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.

Turning Point USA Wrongly Labeled a Hate Group by SPLC: My Stand Against Their Smear with 2 Simple Facts

 

Why I Reject the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Attack on Charlie Kirk and TPUSA

As the author of this blog post and I wrote Prior: Ramaswamy’s Unholy Crusade: Ohio Conservatives and Pastors Sell Out Christ for a Biotech Obsessed Opportunist, I’ve never shied away from critiquing conservative leaders when I believe they’ve strayed from principle. In that piece, I wrote, “A dark shadow looms over the state’s political landscape. Vivek Ramaswamy, the biotech billionaire and self-styled conservative darling, has hoodwinked Ohio’s GOP establishment and even some clergy into endorsing his 2026 gubernatorial bid. But beneath the polished veneer of his ‘America First’ rhetoric lies a man whose moral compass is not only misaligned with Christian values but actively hostile to them. Ramaswamy’s disturbing embrace of human-animal chimeras, his cavalier dismissal of pro-life principles, and his reckless policy proposals expose him as an ungodly opportunist—a wolf in sheep’s clothing preying on Ohio’s faithful. Those conservatives and clergy who back him, from Charlie Kirk to local pastors, are not shepherds of Christ’s flock but hypocrites peddling political ambition over divine truth.”

I also expressed concern in another post, stating, “Ramaswamy’s attempt to equate Hinduism with Christianity might encourage syncretism—blending religions—which orthodox Christians reject. The New Testament emphasizes purity of doctrine (Galatians 1:8-9), and a Hindu leader promoting overlapping values could blur these lines, unsettling believers.” While I firmly disagree with Charlie Kirk and other GOP figures for endorsing Vivek Ramaswamy, I find the Southern Poverty Law Center’s (SPLC) decision to brand Turning Point USA (TPUSA) a hate group in their 2024 report, Turning Point USA: A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024, to be a baseless and inflammatory attack. The SPLC’s claim that Kirk “proudly embraced a white nationalist conspiracy theory” is a distortion that collapses under scrutiny, and I’m here to dismantle it with two clear facts.

First, the SPLC’s accusation that Kirk promotes white nationalism is absurd when you consider his enthusiastic support for Vivek Ramaswamy. a brown-skinned American of Indian descent and a practicing Hindu. I’ve criticized Kirk’s endorsement of Ramaswamy because I believe it risks syncretism and dilutes Christian doctrine. But this very partnership—seen in events like their joint appearance at Georgia State University in October 2024, where they championed conservative values—directly refutes the SPLC’s narrative. If Kirk were truly a white nationalist, as the SPLC claims, his vocal support for a non-white, non-Christian figure like Ramaswamy would make no sense. The SPLC’s report conveniently ignores this contradiction, which exposes their accusation as a hollow attempt to smear a conservative leader.

Second, the SPLC’s charge that TPUSA is pushing “authoritarian, patriarchal Christian supremacy” to undermine democracy misrepresents the organization’s mission. I’ve called out Kirk for prioritizing politics over faith in backing Ramaswamy, but TPUSA’s broader efforts, like its Turning Point Faith initiative launched in 2021, show they’re about engaging religious communities to promote civic involvement, not excluding non-Christians. Kirk has described Ramaswamy as embodying “Judeo-Christian values” despite his Hindu faith, and in 2024, he stated, “you cannot have liberty if you don’t have a Christian population.” I see this as a defense of cultural values, not a supremacist agenda, even if I disagree with his approach. The SPLC’s attempt to frame TPUSA as exclusionary ignores their work with diverse voices like Ramaswamy, twisting their mission into something it’s not.

The SPLC’s report further accuses TPUSA of stoking rage and pushing a “white-dominated, male supremacist, Christian social order.” As someone who’s not afraid to critique conservatives, I find this accusation infuriatingly dishonest. Kirk has explicitly rejected white supremacy, such as in 2020 when he stated on the TPUSA website, “White Supremacy Has NO PLACE In TPUSA & The Conservative Movement!” Scholars like Joseph Lowndes have noted that TPUSA doesn’t promote racial superiority, yet the SPLC lumps them with groups like the KKK, diluting the meaning of “hate group.” Their history of targeting mainstream conservatives, like the Family Research Council—linked to a 2012 shooting inspired by their hate map—shows a pattern of weaponizing labels for political gain. I may disagree with Kirk’s choices, but I won’t stand for the SPLC’s reckless smear campaign.

I’m no fan of every move Kirk or TPUSA makes—my concerns about their support for Ramaswamy stem from a commitment to doctrinal purity, not politics. But the SPLC’s attack is a distortion that serves no purpose but to silence conservatives who challenge their worldview. TPUSA isn’t a hate group; it’s a movement pushing young people toward free markets and civic engagement, even if I think they’ve made missteps. The SPLC’s report is less about truth and more about fearmongering, and I reject it outright.

Sources:

Southern Poverty Law Center. (2024). Turning Point USA: A Case Study of the Hard Right in 2024. Turning Point USA: A case study of the hard right in 2024

Author’s Blog Post. (April 2025). Ramaswamy’s Unholy Crusade: Ohio Conservatives and Pastors Sell Out Christ for a Biotech Obsessed Opportunist. https://daretochallengelearn.blogspot.com/2025/04/ramaswamys-unholy-crusade-ohio.html

Author’s Blog Post. (March 2025). Vivek Ramaswamy’s Claim of Alignment with Christian Values Betrays Ohio’s Faithful. https://daretochallengelearn.blogspot.com/2025/03/vivek-ramaswamys-claim-of-alignment.html

PolitiFact..(2022) Fact-checking Claims About Turning Point USA and White Nationalism. https://www.politifact.com

Charlie Kirk Rejects & Denounces White Supremacy Charlie Kirk Rejects & Denounces White Supremacy

The Daily Signal. Southern Poverty Law Center Puts Largest Conservative Grassroots Youth Group on ‘Hate Map’ With Klan Chapters.