The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Antisemitism Lawsuit Filed against Harvard University, Includes Allegations re Harvard Law School
The complaint contains detailed allegations of hostile environment, breach of contract, and disparate treatment. Here is the entire complaint: Kestenbaum v. Harvard (D. Mass. 1-11-24) (complaint) (1)
As in previous complaints related to university antisemitism, I find that the strongest claims are that (a) the university refuses to enforce its own, content-neutral, rules (In this context, for example, I can't see any legitimate reason for HLS to allow pro-Hamas students to take over Casperson lounge); and (b) the university reacts quite differently to complaints of antisemitism than it does to complaints of other sorts of bias, resulting in disparate treatment of Jewish students. Here are the allegations related to Harvard Law School:
50. Harvard PSC, SJP, and similar groups have harassed Jews on campus for years without consequence, exemplifying Harvard's deliberate indifference to its severe antisemitism problem. For example, on April 14, 2016, Harvard Law held an event featuring a speech by Tzipi Livni, a leading Israeli politician. At the event, a student SJP leader accosted Livni, asking her, echoing anti-Jewish stereotypes promoted by, among others, the Nazis: "How is that you are so smelly? It's regarding your odor—about the odor of Tzipi Livni, very smelly." Harvard did not discipline this student, but, instead, the then-dean of Harvard Law—while recognizing that "[m]any perceive [the incident] as anti-Semitic"—responded "that speech is and should be free," notwithstanding that the conduct plainly violated policies including Harvard's Statement on Rights and Responsibilities.
57. In May 2021, in response to a Jewish Israeli student's post in a WhatsApp group, a Harvard Law student, Shayaan A. Essa, messaged, "We shed your blood with stones." A group of Jewish Israeli students reported the incident to Dean Jessica Soban, Deputy Dean I. Glenn Cohen, and Assistant Dean-appointee Catherine Peshkin. In a meeting with the deans, the students explained how this violent threat left them "heartbroken and humiliated" and "no longer feel[ing] comfortable," and asked the deans to denounce Essa's call for violence. The deans refused to do so, instead downplaying the message and telling the students to ignore or respond directly to such harassment. Harvard chose to do the former, and Essa graduated without consequence. Two of the Jewish Israeli students, who are still enrolled at Harvard Law, report that they feel unsafe and have trouble focusing as a result of Harvard's clearly unreasonable response to antisemitism, including Essa's conduct, and the increased anti-Jewish hostility on campus following Hamas's October 7 terrorist attack. One such student told his young children not to speak Hebrew outside their home, out of fear they will be targeted by antisemitic Harvard community members.
59. In October 2021, the Harvard Law Program on Law & Society in the Muslim World and numerous Harvard student groups co-sponsored a pro-BDS event, "Law and Violence in Palestine," at which a speaker was Mohammed El-Kurd, who notoriously espouses antisemitic views, has repeatedly and publicly announced his fantasy of murdering Jews, and claims that Israelis and Zionist Jews eat Palestinians' organs, a vile antisemitic blood libel.
95. On October 16, students chalked antisemitic writings at the entrance to Harvard Law, using phrases such as "from the river to the sea" and "divest from Israeli apartheid." Notwithstanding requests to administrators, no action was taken.
97. The Die-In protesters also harassed and physically assaulted Jewish students. A video that went viral on social media shows a group of students swarming a Jewish Israeli Harvard Business student, holding their keffiyehs open to surround and physically restrain him while screaming, "shame!" over and over again. Ibrahim Bharmal, a Harvard Law Review editor and a Civil Procedure teaching fellow, and Elom Tettey-Tamaklo, a Harvard Divinity student and residential proctor, were among the assailants and are under FBI scrutiny for their assault. Harvard has not imposed any discipline on Bharmal and has done nothing to sanction Tettey-Tamaklo other than relieving him of his proctor responsibilities.
98. On October 19, Harvard PSC and Harvard GS4P recruited hundreds of protesters to march through campus, invading the Science Center, Harvard Law's Caspersen Student Center and Wasserstein Hall buildings, the Harvard Kennedy courtyard, and Harvard Square, using noisemakers, drumsticks, buckets, and megaphones to chant "from the river to the sea," accuse Israel of "genocide," and demand that Harvard "divest[] from Israeli apartheid that is funding genocide in Gaza." The mob disrupted multiple classes, leading Jewish students to flee for their safety, with some removing identifying garb to avoid attack. Harvard failed to take steps to prevent the disruptions.
99. During this upheaval, SAA Member #1, SAA Member #2, SAA Member #3, and SAA Member #5 were in a study room on the first floor of Harvard Law's main building, attending a small discussion session with a former assistant to the president during the Trump administration, Jason Greenblatt. At the session, the students heard drumming outside the study room and found a mob at the entrance to Harvard Law with a giant banner reading "Stop the Genocide in Gaza." SAA Member #2 watched as HUPD officers observed, but took no action against, the hundreds of protesters, including non-HUID cardholders, who were bypassing card scanners and infiltrating the building. The group stormed Harvard Law's main building, marched down the length of the building's primary first-floor hallway, and blocked the hallway outside the study room where the SAA members and Greenblatt were hiding. Fearing a violent attack, students in the study room removed indicia of their Jewishness, such as kippot, or hid under desks.
100. Jewish students, including SAA Member #1 and SAA Member #2, immediately went to the Dean of Students and Community Engagement, Equity, and Belonging ("CEEB") offices, only to find the offices locked with staffers already safely inside. One staffer ultimately came to the door to tell the Jewish students to wait in another room until the administrators were ready to meet. Eventually, Dean of Students Stephen L. Ball and Assistant Dean for CEEB Monica Monroe met with the students for thirty seconds and, without giving them any opportunity to speak, stated that they were "sorry" and that they would look into the incursion. SAA Member #2 was shocked that Harvard had effectively surrendered its campus to the mob. SAA Member #1 had to miss his class later that day and, concerned for his safety, stopped regularly attending his classes. Kestenbaum encountered the roving mob as he was leaving his class at Harvard Kennedy. The mob, having moved on from Harvard Law, now blocked the exit to the Harvard Kennedy building and shouted, at anyone trying to leave, "from the river to the sea" and other chants calling for the destruction of Israel and genocide of Jews. Kestenbaum was shaken by this experience, which has made him fear for his safety on campus.101. SAA Member #2 emailed Assistant Director of Student Life Jeffrey Sierra after the mob stormed Harvard Law to describe what happened. In two previous meetings with Sierra, she had asked him what could be done to stop the rampant antisemitism on campus and explained its impact on her. In both of these meetings, and in response to her email regarding theOctober 19 incursion, Sierra directed SAA Member #2 to CAMHS for mental health services and, on several occasions, said he was "not in a position to do more." When SAA Member #2 asked whom she could contact instead, Sierra said he would speak with more senior administrators, but SAA Member #2 never heard from anyone else about her concerns.
103. On October 27, during Family Weekend—when students' families visit campus—Harvard PSC and Harvard GS4P held another die-in and protest starting outside Harvard Law's library, advertising the protest as "[o]pen to non-HUID Holders." Protesters lay on the ground at the library's entrance with "Boycott Divest Sanction" and "Harvard must recognize Genocide" signs, while chanting "from the river to the sea" and "hey hey, ho ho, the occupation has got to go." In advance of the protest, SAA Member #1 had sent an email to several Harvard Law administrators, including Dean Ball, Dean Manning, and Dean Monroe, attaching the student groups' fliers advertising the protest and requesting that the administrators prevent non-HUID holders from attending, and stating: "Please protect us." None of them responded. SAA Member #2 left campus immediately after her last class of the day, taking a ride-share service home because she did not feel safe walking through the protest to access her usual train.
104. These mass disturbances violated numerous Harvard policies, but Harvard has taken no action to prevent them—even when students, citing specific policy language and providing photographic evidence, warned administrators, including President Gay, Provost (and now-Interim President) Garber, Dean Manning, Dean Ball, Dean Soban, and Dean Monroe, of impending antisemitic disturbances.
106. Three days later, on October 30, Harvard PSC and Harvard GS4P, in violation of Harvard's clear policies, began a semester-long takeover of Harvard Law's main common lounge in Caspersen Student Center, during which students orchestrated incessant antisemitic agitation and anti-Israel protests and accosted Jewish students. Harvard ignored the pleas and concerns of Jewish students, including SAA Member #1 and SAA Member #2, who are visibly Jewish based on their religious clothing and who have been regularly stopped and targeted in the lounge. Students like SAA Member #2 and SAA Member #5 have stopped using Caspersen lounge as a study space to avoid being harassed because they are Jewish.
107. On October 31, SAA Member #3 was stunned to see Bharmal among the Caspersen lounge protesters, after he had assaulted a Jewish student at the October 18 Die-In, and to hear that he was unrepentant about doing so. SAA Member #3 ran to a bathroom and cried, shaken at Bharmal's lack of remorse, the sense of danger she felt from him, and Harvard's permitting Bharmal to not only remain on campus, but to continue to participate in activities that Violate Harvard's policies. She tried to compose herself and attend her Civil Procedure class but was unable to stay more than a few minutes.
108. The takeover of Caspersen lounge drew no Harvard intervention, for at least two weeks. Only on November 15—when Jewish students asked Dean Ball, Dean Soban, Dean Monroe, and Title IX Program Officer Sasha Tulgan if they could also demonstrate in that same space—did Dean Ball send a Harvard Law-wide email advising that shared spaces like Caspersen lounge are only for "personal or small group study and conversation." On November 15, the protesters ignored three separate in-person requests by administrators—prompted by repeated complaints from Jewish students that the protesters were harassing them—to stop the protest.
109. On November 16, the next day, protesters held an unauthorized event in Caspersen lounge during class time, called a "vigil for martyrs," with a printed program outlining demands and advertised in advance on social media. SAA Member #1, two days earlier, had sent an email to Dean Ball and other Harvard Law administrators warning them about this planned disruption, noting that Harvard GS4P organizers again intended to bring outsiders to the school and stating that he "and other Jewish students feel unsafe and [these unauthorized events] are directly interfering with our ability to attend [class] and focus on our coursework." Dean Ball attended the "vigil," but did nothing to disperse the crowd or discipline the instigators. SAA Member #1, SAA Member #2, and others participated in a counter-protest that day, but their "bring them home" chants—referring to hostages held by Hamas—were drowned out by anti-Jewish protesters, who yelled, among other things, "glory to the martyrs." After Harvard again failed to stop these antisemitic threats, SAA Member #1 emailed Title IX Program Officer Tulgan, telling her that "campus felt so unsafe today" and that "I used to hope that the administration will do better but today I lost all hope."
110. The protesters' prohibited takeover of Caspersen lounge continued through the end of the semester, and the perpetrators have faced no discipline. Organizers have said that they will continue the takeover in the spring semester.e continued through the end of the semester, and the perpetrators have faced no discipline. Organizers have said that they will continue the takeover in the spring semester.
112. On or around November 5, fliers that SAA Member #5 had hung at Harvard Law, advertising an event hosted by the student group Alliance for Israel, were ripped down. The group's members, including SAA Member #5, emailed Harvard Law Campus Safety Coordinator Collin Keyes and HUPD Lieutenant Wilmon Chipman to request video footage of the locations where the fliers had been posted. Chipman stated that he would pass this request to "command staff"; however, the students heard nothing for several weeks despite repeated follow ups, until December 15, when Keyes informed SAA Member #5 that Harvard could not find the posters in the footage. SAA Member #5 followed up twice with more details to help Harvard properly search for the posters, but Harvard has still failed to locate the relevant footage.
132. On October 10, 2023, a Harvard Law Civil Procedure teaching fellow, Ibrahim Bharmal—the same Harvard Law Review editor who assaulted a Jewish student at the October 18 Die-In—sent an email to his students, comprising nearly one-third of the 561 first-year law students, calling for them to bring their "whole identities and ideologies" to class, and inviting them to that evening's Harvard PSC "vigil for all civilian lives lost and in solidarity with Palestine," with no mention of the slaughter and rape of Israelis three days earlier. One of Bharmal's law students, SAA Member #1, immediately emailed the course professor, James Greiner, copying Dean Manning, Dean Ball, and the CEEB Office, asking Professor Greiner to respond to Bharmal's email, explaining that it was "deeply inappropriate" given Jewish students' pain and fear following October 7, and that Bharmal made him and other students feel even more afraid of antisemitism at Harvard, given Bharmal's official position at Harvard Law. Three weeks later, after Bharmal was recorded assaulting a Jewish student on October 18, Professor Greiner instead afforded Bharmal what is considered the honor of hosting a review session for his students, which SAA Member #1 and other Jewish classmates did not attend because they were afraid of him. SAA Member #1 asked administrators at the Dean of Students Office if Jewish students would have to be killed before Harvard deemed it appropriate to finally act to protect them. SAA Member #1 filed a formal complaint with the Dean of Students on October 12, met with Director Sierra about his complaint, and repeatedly followed up, imploring them to take action to stop the constant antisemitic protests and other hostile activities at Harvard Law, but contrary to its ostensible procedures, Harvard has not provided him with updates or taken any other action.
133. At the time of this filing, Bharmal has faced no discipline for his assault—he is still a Harvard Law student, still on the Harvard Law Review, and still employed by Harvard as a teaching fellow.
134. SAA Member #1 and other Jewish students have also been targeted by his Torts professor, Jon Hanson, who: on October 7, promoted a podcast inviting listeners to "learn more about Israeli apartheid + occupation," and defended the Hamas attack by claiming "people on the underside of power who resist state violence and occupation will always be called terrorists"; on October 17, said, "I'm honestly stunned by how openly bigoted both Israeli and American Zionists have been since October 7th"; on November 2, maligned Israeli Jews as "colonizers" who "blow[] up" babies; on December 9, asserted there was a "depopulation campaign" in Gaza; and on December 10, derided the December 5 House Antisemitism Hearing as a "master class in bad-faith culture war bullshit."
135. On October 19—after taking a break because of the disruptive mob charging through the halls—Professor Hanson held a section event at which he shared his anti-Israel/Jewish views and told SAA Member #1 that he would not rule out discussing the Israel-Hamas conflict during Torts class. At another meeting less than two weeks later, Hanson discouraged SAA Member #1 from escalating his complaint against Bharmal and advised that he supported the students who had recently taken over Caspersen lounge. Professor Hanson also planned his final exam for the fall 2023 semester to require students to write about Israel andGaza but changed it at the last minute—after the Registrar's Office intervened.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is clearly disparate treatment of Jewish students, at Harvard and at quite many US institutions. This is baked in, by ideology, to the administration. I think that this is the strongest argument here.
Thee conditions are not restricted to Harvard, the more "elite" the university the more prevalent they are.
Says someone who has never observed any of it, and has no concrete proof, I'm sure.
"Says someone who has never observed any of it, and has no concrete proof, I’m sure."
Do you mean like being held up in traffic, so that Palestinian activists can protest against Israel? Been there done that. It was a satellite campus of a State University. The protesters were told that they weren't allowed to protest on University property, so they chose the road in front of the University. Students were allowed to join the protest with no penalties for missing class. Food and drink was brought to the protesters from the University cafeteria. I was held up in the traffic. The property, missing class and food and drink bit I found out from Interns that work with us. Next time I'll take pictures, if the Campus Police will let me.
This is disparate treatment?
Simon,
I have seen plenty of it.
You have some kind of nerve saying "who has never observed any of it" when you know nothing about me. I see my students and colleagues in self-support group, in fear. I have seen proHamas student harass Jews on campus.
And I know something about you: you reveal yourself as an arrogant fool.
But how is it disparate? That's what no one seems to have an answer for.
Did someone else get punished for protesting in Caspersen lounge? If not, no disparate treatment.
Did someone else get punished for protesting in Caspersen lounge? If not, no disparate treatment.
I see we have a fan of Qualified Immunity.
Good question. If other group conduct coordinated harassing and threatening behavior on the MIT campus we'll find out.
In the meantime, the admin needs to uphold its official code of conduct for members of the campus community.
In the meantime, the admin needs to uphold its official code of conduct for members of the campus community.
Maybe... but there's no lawsuit there. It's not disparate treatment or "breach of contract." There's no legal interest for students to vindicate around Harvard's enforcement decisions.
It's not *just* anti-Jew, though.
It's deeper than that.
Some of the incidents described are, indeed, disturbing. It would be interesting to see if the fully-developed facts support what's describe here.
Most of what's reproduced here, however, amounts to alleging a discriminatory environment because opposing viewpoints were allowed to be expressed. Assuming you've just cherry-picked the most compelling parts of the complaint, David, I'm not inclined to believe this will be a very meritorious claim.
"because opposing viewpoints were allowed to be expressed"
This has nothing to to with speech. It has everything to do with physically threatening and intimidating behavior. Since you are implicitly admitting that you know nothing, you should shut your piehole
Hahaha lol. I only see one case of physically threatening and intimidating behavior -- that Bharmal guy. Everything else is speech.
95. On October 16, students chalked antisemitic writings at the entrance to Harvard Law, using phrases such as "from the river to the sea" and "divest from Israeli apartheid." Notwithstanding requests to administrators, no action was taken.
Really, that has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with physical threats and intimidation? I hear there's a blizzard at Harvard these days.
Randal,
You saw nothing because you were not there AND you prefer to call liars those who did report persistent incidents of such behavior.
So you laughing is only part of self-delusion.
I'm talking about the lawsuit, dorkbutt.
Read a bit more carefully, Nicky-doll. I'm not going to walk you through it.
.
Since Harvard energetically suppresses various other -- often far less egregious -- "opposing viewpoints," this is a classic case of disparate treatment.
Strangely, David has supplied nothing from the complaint that would support this assertion of "disparate treatment." Are we to take as granted that the Harvard administration would have reacted differently, had these protests been directed towards some ethnic or racial group?
This bigot-embracing conservative blog apparently has finally found some (perceived, cherry-picked) intolerance to which it objects.
Does this call for some celebratory racial slurs?
Nah, just stick to your usual "Klingers"
until you're "replaced" that is,
by your "bettors"
Frank
This bigot-embracing conservative blog apparently has finally found some (perceived, cherry-picked) intolerance to which it objects.
Cherry-picked?? That makes zero sense.
John beats up Sam. Someone asks, "Why has John not been arrested for the attack?" Is it reasonable to respond by saying, "Well, you're just cherry-picking one incident?"
Of course not. Examples of bad behavior, or any kind of behavior, for that matter, are almost always "cherry-picked." Bank robbers don't rob banks every day. Jack the Ripper didn't kill everyone he met.
Cherry-picked.
This blog goes ballistic whenever it senses it can try to pin antisemitism on non-conservatives; it regularly publishes -- and its law-professing conservatives are silent or worse with respect to -- antisemitism involving right-wingers (much like Mr. Ackman, who also seems to engage in similar selectivity with respect to plagiarism), however.
The Volokh Conspirators are devoted cherry-pickers.
Arthur, I don't think you understand what "cherry-picked" means. If I say, "Joe Shlabotnik is a bad outfielder," basing my claim on one or two misplays, while ignoring his many good plays I am cherry-picking. IOW, I am picking one or two bad examples out of a background of many good examples.
Where are the good examples here? There seem to be lots of bad ones.
These guys pick a few perceived cases of antisemitism that they believe they can use to help the conservative cause (which is the losing cause on bigotry, every day), while entirely ignoring the incessant stream of right-wing antisemitism from Elon “The Absolute Truth” Musk, chanting United the Right antisemites, Musk’s Twitter, Donald Trump, Charlie Kirk, Marjorie Taylor “Jewish Space Laser” Greene, Tucker Carlson, and the Republican, conservative rank-and-file.
Not to mention the regular and vivid displays of antisemitism from right-wingers in the comments section of this blog. When Prof. Volokh censors, it doesn't involve right-wing antisemites. And when was the last time one of the Volokh Conspirators said a word about the right-wing bigots and right-wing bigotry that saturate this blog's comment sections?
That’s the cherry-picking. They pick the antisemitism (or alleged antisemitism) they think they can use and disregard the overwhelming majority of antisemitism and antisemites. For disingenuous, paltry, political purpose.
I agree with you that right-wing antisemitism, like right-wing censorship, often gets a pass here.
But that doesn’t excuse the incidents described in the complaint. Does Harvard have an antisemitism problem? Here’s a question which has been frequently asked, but seldom clearly answered:
If Blacks or Hispanics or Asians, for example, had been subjected to this kind of treatment, what would the university’s response have been?
For example, on April 14, 2016, Harvard Law held an event featuring a speech by Tzipi Livni, a leading Israeli politician. At the event, a student SJP leader accosted Livni, asking her, echoing anti-Jewish stereotypes promoted by, among others, the Nazis: “How is that you are so smelly? It’s regarding your odor—about the odor of Tzipi Livni, very smelly.”
Suppose the speaker had been, say, Hakeem Jeffries, and the same thing happened. Would the it simply have been shrugged off unremarked?
The thing that you're evidently not understanding, about the factual claims excerpted in the OP, is that it strings together discrete incidents like the one with Livni (bizarre, if true) with claims like, "no one did anything about these chalked slogans on the pavement" and "someone gave a lecture who has also written things we don't like and call 'antisemitic'" and "we were afraid during a protest even though we can't claim to have been actually in any danger" and so on. The complaint is long on speculation and attributing vile motives to people whose alleged behavior indicates nothing of the sort.
The cherry-picking to which I referred is conducted by the Volokh Conspiracy (law professors and commenters), not by the plaintiffs.
I have no idea whether the plaintiffs engaged in cherry-picking. I also have no idea whether the complaint's allegations are true, substantially true, half-true, a bit true, or untrue.
I know this white, male, right-wing blog rants about some perceived antisemitism while conspicuously disregarding other antisemitism and regularly stoking and featuring plenty of other bigotry.
Suppose the speaker had been, say, Hakeem Jeffries, and the same thing happened. Would it simply have been shrugged off unremarked?
Well, it wasn't unremarked. Even the allegations recount that it was remarked.
Would it have been shrugged off in the sense of the student not being disciplined, which is the only form of shrugging off that's alleged? Probably.
Would a lawsuit have been filed? No. That lawsuit would have been just as laughable as this one.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that Antisemitism is going on at Hahvud!
Here's your Antisemitism sir.
Frank "Round up the Usual Terrorist Suspects"
In May 2021, in response to a Jewish Israeli student's post in a WhatsApp group, a Harvard Law student, Shayaan A. Essa, messaged, "We shed your blood with stones." A group of Jewish Israeli students reported the incident to Dean Jessica Soban, Deputy Dean I. Glenn Cohen, and Assistant Dean-appointee Catherine Peshkin. In a meeting with the deans, the students explained how this violent threat left them "heartbroken and humiliated" and "no longer feel[ing] comfortable," and asked the deans to denounce Essa's call for violence. The deans refused to do so, instead downplaying the message and telling the students to ignore or respond directly to such harassment. Harvard chose to do the former, and Essa graduated without consequence.
"respond directly to such harrasment" -- so if the students had texted back "we blow out your brains with an Uzi" that would have been okay by the deans? Or is there some double standard I am missing?
These plaintiffs chose a prominent right-wing jerk and member of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force to represent them. Who also, it is reported, has been a mouthpiece for Putin-orbiting Russian assholes.
It appears these plaintiffs are choosing to follow the existentially bad path taken by Israel with respect to the American culture war (aligning with the losing and lesser side).
Ad hominem attacks. Last refuge of the incompetent.
I am pointing out the bedfellows and the pattern . . . and explaining the predictable consequences of those poor choices.
You seem to dislike the message, much as you are destined to dislike the next few decades of continuing American progress.
And I am pointing out that, as usual, the person claiming to be one of our "betters" in fact engages in logical fallacies and cheap rhetorical tricks, because he is incapable of engaging in serious, reasoned argument.
Which seems to bother you. Good, that's why I don't mute you.
It's like popping a balloon.
You don't think it's relevant that the lawyer who filed this anti-Harvard lawsuit is a prominent MAGA mouthpiece?
This litigation is another element of disaffected, obsolete conservatives' resentment-fueled, ignorant campaign against America's mainstream and its strongest research and teaching institutions.
Kirkland, put up or shut up.
These are serious allegations -- do you have a scintilla of evidence?
Marc Kasowitz -- prominent member of Trump Litigation: Elite Strike Force -- is reported to be the lawyer of record for these plaintiffs.
No Kirkland, Timothy H. Madden (BBO #654040) is the counsel of record. Marc E. Kasowitz is listed as having a Pro Hac Vice application forthcoming.
But lawyers have many clients, has Kasowitz done something unethical?
I didn’t contend Kasowitz was unethical. I said he was a MAGA mouthpiece and the lawyer for these plaintiffs. He also appears to be the lawyer providing interviews.
Why do you ask whether Kasowitz has done something unethical? It that a reflexive concern with respect to all lawyers who voluntarily represent Donald Trump? Is that a product of the flurry of disciplinary actions, sanctions, and disbarments experienced by Trump lawyers in recent months? I am not familiar with any indication Kasowitz has acted unethically. But he represents assholes.
As everyone knows, First Amendment has been interpreted broadly to allow even the most vile and offensive speech. The Nazis get to march on Skokie, and the KKK gets to hold rallies.
Is that the standard that should be adopted in universities, particularly private ones? The post includes the following from the complaint:
In October 2021, the Harvard Law Program on Law & Society in the Muslim World and numerous Harvard student groups co-sponsored a pro-BDS event, "Law and Violence in Palestine," at which a speaker was Mohammed El-Kurd, who notoriously espouses antisemitic views, has repeatedly and publicly announced his fantasy of murdering Jews, and claims that Israelis and Zionist Jews eat Palestinians' organs, a vile antisemitic blood libel.
This is on the order of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or indeed a KKK rally. If someone wanted to stand up in the public square and give that speech, it would be completely protected by the First Amendment.
Question is, is that something Harvard wants to permit on its premises? And would it permit a KKK rally? Or, for that matter, a defense of The Bell Curve?
That is really the crux here. No one believes for a minute that Harvard would adopt the First Amendment standard that SCOTUS has adopted for state actors.
Disparate impact.
Repressive tolerance in action.
I can't help but wonder if the BIT was involved in this.
Harvard calls it the BACT Team.
See: https://www.hupd.harvard.edu/bact-team
Antisemitism is revolting and wrong. Antisemites are lousy people, like other bigots.
People who claim objection to Israel's superstition-laced right-wing government and belligerent, discriminatory, immoral, violent right-wing conduct is antisemitic are among antisemites' most effective helpmates.
I think the US courts will need to distinguish carefully between insulting and denigrating a foreign power and its representatives and (alleged) deeds, on the one hand, and acts against American persons on the other.
Some, but not all, of the allegations are clearly the former rather than the latter.
I agree. Students should be allowed to chant "from the river to the sea." They should be allowed to side with Russia, mainland China, RSF, and Serbia even if there are students aligned with Ukraine, Taiwan, Darfur, and Kosovo.
This is going to backfire spectacularly when the court finds that none of this is actionable, and almost none of it even qualifies as antisemitism.
You are just like Eddie Murphy in Beverly Hills Cop with the La-lal-la-lah
Antisemitism need not be proved in this case. What matters is that federal law sometimes requires schools to police the behavior of students. If self-appointed fashion police went around snatching yarmulkes off heads because they look funny Harvard would be in a similar position.
I recall different reactions from right-wingers when Confederate flags, belligerent gay-bashers, Confederate statues, slaveholders, Muslims, etc. were involved.
This blog has been devoted to creating and preserving safe spaces for right-wing bigots in modern America, especially on campuses.
Carry on, clingers.
So, specifically, what behavior identified in the lawsuit does Harvard have a legal obligation to police?
Note: Things that make the Jewish students uncomfortable don't meet the bar. College is about learning things that make you uncomfortable.
So far I feel like this lawsuit is pretty close to "failure to state a claim" territory.
People write about disparate treatment. I don't see that as essential to the case. If some Jews were harassing Muslims on campus while some Muslims harassed Jews, and the administration ignored both directions of harassment, couldn't both groups raise a Title VI claim?
As far as I know there are no roving gangs of Jews at Harvard stalking members of a protected group. The administration doesn't have an opportunity to crack down on Jews while allowing the same conduct by others. We can only speculate about what Harvard would do if the shoe were on the other foot.
The claim is basically (1) I am Jewish, (2) I am being harassed based on my identity to the extent that it interferes with my education, and (3) Harvard is aware and capable of acting but chooses not to. Put a different Roman numeral after the law and you've got guys groping girls while school officials look the other way.
Yes, if it rises to the level of harassment. Occupying a lounge against Harvard policy isn't harassment. That's where the (supposed) disparate treatment comes in... but I don't see it because I don't see any allegations of other groups being treated differently.
The only thing I see here on the harassment spectrum is Bharmal, but that's one guy. Does this whole lawsuit hinge on Harvard's disciplinary decisions regarding a single student? I think it would be hard to build a harassment case around a single student... that's a lot of time he'd have to be spending on harassment!
I think they have a plausible claim for relief. The question of whether some hypothetical reasonable Jews would also have disguised their Jewishness and fled should await a more complete record.
What makes you think disguising your identity and fleeing is the bar? Man, that would be a low bar. Maybe that’s good, but I can tell you that’s not where the bar is for anyone today. People who can — gays, trans, atheists, communists, Russians, Iranians — disguise their identity and flee certain situations on practically a daily basis. People who can’t — Blacks, women, people with disabilities, prouder gay and trans people — have to just flee, or try to avoid those situations in the first place.
Those people are told: if you’re able to flee, then flee. Problem solved.
As far as I know, the bar is “hostile environment,” which requires much more, such as being a captive audience to persistent harassment.
Fleeing in disguise! You should be so lucky.
The case is assigned to Indira Talwani. I do not know her reputation. She was appointed by President Obama to replace Mark Wolf when he took senior status.
"St. Paul has no such authority to license one side of a debate to fight freestyle, while requiring the other to follow Marquis of Queensberry rules."
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377, 392 (1992)
Blocking entrances to buildings, assaulting students, taking over parts of buildings, and disrupting classes, to name 4 allegations, are not free speech, free exercise of religion, or freedom of association. It's also likely that actual threats to all those freedoms have expanded because the powers-that-be have felt free to enforce their rules only against one side of the political spectrum. And finally, for a disparate treatment or breach of contract claim, the claim itself doesn't depend on content, it depends on failure to enforce existing rules even-handedly. But thanks for playing.
There are criminal offenses there -- violation of MA law.
For example, it is a crime to disrupt a lawful public assembly.
What can you expect from Simon's ilk?