When universities break their promises to protect Jewish students

The Justice Department’s new lawsuit against University of California is notable not only for what it alleges about antisemitism at UCLA, but for how it frames the university’s failure.

The complaint focuses largely on UCLA’s 2024 encampment. Its most revealing allegations, however, reach into the academic core: faculty injecting anti-Israel politics into courses unrelated to Israel, academic work tied to protest activity and academic units using official channels to reinforce the same campaign.

The charge is larger than campus unrest. Parts of the university’s own academic machinery helped foment the hostility Jewish students faced.

The Justice Department’s legal strategy is no less consequential. As in its earlier lawsuit against Harvard, the department proceeds along two tracks. The first is familiar: UCLA allegedly violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by allowing discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students. The second is more innovative and far-reaching: The department treats that same alleged failure as a breach of the federal funding contract.

Universities receive federal grants for research, education, training and discovery. In return, they sign written assurances — public-interest guardrails meant to ensure that federal support is administered lawfully, fairly and consistently with its purposes. One commitment is institution-wide compliance with federal nondiscrimination laws.

The department’s claim is that UCLA’s alleged discrimination did not merely violate Title VI; it broke the promise the university made when it accepted federal support.

The breach-of-contract approach does more than add another legal claim. It recognizes the government and the university as parties to a defined relationship, and it........

© The Hill