Slavespeak and all above are Social Society Slavespeak, Doublethink and Double Talk. When one Political party can get the other party to use them and not even know that's occurring and change your mind about the politician or one's beliefs and new words introduced into society or in the education system even if it not true or reality it's done on purpose to alter your thinking and perception.

Like all the new lingo placed on Society in the political arena, and on Children like SEL, CRT and whatever else they want to implement It's done on purpose to make you rethink and what the meanings of words are. The pros who do this type of activity are people such as Dictators, Kings, people of importance and people with an agenda. The MSM has also used Slavespeak and Politicians do to on American's. It pulls you in.

It is Full Throttle on Words in America's Society and Education System. You have a variety of psychological tactics happening with words and those who have intent to change your perceptions and even your realty! It's actually full blown brainwashing and (FullThrottle - Gaslighting.) Full Throttle is a word I came up with in 2018 because I was a gaslighted victim. Anyone can make up a word and give it a meaning.

Now when you see Words being used in society or on a social media outlet you can tell them NO MORE SLAVESPEAK - Double Talk or when you Watch the news or when you listen to a politician speak or listen to Brainwashers at a school Now you know!

Critical Thinking for yourself goes a long way if you know what to think or who's making you think or implying what you should think. Confused? That's intent after-all isn't it? Words never leave the brain once they are implanted.

Definition of My Words, Full Throttle: a person who has been physically harmed and mentally abused, witnessed abuse, controlled and tortured by the hands of somebody and gaslighted.

________________________________________________________________

Explanation of "Woke Left" and "Woke Right"

• Woke Left: Originally derived from African American Vernacular English, "woke" meant being alert to social injustices, particularly racial inequality. Over time, especially in political discourse, "woke left" has been used—often pejoratively—to describe individuals or groups on the progressive side who are perceived as overly focused on identity politics, political correctness, or social justice to the point of excess. It’s frequently wielded by critics to dismiss or mock progressive policies or behaviors, such as support for gender-neutral language or climate activism, implying a lack of critical thought or an adherence to a trendy ideology.
• Woke Right: A more recent and less standardized term, "woke right" is typically used ironically or sarcastically to describe conservatives or right-leaning individuals who adopt a stance of being "awakened" to cultural or political issues (e.g., perceived threats to traditional values or free speech). It’s often applied by opponents to highlight hypocrisy, suggesting that these individuals mimic the "woke" rhetoric of the left while pushing their own agendas, such as opposing "cancel culture" while promoting their own moral or nationalist narratives.

Please note: Original article I wrote that relates to the current article you just read - Link: https://daretochallengelearn.blogspot.com/2021/11/culturally-responsive-pedagogy.html

Disclaimer & Sources, this article reflects sentiment and opinions, not necessarily facts. Sources, links, and views may not represent the author’s personal stance. and nothing in this article should be interpreted as such and or advice, legal advice. You have read the article and by reading the article you came to your own conclusions and used your own thoughts. (Leave a comment) If you spot an error, please contact me promptly to correct it ellenniedz@gmail.com

You can buy me a coffee here and it's very much appreciated. Thank you!