The Louis Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education File Discrimination Against Harvard

Harvard’s Jewish and Israeli students, claim the school allowed bullying, hostility and abusive behavior which went unchecked in recent years after multiple discrimination cases were filed.

In the lawsuit complaint, the Brandeis Center highlights the Harvard student body, Professors, Faculty and the Administration who all openly participated in a blatant, hostile and bias disregard towards the Jewish student body in favor of a more favorable stance towards Muslim students, Palestinian affairs and favoritism towards the Arab Middle East student body. Harvard allowed hostility and harassment towards Jewish students go unabated for years including Professors who openly dismissed Harvard Jewish students proposed project work which, if approved by the Professors and presented by the Jewish students, would have presented a favorable and correct depiction of Israel’s democracy and of the Jewish students identity.

The Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE) filed a lawsuit Wednesday claiming Harvard’s Non-Discrimination Policy provides protection against discrimination based on race, color, national origin, ancestry, or religion “is unlawful and is prohibited by this Policy” but was not equally enforced for the Jewish population.

The Brandeis Center is a nonprofit, non-partisan corporation established to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. The Brandeis Center engages in research, education, and legal advocacy to combat antisemitism on college and university campuses and in K-12, in the workplace, and elsewhere. It empowers students by training them to understand their legal rights and educates administrators and employers on best practices to combat racism and antisemitism.

In recent years, and especially in the last few months, Jewish and Israeli students have been subjected to cruel antisemitic bullying, harassment, and discrimination. And when Harvard is presented with incontrovertible evidence of antisemitic conduct, it ignores and tolerates it. Harvard’s permissive posture towards antisemitism is the opposite of its aggressive enforcement of the same anti-bullying and anti-discrimination policies to protect other minorities. As Plaintiffs and their members have experienced, Harvard has been deliberately indifferent to the pervasive antisemitism on campus, creating an unbearable educational environment. Plaintiffs and other Jewish and Israeli students feel isolated, unwelcome, and unable to enjoy the educational rights and benefits to which they are legally entitled.

The Jewish “‘Members objected to the discrimination, causing Harvard to commission an outside investigation (the “Investigative Report.” The Investigative Report concluded that . . . created “a hostile learning environment,” denied Jewish Members “a learning environment free from bias,” and “denigrated” them “on the basis of their Israeli national origin and Jewish ethnicity and ancestry.” The Investigative Report also detailed the pain and suffering HKS Members experienced, including medical issues and a loss of education benefits.”’

Harvard did not challenge the findings to of the Investigative Report and to the contrary, agreed to the findings of fact and conclusions regarding the violations of “School policies,” effectively acknowledging “it had discriminated against its Israeli and Jewish students and created a hostile learning environment.” Yet Harvard “failed to take prompt or effective remedial action in response, or any remedial action, as far as Plaintiffs are aware. Rather, the Dean of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) obfuscated and delayed, claiming that the Investigative Report raised “complex issues of pedagogy” that required further inquiry—even though the Investigative Report had specifically found “no pedagogical support” for the in-class conduct.

”

A few days after the massacre, the administration offered mealy- mouthed statements about “the war” and “violence” generally, but failed to make any clear statement that antisemitism would not be tolerated. And it refused to condemn a letter signed by more than thirty student groups that blamed Israel for the terrorist attack—a classic antisemitic conspiracy-theory, as recognized by the U.S.-adopted definition of antisemitism. Further, as students were chanting “From the River to the Sea!” and “Globalize the Intifada!”—that is, to destroy Israel and bring violence to Jews globally—the school’s first post-October 7 action was to form a task force to protect the individuals spewing that vile hatred. A few weeks later, then-University President Claudine Gay appeared before Congress and testified that calling for the mass murder of Jews on campus does not on its own violate Harvard’s policies. It “depends on the context,” she said.

Through its public actions and failures to act, Harvard has made its position clear: Jews are fair game. Students and faculty can harass and discriminate against Jews, and they can do so openly and with impunity. Harvard will go out of its way to protect antisemitic protestors and conspiracy-theorists. But unfortunately antisemitism has continued to exacerbate and Jewish students have continued to experience hostility to the “point of becoming physical.”

A video emerged of a mob surrounding Member #4, an Israeli Jew and a student at the Harvard Business School (“HBS”), as he was walking through campus when he encountered an outdoor antisemitic crowd, they engulfed him with keffiyehs, and chanted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in his face. The assailants grabbed him, and one hit him in the neck with his forearm, before forcing Member #4 out of Harvard’s quad.

The video of the assault is shocking. “But more remarkable perhaps is that Harvard has not taken any action to date to redress both the physical assault and the clear violations of its Anti-Bullying and Anti-Discrimination Policies. Instead, it cited an ongoing criminal investigation into Member #4’s assailants and claimed that it is “standard practice” to await the criminal process—yet another contrived excuse. There is no such policy or practice. Member #4’s assault was caught on tape, and the offenders have been identified. Harvard can make its own assessment, based on its own policies, and it can act accordingly—as it would have already done if Member #4 had been a member of any other protected class.”

Since experiencing these incidents of harassment and discrimination— all clearly in violation of Harvard’s policies—the Brandeis Center and its members have sent letters and filed complaints, doing everything they can to get Harvard to act. But Harvard has brushed them aside. To date, Harvard has announced no suspensions or expulsions of Member #4’s assailants for their actions on October 18, 2023. And, in November, Harvard sent another boilerplate email to the HKS Members, giving them the same excuse that personnel actions are “confidential.”

By failing to effectively discipline and deter these incidents, the school has allowed the problem to get worse. Indeed, the problem has become so severe that the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into Harvard, and the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a letter on January 9, 2024 expressing “concerns regarding the inadequacy of Harvard’s response to the antisemitism on its campus,” both generally and specifically with reference to the hate-filled incidents the Brandeis Center’s and JAFE’s members have endured. On February 16, 2024, the House Committee issued subpoenas to Harvard officials compelling production of documents.

As recipient of federal funding, Harvard is covered by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It has a legal duty to provide a safe learning environment for all of its students. It also has a contractual obligation to enforce its policies to protect tuition-paying students from the very type of harassment, bullying, and discrimination that all the Brandeis Center’s and JAFE’s members have endured

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Antisemitism Has Become Pervasive at Harvard in Recent Years.

The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”9 Incorporated into the definition are the following examples:

Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.

• Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.

• Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

• Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).

• Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.

• Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.

• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.

• Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.

• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.

• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Pervasive and repeated incidents of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus have been well-documented. The problem is not a secret to Harvard and has not been for many years. A November 2022 report by the AMCHA Initiative, a nonprofit that documents antisemitism on college campuses, found that Harvard had the highest rate of threats based on Jewish identity of the 109 campuses it surveyed.

In March 2023, a Harvard student presented a senior thesis entitled “The Death of Discourse: Antisemitism at Harvard College,” which details the severe and pervasive anti-Jewish bias on campus—even before October 7, 2023.

Students interviewed between October 2022 and February 2023 had reported experiencing or witnessing instances of antisemitism on Harvard’s campus. In addition, 83.33% of students said that they experienced anti-Zionism, and 68.75% had self-censored in academic or social settings because of “their Judaism or connections to Israel

Harvard was and is well aware of these studies and surveys and, therefore, about its hostile educational environment. And the Brandeis Center and JAFE members—who are among that group of students who have experienced and suffered from this antisemitic discrimination—have reported multiple incidents through the appropriate channels. Nonetheless, Harvard has remained deliberately indifferent to their complaints.

Members Endure Antisemitic Bullying and Discrimination in Class.

Professors, Teaching Assistants, and Students Object to HKS Members’ Israeli Jewish Identity.

In spring 2023 semester, HKS offered a course for graduate students called “Organizing: People, Power, Change,” taught by Professor Marshall Ganz. The course promised to teach students about how to work in teams, connect with potential constituents, and ultimately organize for a worthwhile cause.

During the first weekend of the course (February 24–26, 2023), two teaching fellows introduced themselves to the entire class, and immediately expressed their anti-Israel sentiment, without apparent reason or provocation. HKS Members then introduced their topic about Jewish democracy in Israel to the class.

During February 27, 2023, Professor Ganz called HKS Members into his office for a meeting. He told them that some of the other students and teaching fellows had objected to their proposal and he wanted to foster a learning environment that would not be “offensive” to Muslim students.

HKS Members suggested that they meet with these students and teaching fellows to have a productive dialogue outside of class. But Professor Ganz refused to identify the students or teaching fellows, or to tell the HKS Members what their objections were.

Instead, Professor Ganz pressured HKS Members to abandon the project—a project that was meaningful to them, as it was about their Israeli Jewish identity. Professor Ganz urged HKS Members to eliminate any reference to Israel as a “liberal-Jewish-democracy,” even though that was the key point and purpose of the project. And, of course, Israel is, in fact, a Jewish democracy.

Multiple discussions with the goal to appease the Professor with hopes by the Jewish students to advance their project, “Professor Ganz stated that “Jewish democracy” is problematic because Judaism is an ethno-religion, unlike most other religions, and therefore, according to Professor Ganz, includes only members of a specific ethnic group in its democracy. Because Jews share an ethnicity, it would be offensive, in his view, to associate the Jewish State with the concept of democracy, a positive and inclusive form of government.”

Three days after their meeting, on March 2, 2023, Professor Ganz emailed HKS Members to tell them that their statement of purpose was “not acceptable going forward.” Professor Ganz explained that the term “liberal-Jewish- democracy” is “highly controversial” and that it was “disrupting the learning opportunity” for the class. HKS Members requested further clarification. Professor Ganz told them they could not complete their work as proposed because “many people enrolled in the class [find] [the] term ‘Jewish democracy’ deeply offensive.

”

Professor Ganz responded in an email an hour later, expressing his disappointment that HKS Members refused to accommodate other members of the class by changing their shared purpose and censoring their identities. “It’s unfortunate that you are choosing to ignore the provocative nature of your claims he stated, and he closed his email by threatening HKS Members that they would bear “responsibility for the consequences.”

On March 3, 2023, HKS Members met with Mr. Dan Grandone, one of their teaching fellows. During their meeting, Mr. Grandone also pressured HKS Members to change their project statement, again by removing both the terms “liberal-Jewish democracy” and “security lighthouse” in reference to Israel. In Mr. Grandone’s view, those terms were too “problematic.” Members, however, refused to do so and stated that they would present it as planned. But Professor Ganz did not allow them to present their work to the entire class.

The only option for the HKS Members was to subject themselves to the abuse or to leave. They opted to politely remain and subject themselves to the harassment, but, before class ended, HKS Members approached Professor Ganz and requested an opportunity to respond. They sought to defend these attacks on their identity, which Professor Ganz had purposefully invited, and to provide a different perspective, so the class could have a better, more comprehensive understanding of the events in their Jewish heritage.

Professor Ganz responded by losing his temper. He rejected their request to speak. He told HKS Members that they “had caused enough problems already” and that they would have to go elsewhere to make their points. Later, at the end of the final class session of the course, and as yet another psychological assault on the HKS Members, the HKS teaching fellows organized a class photo wherein students posed wearing keffiyehs to demonstrate Palestinian solidarity. This communicated to HKS Members that they were not welcome and they thus did not participate in the photo; but Professor Ganz and the teaching fellows were all present, a symbol of their discrimination against the HKS Members throughout the course and bias towards Muslim students and their positions

.

In addition to blocking HKS Members’ project, inviting anti-Israel speech that he knew would be hurtful, and then preventing HKS Members from responding, Professor Ganz further retaliated by giving the HKS Members lower grades than they deserved. He did so solely as a “consequence” of their refusal to change their topic, as he had insisted, and because their topic dealt with their Jewish Israeli identity.

CAUSES OF ACTION, CHARGES AND RELIEF

Three Counts of charges and relief are requested by the Brandeis Center and JAFE as outlined below.

COUNT ONE

Plaintiffs request relief under VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which provides protection from discrimination “No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d.

Plaintiffs allege Defendant failed to cure or otherwise adequately address this discrimination against Members #1–5 and certain members of the Brandeis Center and JAFE, and it instead acted with deliberate indifference toward them.

COUNT TWO

Violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d Hostile Educational Environment.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by way of the complaint a “hostile educational environment” and without proper action of redress; blatantly ignoring the Jewish students with indifference and violating long standing anti-discrimination regulations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.

As direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and inactions, Members #1–5 and certain members of the Brandeis Center and JAFE were deprived of access to educational opportunities and benefits, including the ability to receive an education in an environment free from discrimination and intimidation, the ability to fully and freely participate in all classes and campus activates without fear of discrimination and intimidation, and the loss of significant class time and group learning.

COUNT THREE

Violations of Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Specifically C.F.R. § 100.7(e).

The Department of Education promulgates a regulation that provides that “[n]o recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by section 601 of the Act or this part, or because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this part.” 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e).

Defendant subjected Members #1–5 and certain members of the Brandeis Center and JAFE to material adverse actions as a result of their protected activity of reporting discrimination at Harvard. These occurred contemporaneously with, or after, reports of discrimination.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and inactions, Members #1–5 and certain members of the Brandeis Center and JAFE were deprived of access to educational opportunities and benefits, including the ability to receive an education in an environment free from discrimination and intimidation, the ability to fully and freely participate in all classes and campus activates without fear of discrimination and intimidation, and the loss of significant class time and group learning, which further impacted their academic performance.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court grant the following relief:

a. Entry of judgment against Defendant on all Counts;

b. Injunctive relief preventing Defendant from violating Title VI going forward, including enforcement of Defendant’s policies;

c. An award of attorneys’ fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and d. Such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Today’s lawsuit marks another step towards correcting the blatant hostiles and discrimination towards Jewish students and the bias towards Muslims starting in grades K-12 through higher educational institutions. Hopefully this lawsuit and potentially others to follow, will force Secretary of Education Miguel Angel Cardona to equally and without bias enforce our country’s long established “civil rights” regulations.

Furthermore, the question still remains as to whether the United States Attorney General Merrick Garland will be forced to indict individuals that have openly committed criminal acts of “assault and battery” on residents and students of the United States “without fear or favor” of one group over another.

For further reading below is the Brandeis Center Lawsuit. .https://brandeiscenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Brandeis-Center-v.-Harvard-COMPLAINT-final.pdf