Connect with us

Features

Harvard University’s President resigns over anti-Semitism problem

Published

on

The ramifications of the Gaza War are widespread not only geographically and economically, but in areas not thought of as being affected. Consequences are widespread of the conflict created by Hamas entering Israel and carrying away hostages and retaliated most ferociously in blistering war by Israel, backed by the US. One example affecting Sri Lanka is the debate on sending a warship to the Red Sea. The war, declared genocide by some, divided the world when votes were taken in international organizations.

Accusation of not forcefully preventing anti-Semitism

I was stunned when I read in the NYT of the dilemma that Claudine Gay, President of Harvard, had to face at the end of December last year. She was on holiday with family in Rome, as reported by Maureen Farrel and Bob Copeland in the said paper when Penny Pritzker, leader of Harvard University’s governing board called to ask whether “she thought there was a path forward with her as the school’s president.” Dr Gay understood what it meant. Her six month tenure as Harvard’s 30th president was over. She announced her resignation on January 2.

“That marked the end of one of the most tumultuous periods in Harvard’s 387 year history, a controversy that thrust the school into the public debate after Hamas’ October 7 attack. Not only did the president lose her job, but the secretive workings of its board, the Harvard Corporation, were laid bare.” Dr Gay had faced severe criticism of her ‘tepid’ response to antisemitism on campus and her testimony before a House panel. Allegations of plagiarism in her research work and writing had been sounded earlier. Now that too was thrust forward. And thus the resignation under a cloud of this much commented on, lauded, and history making selection of this first Black president to head one of the most prestigious American universities, if not world renowned, centres of academia.

Dr Gay is the daughter of Haitian immigrants. She received her BA in 1992 from Stanford, majoring in economics, and her PhD in government from Harvard in 1998. She was on the Faculty of Stanford and then moved to Harvard in 2006 as a professor in government; the next year in African American Studies. She won many prestigious prizes.

Ms Elizabeth Magill

, Prez of the University of Pennsylvania, had to face questioning and probing by the House Committee of Education on Capitol Hill on the same as posed to Prof Gay. She was further faulted for holding a conference on Palestinian literature just before the Hamas attack.

All the hullabaloo and resignation of yet another woman Prez of a University, started as reported in the articles I read, with Republican Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina as Chair of the Education and Workforce Committee, arranging hearings on anti-Semitism in college campuses. The two presidents of Harvard and Penn Universities are said to have given ‘evasive answers’ about whether calls for genocide of Jews violated their schools’ codes of conduct. Then rose the uproar created by Ms Foxx and other House Republicans of expansive investigation into institution of higher education, citing anti-Semitism.

This to me is a genuine witch-hunt. Ms Foxx forwards their reason for investigation thus: “We want students to feel safe in their campuses, that’s our No. 1 issue, and Jewish students have not felt safe.” She said she wanted to broaden the inquiry “to deep dive into the hostile takeover of higher education by partisan administrators and political activists.” As the article I quote noted: “They want to interfere with accreditation and stop federal aid to schools that fail to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic actions.”

Do we laugh or cry? Both I suppose. And this happening in a country where on Jan 6, 2021, the voted out President of the US, Donald Trump, roused and incited his followers so they attacked US Capitol Building in Washington DC, and ransacked it. And he is stomping around to contest the coming presidential election. Only the soon to be delivered verdict of the Supreme Court can stymie him.

Claudine Gay

We have grown used to such do good remarks which ultimately cause so much turmoil. We have had our language and religion ‘protected’ by prejudiced politicians and Buddhist monks causing near wars. In our small country an issue like ragging in universities has not been stopped or even given enough attention, though students have committed suicide or died consequent to sadistic, degraded bullying of freshers by senior students.

Women in local academia

We have had many women in very high posts in Academia in our country. Googling, I found these names and wish to record them. Deshabandu Wimala de Silva was Chancellor of the University of Sri Jayawardenapura. Vice Chancellors have been Prof Chandrika N Wijeratne, U of Colombo (2019-22); Prof Kshanika Hirimbuwegama, U of Colombo (2007-13); Emeritus Prof Savitri Goonesekera, U of Colombo (1999-2002); Prof Dr Nilanthi Renuka de Silva, U of Kelaniya (2020, reappointed in 2023).

Personal encounters

I worked in the Centre for the Study of Human Rights (CSHR) within the Law Faculty, University of Colombo, for eight years starting in the 1990s and got to know the Deans of the Faculty well. I was recruited by Dr Deepika Udagama, senior law lecturer, who started the Centre and got it going so successfully that it is now recognized widely and conducts post-graduate diploma courses for international students as well as locals.

A young administrative officer and I were the first two recruits who assisted Dr Udagama. She was dedicated to her lecturing plus advancing the mandate of the Centre. With her support and foreign aid, we set up a very well-stocked library. Her equally high ability in English and Sinhala are remarkable. She had an illustrious career.

Prof Sharya de Soysa Scharenguivel was senior lecturer at the Law Faculty when the CSHR was inaugurated, after having served as its Dean. She appreciated my work as information officer cum librarian and approved my style of warmly welcoming students to use the well-stocked library made comfortable with easy chairs and foreign newspapers and journals subscribed to.

We assisted in the research of faculty and students. When I complained that the shut wooden door was a barrier to students – the library was air-conditioned – she immediately got glass panes for almost three quarters of the door. Her concern for students was immense; she being a totally lovely person and very understanding of people’s problems.

Vidyajothi Prof Lalitha Mendis was Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and was for a while Acting VC of the University of Colombo. This was most fortuitous for me since the VC (male) who was leaving on sabbatical, I presume, summoned me and announced coldly I was being discontinued as information officer of the CSHR and asked to leave in two weeks, yes, in a fortnight. I was on contract basis, but there really seemed no valid reason for my dismissal, which it was.

Prof Sharya was concerned on behalf of the students, and me. When Prof Lalitha Mendis assumed duties as VC, I was advised to phone her. I did. She said she was on her way to a meeting and asked me to phone her the next morning. Imagine my surprise when I received a call from her! She said she would make thorough enquires about my work and decide my fate.

I needed my job but that was not mentioned by me except to the VC who sacked me. He was unperturbed. (Later he was named in a court of law of having assisted in bankrupting Sri Lanka). Result of investigation: lecturers and students approved of me and I was given a further contract. My gratitude to these two academics: Profs Lalitha Mendis and Sharya Scharenguivel was and is still immense. They saved me.

Political interference in Academia?

A scar that ran deep and will never be erased is the hounding out and totally politicized dismissal of the first woman CJ, by parliamentary impeachment when Mahinda Rajapaksa was Prez and Prof G L Peiris in his Cabinet. Prof Peiris was Minster of Justice when Prez CBK first appointed Dr Shirani Bandaranayake, Dean of the Faculty of Law, as a SC judge. He was VC of Colombo Uni when she was Dean.

Politicization may have been present in academia apart from the instance noted above and may still be present. Where in this country is political interference absent? Internal politics too would be present. While working within the University of Colombo, I kept absolutely clear of gossip and rumour. However, one fact I strongly affirm is that I very truly found women lecturers and deans to be fair, committed and always concerned about students and their welfare. That is why I narrated incidents from my working life on the periphery, as it was, of the University of Colombo.

Thus it rightly seems to be that our seats of higher learning are not subject to whims such as the recent dismissal of authorities in the US of American where University Presidents have been removed from office because students gathered together to condemn the atrocities committed by Israel’s Jewish PM and Defence Forces (IDF).



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Digital Pulse: How AI is redefining health care in Sri Lanka?

Published

on

A quiet yet profound shift is underway in American healthcare, and its implications extend far beyond the United States’ borders. A recent Associated Press report describes a scene that would have seemed improbable, even five years ago: a woman in Texas, experiencing side effects from a weightloss injection, does not call her doctor, visit a clinic, or even search Google. Instead, she opens her phone and consults ChatGPT. She tells the system how she feels, describes her symptoms, and receives an instant explanation. This behaviour, once the domain of early adopters and technology enthusiasts, has now entered the mainstream. A West Health–Gallup poll confirms that nearly onequarter of American adults used an AI tool for health information or advice in the previous month. For a country with one of the world’s most expensive and fragmented healthcare systems, this shift is not merely a technological curiosity. It is a sign of the public searching for speed, clarity, and affordability in a system that often fails to provide any of these.

Sri Lanka, though vastly different in scale, culture, and resources, is not insulated from this global transformation. If anything, the pressures that drive Americans toward AI—long wait times, high costs, difficulty accessing specialists—are even more acute in our own health system. The difference is that Sri Lanka is only beginning to experience the cultural and institutional adjustments that accompany widespread AI use. Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. What is happening in the United States today is almost certainly a preview of what will happen here tomorrow in Sri Lanka, though in a form shaped by our own social realities, linguistic diversity, and healthcare traditions.

The American experience shows that AI is becoming the new gateway to health information. As Dr. Karandeep Singh of UC San Diego observes, AI tools now function as an improved version of the old Google search. Instead of sifting through dozens of links, users receive a concise, conversational summary tailored to their question. This is precisely the kind of convenience that Sri Lankans, too, will find irresistible. In a country where a single specialist appointment can require hours of travel, waiting, and uncertainty, the appeal of an instant, alwaysavailable digital assistant is obvious. The idea that one could ask a question about a rash, a fever, a medication side effect, or a lab report and receive an immediate explanation—without navigating hospital queues or private consultation fees—will inevitably attract public interest. For example, one of my friends, who was with me in school, called me and said he is prescribed Linavic, a drug for type 2 diabetes. I told him that, as it is not widely known in the USA, to give me the generic name. He searched ChatGPT and told me it is called Tradjenta, which is widely available in the USA as a prescription drug for type 2 diabetes.

But Sri Lanka’s path will not be identical to America’s. Our adoption of AI in healthcare is emerging through institutions rather than individuals. Nawaloka Hospitals has already introduced AI-powered chatbots, including NASHA, an OPD assistant capable of guiding patients through symptom assessment and basic triage. This is a significant development because it signals that Sri Lankan hospitals are preparing for a future in which AI is not an optional addon but a core part of patient interaction. The government’s draft National AI Strategy reinforces this direction by identifying healthcare as a priority sector and emphasising responsible, transparent, and safe deployment. Academic bodies, such as the Sri Lanka Medical Association, have also begun training clinicians to understand and work alongside AI systems. These are early but important steps, suggesting that Sri Lanka is building the professional ecosystem needed for safe AI integration.

  Yet, the public’s relationship with AI remains limited. Unlike in the United States, where consumers independently experiment with tools like ChatGPT, Sri Lankans tend to rely on doctors as the primary source of authority. Digital literacy varies widely, especially outside urban centres. Sinhala and Tamilcapable AI tools are still developing. And our society has a long history of health misinformation spreading rapidly through social media, from miracle cures to conspiracy theories. Without careful regulation and public education, AI could amplify these risks rather than reduce them. The danger is not that AI will replace doctors, but that poorly informed users may treat AI outputs as definitive diagnoses, bypassing professional care when it is urgently needed.

At the same time, Sri Lankans’ lived experiences reveal why AI will inevitably become part of the healthseeking landscape. Anyone who has visited the outpatient department of a major government hospital knows the reality: queues forming before dawn, patients clutching files and prescriptions, and overworked medical officers trying to see hundreds of cases in a single shift. In rural areas, the situation is even more challenging. A villager in Monaragala or Mullaitivu may have to travel hours to see a specialist, often relying on neighbours or family for transport. Many postpone care simply because they are unsure whether a symptom is serious enough to justify the journey. For such individuals, an AI-based triage tool—available on a basic smartphone, in Sinhala or Tamil—could be transformative. It could help them decide whether to seek immediate care, wait for the next clinic day, or manage the issue at home.

  Sri Lanka’s private healthcare sector, too, is ripe for AI integration. Private hospitals are increasingly turning to digital systems for appointment scheduling, lab report delivery, and patient communication. Anyone who has waited for hours at a private OPD, despite having an appointment, knows the frustration. AI-driven systems could help streamline patient flow, predict peak times, and reduce bottlenecks. They could also assist doctors by summarising patient histories, flagging potential drug interactions, and providing evidencebased guidelines. For patients, AI could offer explanations of lab results in simple language, reducing anxiety and improving understanding.

There are already glimpses of this future. Some Sri Lankan patients, especially younger urban professionals, quietly admit that they use AI tools to interpret their blood tests before seeing a doctor.

Others use AI to understand the side effects of medications prescribed to them. Parents use AI to check whether a child’s fever pattern is typical or concerning. Migrant workers, returning home for short visits, use AI to prepare questions for their doctors, ensuring they make the most of limited consultation time. These behaviours mirror the early stages of the American trend, though on a smaller scale.

Sri Lanka’s cultural context will shape how AI is used. Our society places great trust in doctors, often viewing them as authoritative figures whose word should not be questioned. This trust is a strength, but it can also discourage patients from seeking information independently. AI has the potential to shift this dynamic—not by undermining doctors, but by empowering patients to participate more actively in their own care. A patient who understands their condition is better able to follow treatment plans, ask relevant questions, and recognise warning signs. AI can support this empowerment, provided it is used responsibly.

The deeper question is not whether Sri Lanka will adopt AI in healthcare, but how. The American example shows both the promise and the peril. AI can democratise access to information, reduce anxiety, and empower patients. But it can also mislead, oversimplify, or create false confidence. The challenge for Sri Lanka is to build a culture of responsible use—one that recognises AI as a tool, not a substitute for clinical judgment. Hospitals must ensure accuracy and transparency. Regulators must set standards. And the public must learn to treat AI as a guide, not a guru.

 Sri Lanka has an opportunity to leapfrog. By studying the American experience, we can avoid its pitfalls and adopt its strengths. We can design AI systems that respect our linguistic diversity, our cultural habits, and our healthcare realities. We can integrate AI into hospitals in ways that enhance, rather than erode, the doctor-patient relationship. And we can prepare our citizens to use these tools wisely, with curiosity but also with caution.

The transformation is already underway. It will accelerate whether we prepare for it or not. The question for Sri Lanka is whether we will shape this future deliberately or allow it to shape us by default. The American shift toward AImediated healthcare is a reminder that technology does not wait for societies to catch up. It moves forward, and nations must decide whether to follow passively or lead thoughtfully. Sri Lanka, with its strong public health tradition and growing technological ambition, has every reason to choose the latter.

by Prof Amarasiri de Silva

Continue Reading

Features

Not a dog barked

Published

on

I began running on the beach after a fall on a broken pavement left me with a head injury and a surgically repaired eyebrow. Mount Lavinia beach, world‑famous and crowded, especially on Sundays, is only a seven‑minute walk from home, so it became the obvious place for my rehabilitation jogs.

On my first day, my wife, a true Mount Lavinia girl, accompanied me. Though we’ve been married for over 40 years, this was the first time I had ever jogged on the beach. She practically shepherded me there and watched from a safe distance as I made my way towards the Wellawatte breakwater. Dogs were everywhere: some strays, some with collars. I’m not usually afraid of dogs, so I ran past them confidently. Then one fellow barked sharply, making me stop. He advanced even after I stood still. I bent down, picked up some sand, and only then did he retreat, still protesting loudly. On my return run, he repeated the performance.

The next time, I carried a stick. The beach was quiet, perhaps my friend had taken the day off. But on the third day he was back, barking as usual. I showed him the stick and continued. Further along, more dogs barked, and I repeated the ritual. Soon I found myself growing jittery, even numb, whenever I approached a dog. Jogging was no longer comfortable.

My elder daughter, an ardent animal lover who keeps two dogs and wanting to have more, suggested bribery, specifically, biscuits. So, on my next run, I filled my pocket with them. When the usual culprit appeared, I tossed him a biscuit before he could bark. He sniffed suspiciously, then ate it. I jogged on. The rest of the “orchestra” received similar treatment and promptly forgot to bark. Not a dog barked the entire run, or on my way back.

Some groups had five or six dogs, but bribing the noisiest one was enough to quieten the rest. Soon they grew used to me running close to them, and the biscuits made me a trusted friend. These round little sugary crackers turned out to be the perfect currency for seemingly aggressive but essentially harmless dogs, a fact well known to my daughter, Dr. Honda Hitha, but a revelation to me.

One day, a friendly dog decided to escort me home. After receiving his biscuit, he lingered near our gate before returning to the beach. Over time, the number of escorts grew until I found myself flanked by about 10 canine disciples. They became my strength instead of a source of fear. They were darlings. Unlike humans, their affection, even if won initially with biscuits, soon became unconditional.

They still accompany me home, whether or not they receive a treat. Bless them! May they be born human in their next lives, perhaps the only way our wicked world can become a better place.

by Dr. M. M. Janapriya

Continue Reading

Features

It’s Israel and US that need a regime change

Published

on

Netanyahu and Trump

If there is one country that urgently needs a regime change it is Israel. The whole world is suffering and thousands of people, including children and women, are dying due to Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political survival strategy. He needs the war to avoid going to jail and also certain defeat at the next elections. The corruption and other charges against him, if proved, would send him to jail. He had asked the Israel President for a pardon and his friend Trump also has written to the President, on his behalf.

Netanyahu is able to commit genocide in Gaza with impunity because the US backs him to the hilt, economically, politically, militarily and also in the United Nations. Without all this, Israel will not be able to fight its many wars and pursue its “Greater Israel” project in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and also weaken the countries that oppose its grand plan, such as Iran, Yemen and Turkey. The US gives military aid to Israel, worth USD 3.8 bn, annually, which is used in these genocidal wars and expansionist projects. The US is, therefore, complicit in all these war crimes.

US presidents, beginning from Eisenhower (1950) to Joe Biden (2022), expressed displeasure at Israeli aggression. Ronald Reagan halted the shipment of cluster artillery shells, in 1982, over concerns about their use against civilians in Lebanon, and delayed the delivery of F-16 warplanes until Israel withdrew from Lebanon. George H.W. Bush (1990s) postponed $10 billion in loan guarantees in 1991 to pressure Israel to stop building settlements in the West Bank and to attend the Madrid peace conference. Barack Obama  frequently criticised Israeli settlement expansion and, in the final days of his term, withheld a US UN Security Council veto on a resolution regarding settlements. Joe Biden (2020s) threatened to withhold military aid if Israel launched a major offensive in Rafah during the 2024 conflict in Gaza, pausing a shipment of heavy bombs. Most of these presidents had been in favour of the two state solution for the Palestine problem as well.

Trump abandoned these longstanding US policies on Israel that were upheld by Obama and later restored by Biden. Significant and far-reaching changes, included recognising Jerusalem as Israel’s capital,  moving the embassy, declaring settlements not inherently illegal, and recognising Golan Heights, which belonged to Syria, as part of Israel sovereignty. These evil deeds of Trump seem to have boomeranged on him as he battles to extricate himself from a war forced on him by Israel, which has resulted in enormous economic and political, not to mention military, losses for the US and Trump. Consequently Israel, in the eyes of many leading political commentators, is now a liability for the US.

   How this war was started reveals the dastardly and barbaric mentality of Netanyahu and Trump. The US and Iran were engaged in negotiations, with the mediation of Oman, to resolve their differences, and on 26 February, 2026, the Foreign Minister of Iran stated that a historical agreement with the US was about to be entered into and, the following day, Oman corroborated this announcement. Iran apparently had agreed that its nuclear programme could be brought under the surveillance of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Surprisingly on 28 February, 2026, Israel and the US attacked Iran, Trump saying that it posed a nuclear threat to the US! Oman said it was “dismayed” and the Iranian Foreign Minister said it was a “betrayal”. Obviously, Trump, who is under obligation to the Jewish lobby, which had funded his election campaign, had been drawn into the war. The Epstein files issue may have pushed Trump across the threshold. Iran’s response was calculated and appropriate. Trump says he will obliterate the Iranian civilisation in one night but soon agrees to have negotiations with Iran, in Islamabad.

However, Netanyahu cannot afford an end to the war he started to save his own skin. He goes ahead and drops 100 bombs in 10 minutes on Lebanon, killing 254 civilians, including children. The massacre in Lebanon continues with Israel pushing towards the Litani river in an attempt to annex southern Lebanon. Israel disqualifies itself not only as a reliable ally but also as an honourable member of the world community by having leaders of the calibre of Netanyahu. Israel is fast becoming internationally isolated, according to experts like Professors Robert Pape, John Measheimier, Richard Wolff, Jeffrey Sachs and Yanis Varonfakis. And these experts are of the view that if Israel continues its aggressive approach and expansionist policy, disregarding the historical facts of its origin and the Palestine problem, it will implode and destroy itself.

Israel must face the reality that Iran has emerged stronger after the war and may have control over the Strait of Hormuz and may even force the US out of the region. Israel, under Netanyahu, may not be willing to acknowledge these facts, but the people in the US must realise that it is not in their national interests to have Israel as an indispensable ally. This war is very unpopular in the US not entirely due to the economic impact but the extremely atrocious way it has been prosecuted by Israel  and also the equally horrendous threats made by the US against Iran. It is also very unpopular among the US allies who bluntly refused to join or even approve it. Australia, Japan and South Korea, though far removed from the theatre of war, seem to be pretty angry about the whole thing, as they are badly affected by the economic impact of the war. They may be concerned about the brutality of Israel, and the degree of support and approval it gets from the US.

Those who have significantly gained from the war may be Russia who could have a windfall on their oil sales, and China who could quietly weave its diplomatic network throughout the Middle East and watch the decline of US influence in the region. Saudi Arabia and UAE, two countries bombed by Iran, have already started a dialogue with Iran. These developments may hasten the emergence of the new world order, spearheaded by China.

The war, that was started by Netanyahu, with a willing Trump, seems to have backfired on them, with both facing a hostile world and a fast changing geopolitical global situation. Trump’s MAGA project was aimed at quelling the growth of the new world order that had China and Russia at the head. He attempted to hit Russia with sanctions but failed. He tried to curb China with tariffs but failed. Denying oil supplies to China was attempted by kidnapping the Venezuelan President. China’s monopoly on rare earth minerals was a headache to Trump and he proposes to annex Canada and Greenland which have rich deposits of these elements. War on Iran was another opportunity to do a regime change and get control over that country and its oil. He threatened to wipe out Iran saying that “the civilization would die tomorrow night”, only a psychopathic megalomaniac could make such utterances , not a president of the US. Fortunately, the changing world order would not allow Trump to achieve any of his crazy goals.

Netanyahu inadvertently may have hastened his own downfall by starting a war without realising that the global geopolitics have changed and he cannot have his way even with the full backing of Trump. Both Israel and the US need a regime change if the world is to have peace.

 by N. A. de S. Amaratunga

Continue Reading

Trending