Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board unanimously condemns Harvard paper denying comfort women abuses after public outcry
Summary
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously adopted a resolution denouncing a Harvard Law School article that questioned historical accounts of wartime sexual slavery. Community groups and dozens of callers urged the board to pass the resolution in full without amendment; supervisors voted 11‑0 in favor.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on April 6 adopted a resolution condemning an article by J. Mark Ramseyer of Harvard Law School that the resolution says minimizes and denies the historical record of the wartime sexual enslavement of women by the Imperial Japanese Army.
Why it matters: The city’s veterans, Asian American and human‑rights groups urged the board to oppose a piece they described as scholarly denialism. Public commenters — including surviving victims and long‑standing community organizations — told supervisors the resolution should be passed in its entirety and not edited.
What the board heard President Walton sponsored the resolution, framing it as a defense of established historical research, primary testimony and human rights. Dozens of callers and representatives of the Comfort Women Justice Coalition, community leaders and former elected officials urged adoption. Callers said Ramseyer’s article — which has drawn scholarly criticism — amplifies denial and harms survivors.
Several callers and community leaders asked the board not to delete language in the draft resolution referencing a 2013 council matter and the previous record of city opposition to denialist statements. Supervisor Connie Chan explained she had concerns about a specific clause and withdrew her cosponsorship while saying she supported the resolution’s substance. Several other supervisors publicly stated support for passing the resolution without weakening its language.
Outcome The board voted 11‑0 to adopt the resolution. Public comment on the item was strongly supportive of the resolution in full; several witnesses described the vote as an important stand against historical denialism and for survivors’ dignity.
Provenance: The resolution was Item 35 on the April 6 calendar; the board voted unanimously to adopt the resolution after public comment from community groups and members of the public asking the supervisors to approve the text without amendment.
