NYU Prof Moves to Intervene in NYU Antisemitism Case – Fears Could Be Wrongly Labeled “Antisemitic”
NYU Professor Andrew Ross fears that the antisemitism lawsuit against NYU could infringe on his First Amendment free speech rights: “Dr. Ross is not an anti-Semite but has with deep conviction spoken and written his criticism of the actions of the nation-state Israel.”
As we recently reported, NYU Slammed with Massive Antisemitism Lawsuit, three students at NYU have sued the school in federal court over allegations of blatant antisemitism that the student Plaintiffs claim were either tolerated or encouraged by NYU:
Three Jewish NYU students have now sued NYU in federal court in Manhattan for allegedly gross antisemitism. From the Complaint’s “Preliminary Statement“:
The age-old virus of antisemitism is alive and well at New York University. This case arises from NYU’s egregious civil rights violations that have created a hostile educational environment in which plaintiffs and other Jewish NYU students have been subjected to pervasive acts of hatred, discrimination, harassment, and intimidation. For years, NYU—acutely aware of ongoing and disgraceful acts of anti-Jewish bigotry—has reacted with, at best, deliberate indifference, refusing to enforce its own anti-discrimination and conduct policies that it readily applies to protect other targets of bigotry, and instead fostering an environment in which students and faculty members are permitted to repeatedly abuse, malign, vilify, and threaten Jewish students with impunity. Regularly confronted with such genocidal chants as, “Hitler was right,” “gas the Jews,” “death to kikes,” and “from the river to the sea,” and other abuse, plaintiffs not only have been deprived of the ability and opportunity to fully and meaningfully participate in NYU’s educational and other programs, but they have suffered and have been put at severe risk of extreme emotional and physical injury.
[emphasis added]
Bloomberg picked up the story: NYU Sued by Students Over ‘Egregious’ Antisemitism on Campus
Three Jewish students at New York University sued the school on Tuesday, claiming it failed to protect them from “egregious” antisemitism that has worsened since the Israel-Hamas war began.
The lawsuit, filed in Manhattan federal court, claims the university must take action under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
“Mobs of students, often accompanied and encouraged by professors, have been given carte blanche to harass and intimidate NYU’s Jewish population,” according to the complaint. “As a result of NYU’s actions and inactions, antisemitism at NYU now thrives like never before.”
An NYU spokesperson said the university looks forward to setting the record straight and prevailing in court.
“The assertions in this suit do not accurately describe conditions on our campus or the many steps NYU has been taking to fight antisemitism and keep the campus safe,” spokesperson John Beckman said in an emailed statement.
The explosion of antisemitism and Islamophobia on college campuses has led to renewed interest in whether students can use Title VI to force universities to do more to protect them. President Joe Biden’s administration has vowed to use the law in the face of campus threats and violence….
Since Oct. 7, many students and faculty have “openly and enthusiastically” endorsed Hamas, the complaint says….
As we reported, the Complaint in the federal lawsuit was massive, spanning 83 pages and 281 paragraphs. It asserted six different causes of action, including Title VI, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination by entities receiving federal funding, New York State law, and common law breach of contract.
In early December, the lead Plaintiff in the case, Bella Ingber, testified in Congress about her experiences with antisemitism at NYU:
Jewish college students are telling Congress today about the unrestrained #antisemitism sweeping their campuses. I was particularly moved by Bella Ingber, a junior at @nyuniversity. Shame on NYU and other schools for their stunning failure to protect Jewish students. pic.twitter.com/obWCeQxqL0
— Trisha Posner (@trishaposner) December 5, 2023
Fortunately for Bella and her two co-Plaintiffs, New York City heavy hitter litigation law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres, whose tagline is: “Creative. Aggressive. Relentless.,” and named partners Marc Kasowitz and Daniel Benson, among others, are representing the Plaintiffs. I highly recommend watching Kasowitz’s firm video available here.
In the original post, I ended by stating:
Senior federal district court judge Paul A. Crotty has been assigned to the case. Judge Crotty was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2005.
I predict NYU is in for the lawsuit of its life.
In an updated report, filed after Kasowitz sued Harvard on behalf of Jewish student Plaintiffs there, I analyzed the cases against NYU, Penn, and Harvard:
These three lawsuits have “legs” as we say in the business; i.e. they’re not going to dismissed or settled without major, campus-changing actions taken by each university, which seems impossible at this point. In the NYU lawsuit, NYU filed a motion for a conference with the Judge to discuss their expected Motion to Dismiss. NYU’s grounds for dismissal, as stated in the letter, are that NYU has instituted a 10-Point Plan to combat antisemitism, and have taken other actions to ameliorate the situation, including opening a “Center for the Study of Antisemitism.”
The NYU Plaintiffs are having none of it. See these excerpts from the Response filed by Kasowitz on behalf of the Plaintiffs:
NYU says that because it plans to open a “Center for the Study of Antisemitism” next fall and has issued a (patently inadequate) “10-Point Plan”—“plans” and “processes” which NYU says are “evolv[ing]”—this Court must dismiss plaintiffs’ claims or must compel plaintiffs to wait for some unspecified period to see if the hostile educational environment on NYU’s campus is remedied. Meanwhile, plaintiffs are forced to run a daily gauntlet of unconscionable harassment on campus—harassment NYU would not tolerate if directed at any other group—where Jewish students are physically and verbally assaulted, subjected to genocidal threats such as “Hitler was right,” “gas the Jews,” and “death to kikes”, and forced to traverse university buildings past students and faculty chanting antisemitic slogans and brandishing antisemitic posters. Incredibly, even as plaintiffs allege that they fear for their physical safety, NYU insists that it is the victim, complaining that allowing this lawsuit to proceed would impose a “hardship on NYU by . . . infringing on the flexibility it needs to function.” (emphasis added)….
NYU’s proposed motion is contrary to controlling … law. Not only would granting the motion deny plaintiffs their right to seek relief, but it would also provide every defendant a roadmap for avoiding or delaying accountability for egregious discrimination by simply announcing “ongoing” “plans” and “processes.” NYU does not, as it cannot, cite any authority justifying such an extraordinary result, and a pre-motion conference would be a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ resources. In any event, plaintiffs intend to file an amended complaint by January 31, 2023, adding plaintiffs and further allegations of recent antisemitic harassment on campus—which only confirm the falsity of NYU’s assurances that it is solving the problem.
[bold emphasis added]
Federal Judge Paul Crotty in the NYU case has set a teleconference with the lawyers for each party down for this coming Tuesday, January 16, to discuss NYU’s expected Motion to Dismiss. I would love to be a fly on the wall at the teleconference, because I predict Judge Crotty is going to indicate to NYU that any such motion to dismiss has little chance of being granted.
In any case, we will keep tabs on all three cases and keep you updated.
Well, I was right. Judge Crotty did not dismiss the antisemitism case against NYU, stating simply that “[t]he parties reported that plaintiffs will amend their complaint and will then propose an agreed upon briefing schedule.”
The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on January 31, but before they could even file it, non-party NYU Professor Andrew Ross filed a letter motion for a conference with Judge Crotty to discuss his request to intervene in the case:
I file this letter motion to request a pre-motion conference regarding a motion to intervene as a defendant under FRCP [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] Rule 24(a)….
Plaintiffs ask this Court to order NYU to implement a definition of anti-Semitism so broad that it would end or chill virtually all First Amendment protected criticism of Israel or pro-Palestinian speech by NYU faculty, students and staff, on or off campus….
NYU will not assertively defend Dr. Ross’s interests. Despite the Plaintiff’s dissatisfaction with the university’s efforts, NYU is already applying a definition of anti-Semitism that is extremly [sic] vague and overbroad… NYU has announced a problematic “Zero Tolerance” policy which has already resulted in a significant denial of due process and violation of its own codes and rules.
Against this background, we request permission to move to intervene as of right. This Court is itself a government actor, and granting the exact relief requested by plaintiffs would violate Dr. Ross’s First Amendment rights.
Interestingly, and somewhat humorously, Professor Ross’s Motion for Conference to Discuss his Motion to Intervene is being opposed by both the Plaintiffs in the case and NYU.
From NYU’s response:
Defendant New York University (“NYU” or “the University”) opposes Dr. Andrew Ross’s extraordinary request to intervene as a defendant under Rule 24(a) for the following reasons, among others: because Plaintiffs’ complaint (and impending amended complaint) should be dismissed, intervention will be rendered moot; and intervention is otherwise not appropriate under Rule 24(a). At minimum, the Court should postpone deciding Dr. Ross’s motion until after it resolves NYU’s forthcoming motion to dismiss….
As NYU previously explained, to prevail, Plaintiffs must show that NYU acted with “deliberate indifference” to antisemitic conduct on its campus. But the complaint itself shows the opposite—that NYU responded swiftly and decisively to antisemitic conduct in the wake of the October 7, 2023 terrorist attack in Israel by, for instance, diligently implementing a robust 10-Point Plan to promote the safety and well-being of its students. Dr. Ross’s letter likewise demonstrates that NYU is enforcing its policies that prohibit antisemitism….
Dr. Ross asserts that he is entitled to intervene because this litigation jeopardizes his “personal and academic freedoms.” [T]o the extent Professor Ross claims that he has a “legally protectable” interest in engaging in conduct that violates federal nondiscrimination law, NYU’s existing policies prohibit such conduct, consistent with Title VI….
[emphasis added; citations omitted for clarity]
The Plaintiffs’ opposition, filed by Marc Kasowitz himself, is even more pointed:
The entire premise of NYU Professor Ross’s proposed motion is his speculation that this Court might enter an order “end[ing] or chill[ing]” his First Amendment right to criticize the State of Israel. Contrary to his letter, plaintiffs do not seek, and do not ask this Court, to restrict Ross’s First Amendment rights. Ross’s employer, NYU, however, is a private university not subject to the First Amendment. Moreover, NYU receives federal financial assistance and therefore is barred by Title VI from excluding Jewish or Israeli students from participation in and depriving them of the benefits of their NYU education, or subjecting them to discrimination based on their religion or national origin. NYU has every right—and, under Title VI, it has the obligation—to regulate its employees’ speech or conduct in order to prevent or remedy a violation of Title VI….
Ross asserts that NYU will not oppose this Court’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition of “antisemitism,” which, he contends, could “harm” his “academic and personal freedoms.” But, again, as a private employer, NYU is perfectly free to adopt that definition, and Ross has no cognizable interest in preventing it from doing so. In fact, as the complaint alleges, NYU already explicitly agreed, in a settlement of prior antisemitism charges over three years ago with the Department of Education, to adopt the IHRA definition—a definition endorsed, in substance and relevant part, by the Trump and Biden administrations. As the complaint also alleges, NYU has abjectly failed to apply that definition (or any other) in ensuring that it complies with Title VI—a failure which, unfortunately, has necessitated this action.
Accordingly, because Ross’s motion would be futile and a waste of the Court’s and the parties’ time and resources, his request for a pre-motion conference should be denied.
[citations omitted; emphasis added]
Unfortunately, Judge Crotty set a teleconference to discuss Professor Ross’s request to intervene for February 13.
In the meantime, as mentioned, the Plaintiffs filed an even more massive, 331-paragraph, 104-page Amended Complaint:
Read the whole thing, of course, but here are a few key paragraphs from the Amended Complaint:
On April 20, 2023, NYU’s Jewish Law Students Association sponsored a discussion “Antisemitism: An Assault on Human Rights and Our Shared Humanity” to educate students on the proliferation of antisemitism. The event was met with the same hatred it was meant to address. For example, outside of the event, “ZIONISTS NOT WELCOME” was chalked in big letters on the sidewalk. And when the lecture began, half the audience rose from their seats and disrupted the speaker with the chants “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” and “Zionists are not welcome here.” Jewish attendees at the event were shocked and disturbed by the threats and disruptions. One student reported the incident to Larissa McDowell, the Assistant to the Dean of Students, requesting a meeting with Dean Kendrick, and attaching evidence of the protest. The administration did nothing in response.…
NYU’s inaction continued to signal to students and faculty that they could engage in antisemitism at NYU with impunity. For example, on or about May 3, 2023, while a Jewish student was in the NYU Paulson Center hanging posters opposing the growing antisemitic BDS movement on campus, another NYU student harassed her, telling her that she was the “reason why antisemitism is on the rise,” and a “white supremacist,” “fascist,” and “bigot.” The Jewish student filed a harassment report and met with the heads of NYU Student Affairs, NYU Campus Security, and NYU Global Spiritual Life, all of whom assured the student that they would investigate the incident. On May 9, 2023, the student met with Mathew Shepard, Interim Director of the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards, to report that she was very concerned about seeing her harasser walking around campus. Shepard replied that the incident was not a big deal, and that she should be prepared to see the student again on campus because NYU would not be taking action. In fact, the student did see her harasser on campus again. Having suffered no consequences for his first verbal attack, the harasser began and continues to stalk and harass her on social media….
Following Hamas’s October 7 massacre of Israeli civilians, NYU continued to act with deliberate indifference, opening the floodgates to soaring antisemitic harassment, abuse, intimidation, and violence. NYU students have publicly detailed their fear and trauma in the face of raging and unchecked antisemitism on campus. As [Plaintiff Bella] Ingber stated in an interview, “being a Jew at NYU right now is scary . . . [W]e are seeing an uptick in anti-Israel protests that are turning antisemitic. There are signs that read ‘globalize the Intifada,’ which is a historical call for the extermination of Jews and call for violence against Jews.” Ingber recounted that students are horrified and frightened as chants of “gas the Jews” and “Hitler was right” ring out on campus, and students and professors serve up a “constant contextualization and justification of Hamas’s brutal terror attack at NYU,” both in the classroom and around the school. In a viral video, another student added that “it’s scary being Jewish on campus now because of all this.” In the same video, another student said she would withdraw from NYU the next semester. The antisemitic fervor that has gripped NYU, and NYU’s failure and refusal to address and ameliorate it, have led some Jewish students to withdraw from NYU already.
[emphasis added]
We will keep you updated on the course of this lawsuit, and the ones against Penn and Harvard.
In the meantime, here is your introduction to Professor Andrew Ross:
WATCH NYU Professor Andrew Ross profess his support for pro-Palestine students as a member of the newly-formed group Faculty for Justice in Palestine. He manages to get in some antisemitic tropes along the way. https://t.co/IsV2AnIDHG pic.twitter.com/tJeImKqOXY
— Canary Mission (@canarymission) October 26, 2023
NYU Professor Andrew Ross is openly advocating that TERRORISTS like Leila Khaled teach classes at American college campuses (in violation of federal criminal law!?) God help us. pic.twitter.com/wUZGM50M2W
— Brooke Goldstein (@GoldsteinBrooke) November 16, 2020
Activists who successfully removed the Theodore Roosevelt statue from the Museum of Natural History now are saying they want it melted down
NYU professor Andrew Ross is an organizer of the effort https://t.co/ApFsVNf6h9
— Jon Levine (@LevineJonathan) March 13, 2022
NYU professor Andrew Ross framed Palestinian terrorism as a legitimate form of “resistance” https://t.co/YQaIXQFN5N pic.twitter.com/nycgVxqBev
— Canary Mission (@canarymission) June 12, 2017
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
This kind of conduct is a good reason to fire tenured professors and to kick out and ban students from ever attending. That would be a great start, send a clear message. and shock waves throughout academia.
[T]o the extent Professor Ross claims that he has a “legally protectable” interest in engaging in conduct that violates federal nondiscrimination law
IOW, stop helping!
Heh.
Interesting how all the criticism from academia is hurled at Israel, with never even a scintilla of criticism directed at the allegedly beyond-reproach, allegedly devoid of agency, allegedly devoid of personal responsibility, allegedly “victimized” Arab Muslim “Palestinians.”
Given this reality, one can be forgiven for fairly believing that such criticism is inherently biased, unbalanced and lacking objectivity.
More plainly:
Professor Ross supports terrorism.
Professor Ross supports mass murder.
Professor Ross supports gang rape.
Professor Ross supports torture.
Professor Ross supports kidnapping.
Professor Ross supports war crimes. (What else do you call it when the government of one territory sends armed men into another territory to rape, murder, kidnap, and torture?)
All of this is speech protected by first amendment (assuming he isn’t telling listeners to commit violence immediately), but it should be considered in rating Professor Ross as a person. For instance, if I ran a restaurant near NYU, his picture would be on the wall with a placard stating that he is refused service, and why.
It may be inconsistent with his job of teaching. It may support accusations that he discriminates against students on the basis of religion and national origin, or that he creates a hostile environment in the classroom. He has a right to say what he thinks, and everyone else has a right to adjust how they deal with him accordingly…
Kasowitz should let Ross intervene in his personal capacity, and then file an answer to the intervention complaint that has big damages requests against him personally, together with various other requests for declarations that he is, in fact, engaging in an antisemitic course of conduct. We’ll see how long he can stay in the case. Maybe Kasowitz can also find a way to notify NYU that in Kasowitz’s opinion Ross’s attorneys fees can’t be covered by the University, and if they don’t agree, add a request for a declaration to that effect to the pleadings.
Legal proceedings ain’t beanbag. These lefties never seem to believe that they can be subjected to consequences for their acting out.
Because they have, up till now, never suffered the consequences of their actions. When 2 of the 3 men who have their name on the door of a firm with over 250 lawyers step in you know its going to be a rough ride. I hope NYU is sued into bankruptcy. Hopefully our next president will have the cojones to immediately deport all those anti semite non Americans there on a student visa.
A former name partner of that firm was David Friedman, Trump’s ambassador to Israel and one tough litigator and diplomat.
And Joe Lieberman is or was of counsel, with a corner office.
How is that supposed to work? Damages for what? In Ross’s personal capacity he is perfectly entitled to engage in an antisemitic course of conduct. Antisemitism isn’t and can’t be against the law. It’s only in his capacity as an agent of the university, which is subject to Title 6, that his antisemitic activity can be restricted.
The difference between hiring a strip mall accident attorney that advertises on late night TV and true trial studs is what is going to make the difference here. NYU has a real problem on it’s hands and knows it. They let the children run wild for years and now it’s showtime with some people that won’t let this go.
No. I don’t believe they know what trouble they’re in. The silliness of claiming they’ve already solved the problem when they haven’t even tried indicates that they’re planning on going the Oberlin route. That is, they’re opting for arrogance over competence.
That may help the students get a nice big settlement but it won’t help them get the education they were hoping for.
IDK. Seems to me that the lawyers NYU hired had to try something so advised the Uni on that action then trotted it out to the judge as a Hail Mary because that is what they are paid to do. In private I’m pretty sure the lawyers for NYU are advising them that they are in very deep doo doo
In what world are as chants of “gas the Jews” and “Hitler was right” not antisemitic? Why are antizionists who claim not to hate Jews always so ready to display their true feelings?
When I look at the execrable Ross and his dhimmi, useful idiot ilk in academia, all I can see is a transparently grandstanding, self-serving narcissist dutifully parroting Muslim supremacist/terrorist/Islamofascist propaganda for his own self-aggrandizement, and, perhaps also, for pecuniary reward (given that universities such as NYU, Harvard, etc., seem gleeful to hire these reprobates).
These people are evil scum. They’ll say and do anything to raise their standing among Dhimmi-crat subversives and radicals.
If persecuted student scapegoats are a school amenity, terms, duties and compensation should be laid out to avoid misunderstanding.
Perhaps the school can offer a random lottery program where the lucky winners are sacrificed to Baal?
I demand my right to call for the destruction of Israel and of all the Jews living there (and elsewhere).
Is he willing to give up his right chants of “gas the Jews” and “Hitler was right” , or is that asking too much?
Did they find him the library studying for his MCATs? Volunteering at an old-folks home or animal shelter? It had to be one of those kind of things because I’m assured by much smarter people than I am that illegal immigrants are a tremendous resource that will save the Republic, amirite?
lol. This was supposed to be posted to the illegal alien shooter story. Not sure how that happened.
Who are we kidding this time?
Sounds like the professor is having a sudden, incredible moment of clarity on the problem with aggressive anti racism tactics by SJWs. What are the chances he actually recognizes this parallel to what the right faces on a daily basis from the Kendi and BLM types?
Monkey’s and butts come to mind
The examples cited in the IHRA working definition of antisemitism include “ However, criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic. Antisemitism frequently charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong.” It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.” Apparently Professor Ross intends to continue making criticism unlike that leveled at other countries & making use of those stereotypes & sinister character traits.
Or perhaps he is concerned about being able to continue any of these:
“ account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:
1. Calling for, aiding, or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology or an extremist view of religion.
2. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
3. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.
4. Denying the fact, scope, mechanisms (e.g. gas chambers) or intentionality of the genocide of the Jewish people at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II (the Holocaust).
5. Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
6. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
7. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
8. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
9. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
10. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
11. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.”
https://holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism
In other words, Dr Ross is an antisemite.
This case is an important test case and will tell us a whether Jewish students can rely on the gibberish printed by universities and the comments of administrators against the anti Semitic student mob and their faculty enablers