YOU CAN SAY THAT, BUT YOU CAN’T DO THAT! I’m a longstanding critic of allowing hostile environment complaints based on offensive political speech. But I also think that Jewish students at many universities where Hamasniks were chanting “globalize the intifada” and whatnot have a viable hostile environment case. Why? Because liability doesn’t attach for the speech endorsing violence, but this speech provides context for why universities were obligated to crack down on illicit behavior by Hamansniks that they instead tolerated and even encouraged.
This unprotected behavior includes violence, intimidation, threats, classroom disruptions, vandalism, and other acts that created a hostile environment for Jewish students. In isolation, these actions might not create a hostile environment, but when the students engaging in illicit acts are also endorsing violence, a reasonable Jewish student could feel concern for his safety, to the point where it meets the legal standard of interfering with his educational opportunities. This is especially true given that there have been dozens of incidents of violence against Jewish student on campus since Oct. 7, 2023, and also, unfortunately, several murders of Jewish people by Hamasniks in society at large. Certainly courts should not be, as several have, dismissing these cases without giving the plaintiffs the opportunity to even get discovery from the defendants (for the legally literate, on 12b6 motions to dismiss).
I explain it all in this forthcoming article, which also has, I believe, the most comprehensive documentation yet published of incidents of violence, threats, and intimidation against Jewish students, almost none of which have been covered by the MSM.