First filed on May 13 of 2024, and amended twice in the year since, the complaint litigated against the Corporation of Haverford College by the largely anonymous group “Jews at Haverford” has been dismissed with prejudice by Judge Gerald Austin McHugh of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Judge McHugh filed his memorandum dismissing the suit on June 30, 2025. The document outlines his ruling that, due to the complaint’s “unwieldy” and “ambiguous” nature in each of its iterations, it fails to successfully provide sufficient evidence for any violation of Title VI on the part of the College. The plaintiffs repeatedly make “insinuations,” McHugh wrote, rather than “plausible inferences.” However, the memorandum also rules that the plaintiff’s claim to a breach of college policy, in reference to Haverford’s possible failure to adhere to its bias policy, merits further litigation.
On the topic of the plaintiffs’ Title VI claims, which accuse the College of “tolerat[ing] and perpetuat[ing] a hostile educational environment,” the court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the College’s actions deprived any student of access to educational benefits. Several times, Judge McHugh noted that though the speech of college administrators and students were deemed antisemitic or otherwise reprehensible, those instances “fall into the category of pure, protected speech. Although Plaintiffs may have found much of this speech reprehensible, there is no legal cause of action for upset feelings.”
The memorandum goes on to list the events cited in the plaintiff’s complaints as instances of antisemitic action, and provide rationales in each case as to why Title VI was not violated in that situation. The most prominent follow below.
First, in reference to the teach-in held by Students for Justice in Palestine initially titled “Mass Death on all Fronts: Israel’s weaponization of Covid against Palestinians, which several students and Jewish groups argued was echoing blood libel tropes, the court ruled that this was an example of pure speech protected by the first amendment. If an audience did not like its content, they could look away.
Second, Judge McHugh addressed the accusation that students handing out Palestinian flags at spring plenary created a hostile environment wherein Jewish students who did not support a ceasefire were intimidated into voting yes on a plenary resolution supporting a ceasefire. Again, McHugh ruled that discomfort was not grounds for litigation.
Social media posts by faculty members were also a key point of the complaint; the plaintiffs alleged that pro-Palestine posts on X by faculty did not result in disciplinary measures against them, where pro-Israel posts, along with posts disparaging the actions of pro-Palestine student protestors, did result in an internal investigation. The judge noted that this latter investigation was motivated by a petition signed by 600 people, where no petition was filed against faculty posting anti-Zionist content.
Perhaps most crucial was the Judge’s ruling on accusations of the Haverford administration’s deliberate indifference to the concerns of Jewish students. In addressing grievances pertaining to the Nova screening, fall plenary, the Founders’ Hall sit-in, spring encampment, the Antisemitism 101 protests, and several other events, one statement would seem to sum up the court’s decision:
“College administrators need not be perfect. They need not even be good. They just need
to behave in a way that is not clearly unreasonable in light of the circumstances known at the time.”
In sum, as Judge McHugh continued in his conclusory section,”viewing the Second Amended Complaint as a whole, Plaintiffs’ allegations on the concrete deprivation of educational benefit element are vague and conclusory, critically lacking in tangible impact as demonstrated by, for example, a drop in grades, increase in absenteeism, or retention of a therapist for serious anxiety.”
The one point on which the plaintiffs may still receive nominal damages is that of the potential breach of contract involving Haverford’s Bias Policy. Plaintiffs referred in their complaint to a draft of the policy which had been posted to the College website, and the College noted that because it was a draft, it was not in force. However, because the College did not present any policy that was in force when plaintiffs submitted complaints according to its parameters, the court cannot yet rule on the breach of contract until such a policy is produced and the situation can be evaluated.
Since June 30, three other documents have been filed, including the College’s response to the amended complaint, a notice of a hearing on September 4, and a notice that this hearing was adjourned, all deadlines being stayed for 60 days to allow parties to continue pursuing a resolution, until a status conference on October 15.
