Harvard’s Attempt to Dismiss Antisemitism Lawsuit Denied by Judge
Harvard University has been ordered to confront a lawsuit brought by Jewish students who claim the institution failed to address pervasive antisemitism on its campus. The lawsuit, which seeks an injunction to prevent further alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, argues that Harvard's handling of on-campus incidents has been woefully inadequate. Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin by recipients of federal funds.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns has ruled that the lawsuit presents a plausible case that Harvard was "deliberately indifferent" to the needs of its Jewish and Israeli students. Judge Stearns criticized Harvard for potentially failing to act despite public commitments to combat antisemitism, stating, "The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students." He further expressed skepticism about whether the university could justify its lack of action by claiming it was protecting First Amendment rights, which safeguard freedom of speech and expression. Instead, the judge characterized their response to the confrontational and occasionally violent protests as "at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory."
The students filed the lawsuit in January, accusing Harvard of applying anti-discrimination policies inconsistently to avoid addressing harassment against Jewish students. The students further allege the university disregarded their requests for protection and employed faculty who supported anti-Jewish sentiments. These claims suggest a systemic failure in upholding the civil rights of Jewish students under Title VI.
The lawsuit follows significant controversy surrounding the university’s response to antisemitism, including the resignation of former Harvard President Claudine Gay. Gay’s departure came amid criticism for her handling of antisemitic incidents following the October 2023 conflict between Hamas and Israel.
Judge Stearns did not address the merits of the case but indicated that the plaintiffs' allegations were substantial enough to warrant further judicial review.
