University of Vermont’s Settlement with Dep’t of Education Refuses to Adopt IHRA Despite Pressure
/
The Old Mill Building AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT (UVM) in Burlington, Vermont. SOURCE: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS
In April 2023, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) entered into a resolution agreement with the University of Vermont (UVM) over a Title VI complaint brought by two Israel advocacy groups, the Brandeis Center and Jewish on Campus (JOC), on behalf of anonymous Zionist students.
Anti-Palestinian groups are attempting to use this agreement—which does not mention Zionism or the politicized International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism—to chill speech supporting Palestinian rights by claiming OCR has created a new policy incorporating criticism of Israel and anti-Zionism into anti-discrimination laws. This is false.
In fact, OCR refused all six demands in the Title VI complaint relating to the IHRA definition, including that the university employ the IHRA definition of antisemitism and its contemporary examples when examining discrimination complaints, that the university provide trainings on the IHRA definition and that it investigate and condemn speech criticizing the political ideology of Zionism.
Indeed, in the accompanying letter, OCR noted that it could not find a single student witness willing to speak with their investigators about any of the allegations in the complaint—not even the pro-Israel students whose stories allegedly formed the basis for the complaint spoke to OCR investigators.
This agreement could be considered a huge loss by Israel advocacy groups. Instead, the Israel lobby is deceptively spinning the agreement as a victory in order to suppress speech supporting Palestinian freedom.
Here’s what the resolution agreement actually does and does not do.
1. The resolution is not a finding of guilt or wrongdoing on the part of the university or any student or student group supporting Palestinian rights or criticizing Israel or Zionism—or anybody at all.
The resolution agreement begins, “This Agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing or liability by the University pursuant to Title VI.”
The first line states that the university entered into the agreement “prior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation.”
The resolution agreement and the accompanying letter to University of Vermont President Suresh V. Garimella make clear that OCR did not complete its investigation, nor did it find a Title VI violation.
While the letter raises several concerns about the university’s failure to properly investigate complaints, it ends by noting that “[p]rior to the conclusion of OCR’s investigation . . . the University expressed an interest in resolving this complaint and OCR determined that a voluntary resolution is appropriate.”
The letter states that OCR did not talk to a single student who witnessed the incidents alleged in the Title VI complaint—including the anonymous students quoted in the complaint. (“Through the University and Complainant, OCR requested interviews with students who complained and/or were witnesses to incidents described in this letter; none of the students responded to OCR’s requests.”) The letter then proceeds to detail the facts as alleged from the Israel advocacy groups’ point of view (as OCR did not interview any students whom the groups accused of “anti-Zionist discrimination”). While the letter mentions OCR’s concerns with the university’s procedures and response to complaints, it makes no findings of fact about the underlying allegations.
2. The resolution does not create new federal policy on Zionism—in fact OCR declined to do this.
The resolution agreement does not mention Zionism. It also does not create new policy. Indeed, the letter clearly states: "This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public."
When a complainant files a Title VI complaint, the complaint can be resolved through a resolution agreement rather than a full investigation. This agreement is between OCR and the university, and, as noted above, does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing.
Though the complaint claims that Zionism is part of Jewish identity (and asked for numerous remedies recognizing this), OCR declined to make any mention of Zionism in its resolution agreement.
While the Brandeis Center and other anti-Palestinian groups are spinning the agreement to suggest that the Biden administration has incorporated anti-Zionism into discrimination laws, this is false. (For example, in a press release announcing the agreement, Brandeis Center founder and chairman Kenneth L. Marcus stated that OCR has “signal[ed] to the higher education community” that students would be given protections in connection with their “Zionist identity.”)
OCR did not find the university acted unlawfully, nor did it create any new policy with respect to anti-Zionist speech. In fact, it did not even find that the university engaged in any discrimination—much less “anti-Zionist discrimination,” as pro-Israel groups now claim. Indeed, were it to do so based on the unsubstantiated allegations of an Israel group whose mission it is to stop speech critical of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians on U.S. college campuses, that would raise serious First Amendment, anti-discrimination as well as due process concerns.
As noted above, OCR did not interview or speak to a single student witness to any of the allegations described in the complaint—not even the pro-Israel students the Brandeis Center claimed were harmed by “anti-Zionist discrimination” spoke to OCR.
3. The resolution does not mention IHRA or Zionism and does not require UVM to take action against anti-Zionist speech or incorporate the IHRA definition into any policy or make any statement regarding Zionism.
In its Title VI complaint, the Israel advocacy groups demanded the university be made to 1) officially adopt the IHRA definition and contemporary examples when investigating and responding to incidents of harassment and discrimination; 2) revise its discrimination policies to include the IHRA definition and its contemporary examples; 3) hold a mandatory training for the university community to focus on anti-Zionism as a manifestation of antisemitism; and issue a statement to 4) encourage the community to educate itself by studying the IHRA definition; 5) announce that Zionism is a key component of Jewish identity; and 6) state that efforts to demonize Zionism are “contrary to our university’s basic values of mutual respect and inclusion” and that the university will discipline students for anti-Zionism.
There is no mention of Zionism or the IHRA definition in the resolution agreement.
As noted above, OCR’s letter clearly states: "This letter sets forth OCR’s determination in an individual OCR case. This letter is not a formal statement of OCR policy and should not be relied upon, cited, or construed as such. OCR’s formal policy statements are approved by a duly authorized OCR official and made available to the public."
4. What did Brandeis Center claim in its Title VI complaint, anyway?
Brandeis Center and JOC’s Title VI complaint makes allegations against two student groups (UVM Empowering Survivors and UVM Revolutionary Socialist Union book club) for criticizing the political ideology of Zionism, a group of drunk students who threw stones at UVM Hillel, which the university refused to recognize as a bias incident, and an individual student who criticized Israel and Zionism.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Jewish students who “identify with Israel” were “excluded from a major student campus group” called UVM Empowering Survivors after the group posted a statement on Instagram criticizing the Israel army’s abuse of Palestinians and stated that it was an anti-Zionist group and that after receiving numerous messages about this topic from users unconnected with UVM, that it would block Zionists just as it blocks others who engage in harassment on the platform. The complaint also alleges that UVM refused to sanction the Revolutionary Socialist Union book club for an Instagram post stating, “No racism, racial chauvinism, predatory behavior, homophobia, transphobia, Zionism, or bigotry and hate speech of any kind will be tolerated.”
As noted above, OCR could not find a single witness to discuss these allegations—including the Jewish Zionist students the Brandeis Center and JOC claims were harmed.
5. OCR’s ‘nothing burger’ resolution with the University of Vermont has the potential to chill speech supporting Palestinian rights and lead to more anti-Palestinian discrimination
As noted above, while the resolution agreement does not mention the IHRA definition of antisemitism or Zionism—and includes no findings of discrimination—OCR’s uncritical regurgitation of the Israel advocacy groups’ claims without any indication that they sought out anti-Zionist students and groups referenced in these allegations and the way the agreement is being wielded by anti-Palestinian groups has the huge potential to chill speech on college campuses and lead to anti-Palestinian discrimination.
Because OCR did not speak to a single student, and much of the complaint includes allegations into student speech, OCR investigators and the public do not know what really happened. It appears that the Brandeis Center and JOC could not even produce the students who complained about anti-Zionist speech to talk to investigators. So, questions remain about what really happened. In the U.S. judicial system, the accused are allowed to present their side of the story—and hear the evidence against them. None of this happened here. Instead, the university quickly entered into an agreement before OCR even finished its investigation. Despite the fact that the Brandeis Center and JOC failed to achieve their six demands, they and other anti-Palestinian groups have been touting this as a novel victory—and using it as evidence to silence other advocates.