Everyone Will Read This as a Harvard Story. The Holding Is About the Word "Ongoing," and It Will Be Your Standard Too.
A federal judge threw out the government's antisemitism case against Harvard on Thursday. He did not rule that nothing happened. He ruled on one word, and that word will be the standard your church and your school are measured by too.
Strip the case to its principle and it is not complicated.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says an institution that takes federal money may not discriminate on the basis of race, color or national origin. Since 2004 the federal government has read that to cover discrimination based on shared ancestry, which is how Jewish students, and Muslim students, and Sikh students get inside a statute that never uses the word religion.
On Thursday, August 13, Judge Richard G. Stearns of the federal district court in Massachusetts threw out the Justice Department's Title VI suit against Harvard. The government had accused the university of deliberate indifference to the harassment of Jewish students after the October 7, 2023 attacks, and asked the court to cut off future federal funding and to claw back research money already spent.
The judge did not rule that the harassment did not happen. That is not what the opinion is about.
What the court actually held
Stearns held that the government's amended complaint, filed in March, rested almost entirely on incidents from the 2023 to 2024 academic year, plus a small handful from March 2025. He found those "too isolated and episodic to support a plausible inference that any institutionalized noncompliance with Title VI persists at Harvard to this day."
Read the tense. Persists. To this day.
This is a ruling about what a plaintiff has to show at the pleading stage to keep a Title VI case alive: not that something bad happened on a campus, but that the institution is, right now, systematically indifferent to it. Deliberate indifference is a demanding standard. It was built to be. It asks whether a school's response was clearly unreasonable in light of known circumstances, and a school that responds badly and then fixes it has, under that test, responded.
Harvard did some fixing, and the fixing is part of why the government lost. President Alan Garber's administration stood up an antisemitism task force, brought in a new provost and new deans, and rewrote the discipline policies to be, in the university's own words, more consistent, fair and effective. Every one of those steps is an admission that something was wrong. Every one of them is also evidence that the indifference is not ongoing.
Concede the fair point
The government's grievance was not manufactured. The complaint described Jewish students harassed, physically assaulted, stalked and spat upon. Anyone who watched the spring of 2024 on American campuses and tells you nothing happened to Jewish students is not being straight with you. A dismissal on the pleadings is not a finding that Harvard behaved well. It is a finding that the government sued over a period that had already closed, and asked for a remedy scaled to a crisis it could no longer show was live.
Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said the department disagrees and is assessing next steps. Expect an appeal to the First Circuit.
One factual conflict worth naming rather than smoothing: the Associated Press reported the government sought to recover billions of dollars in research grants awarded since October 2023, while the Harvard Crimson put the clawback at close to one billion. The exact figure is disputed in the coverage and we are not going to pretend otherwise.
The turn, and why this is your case
There is a version of this story built for cheering, depending on which team you are on. Here is the version that will matter to a Christian college president in five years.
Suppose the standard had gone the other way. Suppose a federal agency could plead a set of incidents from two academic years ago, decline to show that anything is wrong now, and on that record ask a court to terminate the institution's federal funding and take back money already spent. Ask who else that reaches.
It reaches the Baptist university with a Title IX religious exemption and a disgruntled former employee. It reaches the Catholic hospital system. It reaches the Christian school district vendor, the seminary with federal student aid, the campus ministry at a state school. The clawback theory in particular is the dangerous one, because it is retroactive, it is enormous, and it does not require the government to prove that the institution is doing anything wrong today.
The liberty I claim must shield the person I disagree with, or it shields no one. That is not a slogan. In this instance it is a load bearing wall, and Harvard, of all defendants, is the one holding it up.
What to do with this
Read the tense before you read the headline. Whenever a government action against an institution is announced, ask what period the evidence covers and whether the plaintiff is claiming an ongoing violation or a historical one. That single question separates enforcement from punishment, and it will do more to protect your church, your school and your ministry than any amount of arguing about Harvard.
Then watch the First Circuit. If the appeal narrows what "ongoing" means, that narrowing belongs to everybody.
If this is the kind of legal reading you want in your inbox at 6:30 in the morning, there is a way to make sure it keeps arriving.
Comments ()