https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!rrfb!,w_1100,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Ffb9855de-208d-458e-9311-4c2c97c20235_1536x864.jpeg (An anti-Israel protest at Harvard Law School, October 2023. Photo: Ira Stoll) Harvard’s legal disclosures to potential investors in a $675 million tax-exempt bond offering don’t give enough warning “concerning Harvard University’s role in fostering antisemitism” and may violate securities laws as a result, a watchdog group wrote in a March 30 letter to Harvard. The bond money is meant to fund a new economics building, and Harvard issued a draft offering document used to help line up buyers for the bonds on March 27, the Free Beacon reported. That document, according to the National Jewish Advocacy Center, a nonprofit legal group that works to combat anti-Semitism, does not adequately warn investors of the “significant litigation and governmental risks facing Harvard” due to “extensive antisemitism” at the Ivy League school as well as Harvard’s “culpability” in allowing it. The center’s letter—signed by attorney Marc Greendorfer and shared with the Free Beacon’s Ira Stoll—argues that, despite the well-documented nature of those risks, Harvard’s offering document “contains only conclusory, boilerplate disclosure” and “provides no meaningful analysis of the scope, likelihood, or magnitude” of the risks. “Relevant securities laws’ anti-fraud provisions apply and require materially complete and accurate disclosure,” the letter continues, urging Harvard and its bankers to “promptly revise and expand” the document “to ensure that investors are fully informed of these material risks.” Stoll writes: “It’s the second legal issue to arise related to the offering. Earlier this week, the Free Beacon reported that some of the nation’s foremost legal scholars expressed concerns about the state’s requirement that Harvard ‘agrees that no part of the Project, so long as it is owned or controlled by the Institution, shall be used for any sectarian instruction or as a place of religious worship or in connection with any part of a program of a school or department of divinity for any religious denomination.’ Law professors said that amounted to discrimination that unconstitutionally interferes with the free exercise guaranteed by the First Amendment as interpreted by recent rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.” READ MORE: ‘Potentially Materially Inadequate Disclosure’ on Harvard’s $675 Million Bond Offering Prompts ‘Anti-Fraud’ Warning