Hey, there! Log in / Register
Group of Jewish Harvard students sue the school, charging it is rife with anti-Semitism
By adamg on Wed, 01/10/2024 - 11:49pm
A group of Jewish students have sued Harvard University, alleging discrimination from top to bottom against Jews.
In the lawsuit, filed Wednesday in US District Court, the students say the school is failing to protect them against anti-Semitism that includes "mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty" that have swarmed the campus since Hamas killed more than 1,000 Israelis on Oct. 7, "promoting violence against Jews and harassing and assaulting them on campus."
The suit's named plaintiffs are Alexander Kestenbaum, a masters of theology student at Harvard Divinity School and a group called Students Against Antisemitism - which was only incorporated, in Delaware, on Dec. 29 and which has a "Coming Soon" Web page that tells visitors to "check back soon." The suit also lists five additional, but unnamed, Jewish students at Harvard.
Harvard's antisemitism cancer - as a past Harvard president termed it - manifests itself in a double standard invidious to Jews. Harvard selectively enforces its policies to avoid protecting Jewish students from harassment, hires professors who support anti-Jewish violence and spread antisemitic propaganda, and ignores Jewish students' pleas for protection. Those professors teach and advocate through a binary oppressor-oppressed lens, through which Jews, one of history's most persecuted peoples, are typically designated "oppressor," and therefore unworthy of support or sympathy. Harvard permits students and faculty to advocate, without consequence, the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, the only Jewish country in the world. Meanwhile, Harvard requires students to take a training class that warns that they will be disciplined if they engage in sizeism, fatphobia, racism, transphobia, or other disfavored behavior.
In addition to discrimination, the suit claims Harvard has broken its contract with Jewish students because they are unable to take full advantage of a Harvard education. The suit seeks a court order telling Harvard to do something about the problem as well as "compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined at trial" and attorneys' fees.
Kestenbaum and the new group are represented by two law firms, one in Boston and one in New York, which last month filed a similar suit against the University of Pennsylvania.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Complete complaint | 663.15 KB |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Let that sink in
Evidently a Harvard education isn't that good any more.
Anyone can sue
There's also a big racist billboard on O'Brien right now equating all Palestinians to Hamas. Let's see what discovery unveils in this case.
Photo of billboard please?
Where is it on O'Brien Highway?
Big and pink on the overpass
Big and pink on the overpass if you are headed from Somerville to the Museum of Science (for example). I don't have a dash cam and there isn't a safe spot to pull over, sorry. It referred to the website www.jewbelong.org I think.
Fatphobia and sizeism?
Are those not the same thing? The heart of the written complaint is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same thing. If a judge rules that they are different things, then the only thing in the complaint which holds up is the point about Harvard's affirmative action policies being disfavorable to Jewish applicants.
> The heart of the written
> The heart of the written complaint is that anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are the same thing. If a judge rules that they are different things...
...now why would they do that? Simply because they are in fact different things and anyone who says different is mistaken or lying?
The skinny
Being too tall or too short, but NOT overweight is sizeist.
I think those short of stature suffer more than the beanpoles do, relatively..
Oops.
It's a pathway, allegedly
One starts with "Palestinians are being mistreated in their homeland" which leads to "Israel must respect the 1948 boundaries and allow for true self-government for the Palestinian people" which leads to "Zionism is colonialism and British Mandatory Palestine is Palestinian land" which leads to "all Jews are complicit with Zionist imperialism" which leads to "Jews are causing the world's problems" which, well, begins to sound a heck of a lot like what Hitler was saying in the 20s and 30s, which is very much anti-Semitism.
Now, does this mean that supporters of Palestine are anti-Semites? It's kind of like how smoking pot leads to popping pills which leads to snorting oxy which leads to shooting up heroin which leads to shooting up fentanyl. The reality is that most pot smokers just smoke pot.
Do people attack synagogues due to their feelings about Palestine? Probably, but then again, people have been attacking synagogues before Zionism became a thing- in fact, it pogroms in Europe drove Zionism to become an ideology. In a legal battle, they'll probably need something stronger than some students and faculty standing in solidarity with Palestine to prove anti-Semitism.
They're not interested in
They're not interested in actually winning any court cases anyway (if they do, that's a bonus). As @deselby pointed out, this is a political manifesto. The only court they really care about is the court of public opinion.
Meanwhile ...
People also attack mosques.
Maybe someone should break it to these graduate students that Palestinians are historically and genetically Semitic people? Or would their privileged little heads explode?
Huh?
Do you really want an equivalent chain that starts with "the Jews need their own homeland" that ends with mosques being attacked?
I mean, I could do it, but it's just a mirror of what I wrote. One could also do that with just about any hot button issue, and that's a problem with modern political discourse. A minor difference of opinion becomes you assuming your opponent has these horrible beliefs, which is most likely not the case. I could give examples, but we're on Israel-Palestine here, which is the biggest one. We'll just end with anti-Zionism not being anti-Semitism and Zionism not being Islamophobia.
yes
That part always confuses me.. i believe most ultra-orthodox jews are anti-zionists, (as i understand it it's because they believe that man is blaspheming by creating a state of israel instead of waiting for god to create a state of israel), so would this make ultra-orthodox jews anti-semites as well?
Nope
There are ultra-Orthodox groups that do not recognize the state of Israel (the Satmars, for example), but there are also plenty that do (the Lubavitchers, for example):
Source.
Bill Ackman's going to get someone killed.
All because someone exposed his pretty young toy as a wikipedia-copying fraud.
This is a nice bit of misogyny
Come on Adam.
What I am struggling to
What I am struggling to understand here is whether there are actually groups saying "kill Jews" or whether this is an interpretation that something else being said.
The same for Islamophobia. Are folks on Harvard's campus actually advocating for killing Palestinians/Gazans, or is this in interpretation that some folks are taking?
I ask because I think it is very important that we lean in the direction of allowing for speech on college campuses. They are supposed to be a place where ideas are exchanged, and it is expected that folks may sometimes feel uncomfortable. Of course direct threats against any group should not be allowed, as should calls for any kind of mass killing. But it does seem to me to a degree that some people are trying to equate "being uncomfortable" with hate speech as a way to silence speech they do not agree with.
You're right and you're in the minority here
There are definitively no groups holding rallies saying "kill the Jews" or "kill the Muslims," that should be obvious to anyone.
You're right it's all interpretations. Any support of Palestinian people or even just stopping the current attacks in Gaza is immediately conflated with this "oh so you want to kill the Jews" and support of Israel is seen as a total endorsement of the war and all its effects.
That being said there is one side here that is currently doing a massive amount of killing, so it's honestly making me feel completely untethered from reality to see things like this lawsuit where a rally calling for a ceasefire is making someone "feel unsafe" while the civilian death count in Gaza is rolling up past 20,000 people.
An easy call?
The refrain "from the river to the sea" is an example of the blurry line:
Does it mean all of Israel should be for Palestinians only? (Implied threat of genocide of Jewish Israeli)
Does it mean Palestinians should be free in their home state of Israel? (No threat of genocide of Israeli nor Jews)
Until 2016, "make America great again" could have meant stronger unions, onshore manufacturing, or basically anything. Today it means only whites should be in power. After the last eight years of radical extremism, it has taken on a single exclusive meaning, but without that context, how would you judge it?
"Mobs of pro-Hamas students
"Mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty" who have somehow managed to keep all the harassing and assault and swarming from being reported on in the media. The situation must be very serious indeed.
Lawfare - Not a case which would be taken on contingent fee
Reading the complaint:
1. It's a political manifesto written for press attention, not a complaint to win damages. The rhetoric is overheated and likely to piss off judges. Basically they are alleging that harsh criticism and protests of Israel as an apartheid and genocidal state and BDS are anti-Semitism. Object is to chill speech.
2. No state discrimination law claim. They could have claimed a MGL c 151C discrimination in education claim, but for some reason they want to keep it in federal court.
3. No individual allegations of violence, threats or real anti-Semitic epithets directed at the individual plaintiffs, including Kestenbaum and the unnamed "SAA Members"
4. Reliance on statements of subjective feelings rather than objective acts eg "Harvard’s refusal to stand against antisemitism has left Kestenbaum too afraid to continue to participate in Jewish activities."
5.. Bizarre inclusion of the criticism of Larry Summers for saying women don't have what it takes for math and science in paragraph 3. That, and the numerous quotes from Summers since Oct 7, makes me wonder if Summers is paying for this lawsuit.
6. Misleading and bad faith recitation of facts. For example, in paragraph 53 two incidents - swastika writing on a whiteboard and an incident of vandalism from in 2018 are recounted, concluding "Harvard took no disciplinary action in response and, . . . Harvard did not condemn or punish the perpetrator." Yes, well that's because they never caught anyone. from what I found in searches of the Crimson.
Lawfare, but broader than you seem to think
They're filing in Federal court because a court finding against Harvard could be devastating in light of the university's obligations under Title VI. If Harvard is found liable in this case, it could lead the Department of Education to conclude Harvard is ineligible to receive federal funding; the university is currently under investigation by the department's Office of Civil Rights.
The criticism of Larry Summers is relevant because it points to a double standard at Harvard regarding supposed free speech or academic freedom. The university can easily condemn unpopular or unacceptable statements about women, but calls for genocide depend on the context???
If Harvard is creating an environment where anti-semitic vandalism occurs, then perhaps there is something wrong with Harvard.
The statements on subjective feelings are relevant because Harvard has warned its students that actions which might hurt the feelings of other students could result in discipline -- for example, misusing pronouns. I don't think it's a stretch that an Israeli Harvard student (national origin is a protected status, too) might be terrified by calls for the elimination of her country.
The standard isn't just whether the plaintiffs have been directly harmed by physical violence or statements made directly to them, but whether the university has, by its inaction, allowed students to be harmed by pervasive anti-Semitism. Otherwise one could argue that a hypothetical unrecognized KKK @ Harvard wouldn't require any action by the administration as long as they didn't threaten individual students with violence or racist epithets. Or that calls for the genocide of trans people are fine as long as they don't actually threaten individuals or misuse their pronouns.
you're proving my point
1. You can file Title VI claims in state court. It's done all the time. Since Massachusetts anti-discrimination law is more favorable to plaintiffs than Title VI, it's a bit odd they didn't file in Middlesex County, unless they're hoping for some Trump or Bush judge.
In any event, neither a federal nor a state court judgment against Harvard would bind the executive branch or Congress from sending money to Harvard.
Heck, Harvard just lost a big Title VI discrimination case in Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard and it's not going to affect their federal funding!!
2. Yes, you can claim that Harvard is being hypocritical. But is the president of the college saying women don't have what it takes for STEM the same as some random undergrad or interloper shouting "From the river to the sea" or "Tzipi Livni, you stink!" ?? For one thing, as the leader of the college, his speech exposed Harvard to more potential discrimination liability than a random undergrad could.
Anyways, Summers was president of Harvard for a year and a half after he made his speech and got a year's paid sabbatical after that - hardly a harsh punishment for his speech! As I said, a bizarre comparison.
3. Harvard has limited control over the kooks of Cambridge and Boston in public spaces. HUPD is not very big.
In fact, in another example of bad-faith misleading pleading, the menorah that was toppled in 2018 was not "at Harvard Chabad" as the complaint says, but on Cambridge Common. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/12/4/menorah-knocked-down/
Astounding bullshit. As for the swastika, Harvard buildings are commendably open to the public, there are no checkpoints. It says nothing about Harvard when something's written on a bulletin board or in a bathroom stall.
4. Of course, subjective feelings are relevant on the issue of damages, but are subject to a reasonable person standard. They are not very relevant on the issue of liability.
5. Yes they are claiming that someone being allowed to say "Tzipi Livni stinks" or "Israel is an apartheid state" or "the Gaza bombing campaign is genocidal" or "Zionism is racism" creates a hostile environment. An apparent objective of the lawsuit is to embed the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism into US law, outlawing the questioning of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, saying Zionism is a form of racism, BDS, or in any instance comparing Israeli actions to those of the Nazis. You apparently agree with those standards, but they encompass a lot of legitimate debate, including on the pages of Haaretz and now, in the International Court of Justice.
Proved your point?
I mean if your point was to demonstrate that you don't have a good-faith argument then yes, you have done so.
Characterizing the attack on Tzipi Livni as saying "Tzipi Livni stinks" should land you a spot among the brown shirts. The student asked, "How is it that you are so smelly?" That's an obvious reference to the old Nazi trope about smelly Jews.
The Feds are going to give greater credence to a ruling from the Federal courts. Plus they do indeed have a better shot of having a more favorable judge on the Federal bench.
Harvard lost the SFFA case but they could have continued their race-conscious admissions practices. They just would have lost funding due to Title VI had they done so.
Harvard does leave some of its buildings open to the public, but that is not true of the residential Houses -- and a swastika was carved into a bulletin board at Currier House in 2022.
It is absolutely fair game to protest the actions of the Israeli government or to decry the loss of civilian life in Gaza. But "From the River to the Sea" is a call for the eradication of Israel, and considering that there are millions who consider themselves to be Israeli (including many Israeli-Americans, some of whom are Harvard students), that is ultimately an attack on someone's national origin.
If an institution like Harvard is going to penalize hate speech, it needs to penalize all hate speech -- and not just that directed against a subset of the community. If they don't offer the same protection to Jews as they do to Blacks or LGBTQ+ or Muslim people, then they are systemically perpetuating antisemitism.
The Good News
Evangelical Christian spokespeople like to claim that Evangelical Christians are an oppressed group. They use that as part of the ideological war to support their claim that the US was founded specifically as a Christian nation.
The good news of a suit like this is that whoever is backing the suit is potentially opening the debate about what is religious persecution in the US. Evangelicals claim about religious persecution. That demands that courts look at all sorts of claims of religious persecution. Not just our local Church of Satan but any Jesus come lately. Given the current Supremes favoring Peter's pecks of pickled piety, the more challenges to the Court's favoring religious belief over basic civil rights the better.
The complaint includes references Jews as a race. Perhaps the legal references require using the term. Yet to use the words race and Jews without an absolute rejection of the concept of human races is to implicitly affirm the existence of human races, and in particular the claim of a Jewish race, which real anti-Jewish bigots, neo-Nazis, etc. shout loudly and with nothing but evil intention.
Ironically however, a positive thing that could come out of this complaint is to open the door to suing so-called Christian colleges and universities for maintaining hostile atmospheres for groups that conservative Christians do strive to harm: women as a whole and gays and lesbians in particular.
Also notable is that Students Against Antisemitism is a not for profit and so is not required to reveal the financial sources does not help with the credibility of the newly formed organization. Makes it hard to know (without guessing) who is paying the legal fees.
Ah, the entitled suing the
Ah, the entitled suing the entitled. Excellent.