Education – Harassment – Deliberate indifference

Listen to this article

Where a Title VI claim was brought alleging that the defendant Massachusetts Institute of Technology failed to take sufficient action to curtail a surge of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian student protests, the dismissal of that claim should be affirmed because (1) the allegations do not plausibly rise to the level of actionable harassment required by Title VI and (2) MIT was not deliberately indifferent to the effects of the protests on Jewish and Israeli students.

“This case emerges from a school year of tension among students, faculty, and administrators at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in response to extraordinary violence in the Middle East. Two plaintiffs are MIT students. The third is StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, the legal arm of a California-based membership organization ‘dedicated to combatting antisemitism.’ Together, plaintiffs allege that MIT failed to take sufficient action to curtail a surge of anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian student protests, thereby allegedly subjecting MIT’s Jewish and Israeli students to antisemitic harassment. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to state a claim. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. …

“On May 17, 2024, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which included new causes of action under the Ku Klux Klan Act and state common law. …

“… Did the district court err by dismissing their claims under Title VI, the Ku Klux Klan Act, and Massachusetts common law? …

“… First, Plaintiffs’ allegations do not plausibly rise to the level of actionable harassment required by Title VI. Second, even if the protestors’ conduct as a whole was actionable harassment under Title VI, MIT is not liable because it was not deliberately indifferent to the effects of the protests on Jewish and Israeli students. …

“Our conclusion that plaintiffs have failed to allege actionable racial harassment consists of three parts. To begin, most of the conduct about which plaintiffs complain is speech protected by the First Amendment, and we do not construe Title VI as requiring a university to quash protected speech. Furthermore, by gathering together in groups on campus, disrupting campus tranquility, and impeding travel for many students, the protestors did not render their speech antisemitic, much less unprotected. Finally, to the extent that plaintiffs allege isolated incidents that are plausibly antisemitic, the complaint’s allegations are not sufficiently severe, pervasive, and offensive to constitute actionable harassment under Title VI. …”

Other counts

“Plaintiffs next claim that MIT violated the Ku Klux Klan Act, 42 U.S.C. §1986, by knowingly failing to prevent a conspiracy by the student protestors to deprive Jewish and Israeli students of their civil rights. To state a claim under §1986, a plaintiff first must plausibly plead a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §1985(3). Gattineri v. Town of Lynnfield, 58 F.4th 512, 516 (1st Cir. 2023). …

“For purposes of this appeal, we assume without deciding that violations of §§1981 and 1982 can form the basis of an unlawful conspiracy under §1985(3). … We need not reach this issue because, for the reasons explained below, we hold that plaintiffs failed to plead that the student activist groups conspired ‘for the very purpose’ of depriving plaintiffs of their constitutional right to be free from racial violence, their contractual rights, or their property rights. …

“All told, plaintiffs have failed to state a claim of conspiracy under §1985(3), and thus their §1986 claim must fail. …

“Plaintiffs’ final claims are that MIT is liable under Massachusetts law for breaching its contracts with Jewish and Israeli students by failing to uphold various policies, and for negligently failing to protect its students from antisemitic harassment. After dismissing plaintiffs’ federal claims, the district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state-law claims. Because we agree that plaintiffs failed to state a federal claim, we affirm the dismissal without prejudice of plaintiffs’ state-law claims.”

StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-218-25) (54 pages) (Kayatta, J.) Appealed from a decision by Stearns, J., in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Glenn A. Danas, with whom Ashley M. Boulton, Clarkson Law Firm, P.C., Melissa S. Weiner, Pearson Warshaw, LLP, Marlene J. Goldenberg and Nigh Goldenberg Raso & Vaughn were on brief, for the plaintiffs-appellants; Ishan K. Bhabha, with whom Lauren J. Hartz, Jenner & Block, Daryl J. Lapp and Troutman Pepper Locke LLP were on brief, for the defendant-appellee (Docket No. 24-1800) (Oct. 21, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.