Barnard settles lawsuit brought by Jewish students, agreeing not to meet with pro-Palestinian group
The Middle East
Student life
Campus protestsFacebookTweetLink
Follow
Barnard College has settled a lawsuit that accused the college of not doing enough to combat antisemitism on campus, agreeing to a litany of demands that include banning masks at protests and refusing to meet or negotiate with a coalition of pro-Palestinian student groups, according to a statement released Monday.
The Manhattan college, an all-women's affiliate of Columbia University, will also establish a new Title VI coordinator to enforce against claims of discrimination. Beginning next semester, all students and staff will receive a message conveying a 'zero tolerance' policy for harassment of Jewish and Israeli students.
The settlement was announced in a joint statement by Barnard and lawyers for two Jewish advocacy groups, Students Against Antisemitism and StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice, who brought the lawsuit last February on behalf of some Jewish and Israeli students.
In the statement, Barnard's president, Laura Ann Rosenbury, said the agreement 'reflects our ongoing commitment to maintaining a campus that is safe, welcoming, and inclusive for all members of our community.'
The terms of the deal also drew immediate pushback from some students and faculty, who accused the university of capitulating to a legal strategy aimed at stifling legitimate pro-Palestinian activism on campus.
'This settlement appears to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,' said Nara Milanich, a Barnard history professor who is Jewish. 'That is a problem for critical thought and academic freedom.'
As part of the agreement, the college will adopt contentious federal guidance to 'consider' the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism and its examples, which include certain critiques of Israel.
A newly-appointed Title VI coordinator will oversee compliance with the policy and produce an annual report on antisemitism for university leaders.
Additionally, the university's leaders agreed not to recognize, meet or negotiate with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the coalition behind last spring's student encampments. The group has called on both Columbia and Barnard to sever ties with companies that do business with Israel.
As part of the deal, the university will also affirm that its endowment will not be used for expressing political positions, including 'taking actions for the purpose of penalizing the government of a country or the commercial/financial activity within that country.'
The agreement follows a federal lawsuit brought last February that accused Barnard and Columbia of allowing Jewish and Israeli students to be 'bombarded' by antisemitism during protests that erupted against Israel's military campaign in Gaza.
The litigation against Columbia remains ongoing — though the university has already agreed to revamp its policies around protests, among other concessions made under threat from the Trump administration.
New York University and Harvard University have entered into their own legal settlements following lawsuits focused on antisemitism.
In the lawsuit against Columbia and Barnard, Jewish and Israeli students said they were subject to unchecked harassment during protests by 'mobs of pro-Hamas students and faculty.' Those who participated in the protests, including many Jewish students, have strongly disputed that characterization.
The lawsuit also claimed that students who served in Israel's military were singled out, with some left 'overwhelmed and unable to concentrate in class' after encountering signs accusing Israel of committing genocide and social media posts from fellow students.
Starting next semester, students will be reminded that they can be subject to discipline for off-campus conduct, including social media posts.
Barnard will also restrict where, when and how students can protest. And the university will ban face masks at demonstration used to 'intimidate or interfere with the enforcement' of school policies.
'Barnard's commitment to take meaningful actions to combat antisemitism demonstrates its leadership in the fight against antisemitism and upholding the rights of Jewish and Israeli students,' said Marc Kasowitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs. 'I encourage other colleges and universities to do the right thing and follow Barnard's lead.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions
Tariffs are coming on August 1 and there will be no more extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. President Donald Trump imposed his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, causing a rollercoaster stock market. A week later, he announced a 90-day pause, which has now expired, with many set to take effect Friday. Although the world may have gotten used to Trump announcing sweeping levies before backing out of them shortly thereafter, this time, there's no risk of TACO — the shorthand for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — the commerce secretary suggested. "No extensions. No more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place," Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday.' World leaders are still more than willing to talk to Trump after the August 1 deadline. 'Between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question, but the president is definitely willing to negotiate and talk to the big economies,' Lutnick continued. Lutnick's announcement of the hard deadline contrasts with the message of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent days earlier, when he suggested the tariff deadlines were flexible. 'The important thing here is the quality of the deal, not the timing of the deals,' Bessent told CNBC on Monday. The hard deadline comes months after the president earned the TACO acronym after he backed out of his sweeping tariff plan. On April 2, which he's dubbed Liberation Day, Trump declared the day would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.' Stock market turbulence ensued. The NASDAQ broke a record with its largest single-day point drop in the market's 50-year history as investors responded to Trump's tariff plan. Just one week after Liberation Day, he walked back on his grand plan and the stock market surged. That's when the acronym TACO emerged. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term to describe the president's pattern of implementing trade policy threats, which investors predicted would cause the market to tumble, before he walks back on that policy, leading to a market rebound. Last month, he delayed the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. Trump is meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to try to avoid a potential trade war. "We're working very diligently with Europe, the EU," Trump told reporters before he left for Scotland on Friday. "I would say that we have a 50-50 chance, maybe less than that, but a 50-50 chance of making a deal with the EU." Lutnick also commented on Sunday's meeting. Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday,' he remarked: 'The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set.' Trump has announced trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. He's said letters had been sent out earlier this month to dozens of countries with tariff rates. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15 percent and 50 percent," Trump said this week. "We have 50 [percent] because we haven't been getting along with those countries too well." Economic experts have warned that consumers could pay the price for the new levies. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers,' Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, said in a research note, CBS News reported. Some companies have preemptively taken action. Trump has threatened a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The steep levy threats against the country have prompted a New Jersey-based orange juice manufacturer to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the 50 percent tariff could result in a $70 million hit to its business. Sign in to access your portfolio
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
America Should Travel Fast
Regarding Allysia Finley's 'California's Bullet Train Is a Model of Progressive Governance' (Life Science, July 21): Every highway and airport in America is subsidized—by billions more than we've ever given to high-speed rail. The $6 billion private line in Florida isn't high-speed, which costs more. But the benefit of true high-speed rail is that more people ride it because it's more convenient than driving or flying. Dozens of other countries, even those with far fewer resources than America, such as Morocco, build it because it's a better return on investment. I conducted a financial analysis of the California high-speed rail with some Harvard Business School colleagues more than a decade ago, and we came to two conclusions: It will cost more than they say, and it will still cost less than expanding highways or airports. The rail project should be reformed, not tanked.
Wall Street Journal
23 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Readers Respond to Gavin Newsom on Energy
Regarding Gov. Gavin Newsom's 'Clean Energy Powers California's Economic Growth' (op-ed, July 24): Mr. Newsom brags of two-thirds of California energy being 'cheap, abundant, clean power.' Meanwhile, in the real world, a kilowatt hour of California electricity is among the highest in the country at around 32 cents—more than double the median state's 15 cents. This results in excess energy costs to consumers and businesses in California of billions of dollars a year. The extra dollar per gallon for gasoline adds insult to injury. If a President Newsom had his druthers, annual U.S. energy costs would be nearly $1 trillion higher if California policies were applied nationally.
