Kestenbaum v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139180 (U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Mass., August 6, 2024) (Stearns, J.)
In this case, a Motion to Dismiss ungranted and denied each in part. The court found that there was standing, including associational standing. The court will not rule on whether the matter is ripe. As to Title VI, Jewish students are protected from harassment and discrimination based actual and perceived Israeli identity, that is discrimination based on national origin. In terms of deliberate indifference, liability taxes only when the school response is so lax, misdirected, or poorly executed as to be clearly unreasonable under he known circumstances. The fact is alleged, and a Complaint established Harvard’s response failed Title VI’s commands. In terms of direct discrimination, Plaintiff’s claim is one of viewpoint discrimination, which is not actionable under Title VI. As to the implied covenant claim, Plaintiff’s alleged Harvard selectively enforces policies. The instances are insufficient to state a Title VI claim, but they do sketch a claim that Harvard breeched the implied covenant by failing to evenhandedly administer it’s policies. Motion to Strike on redundancy, denied.
