Federal Crackdown on Campus Palestine Activism: Title VI Attacks

Watch our webinar on this topic here.

As the Israeli government and its proxy groups operating in the United States continue to mount coordinated campaigns against the movement for Palestinian freedom and equality, these groups have coopted the language and tools of civil rights to stifle Palestine activism on U.S. campuses.

To dissuade people from engaging in Palestine advocacy or publicly criticizing Israel or Zionism, anti-Palestinian organizations frequently work to make the cost of engaging in this advocacy extremely high. For decades, these groups have made false accusations of antisemitism against activists, demanded they be removed from leadership positions, and created blacklists in an attempt to ostracize activists from academia and the workforce. 

Under the Trump administration in particular, anti-Palestinian organizations have worked hand in hand with the government to promote their right-wing agenda. These groups have increasingly employed Title VI of the Civil Rights Act as a tool in their campaigns against activists on campuses around the country.

What is Title VI of the Civil Rights Act?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 includes eleven sections, called “titles,” which were ostensibly intended to end racial discrimination. These sections focus on a wide range of public systems such as voting, public accommodations, public education, and employment opportunity.

Title VI is designed to protect people from discrimination in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance, like universities. Title VI states that:

“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.”

Under Title VI, these programs are required to ensure non-discriminatory treatment in all aspects of their functioning, including, but not limited to: “admissions, recruitment, financial aid, academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading,” or any other aspect of the program which “affects those who are intended to benefit from the Federal funds.”

For the purposes of administrative enforcement of Title VI, discrimination does not need to be intentional. It can be considered a violation of Title VI if there is a racially hostile environment based on the totality of the circumstances. If the school’s conduct, or non-conduct, is resulting in discrimination, the school may be subjected to penalties.

How Is Title VI Enforced?

Title VI can be enforced both in court, through private lawsuits against discriminatory programs, and by federal investigators. The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is responsible for enforcing Title VI in institutions funded by the U.S. Department of Education. OCR conducts this enforcement by both responding to complaints alleging discrimination and initiating their own institutional compliance reviews.

If OCR determines that there has been a Title VI violation, universities may lose their federal funding. Losing federal funding is a major penalty, so universities take great care to appear to comply with the requirements set out by Title VI.

How Has Enforcement Changed Under the Trump Administration?

From mid-2018 until August 1, 2020, OCR was overseen by anti-Palestinian crusader Kenneth Marcus, who promoted the abuse of Title VI before taking office. In a 2013 op-ed, Marcus argued that even when complaints are rejected, they expose university administrators to bad publicity and intimidate students, who know that “getting caught up in a civil rights complaint is not a good way to build a resume or impress a future employer.”

After Marcus took office, there was an uptick in efforts by right-wing Israel proxy groups to weaponize Title VI complaints, or the threat of Title VI complaints, against universities where students or faculty are actively organizing for Palestinian freedom and equality. These complaints often allege that Palestine advocacy creates a hostile environment for Jewish students and that the school’s failure to punish Palestine activists is tantamount to discriminatory application of the school’s disciplinary rules.

These complaints were bolstered by Donald Trump’s 2019 executive order “on Combating Anti-Semitism.” The executive order required all executive agencies tasked with Title VI enforcement to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when evaluating Title VI complaints, including the “contemporary examples of anti-semitism” included in the IHRA definition, which can encompass virtually all criticism of Israel.

Anti-Palestinian organizations with a history of abusing Title VI, such as the Lawfare Project and the Brandeis Center, lauded this executive order. Several right-wing groups filed complaints immediately following the issuance of this order.

How Is Title VI Abused to Stifle Palestine Activism?

Anti-Palestinian groups have weaponized Title VI threats and complaints in an attempt to deter people from speaking out for Palestine because they are worried there will be repercussions.

Recognizing that administrators are fearful of bad publicity and the potential loss of federal funding, Israel advocacy groups will often threaten to file Title VI complaints against a university unless administrators take action against Palestine advocacy on their campuses. These organizations hope that after receiving the threat of a Title VI complaint, the school will prefer to cede to their pro-Israel demands rather than risk a Title VI investigation.

These demands typically include punishing student organizations that speak out in support of Palestine or punishing individual students who engage in Palestine advocacy.

Title VI threats are usually sent in a letter to university administrators alleging that Palestine activism is harming or creating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Anti-Palestinian organizations will often publish these letters and attempt to generate publicity alleging that the university is condoning antisemitism.

Many times, these letters use the phrase “Jewish and Israeli” to both perpetuate the conflation of Judaism with Zionism and to reinforce the false idea that anti-Zionism is antisemitism. These letters cite student events that are critical of Israel or Zionism, disruptions of Zionist speakers or events, course curricula that include anti-Zionist or Palestinian scholars, and the social media posts of members of Palestine solidarity organizations. They argue that this scholarship and activism makes Jewish students uncomfortable—negating the active role many Jewish students play alongside Palestinians and diverse allies in the movement for Palestinian rights. Finally, the letters mention Title VI and imply that the school is violating the law by not stifling Palestine activism.

For example, in a June 2020 letter to the president of Florida State University, the far-right Israel advocacy group StandWithUs threatened the university with a Title VI complaint:

“If you remain silent, your administration will become complicit in bigotry and hate, sending a message that it is permissible and perhaps even fashionable to attack and stigmatize FSU’s Jewish and Israeli students. Finally, we would like to take this opportunity to remind you that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI) prohibits discrimination in federally assisted programs and activities on the basis of race, color or national origin.”

When these threats fail to achieve their ends, anti-Palestinian organizations sometimes escalate and formally file a Title VI complaint with OCR against the university. Similar in essence to the threats, their complaints purport to speak on behalf of “Jewish and Israeli” students. They assert Palestine activism taking place on campus creates a hostile environment for Jewish students.

These Title VI complaints and threats are not simply intended to target a single university. Each time anti-Palestinian organizations publicly send these threats or file Title VI complaints, their apparent aim is to warn other universities of the potential for negative publicity and pressure them to make preemptive decisions that stifle Palestine activism.

In an attempt to avoid Title VI complaints, the university may feel pressured to cease to hire or accept certain Palestinian or anti-Zionist students, organizations, curricula or events.

Recent and Pending Title VI Threats and Complaints

Despite investigating multiple complaints against Palestine advocacy, to date the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has not found a single instance of a university violating Title VI due to campus Palestine advocacy. Every investigation has either been dismissed or closed as a result of the university signing a resolution to voluntarily comply with certain requirements.

However, there are still pending Title VI complaints and investigations and new Title VI threats. See below for information about complaints, threats, and investigations at universities across the country under the Trump administration.

Bard College

On October 10, 2019, Palestine solidarity activists protested a panel featuring Ruth Wisse, a retired Harvard professor with a history of bigoted anti-Palestinian remarks. After this protest, one of Wisse’s co-panelists published an article falsely claiming that she and the other panelists were targeted for being Jewish.

Bard College opened an investigation into two students who were involved with the protest. These students were forced to testify before a panel of professors during their finals week in December, dealing not only with disciplinary procedures but also a public smear campaign against them.

Ultimately, Bard cleared them of any wrongdoing.

In March 2020, OCR opened an investigation into Bard College. Even though students were previously cleared of any wrongdoing, they were once again questioned about their activism, this time by a federal investigator from OCR.

As of February 26, 2021, this investigation was still under way.

Columbia University

At Columbia University, two OCR complaints were filed in the immediate aftermath of Trump’s 2019 executive order.

The first was filed on behalf of a student by the right-wing anti-Palestinian legal organization Lawfare Project on December 19, 2019.

In its press release about the complaint, the Lawfare Project described Palestine advocacy that it called “unlawful” and asserted that “the administration has direct knowledge of this hostile environment, yet it has done nothing to remediate it.”

In the complaint, the Lawfare Project highlighted Palestine advocacy such as efforts to promote boycotts for Palestinian rights, a protest against an Israeli politician, and series of student-organized events during Israeli Apartheid Week.

Essentially, Lawfare Project argued that because Columbia University has not punished students for their Palestine advocacy and has not restricted the speech of those who seek to speak out in support of Palestine, the university violated the rights of Jewish students. The complaint alleged that the existence of Palestine advocacy at Columbia University creates a hostile environment for Jewish students.

A second complaint was filed by an alum of the university soon after the first.

On December 23, 2019, Jamie Kreitman filed a Title VI complaint focused on Columbia’s Middle East Institute. Having graduated decades ago, Kreitman’s complaint was reportedly not based on her own experiences of discrimination but instead claimed that the campus environment has become increasingly hostile for Jewish students. In the complaint, Kreitman reportedly described events that the Center for Palestine Studies and the Middle East Institute have hosted, which included speakers who criticize Israel.

As of February 26, 2021, OCR was not investigating either of these complaints.

City University of New York School of Law

During the 2019-2020 school year, a first-year law student at CUNY School of Law claimed she was discriminated against and harassed by various people and organizations at the CUNY School of Law.

On January 21, 2020, the student penned an op-ed titled “Campus Anti-Semitism Made Me a Zionist.” In the op-ed, the student claimed that she became a Zionist because of alleged antisemitism on campus, such as the fact that one student in her cohort was profiled on the anti-Palestinian blacklisting site Canary Mission. The student also cited a string of interactions that were initiated by her taking a photo of a student organizer with Students for Justice in Palestine without her consent and posting it online. The student complained that Jewish and Palestinian students confronted her and questioned why she was photographing people.

In April 2020, the student gave an interview to The Jerusalem Post saying that she had dropped out of school because of the alleged harassment. In this interview she claims that a “very far-right organization” was interested in representing her against the university but that she is instead talking with the Brandeis Center and the Lawfare Project about a potential Title VI complaint.

In July 2020, the student announced on Twitter that the Brandeis Center was helping her with her “case against CUNY Law.”

Duke University and University of North Carolina

In March 2019, Duke University and the University of North Carolina (UNC) co-hosted an academic conference titled “Conflict Over Gaza: People, Politics, and Possibilities.”

This conference included panels on topics ranging from freedom of movement within Gaza to the inaccessibility of food, water, and health for Palestinians. At this conference, there were also a musical performance and film screenings.

Shortly after the conference, the Zionist Organization of America requested that OCR investigate whether any federal funds were used to promote the conference, which they claim was “hostile to Israel and blatantly anti-Semitic.” The complaint came alongside broader efforts to cut funding to the universities’ Middle East studies programs.

The ZOA complaint alleged that the conference on Gaza was “one-sided” against Israel. It also described the musical performance by Tamer Nafar as “sickening and disgusting.”

The complaint alleged that Duke and UNC did not adequately respond to the alleged acts of antisemitism, did not condemn the performer or conference organizers who invited him, and did not condemn the entire conference for being “hostile to Israel.”

Finally, the complaint claimed that antisemitic fliers and swastikas which appeared on UNC’s campus over two weeks after the conference were somehow related to the conference. These fliers were quickly condemned by UNC.

Both UNC and Duke agreed to settle their complaints with the Department of Education, without admitting any violation of Title VI, before the merits of the complaints were decided.

UNC’s resolution agreement reaffirmed its commitment to ensure no students are subjected to a hostile environment and asserted UNC will continue to “promptly investigate all incidents of anti-Semitic harassment involving students that are reported to the University.” UNC agreed to issue a statement that the university does not tolerate antisemitic harassment.

UNC also committed to revising its anti-discrimination policies to reassert its commitment to fighting antisemitism and describe the forms of antisemitism which may appear in a campus environment; this revised policy would be reviewed and approved by OCR.

Finally, UNC agreed to host meetings discussing discriminatory harassment and include antisemitism in its prohibited discrimination online training module, which was also subject to OCR approval.

Duke’s resolution agreement was similar to the UNC agreement. Duke agreed to release an anti-harassment statement; revise its policy on prohibited discrimination, subject to the approval of OCR; host meetings where students, faculty, or staff may voice their concerns regarding prohibited discrimination; and include antisemitism in their anti-discrimination training modules.

These cases are now both closed. However, amid the COVID-19 pandemic, ZOA attempted to reopen the Duke investigation, alleging that the university did not comply with the requirements of the agreement because it did not host an in-person meeting on prohibited discrimination and failed to punish a student for social media posts critical of Israel.

Georgia Tech

On April 1, 2019, as part of Israeli Apartheid Week, the Georgia Tech Young Democratic Socialists of America (YDSA) hosted an event titled “Palestine 101,” where both Jewish and Palestinian speakers delivered presentations.

Prior to the event, a Hillel employee sent out a mass email condemning “organizations that view Israel as a colonialist entity” and announcing plans to offer a “counter-narrative” at the YDSA event. In response to this, YDSA limited attendance to students.

This employee showed up at the event, and YDSA organizers turned her away. During the event, two students who were later revealed to have been coordinating with the Hillel employee heckled the speakers.

The Hillel employee filed a complaint with Georgia Tech claiming she was discriminated against for being Jewish. The complaint disregarded the fact that there were Jewish students, including students affiliated with Hillel, present at the event. Additionally, attendees were not asked their religious or political beliefs prior to entering.

Despite Georgia Tech’s rule that complaints should be resolved within 30 business days, the investigation took several months. Eventually, Georgia Tech notified the YDSA that it had violated a school prohibition on “objectively offensive conduct” based on a protected characteristic but did not elaborate on the conduct or the protected characteristic they allege the conduct was based on.

The school sanctioned YDSA for this alleged offensive conduct, including a requirement that YDSA host events with other organizations that have differing viewpoints.

YDSA appealed these sanctions. On November 7, 2019, Georgia Tech reversed the decision and dropped the sanctions.

The lengthy investigation imposed a cost on YDSA students who were forced to defend themselves against political smear campaigns and stressful school investigations while continuing to focus on their academic work, their jobs and their extracurricular activities. The investigation levied an exhausting toll on students who utilized their First Amendment-protected rights to speak out in support of Palestine.

After Georgia Tech reversed the sanctions against YDSA, on December 27, 2019, the right-wing anti-LGBTQ+ and anti-abortion American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) filed a Title VI complaint. In the complaint, ACLJ alleged that the Hillel employee who was denied entry into the event was turned away because she is Jewish.

The complaint stated that the denial of entry had “nothing to do with Israel or Palestine” but was “a simple case of anti-Semitic discrimination.” The complaint further claimed that “Georgia Tech’s reversal of its finding of discrimination is completely unacceptable and communicates the unmistakable message that Georgia Tech will tolerate and even protect anti-Semitism on its campus.”

On March 4, 2020, in a letter to the ACLJ, OCR stated that it was opening an investigation into whether Georgia Tech failed to respond to discrimination on the basis of Jewish ancestry in violation of Title VI.

In January 2021, the Hillel employee agreed to drop the case in exchange for Georgia Tech posting a statement stating that antisemitism is unacceptable and recognizing Trump’s executive order.

New York University

On April 22, 2019, a group of unnamed anti-Palestinian students and an alum who was the president of the student group Realize Israel filed a complaint against NYU.

The complaint was filed a week after the NYU chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) received a school award for their on-campus organizing and coalition building. The complaint alleged that despite NYU’s frequent and official condemnations of SJP’s activism, NYU did not adequately punish or stifle the Palestine activists in the NYU community.

The students’ attorney Neal Sher, former executive director of AIPAC, said that “if the university fails to protect students from a hostile environment… they could lose federal funding.”

The complaint largely focused on the organizing efforts of SJP, including their support for boycotts for Palestinian rights, their efforts to boycott NYU’s Tel Aviv campus, the acts and speeches of SJP members affiliated with other universities, and false allegations that SJP is connected to or founded by terrorist organizations.

Additionally, the complaint alleged that by granting an award to SJP, NYU was responsible for amplifying the “already hostile environment for Jewish and pro-Israel students on the NYU campus.”

OCR opened an investigation into these claims on November 13, 2019. A month later, when Trump’s executive order was issued, an NYU alum who was part of the complaint praised the executive order as “a source of empowerment to ensure that Jewish students can proudly live on campuses."

In September 2020, OCR closed the investigation with no finding of wrongdoing and entered into an agreement with the university to revise its policies to include a statement prohibiting “discrimination on the bases of shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics, including anti-Semitism” as defined in Trump’s executive order; to issue a statement by the president of the university against antisemitism; to meet with students, faculty, and staff to discuss concerns about discrimination; and to include antisemitism in its anti-discrimination trainings.

Pomona College and Pitzer College

In February 2020, the right-wing Dhillon Law Group sent a demand letter to Pomona College and Pitzer College on behalf of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. The letter accused the colleges of civil rights violations for allowing student and faculty activism and campus events on Palestine.

The letter seemed motivated in part by Pitzer College President Melvin Oliver criticism of the David Horowitz Freedom Center in November 2019.

The Middle Eastern Studies Association of North America wrote to the colleges in response to the letter, urging them to reject and denounce "all efforts to weaponize allegations of anti-Semitism in order to advance a political agenda and suppress the expression of certain political opinions."

Rutgers University

On July 20, 2011, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) filed a Title VI complaint against Rutgers University. The complaint highlighted three alleged instances of antisemitism, but focused primarily on a student-sponsored event titled “Never Again for Anyone.” According to the ZOA, the event, which shared stories of Holocaust and Nakba survivors, created a hostile environment for Jewish students. The ZOA also falsely claimed that student organizers “discriminated against Jewish and pro-Israel students by imposing and selectively enforcing an admission fee against them.”

On July 31, 2014, OCR determined there was insufficient evidence of discrimination and closed the case.

On August 27, 2018, over four years after the case had been closed, then-OCR head Kenneth Marcus personally reopened the case. Marcus announced that OCR would reexamine whether Jewish students were discriminated against at the student-sponsored event and would use the IHRA definition of antisemitism in its analysis. Marcus also announced that OCR would investigate whether a hostile environment currently exists for Jewish students at Rutgers.

As of February 2020, the reopened investigation was still pending.

University of California, Los Angeles

There is currently an investigation into two Title VI complaints alleging a hostile environment for Jewish students at UCLA. The complaints were filed by StandWithUs and Zachor Legal Institute, respectively.

The 2018 National Students for Justice in Palestine (NSJP) conference was held UCLA. Prior to the event, Zachor Legal Institute publicly condemned the event and threatened a Title VI complaint against UCLA. In its letter to UCLA, Zachor asserted that the university was showing support for NSJP by hosting the conference and claimed that NSJP regularly engages in antisemitic behavior.

“We hope that UCLA will do the right and lawful thing, and stop this conference from taking place on campus or requiring that the event will be open to everyone,” Zachor stated.

In November 2018, after UCLA did not cede to Zachor’s demands to cancel the conference, Zachor filed a Title VI complaint against UCLA. This complaint was filed on behalf of a UCLA student who was the president of UCLA’s Students Supporting Israel and the author of a piece titled “8 Reasons Why Anti-Zionism Is Always Anti-Semitism.”

On October 7, 2019, StandWithUs filed a complaint with OCR against UCLA on behalf of another student who was a member of both Bruins for Israel and UCLA Students Supporting Israel.

This complaint stemmed from guest speaker Professor Rabab Abdulhadi’s lecture on Islamophobia and attacks on Palestine organizing and scholarship. The complaint alleged that after Abdulhadi had criticized Zionism and Israel, the student spoke up to defend Zionism. The complaint asserted that Zionism is a fundamental part of the student’s Jewish identity.

The complaint criticized the class professor for failing to defend the student’s opinions after the student heckled Professor Abdulhadi.

UCLA investigated a complaint regarding the incident and found no wrongdoing.

On January 3, 2020, OCR notified both StandWithUs and Zachor that it was opening an investigation into their complaints against UCLA.

As of February 26, 2021, this investigation was still under way.

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

In March 2020, the Brandeis Center and the law firm Arnold & Porter filed a complaint with OCR against the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. The complaint focused primarily on advocacy by Palestinian students and their allies, including a divestment resolution, rallies against racism, and a presentation on protests in Gaza. The complaint also referenced several unrelated incidents of antisemitic vandalism on campus.

In November 2020, OCR opened an investigation into the complaint. Days after the investigation was opened, UIUC issued a joint statement with the groups that filed the complaint describing Zionism as an integral part of the identity of some Jewish students. The statement included a line that could be read as requiring students to include campus groups that oppose Palestinian rights in "activities aimed at fighting racism and achieving social justice." Students and faculty spoke out forcefully against the statement for equating criticism of Israel with antisemitism and for disregarding the needs of other students on campus.

As of February 26, 2021, this investigation was still under way.

University of Michigan

Prior to the 2020 Youth for Palestine Conference, which occurred at the University of Michigan at the end of January 2020, anti-Palestinian organizations such as Students Supporting Israel and StandWithUs called on the university to condemn and cancel the event.

In addition to the effort to have the event cancelled, the anti-Palestinian organization Zachor Legal Institute sent the University of Michigan a letter that included a Title VI threat.

Marc Greendorfer, the founder of Zachor Legal Institute, in an interview with JNS, said, “if the same things happen at the upcoming conference as happened at UCLA with SJP, it could be a violation of Title VI, and if that was the case, we’d file a Title VI complaint on behalf of any student(s) who were discriminated against.”

The university defended the students’ right to host the conference, and the event ultimately took place. It is unclear whether Zachor formally filed a Title VI complaint.

Williams College

On April 23, 2019, the Williams College student government rejected a proposal to create the student group Williams Initiative for Israel (WIFI). David Bernstein, a professor at a different university, filed a complaint with OCR, alleging discrimination.

According to Bernstein, “refusal to recognize Williams Initiative for Israel as a recognized student organization on the same terms as the CC has recognized dozens of other student groups constituted discrimination against Jewish students at Williams on the basis of ethnicity or race.”

Williams administrators quickly intervened to override the students’ decision. Even though administrators officially recognized WIFI, OCR opened an investigation into the alleged discrimination.

On July 3, 2019, Williams entered into a resolution agreement with OCR. Without admitting liability or finding a Title VI violation, Williams agreed to recognize WIFI and afford it the same rights and privileges as other registered student organizations.

Though none of these complaints have legally prevailed, right-wing anti-Palestinian organizations continue to file them because their goal is not necessarily to win but to make it more difficult and costly to advocate for Palestine.

Brandeis Center chairman and former head of OCR Kenneth Marcus wrote in a 2013 op-ed:

Seeing all these cases rejected has been frustrating and disappointing, but we are, in fact, comforted by knowing that we are having the effect we had set out to achieve . . . . These cases—even when rejected—expose administrators to bad publicity. . . . No university wants to be accused of creating an abusive environment. . . . Israel haters now publicly complain that these cases make it harder for them to recruit new adherents . . . . Needless to say, getting caught up in a civil rights complaint is not a good way to build a resume or impress a future employer.

The anti-Palestinian organizations promoting Title VI claims hope that students and faculty, fearing stressful investigations and public smear campaigns, will remain silent and that university administrators will proactively take steps to stifle Palestine advocacy.

Activists should, however, recognize that despite these efforts to abuse the law to silence and punish them, laws also protect their right to publicly advocate for Palestine. The First Amendment prohibits the government from punishing people for their political speech.

If you are concerned about a particular university censoring your Palestine advocacy, are being investigated for speaking out in support of Palestinian freedom and equality, or have questions about your rights, please reach out to Palestine Legal.

Watch our webinar on this topic here.