For the second time in three months, Harvard University faces legal scrutiny over alleged antisemitism on campus, with U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns permitting key parts of a lawsuit to proceed.

Judge Stearns, nominated by President Bill Clinton, dismissed claims of retaliation and “direct discrimination” but upheld the central allegations, allowing Jewish students to pursue legal discovery to support claims of an unchecked hostile environment.

The lawsuit, filed by the Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education, seeks class-action status to represent Jewish and Israeli students at Harvard.

Celebrate Trump's Historic 2024 Victory with the Exclusive Trump 47th President Collection!

The plaintiffs allege the university allowed widespread antisemitic harassment, especially following the October 7, 2023, attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians.

Kenneth Marcus, Brandeis Center chairman and former Education Department official under President Trump, applauded the court’s decision, saying in a statement, “This is a huge win for Jewish students, both at Harvard and across the country.” Marcus emphasized the significance of Judge Stearns’s ruling in light of recent reports from the House Education Committee, noting that the judge “flat out rejected Harvard’s disgraceful and continued attempts to gaslight Jewish students.”

The allegations claim that Jewish students at Harvard have faced threats and harassment both from peers and faculty members.

According to the plaintiffs, some professors pressured students to avoid projects related to their Jewish and Israeli identity. Specific incidents, such as a Kennedy School class taught by Professor Marshall Ganz, were cited, with the plaintiffs alleging Ganz created a “hostile learning environment.”

The lawsuit states that despite receiving a fact-finder’s report confirming these claims, Harvard took no action against Ganz.

The university’s response to the lawsuit highlights steps Harvard says it has taken to combat antisemitism on campus.

In an email statement, Harvard spokesperson Jason Newton acknowledged the two dismissed claims but reiterated that Harvard “has and will continue to take concrete steps to address the root causes of antisemitism on campus.”

Newton added that Harvard believes its recent efforts will demonstrate a commitment to supporting Jewish and Israeli students.

The plaintiffs’ legal complaint describes numerous additional incidents involving antisemitic rhetoric and behavior since the October 7 attacks.

These include protests where slogans celebrated the violence, reports of Jewish students harassed on campus, and anti-Israel messages posted on Harvard-exclusive networks.

One incident cited a Brandeis Center member assaulted by protesters at a campus event, where Harvard allegedly delayed action, only initiating an investigation after congressional pressure.

The plaintiffs allege that the university did not take “any remedial action” against students or faculty involved.

Judge Stearns’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs hinges on what he described as “deliberate indifference” to antisemitic incidents on campus.

He emphasized that Harvard’s failure to address the harassment or discipline responsible individuals raises questions about the university’s commitment to equal treatment. “Although Harvard disputes whether members’ injuries are ongoing … the Complaint paints a picture of a campus environment that, allegedly to this day, is filled with antisemitic and anti-Israeli rhetoric that Harvard refuses to sanction or even address,” Stearns wrote.

Harvard’s challenges have been compounded by criticism and financial repercussions. Since the October attacks, the university has seen a decline in donations and admission applications.

This trend has intensified as public backlash over Harvard’s handling of antisemitic incidents has mounted, leading some students to avoid campus due to concerns over safety and hostility.

The Biden administration’s Department of Education launched a Title VI investigation into alleged antisemitism at Harvard in early February, though its progress remains unclear.

Harvard also experienced leadership changes with the resignation of President Claudine Gay, who faced plagiarism allegations and criticism for her testimony on campus handling of anti-Israel demonstrations.

Judge Stearns cited prior rulings on similar cases involving StandWithUs and MIT, noting that claims of deliberate indifference require more than just initiating investigations without follow-through.

Stearns emphasized that plaintiffs presented a credible argument that Harvard’s response was “clearly unreasonable” under the circumstances, reinforcing his earlier conclusion that plaintiffs have associational standing to pursue their case.

The lawsuit now moves forward, leaving Harvard with ongoing legal battles amid criticism over its response to antisemitic incidents.