Are Universities responsible for the actions of their students?

    Political division is nothing new to college students, one could say that on-campus ideological differences are almost second nature, and certainly something that Bucknell isn’t spared from. This particular case, Louis D. Brandeis Center, Inc. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. revolves around exactly that, political dissension on the campus of UC Berkeley, specifically, regarding Jewish students and hostilities toward them that have taken place in recent months. The plaintiffs, The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, a national civil rights legal advocacy organization that focuses on protecting the civil and human rights of Jewish people, and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE), a nonprofit based in California that supports Jewish students' rights assert that Jewish students and faculty have been subject to widespread and systemic discrimination, creating a hostile on-campus environment that violates constitutional and federal statutory protections. The central claims of the plaintiffs revolve around several key points and events. Firstly, the plaintiffs allege that at least 23 student organizations at UC Berkeley’s School of Law adopted bylaws or statements explicitly or effectively banning speakers who hold pro-Zionist views. These groups include The Queer Caucus, Women of Berkeley Law, Law Students of African Descent, and The Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice. The bylaws of these groups allegedly claim that speakers who “hold views in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine” would not be invited or welcomed, which the plaintiffs argue amounts to systemic exclusion of Jewish students and faculty who identify with or support Israel. 

    Secondly, the plaintiffs claim that there have been several on-campus incidents Jewish students allege that they were subjected to antisemitic slurs, and even threats of violence. Jewish students were reportedly harassed at an on-campus location known as Sather Gate, which is a common protest site on campus. One student was allegedly shoved during a counter-protest when they were attempting to film anti-Israel protestors, a campus bulletin board was vandalized with swastikas and anti-Zionist literature, and campus Jewish groups have reportedly received threats of violence on several occasions and had their messaging ripped down by oppositional groups. According to the plaintiffs, these incidents are not one-offs, but rather part of a broader, institutionally tolerated pattern of hostility that has left Jewish students feeling both unsafe and marginalized on campus. Perhaps the most troubling accusation is that University administrators have refused to take substantive action against these discriminatory behaviors despite several repeated reports from students and advocacy groups. 

    The plaintiffs claim that UC Berkeley administrators have either dismissed the concerns as mere “political disagreement”, or released public statements that fail to address the issue. UC Berkeley has pushed back against these allegations, largely on First Amendment grounds, claiming that student organizations are independent actors who have the right to adopt their own ideological stances, even if they are interpreted as controversial. Additionally, the University has added that it does not endorse or support these viewpoints, nor exclusions and so it cannot constitutionally penalize students for political speech, stating that disciplinary action could amount to infringement of free association and freedom of expression. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge James Donato allowed the case to proceed. Ruling that the plaintiffs “plausibly allege disparate treatment with discriminatory intent” under Title VI (“prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance”). The broader implications of this case raise questions such as “To what extent can public universities be held responsible for the discriminatory conduct of student groups?” and “Can ideological exclusion equate to racial discrimination (when applied to Jewish students)?”

    It is my personal opinion that the court should rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, as the University’s response largely misses the mark that Jewish students have been subject to repeated instances of discrimination, including physical violence and threats. Although the University has no basis to regulate the thoughts or ideologies of its students, its hesitance to discipline students for their actions because the issue is contentious has allowed for acts of physical violence to occur without reconciliation. The University essentially fails to understand that this issue goes beyond pure ideology and involves the perpetuation of a hostile environment for a demographic of students on campus, leading to them feeling unsafe and under threat. Rather than a Supreme Court case, I would defer to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, and because UC Berkeley is a public school it is especially subject to this law.