The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
A List (with Links) of Antisemitism Lawsuits Filed against American Universities
Along with dozens of Title VI administrative complaints filed with the Office of Civil Rights, at least fourteen colleges and universities are facing lawsuits over their handling of antisemitism on campus since October 7. I asked around, and no one seems to have a compiled a list of defendants with links to the complaints, so I've created one, which I will update as needed. Let me know if I have missed any. UPDATE: It turns out that there is a website keeping up with the litigation, though it's currently missing a few of the ones I have listed below.
University of California Berkeley
University of California Los Angeles
New, 5/22: UC Davis
UPDATE: The success in these cases will obviously depend on the individual facts, the judges involved, and in some cases on state law claims that provide for particularly onerous damages. On the civil rights claims, in general I find the double standard in how universities enforce their rules to be the most persuasive claim. To win those claims, the plaintiffs don't have to get into the borderline between harassment and free speech, or whether the university has done the minimum necessary to combat harassment to meet Title VI. They only need to show, as seems pretty clear in most instances, that Jewish students who complain about antisemitism and their complaints are treated differently than complaints of discrimination by other groups, and/or that universities enforce their disciplinary rules differently with regard to antisemitic acts than with regard to other violations off school rules.
I have spoken to a half dozen or so attorneys involved in litigation on behalf of plaintiffs who experienced antisemitism on campus. Universally, their concern is not whether claims are strong enough to get past motions to dismiss and summary judgment. Rather, they regret that students on many campuses feel so intimidated that it's hard to persuade them to sign up as plaintiffs. That's a major reason why there are so many administrative complaints as opposed to lawsuits, the former don't require a named plaintiff.
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
Quantity is not quality.
It would be helpful if someone (not me, because why?) looked and tried to identify the gravamen of the colorable legal claims in the lawsuits.
I did review a Columbia lawsuit in a prior thread, and I was not impressed by the legal claims. I'm not saying that there aren't colorable legal claims (obviously, I am going to look at each of these), especially as I don't know the law in every jurisdiction, but filing lawsuits is not the same as having an actionable and valid claim.
Yeah. Perhaps the professor in a future post can opine on the merits and possible outcomes. Making them pay a steep financial penalty is one way to get this shit to stop.
As DEI programs are disassembled across the country, the forums for resolving these kinds of issues will shift to the courts.
The DEI programs are obviously treating complaints by Jewish students differently than complaints by members of other minority-groups. Let’s hope the courts are more evenhanded.
Or maybe we could just keep track of them and see what the courts think about the gravamen of the colorable legal claims. That is their job, after all.
Well, I think that would be a great thing to do! I'd love to see some updates on these cases, because that would be interesting.
Of course, given that this is a law blog, theoretically, it would be nice if someone actually expressed an analysis and opinion about the merits instead of simply posting the number. Obviously, it's fairly easy for Plaintiff's firms to drum up cases if they think there might be a settlement value involved, but that doesn't tell us much about the merits. It's also unclear how many of these cases are coordinated (the only two I looked at had the same firm).
The cases were just filed, how can there be updates?
/facepalm
In the future, like at the dispositive motion stage (motion to dismiss, summary judgment).
Updates occur in the future. I was responding to someone who said that we should track them and see how the courts handle them.
Did I really just explain that?
To an ostensible lawyer, yes.
Problem is, who is "them" who will pay. Answer: the university, not the people who did the deeds. The university professors and administrators who did these things feel there is no downside. At worst, some Jew will get money from the endowment, and their careers will continue.
Tenture/tenure-track professors are most likely represented by a union, as are staff. Administrators are at-will. If the lawsuits uncover actual malice on the part of an administrator and it leads to a financial loss and bad press for the university, the administrator is likely toast. (And that's assuming the administrator isn't also faculty and has right-of-return.)
I picked one at random, Canaan v. Carnegie Mellon
Yael Canaan, the plaintiff, an Jewish woman who attends the school of architecture.
She alleges:
• Mary-Lou Arscott, a professor at the School of Architecture, told Canaan in class that her studio project should have focused on “what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.”
• The same professor later emailed Canaan a link to a violently antisemitic blog, even brazenly cc’ing CMU’s Chief Diversity Officer and the Vice Provost of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion—administrative officers charged with protecting students from discrimination.
• Arscott sent Canaan and Heading-Grant an email with a link to an anti-Jewish, anti-Israel blog called The Funambulist. Arscott urged Canaan to read The Funambulist’s content at the link that she shared because it provided her with “insightful … perspective.”
• After Canaan complained, other professors turned on her in retaliation. They told her that she needed to stop “acting like a victim” and that they would not “be an advocate for the Jews.”
• She reported all this to University officials, who did nothing.
• She was also forced to skip a key architecture class, allegedly in retaliation for her complaining.
These are, of course, only unproven allegations. But if true, they certainly make out a claim, and should be disturbing to anyone.
This is a Title VI complaint which would have likely gone to the Title IX office at Carnegie Mellon (if they operate like other universities in this regard) which would have launched an investigation. I've seen these types of investigations end in ways student might define as "did nothing" even if many hours were spent doing that "nothing." It will at least be well-documented "nothing." I suspect all of the person involved here are considered mandated reporters, as well.
The claims made are appalling, regardless.
Agreed, but the issue is that Title VI, famously, only allows a private right of action for intentional discrimination (that’s the Barnes/Sandoval cases). You cannot allege disparate treatment or impact.
Arguably, this example and the allegations would clear the bar not because of the earlier allegations, but because of the allegation of retaliation after the complaint (retaliation is always intentional dissemination).
The other complaints I looked briefly at appeared to concentrate on issues involving the protests, which might be accurate, but would appear to be a stretch to support a Title VI claim IMO. But that doesn’t mean it won’t get past a MtD necessarily, or can’t be amended to survive.
The reason that this is a more interesting theory than most of the case I have seen is because (these allegations excepted) the cases concentrate on protests by other students, and often conflate issues regarding Israel and issues related to anti-Semitism (which doesn’t mean that there wasn’t anti-Semitism at the protests, but those allegations are different).
Additionally, these cases usually require a specific act- a termination, a board that improperly graded someone, etc. Given that the ending of these is usually, "And I, like every other student, couldn't continue going to the classes" or "attend graduation," or whatever, it's going to be harder to show that the universities were intentionally discriminating against any particular group.
I am even more skeptical of the various contract theories, but that goes to state law and will vary on jurisdiction.
Anyway, those are brief thoughts. I am not a big fan of these types of suits in general. I do hope that people stop using college campuses as some kind of punching bag to score rhetorical points, and I also hope that we can get around to removing the scourge of anti-Semitism from our society, root and branch.
Not going to hold my breath waiting for either.
How does academic freedom co-exist on a campus where speech that offends me (pro-Palestinian) is discrimination? This seems to boil down to a fancy heckler's veto. (For the other cases rather than the Carnegie Mellon one above.)
Well, that's the rub, isn't it.
Absent actual discriminatory action, the issue becomes the balance between free speech and, for lack of a better word, a hostile working (learning) environment.
It has to be noted that just before this, conservatives were complaining that you weren't allowed to express yourself on campus. Now, it's that speech is bad. Because, as we all know, people like the idea of free speech when they want their speech protected, but find all sorts of reasons, loopholes, and excuses to target the speech they don't like.
(That said, while I support the right of people to express odious opinions free of government interference, I believe that the increased tolerance for the open expression of anti-Semitism on both the left and the right to be a very worrying sign, and while the government shouldn't stop it, every decent person should be acting against it.)
The first bullet point clearly alleges intentional discrimination.
Do you think if a white supremacist instructor had made a similar comment to a black student – the black student’s projects should focus on what black people do to make themselves such a hated group – this would be protected political commentary? Telling a female student she needs to focus on what woman do to deserve rape? Protected political commentary?
If you treat Jews differently on this point, you are treating them in a discriminatory fashion.
On this, the issue would be a little more nuanced.
If the instructor had made the comment, then that would be great evidence for a disparate impact claim, but you'd still have to show the harm (in other words, what did the instructor do?). Or if the student complains about it, and then the issue gets more severe, that might go to retaliation.
On the other hand, if the comments are constant, then there could be a claim regarding hostile environment. But a single comment isn't sufficient for that.
ReaderY, I guess the lawyers will say it does not matter if the first bullet point accurately reported what happened; it has to be taken as true at this stage of the case. (correct me please if I have that wrong).
If I were considering whether to report that first bullet point as a news story, I would not consider doing so without interviewing witnesses. It has the look of a tendentious paraphrase with quotation marks added. Note the incongruity of the alleged quotation in response to an architecture, “studio project.”
I find it easier to imagine a complaint alleging anti-semitism, and a defensive reply to say, “What about Israel’s awful record killing kids in Gaza?” That kind of speculative conclusion is of course something a journalist ought to discount to zero.
I thus withhold judgment, as I suppose the court will do, while following whatever formal requirements it must.
If investigation shows the allegation is accurate, then of course an anti-semitic remark is proved. At that point, I would have a useful news story. I would still need to hand it off to a lawyer to discover what legal implications ought to follow.
What actually did follow would be a second—and potentially more telling—news story—but not one anyone could interpret usefully absent that investigation to answer the task to deliver a probative account which confirms or rebuts the original remark.
For any of many reasons, that answer might never appear, one way or the other. If so, would-be partisans must then content themselves to think critically—meaning in that instance to forget the whole thing—as a failure to clear the bar on the, “How do I know that?” test of critical thinking.
Unfortunately, to bypass that question is one of the field marks which identifies a partisan.
Wait, what? Disparate treatment is the opposite of disparate impact; it is intentional discrimination.
(Typo: discrimination.) And what Loki surely knows, but probably not everyone, is that a retaliation claim is almost completely independent of the underlying discrimination claim. You don’t have to prove you actually were discriminated against first; you just have to prove that you were retaliated against for complaining about having been discriminated against. (A zillion employers have learned this too late to benefit themselves.)
"Wait, what? Disparate treatment is the opposite of disparate impact; it is intentional discrimination."
Yes. Correct, and thank you. I need to type more carefully.
Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination. Title VI allows for disparate treatment (intentional discrimination) but not disparate impact.
What's the over/under on successful cases? The line is 0.5, and I'm taking the under.
Funny how you can reach that conclusion 20 minutes after I posted the complaints and the links, meaning you haven't read them.
It's not a conclusion, it's a bet. Maybe it's a terrible one. Are you taking the over?
Quantity has a quality all its own.
Attack them all.
Remember that sentiment when right-wing culture war casualties are begging the culture war’s winners to be magnanimous toward the superstitious, the bigoted, the disaffected, and the obsolete.
With maybe one or two exceptions, these filings all have prominent law firms handling them in whole or in part, either plaintiffs' class action firms or "Biglaw." The key in each will be to get past a motion to dismiss because discovery will almost certainly be brutal for defendants. The strongest claims, and ones which will be very hard for defendants to rebut sufficiently to win a motion to dismiss, tend to be disparate treatment of Jewish students.
Should we expect similar filings from victims of anti-Palestinian bigotry on campuses fueled by people who consider Palestinians revolting, subhuman, or just in the way?
Will the Conspirators view those claims differently?
What's the matter Reverend Revolting? That list is a veritable who's who of the "Bettors" you keep blathering about.
Frank
The problem is that, much as Rev.Confederate woild prefer to believe otherwise, there just isn’t much evidence of widespread regarding of Palestinians as revolting etc.
Rev. Confederate forgets that, unlike Judge Lynch, Judge Law requires evidence. This is a big reason why his ilk have found Judge Lynch far more convenient for their purposes.
And, of course, the Rev. closely follows the claims of many a previous Rev., for example Rev. Thomas Bishop, that the military occupation of the South and the propping up of Negro Government by military force, together with the numerous acts of land-stealing and other atrocities documented in the Klan literature, were acts of blind hatred towards Southerners, pure prejudice. If one believes, as John Calhoun and his many successors firmly did, that people’s sole motivation for their actions is hate, then one sees hate behind everyrhing they do.
Look back into the threads from October 7th and count the posters that equated pro-Palestinian views with pro-Hamas/terrorism support. Similar views were expressed by wealthy donors who were pulling or threatening to pull donations from universities.
"[T]here just isn't much evidence" is trying to wave away far too much history on this blog alone.
That’s like saying the people who show up at Klan rallies mostly just support states rights and like traditional Southern architecture and art and don’t actually support the Klan’s goals. Sorry. It doesn’t work that way.
These rallies were specifically pro-Hamas rallies organized by Hamas supporters. You show up at a Hamas support rally, you get Hamas’ goals attributed to you.
It’s interesting that you equate simple opposition to calls for Israel’s destruction, which the wealthy donors indeed expressed, with hatred of Palestinians. Saying opposing “from the river to the sea” - Palestinian supremacy - represents hatred of Palestinians, is no different from saying opposing segregation and white supremacy represents hatred of white people.
There were a lot of reports of people at these rallies telling Jews they had to keep off the sidewalk. Jews under Moslem rule had to step aside and yield the sidewalk when a Moslem passed, much like blacks had to under Jim Crow in the United States. People at these rallies openly want to go bacl to the “good old days” when Jews were mostly impoverished serfs and laborers with third class social status.
It’s not hating Palestinians to oppose that.
You just did exactly what shawn accused wealthy donors of doing: equating all pro-Palestinian voices with support for terrorism.
Helpful analogies there.
.
You're full of shit and downscale partisanship. You fit right in at the Volokh Conspiracy.
You got your ass handed to you. Take the L gracefully, Arthur.
"Take the L gracefully, Arthur."
Are you new?
Arthur, gracefully.
No?
You guys should look outside the clingerverse at least occasionally. Maybe read the Times or Post once in a while.
Should Palestinian students be told to study what makes Palestinians such a hated group?
1.4 billion live in lands where they are instructed Jews are evil and need extermination.
Due to genius planning, the simmering antisemitism buried beneath European sentiments, known to continue all along, has arisen and been loosed. All it took was the clever invention of a method to allow intelligentsia to hate Jews not because of their religion, but because of what they do.
Wait. They killed Our Lord and drink the blood of babies.
It's for what they do. It's exactly the same!
‘Should Palestinian students be told to study what makes Palestinians such a hated group?’
Would you hesitate to tell them they should? Or just demand they condemn Hamas?
‘has arisen and been loosed’
It’s the Palestinians dying by the tens of thousands at the moment.
‘They killed Our Lord….’
Why would Palestinians care if the Jews killed Jesus?
The reason saying something like that to a Jew is anti-semitic because they are conflating all Jews with the actions of the Israelis. So are Palestinians, as a group, all evil, because they are, by definition, all anti-semites?
I can't think of a Palestinian I've ever met who wasn't a rabid antisemite.
Ed you were talking to mop heads and giving them Palestinian names and accusing them of anti-semitism until the janitor threw you out of the closet.
Okay, that was funny.
Why does it matter that prominent firms biglaw firms are bringing these cases? Are you under the impression that large and prominent firms don't file frivolous cases? Whether these complaints have merit or not have nothing to do with the firms that brought them.
"The key in each will be to get past a motion to dismiss because discovery will almost certainly be brutal for defendants."
This is some Madden-esque legal commentary.
Without knowing any of the details, I would be more confident in the merits of a prominent firm filing a case about a publicized issue than a nobody firm filing the same case. Big firms have reputations, unknown firms can seek publicity.
"I would be more confident in the merits of a prominent firm filing a case about a publicized issue."
Why?
"Biglaw" might be making their decisions based not on the quality of the claims but the likelihood of a settlement. Further, individual lawyers in any of these firms might have personal reasons to take a case at a particular university.
"Further, individual lawyers in any of these firms might have personal reasons to take a case at a particular university."
Bingo! (also a bingo with respect to taking a case for or against a particular viewpoint)
Also business reasons. A particular wealthy client or their business might give the firm steady and lucrative work for normal stuff. But then they want the firm to do something more personal that could end up being stupid/petty. The firm still does it because it doesn’t want to lose an otherwise good client.
Biglaw might take a very dubious case for a long-time client, as you suggest. These cases, however, are either on contingency or pro bono, the latter resulting in compensation only if they win and get attorneys' fees.
Wow, that really happens? = A particular wealthy client or their business might give the firm steady and lucrative work for normal stuff. But then they want the firm to do something more personal that could end up being stupid/petty. The firm still does it because it doesn’t want to lose an otherwise good client.
Unfortunately, yes.
Also? Really rich people can be VERY petty.
Do you work at a rural lemonade stand?
Come on; that's silly. If it were Sidney Powell or Alina Habba or Larry Klayman filing these things, you'd certainly factor that in to your preliminary assessment of their merits, wouldn't you? You'd say to yourself, "If this is the best that the plaintiffs could get, they're probably frivolous suits that no real lawyer would touch," wouldn't you? Well, the signaling works both ways. It doesn't/shouldn't override an informed conclusion after reviewing the substance of the suits, but it's a good heuristic for a starting point.
Porter Wright, a large and prominent firm, brought Trump’s initial challenges to the results in PA.
Skadden was filing frivolous bankruptcies in the J&J case
Individual lawyers might have a reputation you can trust. But firms absolutely do not.
Didn’t Porter Wright depart the Pennsylvania litigation very quickly (maybe within days)? A Porter Wright lawyer or two might have departed the firm in connection with that context, two.
Yeah they withdrew a week after filing the complaint it looks like some of those lawyers left the firm, but idk how soon after.
I’ll also note that Cleta Mitchell worked for Foley and Lardner, but was forced out when they got wind of what she was up to.
Large/Prominent firms will file incredibly stupid suits, make incredibly stupid arguments, and employ incredibly stupid/insane people. They’re not a good heuristic for merit.
"but idk how soon after."
Very soon after, if not simultaneously.
I certainly agree that being filed by a high-quality firm is no guarantee that the case is meritorious. But that doesn't mean that you can't infer anything about merit by who the lawyers are. A correlation doesn't have to be perfect to convey some infromation.
So I have no problem inferring that a large firm will almost always produce quality work, that it will probably be the best version of whatever the product is (complaint, brief, etc)
But I don’t think that inference extends to the merits of cases, particularly when a firm has a wide variety of practice groups.
I think you can make inferences about the merits of complaints based on a firm reputation when the firm specializes. For instance I know which local PI/Med Mal firms are less likely to bring a bullshit case, and which ones will take anything.
Noscitur, notably, a litigator's talent to win in the courtroom in front of a jury may be about merit, while bypassing completely the merit of the case. I think that's kind of the point of hiring a good litigator.
"A Porter Wright lawyer or two might have departed the firm in connection with that context, two."
I guess an eighth-grade education only goes so far.
I’d rather be guilty of a typo (or maybe a victim of autocorrect) than a worthless, fringe, right-wing bigot.
Small-law is better than pro-se at avoiding frivolous lawsuits but not always by much. Big-law also sometimes files frivolous lawsuits but they tend not to stay big-law if they file many. Size of the firm is not a guarantor of quality but it can be a rough heuristic.
"Size of the firm is not a guarantor of quality but it can be a rough heuristic."
Yes. They are Big Law because they have lots of lawyers providing high quality legal services for clients at high hourly rates. Fail too often you get a lot smaller.
Some people never got over not getting hired by these firms.
Harrison Butker and his "Christ killer" speech seems to have been granted a pass at the Volokh Conspiracy, which has been conspicuously interested in other circumstances involving ostensible antisemitism.
As have those who have prominently (although in a minority) expressed support for Butker.
As have Elon Musk, Musk's voucher William Ackman, and dozens of Volokh Conspiracy commenters (for years), and other conservatives. (How many Volokh Conspiracy posts were precipitated by the "Jewish space laser" episode)?
These passes seem to be issued based on partisan (right-wing) considerations. (Conservatives' disdain for strong, mainstream, reason-based universities may also be part of this.)
The partisan passes also diminish substantially the force of this blog's strenuous focus on antisemitism (real or perceived) that can be pinned (at least plausibly) on people who are not conservatives (and are not Nazis at CPAC).
None of the whining right-wingers at this white, male blog want to talk about Harrison Butker.
What a bunch of paltry, partisan, pretext-driven cowards.
Real Amuricans call him #7, NFL calls him the #1 selling Jersey currently (funny they're not contributing the money to Planned Parenthood) and he's a Grad-jew-ma-ate of Georgia Tech (which stands for "Technology" and not "Technical") a school you'd have as much chance of getting in as Sacha Baron Cohen getting elected next President of Ear-Ron, both daughters grad-jew-ma-cated from there, Aereonautical Engineering
Frank
So, I clicked on three random links.
One wasn’t to a complaint (Haverford).
One wasn’t to the correct complaint (UVa links to Harvard).
One was to the correct complaint (NYU).
So, three links, two errors, two complaints.
Of the two complaints I saw, they were pretty similar. Which tracks, because it’s the same firm (KASOWITZ BENSON TORRES LLP).
I would agree that this is a reputable firm, although I think there are serious issues with the claims brought. Are they going to get some claims past a MTD? Maybe. Given that you have to assume the allegations are true, there appears to be enough to get some claims through. But there will be serious issues past that stage given the novelty of their theory, once you begin to think about it for more than second (which is why they are throwing in the breach of implied contract, etc. etc. etc.).
And that's all the work I am doing, given the OP couldn't be bothered to post the correct links, and I'm not getting paid to analyze complaints that the OP didn't.
“So, I clicked on three random links.
One wasn’t to a complaint (Haverford).
One wasn’t to the correct complaint (UVa links to Harvard).
One was to the correct complaint (NYU).
So, three links, two errors, two complaints.”
Maybe Prof. Bernstein outsourced the linking to Profs. Blackman and Barnett?
(Kasowitz? Wasn't that guy a prominent member of Trump Litigation: Elite Stike Force? If so, doesn't the record indicate we might expect professional sanctions more than litigation success?)
Marc Kasowitz was a long-time Trump attorney, but resigned from any cases before the issues began. AFAIK, he never engaged in the ethical shenanigans of the Elite Strike Force.
I am not a big fan of firms such as this one that specialize in class actions and the like, but it's certainly a reputable firm.
"Marc Kasowitz was a long-time Trump attorney, "
Strike one.
Strike two.
Kasowitz has represented Putin-adjacent and Manafort-connected Russian oligarch Deripaska; Donald Trump (repeatedly, for many years, in several unsavory contexts); a tobacco company; Bill O'Reilly; Scott Atlas; a sanctioned Russian bank . . .
He also claimed to have arranged the dismissal of a U.S. Attorney he considered insufficiently hospitable to Trump.
Strikes three, four, five, etc. . . .
re Haverford - Link worked for me (though I did have to turn off the scriptblocker). Did it not work for you? Or was there something deficient about the complaint?
U Va link is also working correctly for me. Maybe a local cache problem?
I am assuming that DB fixed it after seeing my post, given he was active in the thread at the time.
And rather than assuming he made a simple error that was easy to make given the number of links posted you just rushed to spew your childishly snot-nosed, "given the OP couldn’t be bothered to post the correct links" comment.
"I am assuming that DB fixed it after seeing my post, given he was active in the thread at the time."
Or maybe you made a mistake, and they were always correct.
And of course, Bernstein probably has about as much chance of seeing Loki's posts as Loki does of seeing my posts.
One wasn’t to a complaint (Haverford).
Yes, it was. I pulled it up with no problem.
One wasn’t to the correct complaint (UVa links to Harvard).
The UV link is also correct.
given the OP couldn’t be bothered to post the correct links
That's pretty snotty, given that you appear to be the only one who had problems with them.
Sounds like you're maybe an old guy so let me tell you about this cool new invention that web pages now have, which is that you can edit them rather than being stuck with the original stone tablets that you chiseled by hand.
Don't be alarmed by that loud ****WHOOOOOSH**** sound of the point flying a mile over your head.
It's pretty amusing that you of all people are trying to chide Loki for tone.
No big deal, given I can't see it. I assume, at some point, that those who feel the need to continue will eventually realize that I neither see it, nor care, and will move on to something else when they repeatedly don't get a reaction.
Or not! Obviously, you can't cure ... well, you know.
Lol wuzzie! See Larry below.
.
There is a 2nd UCLA suit -- I think. See: https://issuu.com/young.americas.foundation/docs/2024.05.20_letter_to_ina_bryant_-_notice_of_duty_t
This is Young America suing over their canceled speaker.
I'm glad to see these cases collected. They are too verbose to think about for now. Too many details that don't matter. A request to work on the Sabbath, resolved to the plaintiff's satisfaction. Too few details that do matter. Show me the allegedly pro-Hamas statements instead of baldly asserting they are actionable.
Yes, agreed. There's a bunch of "these people were saying such mean things that I didn't feel safe going on campus" but without any actual indication of what those mean things were.
(FWIW, I think it's true that a lot of Jewish students felt unsafe to go to some of these campuses. I'm not sure how well-founded those fears were a lot of times; but more importantly I'm also don't see that the filings I've glanced at do a very good job of establishing that the universities were at fault for an environment so hostile that they couldn't reasonably go to class or that it's reasonable to call the actions of the administrations "antisemitic".)
Because of the strict current pleading standards, plaintiffs have the incentive to throw in every relevant fact. So you really have to read the complaints closely to pick out what are the key allegations, and which are basically background information that help establish an overall hostile environment, but by themselves don't support a claim.
The UPenn link goes to the Harvard complaint
"To win those claims, the plaintiffs don't have to get into the borderline between harassment and free speech, or whether the university has done the minimum necessary to combat harassment to meet Title VI. They only need to show, as seems pretty clear in most instances, that Jewish students who complain about antisemitism and their complaints are treated differently than complaints of discrimination by other groups, and/or that universities enforce their disciplinary rules differently with regard to antisemitic acts than with regard to other violations off school rules."
Uh... I didn't see this when I posted above.
"The Sandoval petitioners brought suit to enjoin an English-only policy of the Alabama Department of Public Safety on grounds that it disparately impacted non-English speakers in violation of the regulations. Though we assumed that the regulations themselves were valid, we rejected the contention that the private right of action to enforce intentional violations of Title VI encompassed suits to enforce the disparate-impact regulations. We did so because '[i]t is clear ... that the disparate-impact regulations do not simply apply § 601 — since they indeed forbid conduct that § 601 permits — and therefore clear that the private right of action to enforce § 601 does not include a private right to enforce these regulations.' Id., at 285. Thus, Sandoval held that private parties may not invoke Title VI regulations to obtain redress for disparate-impact discrimination because Title VI itself prohibits only intentional discrimination."
Jackson v. Birmingham Bd. of Ed., 544 US 167, 177-78. (2005).
Are we discussing a different Title VI? You say that they are alleging disparate impact (which seems apparent in part), but I am having difficulty reconciling what you are saying is the law with what I understand, so perhaps you could explain this a little better?
These aren't disparate impact claims. These are unequal treatment claims.
Okay, but what is the adverse decision that is generally being complained about?
That's what I am struggling with in terms of the legal theory. You're not saying that this was a hostile environment, you're saying disparate treatment (aka, disparate impact, aka intentional discrimination). In the cases I saw (albeit not the one cited above), there wasn't really any specific adverse action taken that could be tied to any intentional discrimination. There doesn't appear to be any action from the institutions against the students based on race. Obviously, different fact patterns would matter. In addition, you can't use third parties for that (aka, students).
But you could claim a hostile environment, by third parties, in some circumstances (severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that the institution had actual knowledge and was deliberately indifferent to it AND it deprived the student of access to educational benefits). But it appeared that the disruptions affected all students in that manner. And the standard for deliberately indifferent is very high as well.
Most of the cases aren't about the encampments, and precede them. Failure to enforce neutral rules when Jewish students complain of discrimination, harassment, etc. creates an inference of discrimination, an inference strengthened when litigants can point to arguably analogous circumstances in which rules were enforced strictly, or even action was taken without rules. Another thing brough up in some of the complaints is that university officials would admit culpability by students, student groups, or themselves, and proceed to do nothing. There is also at least one complaint where a university official allegedly acknowledged he would act differently if similar harassment was aimed at a different group.
But of course, the specific allegations vary from school to school and one can't generalize about the strength of each complaint on any given issue. I would say that of the seven or eight I read closely, I'd be surprised if the university was able to win an MOD on more than one.
Right … I think we are talking past each other.
I haven’t read all the complaints, but the two I read out of these (and the one I read before) rely almost exclusively on third-party action (aka, protests and encampment).
More importantly, to make a claim for disparate treatment, you don’t just say that there was disparate treatment in the abstract, it has specific elements, and while the comparator is helpful, I am still missing the actual adverse action or decision in most of these that causes the harm. It mostly seems like a hostile environment claim, which has much higher standards.
The Department of Education disagrees, see the section on disparate treatment in its recent guidance: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-202405-shared-ancestry.pdf
DB,
I assume you know that the DoE is not responsible for lawsuits, and that lawsuits are brought by the DoJ or private individuals (through an implied private right of action). Those have specific standard as have been set by the courts.
I wonder if anyone on this thread has actually quoted any of those opinions? What, does the DoE get into McDonnell-Douglas?
As a general rule, trying to quickly learn about a topic by googling is usually not the best way to actually learn about a topic. If you aren't actually familiar with this, it's okay. You can just say that you don't know. As I wrote, I am unclear on the actual merits of all of the different claims (although I am very skeptical of some), but it will be interesting to see how the different fact patterns are adjudicated.
I know enough to know that MD is an ancient Title VII case, and, as reflected in the days-old OCR guidance, Which I knew about without googling, is not the rule for Title VI cases, and for good reason: Title six only requires that you be deprived of access to or benefits of educational opportunities and programs because of discrimination. So if you were forced to take art history section 3 with the professor you preferred because of your race, And you had to take section 2 instead, even though you can’t show any damages beyond being deprived of the opportunity to take section 3, you still have a valid Title VI Complaint. I’m pretty confident you’ve never brother defended a Tirle VI case, Despite your pretensive of expertise.
Why not.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/fcs/T6Manual6
You are awfully confident casting aspersions for someone who is not familiar with this area. Seriously, I quoted the cases above to help you out. And you didn't realize that the DoE doesn't bring suit.
In the future, when someone gives you an out, take it.
In the meantime, why not see if you can learn something from the link. You're welcome.
"FACTORS/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROBATIVE OF INTENT
....
The sequence of events leading up to the decision, as compared to other decisions on comparable matters;"
The latter sentence is exactly what you said you can't rely on...
DB,
Seriously, just stop. This is actually the point I’ve been making-
“and while the comparator is helpful, I am still missing the actual adverse action or decision in most of these that causes the harm.”
You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’ve been googling (and using the source I’ve been providing you) to keep arguing with me.
Do you have any idea how that makes you look? I will point out, again, that I gave you an out. Look- you’re a professor, not a litigator. And this isn’t your area. You could have just left it at, “I don’t know.”
You might want to think about that in the future (not that you will.)
And this, by the way, is why people with a little bit of understanding can’t really rely on what you say. Jus’ sayin’. The last time you were so foolish, you threatened to dox me, except (of course) you couldn't do that correctly.
One more time- it's okay to be wrong. I wrote something wrong in this thread because of carelessness! Just try and be better.
Oh, please. here's what I wrote, and you objected to:
"Most of the cases aren’t about the encampments, and precede them. Failure to enforce neutral rules when Jewish students complain of discrimination, harassment, etc. creates an inference of discrimination, an inference strengthened when litigants can point to arguably analogous circumstances in which rules were enforced strictly, or even action was taken without rules."
And here again is Justice's guidance:
“FACTORS/CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROBATIVE OF INTENT
….
The sequence of events leading up to the decision, as compared to other decisions on comparable matters;”
But it's a mistake to engage with you to begin with, because it's all bluster and insult, and I don't think in the well-over-a-decade you have been commenting you have ever admitted you were wrong about anything, even when people presented direct evidence to you.
I think I had vowed once before to ignore you, and I forgot, now I remember, and why.
Just to recap.
You didn’t know what you were talking about. You still don't understand why my response was that we were talking past each other.
You then provided a source that wasn’t applicable.
You then double down, showing it, by making a completely asinine statement that showed you don’t know what you’re talking about (Mc/D).
Finally, when I provided you some actual information, you proceeded with insults, and instead of noticing that it actually showed that you didn’t know what you were talking about (as was evident from your posts), you proceeded to try and use it in order to argue the point.
So, this is usual for you. Again- your posts are there, they speak for themselves, and anyone who has an iota of experience in litigation, or this area of the law, see exactly what you’ve done here.
I’m good with that. Again, in the future, it’s perfectly fine to not know about something. There are plenty of topics I don’t comment on. And legal topics that I acknowledge I have limited information.
Something you might want to consider.
But I agree- you aren't worth engaging with. Because that would require you to actually discuss things with an ounce of good faith.
These are unequal treatment claims.
Hypothetical unequal treatment, to be precise.
How do you figure?
Two reasons really. One is what loki pointed out: the Jewish students have a hard time identifying how they were harmed by the university. Unequal treatment claims still require an injury. Stamping your foot and declaring "it's not fair" isn't sufficient. For example, maybe the university really does like the Black kids better than the Jewish kids, and it makes the Jewish kids sad. That's not enough to sustain an unequal treatment claim.
But what makes them truly hypothetical is their failure to identify a comparable case where another class of students was treated better, because the situation and context here is so unique. No other group of kids have a nation engaging in a sketchy war in their name. That's significant and relevant, as much as David and the students may wish to pretend otherwise.
It’s pretty easy. For example, MIT openly acknowledged it didn’t pursue complaints against students harassing and overtly threatening Jewish students on grounds that pursuing the complaints would lead to visa problems for them.
I can’t say that hasn’t happened regarding any other group. Administrations in the past have acknowledged they didn’t pursue rape complaints on grounds they didn’t want to ruin fine young men’s careers over nothing more than a woman.
But I can say that when it has happened, it has been treated as intentional discrimination by the courts.
https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2023-11-11/ty-article/.premium/mit-on-why-it-didnt-suspend-pro-palestinians-students-threatening-jews-visa-issues/0000018b-be9b-df42-a78f-bfdb51c00000
And even in the absence of overt statements, a pattern and practice of burying complaints by particular groups and/or avainst particular groups easily meets disparate impact.
ReaderY, did you understand Randal's point about the unique context of the present case, with an arguably barbaric and even criminal policy practice as a potential focus of demonstrators' objections? How do you address that?
"or that universities enforce their disciplinary rules differently with regard to antisemitic acts than with regard to other violations of school rules."
Let's start with encampments. Did they let the Jewish kids do it?
I think it is a huge mistake for students to be too afraid to identify themselves, and an even bigger mistake to limit things to administrative complaints against school administrations rather than tracking down and sueing the individuals involved.
Limiting things to administrations permits the individuals to act with impunity.
Individuals can be sued for claims ranging from tortious interference with contracts to the Ku Klux Klan act.
So to sum up the above comments, my brief perusal identified the following-
1. I can't really comment on specific state law claims in the few complaints I looked at, but as a general matter, breach of contract claims seem very weak. However, I can't opine on the other state law claims.
2. There seem to be issues with the elements in some of the complaints; for example, the first Columbia Complaint (posted earlier in another thread) posited a class action for all students based on the cancellations, etc., but premised it on the anti-Semitism, which brings up serious issues regarding the class action (IMO).
3. The Title VI claims are interesting; for example, looking at the NYU complaint, they appear to refer to both a hostile environment and disparate impact in the same count, which is definitely a choice.
It will be interesting to see how these claims advance; I personally think that there might be a better claim for hostile environment than disparate impact based on some of these allegations given that there is often a lack of a specific decision or action that was taken with respect to the alleged discrimination, but they all have different fact patterns, and I can't think of a case that's close to the issues here.
The cases should all be updated on antisemitismlitigation.com now.
If you find others, please send them to me: newaction@antisemitismlitigation.com