Should I report antisemitism to a Jewish organization?
For decades, the default response to antisemitism in schools has been to contact the Anti-Defamation League. This has been a hard habit to break. Jewish families commonly believe this is what you are supposed to do. Unfortunately, this belief is a significant part of what has led us to the situation we are in now: overwhelming antisemitic discrimination in schools — particularly in the form of antizionism embedded in curricula, campus culture, and institutional indifference — and almost no lawsuits being filed to address it.
Most Jewish organizations are not likely to be able to provide a lawyer to handle your case. When families channel their energy into reporting incidents to organizations that do not litigate — or that litigate only rarely and selectively — the schools face little legal consequences, and the behavior continues. The pattern repeats year after year: incidents are reported, statistics are compiled, press releases are issued, and nothing changes for the family whose child is still sitting in a hostile classroom.
Should I have a meeting with the principal?
Not as your first step, and not without first sending the notice of violation letter described in this guide. If you have a meeting with the principal before you informed the principal that you believe what happened constitutes discrimination, the principal can engage in an open ended discussion without consequences. If you do meet with the principal, follow up immediately with an email summarizing what you wanted to get out of the conversation. That email creates a written record. Without it, the meeting might as well not have happened.
The better approach is to send a formal notice of violation letter first and give the school a chance to respond in writing. The Notice of Violation Letter is also more likely to reach the district’s legal counsel, who has the authority to direct the principal and teachers on how to comply.
Is it required to file a UCP complaint before pursuing legal action?
No. There is no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil rights lawsuit. You can go directly to court without filing any other administrative complaint first.
Does filing a UCP complaint prevent me from pursuing civil legal action?
No. There is no election-of-remedies doctrine that forces you to choose one path and forfeit the other.
Should I ask the school to “adopt IHRA”?
No. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism is a useful educational tool, but asking a school to “adopt IHRA” is not a prerequisite to using the tools in this guide. The laws currently in place already provide the tools to prosecute antisemitic and antizionist discrimination. You do not need the school to adopt a definition before you can enforce your child's rights.
Should I try to educate administrators about antizionism or debate politics with the school?
No. Document the violation instead. Education about antizionism is important. Antizionism is the prevailing form of antisemitism that your child is likely to be encountering today in California high schools. However, it is not your job to teach school administrators how to comply with the law. Schools are responsible for following antidiscrimination laws whether they have a sophisticated understanding of antisemitism or not. You can, if you choose, point administrators toward educational resources. To quickly inform school officials about the antisemitic nature of antizionism, we recommend the publications and presentations of Dr. Naya Lekht and Professor Rona Kaufmann. Provide the information and move on. You are not their tutor. When something antisemitic happens at school, the natural impulse is to explain why it is antisemitic. Resist this impulse. Your letter is not an op-ed — it is a legal document that may one day be Exhibit A in a federal lawsuit. Its purpose is to notify the school of specific conduct that you believe resulted in illegal discrimination against your child, and to give the school a defined period of time to respond. The more you argue, the more you give the school room to respond with counter- arguments rather than corrective action. A letter that says “my child was physically attacked because of her Jewish identity and the school has taken no action” requires a substantive response. A letter that says “antizionism is the new antisemitism and the school is complicit in a culture of hate” invites the school’s attorney to write a five-page response about the First Amendment and the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — and the school will have successfully avoided addressing what actually happened to your child. The plaintiffs in StandWithUs v. MIT , 158 F.4th 1 (1st Cir. 2025), built their entire case around the argument that antizionist speech is inherently antisemitic and that MIT had a duty to suppress it. The First Circuit unanimously rejected this argument. Every claim lost. The plaintiffs in Gartenberg v. Cooper Union , 765 F. Supp. 3d 245 (S.D.N.Y. 2025), took a different approach. They focused on conduct : a mob trapping Jewish students in a library, repeated vandalism of hostage posters, and a school that promised to investigate but never disciplined anyone. The conduct claims survived. The lesson is clear: focus on what happened to your child, not on the political debate.
Will hiring an attorney be expensive?
It may not. Many of the federal civil rights statutes discussed in this guide include fee-shifting provisions. Under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, if you prevail on a civil rights claim, the court orders the school district to pay your attorney's fees. This means an attorney may take your case on a contingency basis — charging nothing upfront and collecting fees from the school district if the case succeeds. Even in cases that settle, attorney's fees are almost always a component of the settlement. Ask your attorney about the fee structure before you assume you cannot afford representation.
What if my child is afraid to speak up?
That fear is itself evidence of a hostile environment. Under Title VI, a hostile educational environment exists when harassment is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies the victim equal access to educational opportunities. A child who is afraid to raise their hand in class, afraid to wear a Star of David necklace, or afraid to identify as Jewish at school is a child whose access to education has been denied. Document your child's fear — write down what they have told you, when they stopped participating, what they stopped wearing, what activities they have avoided. That documentation supports your claim.
What if other families are experiencing the same thing?
Talk to your attorney. Multiple families experiencing antisemitism at the same school strengthens every family's case. Your attorney can coordinate with other families' attorneys, share information, and potentially bring a multi-plaintiff action or a class action. This kind of coordination is only possible through attorneys — if you try to organize families through a community group or parent network, none of those communications are privileged, and they become discoverable by the school district.