Complaint Charges Sarah Lawrence College with Antisemitism Violating Title VI

A Complaint (full text) was filed on March 11 with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights by Hillels of Westchester asking OCR to initiate an investigation of antisemitism at Sarah Lawrence College. The 43-page Complaint (with 46 pages of Exhibits attached) reads in part:

We are submitting this Title VI Complaint1 as counsel for Hillels of Westchester2 ... which is acting on behalf of current and former Jewish students at Sarah Lawrence College (“SLC”) who, as an expression of their Jewish identity, affiliate with Hillel or have an affinity for Israel....

The hostile environment on campus, going back many years, forces these Jewish students to conceal their identity and precludes them from participating in SLC’s social, educational and extracurricular activities unless they disavow their affiliation with Hillel or affinity for Israel.  The administration at SLC has been well aware of this ongoing problem and not only has failed to address it, but at times has been complicit in contributing towards it.  In the painfully sardonic words of one Jewish student who transferred out of Sarah Lawrence College because of its toxic environment, “it is safe to be Jewish as long as you are openly anti-Israel.”...

... [I]n some cases SLC administrators and faculty have discouraged students from lodging formal complaints of anti-Semitism, or have delayed or “slow-walked” the complaint process – essentially, waiting out the students until they graduate or complete the school year. The complaint process itself is notoriously opaque, preventing students from knowing what measures, if any, have been taken to address their complaints.

National Review reports on the Complaint.

Title VI Claims Against Universities Proliferate Since Israel-Gaza Conflict

As previously reported, in November 2023 the Department of Education issued a "Dear Colleague" letter in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the Israeli response. The letter clarifies that even though Title VI does not specifically cover religious discrimination, many types of antisemitic and Islamophobic attacks fall under other types of discrimination covered by Title VI. The Forward yesterday reported that it has tracked 48 Title VI investigations by DOE's Office of Civil Rights filed since November charging higher education institutions with antisemitism, Islamophobia or similar discrimination, as well as ten lawsuits filed by private parties making similar contentions filed since then. It has published a detailed listing of all the investigations and cases it has tracked. The Forward explains:

When Ken Marcus took over the department’s civil rights office during the George W. Bush administration, he started looking for test cases for a new category of “shared ancestry” that would allow officials to investigate cases that touched on religion. He found one when a Sikh child in New Jersey was beaten by classmates who saw his turban and taunted him as “Osama,” a reference to the infamous Muslim terrorist.

Marcus believed that the discrimination wasn’t strictly religious in nature because the bullies weren’t intending to go after the boy’s Sikh identity. And it wasn’t obviously racial, either, since it was the turban that had drawn the bullies’ attention.

He authorized the department to investigate these types of cases under its authority to prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin, creating a new category called “shared ancestry.” Every subsequent administration has agreed that these cases fall under the department’s purview.

More controversial is the question of what, exactly, constitutes discrimination against Jews based on their shared ancestry. Marcus and many Jewish advocacy groups have taken the position that anti-Zionism — opposition to a Jewish state in Israel — is often antisemitic because many Jews identify with Israel as part of their shared ancestry.

Jewish Students Sue Columbia University Charging Pervasive Antisemitism

Suit was filed last week in a New York federal district court by Jewish and Israeli students at Columbia University charging the University with widespread antisemitism.  The complaint (full text) in Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, (SDNY, filed 2/21/2024) alleges violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, of New York state and city Human Rights and Civil Rights Laws, breach of contract and deceptive business practices. The 114-page complaint reads in part:

Columbia ... has for decades been one of the worst centers of academic antisemitism in the United States.  Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists invaded Israel ...antisemitism at Columbia has been particularly severe and pervasive.... 

Columbia’s antisemitism manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews and Israelis.  Columbia selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish and Israeli students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish and Israeli students’ pleas for protection.  Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy.  Columbia permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world....

... Columbia has permitted endemic antisemitism to exclude Jewish and Israeli students from full and equal participation in, and to deprive them of the full and equal benefits of, their educational experience at Columbia, and has invidiously discriminated against them by, among other things, failing to protect them in the same way Columbia has protected other groups.... [I]t has responded to antisemitism with at best deliberate indifference....

Columbia Spectator reports on the lawsuit.

Delaware School Enters Resolution Agreement with DOE Over Antisemitism Complaint

In a January 29 press release, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights announced an agreement with the Red Clay, Delaware, Consolidated School District resolving a complaint about antisemitic harassment of a student. The press release sets out a number of incidents of harassment by fellow students. It then finds:

While the district responded to most harassing incidents the student experienced, these responses were often haphazard; were inconsistently enforced as well as inconsistently reflected in district documentation; did not consistently include effective or timely steps to mitigate the effects of the harassment on the student or other students; and did not appear to respond to escalating and repeated incidents.

OCR's findings are set out at greater length in its formal letter to the school district.

The school district has agreed (full text of Resolution Agreement) to reimburse the student's parents for past counseling, academic and therapeutic service costs from the incidents. It has agreed to widely publicize an anti-harassment statement; implement a student informational program; revise school policies; engage in training; audit complaints and incidents; and conduct an assessment of school climate.

JTA, reporting on the agreement, says:

The agreement marks the first time in nine months that the education department announced the closure of an antisemitism-related investigation filed under Title VI....

Students Sue Harvard for Antisemitism Violating Title VI

Suit was filed this week in a Massachusetts federal district court by Harvard University students against the University charging that the University is in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish students from "rampant anti-Jewish hatred and harassment." It also alleges breach of contract claims. The 77-page complaint (full text) in Kestenbaum v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, (D MA, filed 1/10/2024) says in part:

Harvard’s antisemitism cancer—as a past Harvard president termed it—manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history’s most persecuted peoples, are typically designated “oppressor,” and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior....

Harvard’s purported excuse for refusing to take disciplinary measures and sitting by idly as the Jew-bashing on campus escalates—that antisemitic harassment is protected by free expression principles—confirms its antisemitic double standard. Considering that Harvard aggressively enforces policies to address bias against other minorities and regularly disciplines students and faculty members who harass other groups or espouse viewpoints Harvard deems inappropriate, its refusal to discipline students attacking, harassing, or intimidating Jews is glaring. Based on its track record, it is inconceivable that Harvard would allow any group other than Jews to be targeted for similar abuse or that it would permit, without response, students and professors to call for the annihilation of any country other than Israel....

Harvard must now be compelled to implement institutional, far-reaching, and concrete remedial measures, including, among other things: (i) disciplinary measures, including the termination of, deans, administrators, professors, and other employees responsible for antisemitic discrimination and abuse, whether because they engage in it or permit it; (ii) disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion, against students who engage in such conduct; (iii) declining and returning donations, whether from foreign countries or elsewhere, implicitly or explicitly conditioned on the hiring or promotion of professors who espouse antisemitism or the inclusion of antisemitic coursework or curricula; (iv) adding required antisemitism training for Harvard community members; and (v) payment of appropriate damages for lost or diminished educational opportunities, among other things.

Harvard Crimson reports on the lawsuit.

U Penn Sued Over Hostile Antisemitic Campus Environment

Suit was filed earlier this week in a Pennsylvania federal district court by two Jewish students alleging that the hostile environment for Jewish students on the University of Pennsylvania's campus violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law and constitutes a breach of contract. The 84-page complaint (full text) in Yakoby v. University of Pennsylvania, (ED PA, filed 12/5/2023), alleges in part:

1. Penn, the historic 300-year-old Ivy League university, has transformed itself into an incubation lab for virulent anti-Jewish hatred, harassment, and discrimination. Once welcoming to Jewish students, Penn now subjects them to a pervasively hostile educational environment. Among other things, Penn enforces its own rules of conduct selectively to avoid protecting Jewish students from hatred and harassment, hires rabidly antisemitic professors who call for anti-Jewish violence and spread terrorist propaganda, and ignores Jewish students’ pleas for protection. In doing so, Penn has placed plaintiffs and other Jewish and Israeli students at severe emotional and physical risk. 

2. This lawsuit seeks to hold Penn accountable under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for the damages it has caused plaintiffs and for its failure to remedy the hostile environment on its campus. The harassment and discrimination on campus and in the classroom are relentless and intolerable. Plaintiffs and their Jewish peers are routinely subjected to vile and threatening antisemitic slurs and chants such as “Intifada Revolution,” “from the River to the Sea,” “Fuck the Jews,” “the Jews deserve everything that is happening to them,” “you are a dirty Jew, don’t look at us,” “keep walking you dirty little Jew,” “get out of here kikes!” and “go back to where you came from.” Plaintiffs and other Jewish students must traverse classrooms, dormitories, and buildings vandalized with antisemitic graffiti. Subjected to intense anti-Jewish vitriol, these students have been deprived of the ability and opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in Penn’s educational and other programs.

The Daily Pennsylvanian reports on the lawsuit.

Jewish Groups Sue Over Berkeley Law Student Organizations' Antisemitic Policies

Suit was filed yesterday in a California federal district court against the University of California at Berkely and Berkeley Law School challenging growing antisemitic discrimination and harassment on campus. The complaint (full text) in Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, (ND CA, filed 11/28/2023), alleges that policies of law student organizations violate the Equal Protection and Free Exercise Clauses, violates the §1981 right to contract and violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The complaint alleges in part:

4. In spite of the recognition of anti-Zionism as a form of anti-Semitism, no fewer than 23 Berkeley Law student organizations have enacted policies to discriminate against and exclude Jewish students, faculty, and scholars. For example: 

• To be a member of Women of Berkeley Law, the Queer Caucus at Berkeley, or the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Jewish students must accede to the groups' support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which seeks to dismantle the modern State of Israel; 

• In order to volunteer to provide pro bono legal services through a number of Berkeley Law Legal Services organizations, Jewish students must undergo a "Palestine 101" training program that emphasizes the illegitimacy of the State of Israel; 

• And to speak to any of these student organizations, invited speakers must first repudiate Zionism under a bylaw that prohibits speakers who hold Zionist views (the "Exclusionary Bylaw"). In fact, the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and Justice, goes one step further, prohibiting Zionists not only from speaking to its members but from publishing in its pages. 

5. Under these policies, Jewish students, faculty, and guest speakers must deny a central part of their cultural, ancestral heritage and a fundamental tenet of their faith in order to be eligible for the same opportunities Berkeley accords to others....

118.  Specifically, Defendants have selectively chosen not to enforce Berkeley's all-comers policy and Policy on Nondiscrimination against student organizations in the Law School and the undergraduate campus that have discriminated against or excluded Jewish members of the school community from participating in organizations, programs, and activities. For similar reasons, Defendants' decision not to enforce the Policy on Nondiscrimination against these groups where they refuse to accept Jewish speakers is unlawful.,,,

Politico reports on the lawsuit.

DOE Reminds Schools of Duty to Protect Against Antisemitic and Islamophobic Discrimination

The U.S. Department of Education's Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights issued a "Dear Colleague" letter on Tuesday in response to rising levels of antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents at schools and colleges since the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel. (Press release). The letter (full text) says in part:

I write to remind colleges, universities, and schools that receive federal financial assistance of their legal responsibility under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations (Title VI) to provide all students a school environment free from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. It is your legal obligation under Title VI to address prohibited discrimination against students and others on your campus—including those who are or are perceived to be Jewish, Israeli, Muslim, Arab, or Palestinian—in the ways described in this letter....

Schools that receive federal financial assistance have a responsibility to address discrimination against Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Hindu, Christian, and Buddhist students, or those of another religious group, when the discrimination involves racial, ethnic, or ancestral slurs or stereotypes; when the discrimination is based on a student’s skin color, physical features, or style of dress that reflects both ethnic and religious traditions; and when the discrimination is based on where a student came from or is perceived to have come from, including discrimination based on a student’s foreign accent; a student’s foreign name, including names commonly associated with particular shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics; or a student speaking a foreign language.

8 Federal Agencies Clarify When Title VI Bars Discrimination Related to Religion

The White House announced yesterday that eight federal agencies have "clarified—for the first time in writing—that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain forms of antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination in federally funded programs and activities."  The agency actions are seen as part of President Biden’s National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.  Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act covers discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It does not explicitly bar religious discrimination.  The agency Fact Sheets publicized by the White House each focuses on the kind of discrimination against persons of a particular religion that could come within the scope of Title VI. Here are the agencies' interpretations:

Department of Agriculture Fact Sheet; Department of Health and Human Services Fact Sheet; Department of Homeland Security Fact Sheet; Department of Housing and Urban Development Fact Sheet and Memorandum; Department of Interior Fact Sheet; Department of Labor Fact Sheet; Department of Treasury Fact Sheet; Department of Transportation Fact Sheet.

Native American Parents Can Move Ahead With Suit Challenging School's Cutting of Children's Hair

In Johnson v. Cody-Kilgore Unified School District,(D NE, Nov. 10, 2021), a Nebraska federal district court allowed Native American parents (members of the Rosebud Sioux tribe) who practice traditional Lakota religious traditions to move ahead with several of their claims growing out of the school's cutting of their children's hair as part of a lice check. The school's cutting and disposing of the hair violates Lakota tradition. Plaintiffs claim that the school had an unwritten policy of cutting hair during lice checks that only applied to Native American students. The court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their free exercise and Title VI racial discrimination claims. The court however dismissed plaintiffs' 14th Amendment parental rights claim. The Reader reports on the decision.

Mask Mandate Did Not Violate Jewish Student's Rights

In Zinman v. Nova Southeastern University, Inc., (SD FL, Aug. 30, 2021), a Florida federal magistrate judge recommended dismissing a suit by a law student against his law school and several other defendants challenging on religious grounds COVID-related mask mandates. The court described plaintiff's claim:

Plaintiff, who is Jewish, contends that the mask mandates require actions that run contrary to his religious beliefs. Specifically, he alleges that Judaism prohibits idolatry ... and that complying with mask mandates would be tantamount to worshiping false idols – i.e., the “so-called  ‘experts’ who claim to be able to save lives if people simply obey their commands without question.”

The magistrate judge ruled that Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act only covers discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin, and does not cover religious discrimination. He went on:

Even if the Court were to assume that one’s race or national origin can be “Jewish” for purposes of a Title VI claim, Plaintiff fails to include factual allegations to show that Nova’s mask mandate was discriminatory from a racial or national origin perspective. That is because Plaintiff implies that the issue with the mask mandate is that compliance with it is tantamount to worshiping false idols, and that it is impermissible for Jewish people to worship idols.... However, this issue pertains to a religious belief, not a racial characteristic. If the Court were to accept Plaintiff’s argument, then one who discriminates against a Jewish person would automatically be liable for discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin, without any regard to what the nature of the discriminatory act was. Such a broad and overgeneralized position, however, is untenable.

The magistrate also concluded that plaintiff's free exercise rights were not violated because the mask mandates were neutral and generally applicable requirements that are subject only to rational basis review. He also found no free speech violation, saying in part: "neither wearing or not wearing a mask is inherently expressive."

Discrimination Suit By Jewish Woman Denied Admission To Social Work Program Moves Ahead

In Weiss v. City University of New York, (SD NY, March 18, 2019), a New York federal district court allowed a Jewish woman to move ahead with several racial and religious discrimination claims against City University of New York and its trustees, as well as against several administrators, growing out of the denial of plaintiff's application for admission to the school's Master of Social Work program.  Faigy Weiss was raised in the Hasidic Satmar community in New York, with Yiddish as her first language.  She alleges that the Dean for Diversity and Compliance told her that the social work school "conducted the group admissions interviews to weed out conservatives, because Trumps and Cruzes can’t be social workers" and that "Jews from religious backgrounds are too conservative to be social workers." The court held that these allegations sufficiently state an equal protection claim for discrimination based on race and religion, a claim under Title VI, and an Establishment Clause claim.

Sikhs Ask DOE For Title VI Coverage

According to Huff Post, United Sikhs has asked the U.S. Department of Education to treat Sikhs as an ethnic group as well as a religion so that discrimination against Sikhs would fall under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That provision bars racial, but not religious, discrimination by educational institutions. As previously reported, the Department of Education has decided to reopen a case charging Rutgers University with allowing a hostile environment for Jewish students, defining Jews as an ethnic group.

House Holds Hearing On Campus Anti-Semitism

On Nov. 7, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing titled Examining Anti-Semitism on College Campuses.  A video of the full hearing and written transcripts of the prepared testimony of nine witnesses are available on the committee's website.  As reported by AP, following the hearing Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) proposed legislation to expand Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to bar discrimination on the basis of religion by programs receiving federal financial assistance.  Currently Title VI only bars discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin.

U.S. and Britain Explore Definition of Anti-Semitism

On Dec. 1 the U.S. Senate passed by unanimous consent S.10, the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act of 2016. (ADL press release with background information.) In the convoluted language of much federal legislation, the bill would have instructed the Department of Education to use the definition of Anti-Semitism developed by the State Department's Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism-- including examples in an accompanying Fact Sheet-- in enforcing Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance.

The basic definition of Anti-Semitism incorporated by the bill is:

Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.

Beyond this, though, the accompanying Fact Sheet includes in the definition of Anti-Semitism criticism of Israel which demonizes Israel, applies a double standard not demanded of any other democratic nation, or denies Israel's right to exist.  As reported last week by The Forward, S.10 has died in the House of Representatives as critics raised concerns that the bill could threaten federal funding at universities where speakers criticize Israel without a push back from college administrators.

Meanwhile yesterday Britain's Prime Minister Theresa May announced that Britain will formally adopt the definition of anti-Semitism developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance-- the same definition as the basic statement incorporated in S.10.  This comes after the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in October published a report on Antisemitism in the UK, and the Government this month published a Response to Home Affairs Committee Report. The Government's Response discusses at some length the question of whether or when criticism of Israel should be classified as Anti-Semitism.