A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Jewish students against the University of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Ivy League school permitted, tolerated, and/or facilitated multiple antisemitic incidents on its campus. The lawsuit claimed these incidents created a hostile educational environment for Jewish students in the wake of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.
In a ruling, Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stated that the lawsuit, filed by Jewish students at UPenn, failed to meet the legal standards for a viable claim under Title VI, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and for breach of contract. The judge highlighted that the amended complaint included a wide range of general allegations and historical events unrelated to the lawsuit’s core claims.
Goldberg also noted that the plaintiffs’ amended complaint included sweeping allegations of ideological, philosophical, religious, and political grievances, which have no relevance to a federal lawsuit. However, the judge emphasized that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any facts showing either intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference on the part of the university.
Despite the plaintiffs’ allegations of being subjected to derogatory language, verbal harassment, and targeted based on their Jewish identities, the court found that the university’s actions did not meet the legal standard for deliberate indifference. The judge further stated that UPenn has established policies opposing antisemitism on its campus and has developed action plans to address antis, while also increasing security measures to protect Jewish students.
Penn students Jordan David and Noah Rubin and alumnus Eyal Yakoby filed the lawsuit with the nonprofit Students Against Antisemitism, according to the Jewish News Syndicate. While the judge acknowledged the impact of the incidents described, he ruled that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that UPenn’s responses were inadequate to prevent Title VI violations.
Goldberg also provided the plaintiffs with one last opportunity to amend their complaint, but only concerning the Title VI and breach of contract claims. This indicates that while the case was dismissed, the plaintiffs may still have a chance to reframe their arguments within the legal boundaries set by the court.