Last month, a Pennsylvania federal judge denied Carnegie Mellon University’s motion to dismiss Title VI discrimination and retaliation claims brought by a Jewish student alleging that she was subjected to antisemitic discrimination at the university*. This is an important ruling, particularly in light of the rise in antisemitism on campus following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
What is Title VI?
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Nearly every college and university in the United States, both public and private, receives federal financial assistance and is bound by Title VI. Although Title VI does not encompass discrimination based on religion, its does protect against antisemitic discrimination and harassment when the behavior is based on Jews’ “actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics.”
What is this case about?
The plaintiff in this case, Yael Canaan, alleged that beginning in May 2022, her professor subjected her to antisemitic mistreatment, that CMU administrators steadfastly refused to do anything about it, and that she faced retaliation from other faculty members for reporting her professor’s behavior.
For her major project in a studio class required for architecture students, Canaan designed a model “depicting the conversion of a public space in a New York City neighborhood into a private space through an eruv (i.e., an integral feature of neighborhoods with large devout Jewish populations).” Canaan alleges that during the final review of that project, she was explaining the concept of an eruv to Professor Mary-Lou Arscott “when Professor Arscott cut Ms. Canaan off and told her that ‘the wall in the model looked like the wall Israelis use to barricade Palestinians out of Israel,’ and that the time Ms. Canaan had used to prepare her project ‘would have been better spent if [Ms. Canaan] had instead explored what Jews do to make themselves such a hated group.’”
Canaan alleges that she immediately reported Professor Arscott’s behavior and asked multiple CMU officials to address the matter, but that she was given the run-around for months. Finally, six months later, the CMU administration arranged for her to have a Zoom meeting with Professor Arscott — but she alleges that Professor Arscott refused to apologize and subsequently emailed her links to a publication containing “anti-Jewish and anti-Israel content” and urging her to read it. According to Canaan’s complaint, she reported these developments to the university’s Chief Diversity Officer, who said there was nothing she could do and told Canaan to instead contact the Office for Institutional Equity. Canaan alleges that when she contacted the Office for Institutional Equity, the head of that office — Elizabeth Rosemeyer — “aggressively discouraged Ms. Canaan from filing a formal complaint.”
Canaan’s complaint further alleges that after she confided in another architecture professor about the antisemitic treatment she had endured, that professor refused to work with her on a critical project and “gave Ms. Canaan a C in his 18-unit studio class-the lowest studio grade Ms. Canaan ever received at CMU-which prevented her from receiving an Honors degree and put her scholarship at risk.”
What did the court decide?
The judge in this case was ruling on CMU’s motion to dismiss. Motions to dismiss are filed early in litigation, before any discovery has taken place, and require a judge to decide whether — accepting all of the plaintiff’s allegations as true — the plaintiff has stated a legal claim. In this case, the judge held that if all of Canaan’s allegations are true, she has stated a sufficient claim for antisemitic discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.
With regard to Canaan’s discrimination claim, the court held:
It is the Court’s determination that Ms. Canaan’s allegations are sufficient to show that CMU failed to meaningfully react to Professor Arscott’s offensive and discriminatory interactions with Ms. Canaan. The CMU executives responsible for addressing discriminatory mistreatment of a Jewish student, such as Ms. Canaan, failed or refused to prevent or sufficiently stop it.
The court also held that Canaan’s allegations were sufficient to sustain her claims of a hostile educational environment and retaliation, both of which are also prohibited under Title VI.
What is the significance of this case?
Since the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel, there has been a sharp uptick in anti-Israel activity on college campuses, and many instances in which this activity has devolved into outright antisemitism. While Jewish students facing antisemitic discrimination and harassment should be able to obtain relief from the campus offices charged with enforcing universities’ antidiscrimination policies, many students — like the plaintiff in this case — have complained that their universities are turning a blind eye. When that happens, Title VI litigation may be the only option for relief. Indeed, a number of prominent universities, including Harvard, MIT, Columbia, and Northwestern, are currently facing antisemitism lawsuits.
If you are a student or faculty member experiencing antisemitic discrimination or harassment on your campus, a Title VI lawyer can advise you on your legal options and help you determine next steps. If you have questions about Title VI or need legal representation, don’t hesitate to reach out to an experienced attorney here at Allen Harris. We are here to defend your Title VI rights, every step of the way.
*Allen Harris PLLC does not represent either party in this matter.
