Aug 6 (Reuters) – Harvard University must face a lawsuit by Jewish students who accused the Ivy League school of letting its campus become a bastion of rampant antisemitism, a federal judge ruled on Tuesday.
U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns in Boston found plausible accusations that Harvard was deliberately indifferent toward Jewish and Israeli students who said they feared for their safety after facing severe and pervasive harassment.
The judge also said he was “dubious” that Harvard could claim that some of the pro-Palestinian or anti-Jewish activities was protected by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“To conclude that the (complaint) has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the (complaint), proved hollow,” Stearns wrote.
“The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students,” the judge added. He did not rule on the merits.
Students sought an injunction to stop Harvard’s alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars federal funds recipients from allowing discrimination based on race, religion and national origin.
Harvard and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
A lawyer for the students, Marc Kasowitz, said in an interview after the decision that Harvard’s conduct necessitated changes sought in the lawsuit.
“Jewish students on campus were treated horrendously by other student groups, by administrators and by faculty who were very, very pro-Hamas and very, very antisemitic,” he said.
MANY SCHOOLS ARE SUED
The lawsuit filed in January is one of many accusing major universities of allowing and encouraging antisemitism, including in on-campus pro-Palestinian protests, following last October’s outbreak of war in Gaza between Israel and Hamas.
It was filed eight days after the resignation of President Claudine Gay, who had been under fire for her handling of antisemitism, and for separate plagiarism allegations.
Students accused Harvard of selectively enforcing its anti-discrimination policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, ignoring their pleas for protection, and hiring professors who advocated anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda.
The students said they were maligned as “murderers” and “colonizers,” and subjected to offensive chants such as “from the river to the sea.”
They also objected to a Harvard Law Review editor being allowed to resume work as a teaching fellow after he assaulted a Jewish student at a pro-Palestinian “die-in.”
Brown University and New York University settled similar lawsuits last month.
Columbia University, meanwhile, agreed in June to provide safety escorts and take other steps to settle a lawsuit claiming its campus had become unsafe.
The school’s main quad had housed a pro-Palestinian encampment that was dismantled following the April 30 arrest of dozens of protesters who took over a nearby academic building.
HARVARD TRIES ADDRESSING BIAS CONCERNS
In June, Harvard task forces on antisemitism, opens new tab and anti-Muslim bias, opens new tab each concluded that the campus was beset by discrimination and harassment, with reports of intolerance toward people with pro-Palestinian as well as pro-Israel views.
The antisemitism task force called for measures including anti-harassment training for students and for steps to ensure a “welcoming environment” for religiously observant Jewish students.
Meanwhile, the task force on anti-Muslim bias recommended measures including steps to prevent the “doxxing” of students who support the Palestinian people, and clarification of school policies toward bullying and bias.
In a message accompanying the reports, interim Harvard President Alan Garber urged the school community, opens new tab to “strengthen our ties with a sustained commitment to engaging each other with tact, decency, and compassion.”
Harvard removed Garber’s “interim” title on Aug. 2.
Stearns said the Harvard plaintiffs can also pursue two other claims: that Harvard breached a contractual obligation to enforce its non-discrimination policies, and treated students unfairly by failing to enforce those policies “evenhandedly.”
