A federal appeals court has upheld a lower court’s decision to dismiss a complaint against the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which alleged the university failed to curb antisemitism on campus during student pro-Palestinian protests.
“Little of what occurred can be deemed antisemitic merely because plaintiffs declare it to be so,” Circuit Judge William Kayatta wrote in the ruling.
### Background of the Lawsuit
The lawsuit was brought in March 2024 by Katerina Boukin and Marilyn Meyers, two Jewish students at MIT, alongside the legal arm of StandWithUs, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting Israel and combating antisemitism. The plaintiffs accused MIT of not doing enough to address what they described as a hostile environment fueled by pro-Palestinian protests on campus.
In August 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the case, ruling that MIT did not act with deliberate indifference toward the students’ complaints.
### Appeals Court Decision
The First Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the lower court and dismissed the suit in late October, stating that the students’ claims “do not plausibly rise to the level of actionable harassment.” The court also found that MIT was not “deliberately indifferent to the effects of the protests on Jewish and Israeli students.”
According to Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, the case could be the first campus protest dispute related to allegations of antisemitism to reach the level of a federal appellate court.
### Statement from StandWithUs
Carly Gammill, Executive Director of StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, emphasized that the lawsuit was not aimed at punishing free speech but at holding MIT accountable for what they perceive as a pervasive hostile environment.
“Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged what they experienced was actionable antisemitism,” Gammill said. “It is troubling and out of step with the very purpose of Title VI that the meager steps taken by the MIT administration could be considered sufficient to address the vitriol experienced by its Jewish and Israeli students.”
A similar case brought against Harvard University was settled, according to court documents.
### What Happened at MIT?
The lawsuit references multiple instances of pro-Palestinian activities on campus:
– Shortly after the October 7 attacks, pro-Palestinian students wrote “Free Palestine” and “Occupation in Gaza” outside a vigil organized by Jewish students.
– Students chanted slogans such as “Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea” and “There is only one solution: Intifada revolution” at a rally outside the MIT Student Center.
– At the same rally, Meyers was reportedly told by a protester that her “ancestors didn’t die to kill more people,” referring to Holocaust victims.
– Protesters staged a walkout and a “die-in,” which MIT authorities did not stop, the lawsuit alleges.
– Outside the offices of Jewish professors and MIT’s Israel internship program, protesters allegedly rattled door handles, chanted, and verbally accused them of genocide. Staff members reportedly felt “alarmed, intimidated, and even afraid,” though no Jewish or Israeli students were present during this activity.
Between April 21 and May 10, 2024, a pro-Palestinian student encampment took place on Kresge Lawn. During this period, Jewish students moved their Passover seder off campus, and some requested remote class attendance.
MIT President Sally Kornbluth acknowledged the encampment was “a clear violation of [MIT’s] procedures for registering and reserving space for campus demonstrations,” but noted the situation “so far has been peaceful” in video remarks. Eventually, MIT cleared the encampment, resulting in the arrest of ten individuals.
### Reasoning Behind the Dismissal
The appeals court ruled that the conduct described by the Jewish students is protected under the First Amendment. Judge Kayatta wrote:
“Gathering together in groups on campus, disrupting campus tranquility, and impeding travel for many students” does not constitute antisemitism merely based on the plaintiffs’ claims.
For isolated incidents that could be considered antisemitic, the court found the allegations “not sufficiently severe, pervasive, and offensive to constitute actionable harassment.”
The judge also rejected the claim that accusing Israel of genocide is antisemitic, noting that “even prominent Israelis have lodged the same accusation.” The court dismissed the assertion that protesters focusing criticism on Israel is inherently antisemitic.
While acknowledging the ongoing national debate over definitions of antisemitism, Judge Kayatta stated this issue is ultimately resolved through “discourse, not judicial fiat.”
### MIT’s Response and Actions
As a private institution, MIT has the authority to regulate student speech to some extent. The court noted that MIT allowed political speech while imposing certain restrictions. It disagreed that MIT was legally required under federal discrimination laws to restrict speech more aggressively.
The court found that MIT was not deliberately indifferent to discrimination claims. Instead, the university “took an escalating series of actions aimed at calming the turmoil without violence.” These actions included:
– Launching an initiative to combat antisemitism on campus.
– Suspending student groups that violated campus rules.
According to Judge Kayatta: “Requiring MIT to restrict students’ expression merely because those students opposed Israel and favored the Palestinian cause would infringe upon MIT’s freedom to encourage, rather than suppress, a vigorous exchange of ideas.”
### Closing
MIT had not responded to requests for comment as of Tuesday night.
—
This ruling highlights the complex balance universities must maintain between protecting free speech and addressing claims of discrimination and harassment on campus.
https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2025/11/11/mit-scores-legal-win-as-federal-court-dismisses-appeal-in-lawsuit-claiming-campus-protests-were-antisemitic/
