Jewish students must have equal access to all physical spaces that are open to students. When a school allows any part of its campus, whether it be in a classroom, or an outdoor space, to become a place from which Jewish students are excluded, it is denying Jewish students equal access to educational facilities. The exclusion may take place by physical barriers, ideological checkpoints, or social pressure that the school fails to address.
Case Study:
Frankel v. Regents of the University of California , 744 F.Supp.3d 1015 (C.D. Cal. 2024)
In April 2024, anti-Israel activists established encampments in the Royce Quad at UCLA — one of the most-frequented areas on campus, a route to many classrooms and the library. The encampment was enclosed with barricades and checkpoints. To pass through, any person had to agree to a set of demands, including professing condemnation of Israel. Jewish students and faculty who refused were turned away. Campus security staff did not dismantle the barricades or clear the checkpoints. Access to the library was blocked. Jewish students sued UCLA, and the court immediately ordered the Jewish free zones to be eliminated. The court held:
- Excluding Jewish Students from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith is unimaginable and abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. Id . at 1020.
- Jewish students' "exclusion from campus resources while other students retained access" violates their religious freedom. Id . at 1026.
Why This Violates the Law Are Both Antizionist and Antisemitic Discrimination Illegal?
Yes. The Frankel case illustrates an important point that is widely misunderstood: antizionist discrimination is as illegal as antisemitic discrimination. In Frankel , Jewish students were not excluded because someone called them a slur or drew a swastika. They were excluded because they refused to denounce Israel. The discrimination was antizionist in nature — and the court held it was illegal. Some people today doubt that the courts will recognize antizionist discrimination because antizionism is not always recognized as antisemitism in public debate. However, that is incorrect, and our rights against antizionist discrimination are fully intact. Title VI prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics. For many Jewish students, a connection to Israel is inseparable from their Jewish identity — it is part of their ancestry, their family history, their religious practice, and their sense of peoplehood. When a school conditions access to its facilities on a student's willingness to condemn Israel, it is discriminating against that student based on who they are, not merely based on a political opinion they hold. Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause (42 U.S.C. § 1983): Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin — including shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits the government from denying any person equal protection of the laws. When a public school allows Jewish students to be physically excluded from campus spaces or conditions access on their willingness to denounce Israel, it denies them equal access to educational facilities based on their ethnicity, religion, and viewpoint. Title VI claims are brought against the institution; Equal Protection claims under § 1983 can be brought against individual officials in their personal capacities.
Free Exercise Clause: When a school's actions or inaction effectively require Jewish students to denounce their connection to Israel — a core element of many Jewish students' religious identity — as a condition of accessing school facilities, it imposes a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion. Free Speech Clause: Conditioning access to school programs on a student's willingness to profess a particular political viewpoint (e.g., condemning Israel) constitutes both compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment.
What families should take from this: The key facts to document are: what your child was excluded from, who excluded them (other students, staff, or both), whether the school was aware, and what the school did or failed to do in response. If school staff participated in or facilitated the exclusion — such as security directing your child away rather than removing the people blocking access — that is especially significant.