By: Fern Sidman

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division announced on Tuesday that it has gathered sufficient evidence to establish that George Washington University (GWU) violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to adequately address antisemitic harassment on campus. According to federal investigators, the university “acted deliberately indifferent” to a pattern of incidents that targeted Jewish and Israeli students and faculty, allowing a climate of hostility to persist.

In a statement outlining its conclusions, the Civil Rights Division accused GWU of neglecting its duty under federal civil rights law to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory educational environment. “The division finds that GWU took no meaningful action and was instead deliberately indifferent to the complaints it received, the misconduct that occurred, and the harms that were suffered by its Jewish and Israeli students and faculty,” the department said in a public document containing its findings. The Justice Department stated that it will seek “immediate remediation” to address the violations.

Title VI prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. Its protections have been interpreted to include discrimination targeting Jews when such harassment is tied to shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. As The Algemeiner has reported in recent years, federal enforcement of Title VI has become a critical tool in responding to rising antisemitism on U.S. campuses.

George Washington University issued a formal statement through spokesperson Shannon McClendon, outlining its policies and actions while avoiding a direct rebuttal of the Justice Department’s conclusions. “We have taken appropriate action under university policy and the law to hold individuals or organizations accountable, including during the encampment, and we do not tolerate behavior that threatens our community or undermines meaningful dialogue,” McClendon said.

The university emphasized that it has worked closely with members of GW’s Jewish community, Jewish communal organizations, and city and federal authorities to address antisemitism. “We remain committed to working with them to ensure every student has the right to equal educational opportunities without fear of harassment and abuse,” McClendon added.

GWU, located in Washington, D.C., has been cited in multiple media reports, including coverage by The Algemeiner, as a focal point for anti-Zionist activism that has crossed into antisemitic expression. The student organization Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) has played a prominent role in organizing events and demonstrations that critics say have targeted Jewish members of the campus community.

Among the incidents cited by the DOJ and in prior civil complaints was the intimidation of a Jewish professor and other actions that Jewish students described as threatening. The Algemeiner has documented repeated claims from students that SJP events created a hostile atmosphere, with some rallies featuring chants and signs that Jewish students considered explicitly antisemitic.

The tensions reached a broader audience when graduating student Cecilia Culver used her commencement address to accuse Israel of apartheid and genocide—language that mirrors rhetoric used by extremist groups and hostile state actors. Culver claimed that Palestinians were targeted “simply for remaining in the country of their ancestors” and accused GWU students of complicity in an “imperialist system.” University officials later stated that Culver had deviated from her approved speech, effectively deceiving administrators who had selected her to speak.

While Culver’s remarks drew condemnation from Jewish students and alumni, they also highlighted a broader trend noted in The Algemeiner report: the use of high-profile university platforms to advance anti-Israel narratives without rebuttal in real time, contributing to a perception that such views are institutionally tolerated.

Faculty behavior has also been at the center of complaints. In 2023, The Algemeiner reported on allegations against Lara Sheehi, then a psychology professor, who was accused of discriminating against her Jewish graduate students. According to a 2023 civil rights complaint filed by the advocacy group StandWithUs, Sheehi reacted dismissively when a student disclosed her Israeli heritage, remarking, “It’s not your fault you were born in Israel.”

Students alleged that Sheehi subsequently spread rumors about them being “combative” racists and filed misconduct charges without clearly specifying the alleged policy violations. Jewish students told The Algemeiner that their repeated appeals to administrators for intervention went unanswered. Ultimately, the DOJ findings echo the narrative presented in the StandWithUs complaint: that the university failed to take corrective action despite credible reports of discriminatory conduct.

The atmosphere at GWU reportedly deteriorated further after the Hamas-led October 7, 2023, terrorist massacre in Israel. A civil lawsuit filed in May of this year recounted dozens of incidents that took place in the aftermath. As The Algemeiner report detailed, these included the vandalism of the campus Hillel Center, an attack on the property of a Jewish advocacy group, and a hate message sent to a Jewish student instructing her to “kill yourself” and “watch your back,” accompanied by a slur.

The lawsuit further described demonstrations in which participants displayed signs referencing the “final solution,” equated the Star of David with the swastika, and chanted “Globalize the Intifada”—a slogan widely understood as a call for violence against Jews. Plaintiffs Sabrina Soffer and Ari Shapiro accused GWU of allowing these incidents to occur without meaningful intervention, asserting that the university’s inaction constituted a violation of Title VI.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, speaking on behalf of the Civil Rights Division, underscored the Trump administration’s commitment to enforcing civil rights protections for Jewish students. “Every student has the right to educational opportunities without fear of harassment or abuse,” Dhillon said. “No one is above the law, and universities that promulgate antisemitic discrimination will face legal consequences.”

The Algemeiner report noted that Title VI enforcement has been expanding in scope, with the DOJ increasingly willing to hold institutions accountable for failing to address antisemitic incidents. The standard for liability—deliberate indifference—requires proof that university officials knew about discriminatory harassment and failed to take steps reasonably calculated to end it.

Under Title VI, universities receiving federal funding are obligated to promptly investigate credible complaints of harassment based on race, ethnicity, or shared ancestry, and to take action sufficient to prevent recurrence. In practice, this means that universities must balance First Amendment protections with their responsibility to prevent a hostile educational environment.

The Algemeiner has reported on the challenges universities face in navigating this balance, particularly when antisemitic incidents are framed by perpetrators as political speech. The DOJ’s findings suggest that GWU failed to meet even the minimum threshold of an adequate response, thereby allowing harassment to persist.

The DOJ has indicated that it will seek immediate remediation. This could involve negotiated agreements mandating reforms such as enhanced bias training, revised harassment policies, and the appointment of dedicated Title VI compliance officers. Failure to reach an agreement could result in litigation or, in extreme cases, the loss of federal funding—though such an outcome is rare.

Legal experts cited by The Algemeiner note that the GWU case may serve as a precedent for future enforcement actions, particularly as federal agencies respond to a documented rise in antisemitism on U.S. campuses since October 2023.

The allegations against GWU reflect a nationwide trend in which anti-Israel activism has, in some cases, crossed into overt antisemitism. The Algemeiner has chronicled similar complaints at other institutions, often involving SJP chapters and allied groups staging protests, disrupting events, or targeting Jewish organizations with vandalism.

Jewish students at GWU have reported altering their behavior—avoiding certain areas of campus, removing visible Jewish symbols, or refraining from participating in Jewish life activities—out of concern for their safety. These behavioral changes, advocates argue, are indicative of a hostile environment under Title VI jurisprudence.

As the DOJ moves forward, GWU faces both legal and reputational challenges. The university will likely be required to produce detailed records of its responses to antisemitism complaints, including emails, meeting notes, and investigative files. Plaintiffs in the ongoing civil suit may also seek to leverage the DOJ’s findings as evidence of institutional liability.

For Jewish advocacy organizations, the case represents an opportunity to push for systemic change. Groups such as StandWithUs and the Louis D. Brandeis Center have long argued that federal enforcement is essential to ensuring universities take antisemitism seriously. The Algemeiner’s coverage of this case has highlighted the convergence of grassroots activism, legal action, and federal oversight as a strategy for combating campus antisemitism.

The Justice Department’s conclusion that George Washington University “acted deliberately indifferent” to antisemitic harassment marks a significant moment in the federal government’s approach to campus civil rights enforcement. As The Algemeiner has reported, the case encapsulates the growing recognition that antisemitism—particularly when intertwined with anti-Zionist rhetoric—poses a tangible threat to the safety and equal access of Jewish students in American higher education.

With remediation measures pending and litigation ongoing, the GWU case is poised to influence how universities nationwide respond to similar allegations. Whether through voluntary reform or court-mandated change, the outcome will test the boundaries of Title VI enforcement in an era of heightened campus polarization.