Title VI Hostile Environment Law in the Shadow of Antisemitic Violence

My latest article, Title VI Hostile Environment Law in the Shadow of Antisemitic Violence, forthcoming in the Journal of Free Speech Law, is now available to download. The article is forty pages long, but its basic contribution comes down to this: discussion by judges and commentators of hostile environment complaints filed by Jewish students have largely ignored the fact that Jewish students across the US have faced violence, threats, and intimidation since October 7, in a national environment in which Jews more generally have faced a similarly threatening environment, including several murders. This article, in contrast, analyzes the relevant Title VI issues, including the freedom of speech of protestors, in light of that environment, and concludes that rather than focusing on whether speech protected by the First Amendment should have been suppressed because of unprotected antisemitic acts, courts and commentators should consider whether protected speech that endorses violence is part of a threatening context that required universities to crack down (as many did not) on unprotected actions that contributed to a threatening environment such as vandalism, threats, illicit encampments, classroom disruptions, and so on.

Here is the formal abstract:

Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, American universities have faced a wave of Title VI complaints alleging deliberate indifference to antisemitic harassment of Jewish students. Many of these claims arise in the context of anti-Israel campus protests featuring rhetoric that, while deeply offensive and often perceived as endorsing violence, is ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Courts and commentators have increasingly concluded that such protected speech cannot form any part of a cognizable hostile-environment claim. This Article argues that this conclusion rests on a fundamental misstatement of both Title VI doctrine and the nature of the claims being advanced.

The Article contends that Jewish students’ post–October 7 claims do not seek to impose liability for protected political expression. Rather, they allege that universities have failed to address unprotected antisemitic conduct—including physical assaults, threats, intimidation, vandalism, unlawful encampments, and selective nonenforcement of neutral conduct rules—that materially interferes with access to education. Within this framework, protected speech plays a limited but legitimate role: not as actionable harassment, but as contextual evidence bearing on whether a university’s inaction in the face of unprotected conduct reasonably gives rise to fear of violence and intimidation.

Drawing on extensive documentation of antisemitic assaults and threats on campuses and in the surrounding society, the Article argues that the “reasonable person” standard governing hostile-environment claims must be applied in light of contemporary conditions. When violent rhetoric coincides with lawless behavior and administrative indifference, Jewish students’ fear for their physical safety cannot be dismissed as hypersensitivity to ideas. Properly understood, Title VI permits—indeed, requires—universities to enforce neutral conduct rules to mitigate hostile environments without suppressing protected speech. Courts therefore err when they dismiss such claims at the pleading stage by conflating demands for physical security with demands for ideological conformity.