JCAC — Jewish Community Advocacy Council
Report an antisemitic or civil-rights incident

Case Study

StandWithUs v. MIT

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Summary

After October 7, anti-Israel rallies, walkouts, encampments, and faculty conduct proliferated at MIT. StandWithUs and two other plaintiffs sued MIT for failing to respond. The First Circuit affirmed dismissal.

Holding

"College students' antizionist speech did not cause antisemitic discrimination"

Student groups acting in concert to plan protest events advocating their shared views does not plausibly suggest a conspiracy to deprive Jewish students of civil rights. MIT's response — suspending the most undisciplined groups and clearing encampments within two weeks — was not clearly unreasonable. Most of the conduct at issue was First Amendment–protected speech, and Title VI does not require a university to quash protected speech.

Case developments

  1. Antizionism on campus after October 7

    Student groups emailed the entire student body claiming Israel was responsible for the violence, held walkouts and die-ins, and set up an encampment. MIT initially said antizionism did not violate its handbook, disciplined encampment protesters, and cleared the encampment after two weeks.

  2. Mar 7, 2024

    Complaint filed in the District of Massachusetts

  3. Aug 21, 2024

    Case dismissed for failure to state a claim

  4. Oct 21, 2025

    First Circuit Appeal Denied

    The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the district court.

  5. Other Students' First Amendment Activity Cannot Be The Basis for Discrimination Claims

    Plaintiffs did not allege actionable racial harassment. 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. Merely by gathering together in groups on campus, and even by disrupting campus tranquility, and impeding travel for many students, the protestors did not render their speech antisemitic, much less unprotected. 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.

Get involved

Join JCAC to stay updated on our legal advocacy work and support our mission.

Become a free member