The sentence:
“The correct ask in this report is not the ask of an institution being condemned. It is the ask of an institution being held to its own standard by people who still believe it can meet it.”
That authentic frontier gibberish—I’m still not sure what it means, and I’ve read it a dozen times—is in “A Narrowing Gate, Jewish Enrollment at Harvard and its Peers | 1967-2025,” a report by the Harvard Jewish Alumni Alliance. The report found that that Jewish undergraduate enrollment at Harvard University has dropped to about 7% in 2025, its lowest level since before World War II and the lowest among Ivy League schools with reliable data.
I was going to write about the report itself, but if Jewish alumni of Harvard end up writing like that, maybe its a good thing not as many Jewish students are attending Harvard.
This is the Executive Summary. The report seems to be implying that anti-Semitism at Harvard has to be the reason for the unexplained drop, because none of the other possible factors it identifies explain it. Apparently Jewish applications to the school haven’t fallen off sufficiently to cause a 50% reduction, though I don’t know why. On national television Harvard’s then-president Claudine Gay told a Congressional committee that she considered anti-Jewish demonstrations in Harvard Yard to be acceptable free speech, and was unable to articulate a basic truth, which is that anti-Semitic demonstrations on a college campus constitute unethical and intolerable conduct that creates a hostile environment for Jewish students. Gay’s eventually firing for scholarly misconduct (not mealy-mouthed acceptance of campus enmity toward a minority) could not have provided aspiring Jewish applicants much confidence.
We also learn from the report that Jewish alumni had to gather the data for the report because Harvard no longer compiles data on Jewish students.
All of that is interesting, but when I read that statement, I lost interest in examining the report further, and lost any confidence in the people who prepared it. Maybe it’s a hangover from listening to Kamala Harris and Joe Biden for four years and Donald Trump for a decade, but if someone can’t communicate clearly, I can’t have confidence that they are thinking clearly either.
Ethics Alarms 
I’ve been grading my kids tests and the creative phrasing that comes with it and if I understand correctly, this is what is meant in that sentence:
Our request is not caused by a hatred of Harvard. Instead, we request that Harvard go back to the standards it has held previously. We believe Harvard is capable of achieving this because we still hold out hope for Harvard.
Is that one anyone else got? Or have I been interpreting too much first grade grammar to coherently follow a sentence?
I think that is what they were trying to say. The problem is “ask” is not a synonym for “question,” but rather means request or entreaty. (I still view that use as slang that doesn’t belong in a formal report.) “The ask OF an institution being condemned” is badly ambiguous: who is doing the asking? Is Harvard asking, or is the report asking Harvard?
I agree! Any report that reads equivalently to my ADHD, dyslexic ten-year-old’s Grammar assignments should not be considered a professional report.
here’s a breakdown of why it’s hard to understand.
I felt bad for you Jack and my interpretation lines up with this… but I asked AI as I knew my post would be wayyyy too long.
and, it’s way smarter.
here it is. Would love your thoughts on it.
Because the sentence compresses several abstract ideas into one line and uses layered phrasing.
Breakdown of what makes it difficult:
Phrases like “the ask,” “institution,” “standard,” and “being held” are conceptual. There’s no clear subject doing a simple action.
The repetition forces you to track what changed, which adds cognitive load.
“being condemned” and “being held” hide who is doing the action, making it less direct.
The sentence first negates one idea, then replaces it with another. That requires holding both in mind at once.
You don’t fully understand who is acting until the end: “people who still believe it can meet it.”
“The ask” is not precise. It could mean a demand, request, or expectation.
A clearer version would be:
This is not criticism from people who reject the institution. It’s a request from people who still believe in it and want it to live up to its own standards.
It’s hard because it prioritizes rhetorical tone over clarity.
Methinks “ask” is a near synonym for “request.” It’s new and not yet part of the standard written register.
Here’s the original:
“The correct ask in this report is not the ask of an institution being condemned. It is the ask of an institution being held to its own standard by people who still believe it can meet it.”
MY TRANSLATION:
The report does not make a request from the institution in order to condemn it. The request seeks to hold the institution to live up to its own standard, with the good faith belief that the institution can do so.”
MY COMMENT:
My translation is still wordy and inept. Part of the problem is the passive or near passive phrasing and lack of any clear “voice” (if I’m using the term “voice” correctly. I would re-strike it like this:
MY BETTER TRANSLATION:
“We do not wish to condemn Harvard by our request. Rather, we challenge Harvard to live up to its own standard. We believe Harvard can do it.”
MY FINAL COMMENT
* “ask” as a noun is still too colloquial and “slangy.” Get rid of it. It’s gotten traction among the younger generations, but the general population isn’t ready.
* This sounds like it was written by a committee. Too many people were involved. Have one or two people write these things in the future, subject to minor revisions and an Up/Down vote. “Napoleon was not a committee.”
* I assume “the institution” means “Harvard.” If so, just say “Harvard.”
= – = – =
Thanks for reading!
charles w abbott
rochester NY
P.S.: I think “Napoleon was not a committee” was said by financial manager / writer John Train. I can’t find the attestation offhand.
The goofy, impenetrable sentences aside, aren’t there fewer Jewish kids at Harvard because Harvard has been limiting the number of black kids getting admitted so they can admit more unqualified black kids, and maybe even more Chinese kids? In other words, there are fewer slots made available for Jewish kids under the current DEI regime, but this alliance doesn’t want to say that out loud for fear of antagonizing woke administrators?