Officials moved late last month to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a group of students and alumni that alleged officials failed to respond to “pervasive and severe” campus antisemitism since the onset of the war in Gaza, arguing the complaint fails to show the University’s deliberate disregard to discrimination.
The motion, filed by one of the University’s defense attorneys on July 28 in the D.C. District Court, requests the judge hear an oral argument about the University’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety with prejudice, which prohibits the plaintiffs from refiling the suit. The motion sends the lawsuit back to the plaintiffs — whose lawyer said they are not considering dismissing the case — to respond by next Monday after they requested on July 31 a two-week extension from the original Aug. 11 deadline.
A memo, filed by Jason Schwartz from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP alongside the motion, argues that the University did not ignore antisemitic actions on campus but rather repeatedly condemned them by disciplining students and organizations and working with the Metropolitan Police Department to clear the pro-Palestinian encampment that took place in University Yard last year.
“What Plaintiffs really complain about is speech — specifically, speech they found offensive or hostile to their views,” the University’s motion states. “But that speech, as their Complaint makes clear, came from students, faculty, or outside speakers — not from the University itself.”
Alums Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro and an anonymous group of students, alumni and other stakeholders who named themselves “Compliance, Accountability, Policy, Ethics – Ed,” or CAPE-Ed, filed a lawsuit against the University on May 22, alleging GW failed to mitigate antisemitic acts and deprived Jewish and Israeli students of their educational experience on the basis of their national origin, ethnicity and ancestry.
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Jason Torchinsky of Holtzman Vogel PLLC, said in an email the plaintiffs are not considering dismissing the case, also adding that motions for extensions of time are common in civil cases.
The lawsuit argues that a pattern of on-campus incidents dating back to 2019 reflects GW’s “shameful complicity” in permitting “unchecked” antisemitism, which they say intensified after Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel. The plaintiffs claim that officials and the Board of Trustees violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the D.C. Human Rights Act by allowing “hostile acts” against Jewish and Israeli students during pro-Palestinian protests and maintaining academic partnerships with organizations allegedly tied to antisemitic movements.
“The years-long failure of GWU to respond to pervasive antisemitic discrimination — among both the students and the faculty — has emboldened its perpetrators and continues to jeopardize the safety, well-being and educational opportunities of Jewish and Israeli students,” the lawsuit states.
The lawsuit requests that the court require the University to enforce its nondiscrimination, Code of Student Conduct and demonstration policies in “an evenhanded way,” develop a clear definition of antisemitism, including activities that “target” Zionists and allow for “robust scholarly debate” instead of “censoring” pro-Israel viewpoints.
The plaintiffs are also seeking a statement from GW declaring that it violated University policies, D.C. and federal law and the U.S. Constitution, compensatory damages for the harm GW’s negligence caused to the plaintiffs, punitive damages to hold the University accountable and reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and legal costs the group incurred in pursuing the lawsuit.
Both Title VI and the D.C. Human Rights Act prohibit educational programs from discrimination based on race, national origin and religion, and universities found noncompliant with Title VI by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights could lose their federal funding.
The filing comes after GW reached an agreement with the Department of Education’s OCR to resolve a pair of Title VI complaints alleging antisemitism and anti-Palestinian discrimination filed in 2023. As part of the resolution, the University committed to reevaluating policies to ensure they articulated standards and procedures regarding demonstrations and discrimination, releasing finalized versions for four anti-discrimination policy changes in May.
This development came ahead of the Department of Justice’s Tuesday findings that GW acted “deliberately indifferent” to student and faculty reports of antisemitism, claiming officials violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The DOJ told University President Ellen Granberg in a letter that it will enact “enforcement” measures against the University “in the near future” unless they enter into a voluntary resolution agreement, which officials have until Friday to indicate interest in.
Here’s a breakdown of the University’s arguments in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit:
Arguments against alleged Title VI violations
In response to the lawsuits’ claims that the University violated Title VI by making the plaintiffs feel “unable” to participate in University life due to continued harassment and threats, along with the University’s “complicit” nature in the face of discrimination, GW argued previous courts ruled universities are not liable under Title VI for failing to suppress constitutionally protected expression even if it’s offensive or controversial.
The University resolved two Title VI complaints — one alleging antisemitic harassment and one alleging the University denied mental health services to Palestinian students — in January after it was found not to have violated federal law.
GW’s motion also responds to the lawsuit’s allegations that the University “allowed” the pro-Palestinian encampment last year to “take root” on campus rather than taking preventative action by arguing that officials worked with MPD to clear the encampment and install fences around U-Yard. In April 2024, pro-Palestinian demonstrators staged a 13-day encampment in U-Yard to protest the war in Gaza and demand that the University divest from companies with ties to Israel.
The University’s motion claims Soffer is suing GW for its response to “ugly, antisemitic campus protests” while she previously commended the University’s response publicly on Fox News, saying that GW “in principle” did the right thing when suspending Students for Justice in Palestine weeks after projecting anti-Israel phrases on Gelman Library. The University argued Soffer’s own words confirm that GW did not ignore antisemitism on campus and instead condemned it “publicly, repeatedly and unequivocally.”
“GW disciplined students and organizations,” the University’s motion states. “It collaborated with law enforcement. It backed initiatives to support its Jewish community — including a task force led by Soffer herself.”
GW’s motion argues that Title VI imposes liability for a university’s own intentional discrimination or where the institution acts with “deliberate indifference” to conduct so severe it effectively denies access to education. The motion argues the plaintiffs’ complaint referred to speech they found offensive or hostile that came from students, faculty or outside speakers and not from the University itself.
The motion argues that “while reprehensible,” the speech by students, faculty and outside speakers is protected under the First Amendment due to there being a “sharp distinction” between offensive and unlawful speech.
Arguments against alleged inaction during the pro-Palestinian encampment, insufficient protester discipline
In response to the plaintiffs’ claims that GW violated University policies and laws when they failed to sufficiently discipline protesters who put Jewish and Israeli students in danger, GW’s motion argues officials disciplined 16 students over the course of the year through suspensions, probation and censures and also sanctioned nine student organizations due to their involvement with the encampment.
The University’s motion additionally argues that Granberg denounced the October 2023 projections of anti-Israel phrases on Gelman Library and condemned the encampment as unlawful and in violation of University policy, which they say are examples of senior University leadership denouncing antisemitism and reaffirming the University’s commitment to protecting its Jewish community.
“When protesters crossed the line, the University took concrete disciplinary action,” the University’s motion states.
The lawsuit also alleges that although the University suspended SJP, it did not suspend any of its individual members from the University, which has allowed them to continue “terrorizing” Jewish and Israeli students through new organizations, like the Student Coalition for Palestine. GW’s motion doesn’t respond directly to that allegation.
Arguments against allegations of antisemitism in GW’s academic partnerships, classrooms and the denial of access to educational services
In response to the lawsuit claims that the University’s 2019 partnership with Middle East Studies Association created a “pipeline of hatred” against Jewish and Israeli students by incorporating anti-Israeli perspectives into the University’s academics, GW pointed to the University’s employment of Jewish and pro-Israel faculty, speaking sessions with pro-Israel perspectives and offering of numerous Judaic studies courses.
MESA is a nonprofit organization that works to promote the study of the Middle East through educational programs and scholarly publications, according to its website. The plaintiffs allege the leadership of MESA, which included GW faculty, developed programming “deliberately designed” to incite “anti-Zionist hostility” within the University community, like pro-Palestinian film screenings.
The University’s motion argues that GW has long supported a “vibrant Jewish community” and said about 27 percent of undergraduates are Jewish. The motion also pointed to GW’s active Hillel and Chabad chapters, Jewish student organizations and Jewish fraternities and sororities, arguing the plaintiffs’ allegations “underscores” the University’s “sustained commitment” to the Jewish community.
“The University is deeply committed to ensuring that its campus remains safe and welcoming for Jewish students,” the University’s motion states.
The University’s motion said the lawsuit does not allege any fact relating to being denied access to education services at GW. The plaintiffs do not cite a drop in grades, increased absenteeism or retention of a therapist for anxiety, but do cite allegations of “personal shunning” and “self-suppression” that do not amount to “concrete deprivation” of education benefits, per the motion.
The lawsuit cites examples of University professors allegedly propagating curricula and messages that “foster animus against Jewish students.”
The University’s motion argues the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief for a denial of education services lacks standing due to the fact the plaintiffs have graduated and lacks a real and immediate threat of future injury. The University said the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims do not allege intentional conduct by the University nor meet the “high bar” for “deliberate indifference” or denial of educational access.
