Court Rejects Title VI Lawsuit Over Alleged Anti-Semitism at Haverford College
From today’s decision by Judge Gerald McHugh (E.D. Pa.) in Landau v. Corp. of Haverford College:
[A] litany of complaints related in a general way to the same subject—in this instance the serious problem of antisemitism—is not the same thing as a legally cognizable complaint pled in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure….
Plaintiffs Jews at Haverford, Alumni Ally Landau, and two anonymous students … allege that over the past year, Haverford College … has become a bastion of antisemitism that is tolerated and at times perpetuated by the College. Plaintiffs contend that they have been personally affected by the eruption of disorder on campus. Specifically, they state that they have lost friends, faced harassment, been forced to change their routines, and missed out on seminal Haverford experiences because of escalated antisemitism. They assert that antisemitism at Haverford has fostered a hostile educational environment in violation of Title VI, and that Haverford has breached certain contractual obligations by failing to deal with campus unrest.
At this stage, a court would typically review the relevant facts. I cannot cogently do so here due to the sprawling and disorganized character of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, which appears to detail every frustration and disagreement of Jewish students and faculty that has occurred at Haverford over the last year. It spills pages of ink on lengthy frolics about events on other college campuses and about ideological debates. Rather than isolating instances of harassment and logically relating them to the elements of a hostile environment claim, Plaintiffs set forth a running list of grievances that reads more as an opinion editorial than it does a legal complaint.
Some of the instances alleged are concerning, and if pled properly, could perhaps support a cognizable legal claim under Title VI. Yet, the Complaint is diluted by instances that no reasonable person could construe as intentional discrimination. For example, Plaintiffs contend that Haverford did not announce the month of May as “American Jewish History Month,” and instead only celebrated “Asian American/Pacific Islander Month.” Or, Plaintiffs complain that some graduating students at the Spring 2024 commencement donned attire that signified their support for Palestinians—a classic example of protected First Amendment expression. Elsewhere, Plaintiffs include comments made by a professor who does not even attend Haverford. As a result of Plaintiffs’ scattered pleading, any serious allegations of actionable discrimination are buried as needles within a haystack of distraction.
Plaintiffs also dedicate a full eight pages of their Complaint to their effort to link Judaism to Zionism, while simultaneously insisting that they are not asking the Court to resolve any religious issues. Plaintiffs’ equivocation is disingenuous, but likely strategic, seeking to blur the line between Zionism as a political philosophy and Zionism as a component of Jewish identity, and in the process implicitly sweep any and all criticism of Israel into the basket of antisemitism. {Haverford’s briefing also suffers from a lack of nuance in failing to distinguish different types of Zionism or anti-Zionism, because in current usage “Zionism” can hold many different meanings. This serves Defendant’s strategic purpose of deeming Zionism strictly a political philosophy, implicitly denying it can, depending on context, constitute an element of Jewish identity.} As a threshold matter, as I have done previously {Tannous v. Cabrini Univ. (E.D. Pa. 2023) (upholding termination of professor by university concerned by tone and content of social media posts about Israel)}, I reject Plaintiffs’ embedded proposition that any anti-Israel speech is intrinsically antisemitic, because reasonable people acting in good faith can challenge decisions of the Israeli government without harboring antisemitic views.
Although Plaintiffs present pockets of compelling facts, the burden is on Plaintiffs to articulate how particular facts support the elements of a legal claim, not to send the Court on a scavenger hunt. As cogently observed by Judge Boudin of the First Circuit, it is not the Court’s role, “especially in a counseled civil case, to create arguments for someone who has not made them or to assemble them from assorted hints and references scattered throughout the brief.” …
The court therefore rejected plaintiffs’ Title VI claims:
[1.] Title VI Applies to Antisemitic Harassment
On its face, Title VI does not address discrimination on the basis of religion. But there is ample precedent classifying antisemitic harassment and discrimination as tantamount to racial discrimination. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has also advised that Judaism is akin to race in specific instances where attacks are levied on “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.” How to apply it is a far more complex question.
As noted above, Plaintiffs posit that Zionism is “a central tenant of Judaism” under the purview of Title VI, whereas Haverford proposes that Zionism is merely a political belief unprotected by Title VI. For purposes of legal analysis, resort to such generalities is not useful, because the many meanings of “Zionism” make its relationship to Judaism extremely complex, made all the more complicated by strong emotions incited by strife in the region, and by the broad diversity of opinion within the Jewish population itself.
Article from Reason.com
The Reason Magazine website is a go-to destination for libertarians seeking cogent analysis, investigative reporting, and thought-provoking commentary. Championing the principles of individual freedom, limited government, and free markets, the site offers a diverse range of articles, videos, and podcasts that challenge conventional wisdom and advocate for libertarian solutions. Whether you’re interested in politics, culture, or technology, Reason provides a unique lens that prioritizes liberty and rational discourse. It’s an essential resource for those who value critical thinking and nuanced debate in the pursuit of a freer society.
