Columbia University is facing a significant civil rights lawsuit filed by a coalition of current and former students and employees who allege the Ivy League institution acted with "deliberate indifference" to the pervasive harassment of Palestinians on its campus. The complaint, lodged Monday in the New York County Supreme Court, asserts that Columbia did not merely fail to intervene but actively participated in and amplified the targeting of Palestinian students, staff, and faculty based on their race, ethnicity, and political views. The plaintiffs are seeking judicial intervention and unspecified damages.
This legal challenge marks a critical juncture for Columbia, which has been embroiled in a series of controversies regarding its handling of discrimination and harassment allegations. The university previously settled a lawsuit filed by Jewish students in February, who claimed insufficient action was being taken to address antisemitism. Furthermore, in the summer preceding that settlement, Columbia agreed to implement extensive policy changes demanded by the Trump administration to avert civil rights investigations into antisemitism on campus and to reinstate federal research funding. University representatives declined to comment on the pending litigation when approached on Wednesday.
The Role of the Office of Institutional Equity Under Scrutiny
A central pillar of the plaintiffs’ grievance revolves around Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity (OIE), established in August 2024. According to the lawsuit, campus members began receiving notifications from the OIE, informing them they were under investigation. The complaint contends that these investigations were frequently initiated for conduct that constituted protected speech and lawful advocacy, citing examples such as op-eds advocating for divestment from Israel.
The OIE’s procedural requirements have also drawn sharp criticism. The lawsuit alleges that students and employees facing accusations of discrimination were compelled to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before they could access evidence against them or communicate with investigating officials. This policy, the plaintiffs argue, "operates to suppress the speech of Palestinian community members who are disproportionately subjected to OIE investigation, and to prevent them from seeking support, legal counsel, or community assistance in connection with those proceedings." Furthermore, the lawsuit asserts that the evidence underpinning many of these disciplinary investigations against Palestinian students and employees was notably unsubstantiated.
One specific case highlighted in the complaint involves Layla Saliba, a prospective 2025 graduate of Columbia’s social work program and one of the plaintiffs. In October 2024, Saliba was informed by the OIE that she was under investigation for alleged discriminatory behavior. The lawsuit states the investigation was initially based on an opinion piece concerning Palestine that Saliba had not authored. Despite this, the OIE reportedly expanded its inquiry to encompass her published writings, social media activity, and communications as a student leader. Although Saliba was cleared by the OIE seven months later, the university placed a hold on her transcript, preventing her from submitting it to potential employers or applying for further graduate studies.
Allegations of Unequal Treatment and Viewpoint Discrimination
The lawsuit further alleges that Columbia has engaged in viewpoint discrimination and unequal treatment through its inconsistent responses to pro-Palestinian groups and the persistent harassment faced by Palestinian individuals on campus. The suspension of two prominent pro-Palestinian campus organizations, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, in connection with campus demonstrations is cited as a key example. The plaintiffs contend that these actions, taken while other student organizations engaged in advocacy were permitted to operate with "comparable restriction," reveal a clear disparity.
Moreover, the lawsuit points to the university’s formation of an antisemitism task force, while pointedly omitting the establishment of a comparable body for Palestinian campus members, which it describes as a "deliberate refusal." The plaintiffs argue that the antisemitism task force, rather than fostering a more inclusive environment, ultimately contributed to the perpetuation of anti-Palestinian harassment.
The lawsuit details how the antisemitism task force initially "resisted defining the term ‘anti-Semitism’ in any principled or legally coherent manner." It later recommended that Columbia adopt a formal definition proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). The plaintiffs contend that university leaders subsequently utilized this definition to conflate criticism of Israel and Zionism with antisemitism.
The IHRA definition, while stating that criticism of Israel "similar to that leveled against any other country" does not constitute antisemitism, includes examples such as comparing "contemporary Israeli policy" to Nazi Germany. While this definition is supported by some Jewish advocacy groups and was endorsed by the Trump administration, various free speech and civil rights organizations have expressed concerns that its broad application could encompass protected speech critical of Israel and its policies. Kenneth Stern, the lead drafter of the IHRA definition and head of Bard College’s Center for the Study of Hate, has frequently voiced opposition to its use in enforcing antidiscrimination laws on campuses, warning that it could be misapplied to stifle classroom instruction and academic discourse.
The lawsuit asserts that the adoption of the IHRA definition subjected the plaintiffs to "false accusations of antisemitism" and fostered "a pervasive climate of fear and self-censorship with respect to their academic work." Consequently, the plaintiffs claim they suppressed or altered their research, coursework, and professional collaborations out of a "well-founded fear of being subjected to OIE investigation and institutional discipline."
Alleged Doxxing, Harassment, and Unanswered Calls for Help
Beyond institutional procedures, the plaintiffs also allege that Columbia failed to adequately support students who were subjected to repeated doxxing campaigns orchestrated by individuals employed by or affiliated with the university. These campaigns specifically targeted Palestinian students and employees. The lawsuit states that requests for aid and intervention from university administrators were frequently met with silence.
Maryam Alwan, a 2025 graduate and plaintiff, is cited as an example. According to the lawsuit, Alwan sought university support in the face of persistent doxxing and harassment by Columbia affiliates. Many of her emails to university officials reportedly went unanswered. Ironically, multiple administrators reportedly reached out with offers of support shortly after she was interviewed by CBS News regarding her campus experiences. However, when Alwan followed up on these offers, her requests for assistance were allegedly ignored once more.
Compounding these issues, Alwan reportedly faced six disciplinary investigations and actions, five of which were eventually dismissed or rescinded. The final investigation, initiated by the OIE after her graduation, placed her on "conditional disciplinary probation" for emails she had sent to administrators detailing the on-campus harassment she had endured.
The plaintiffs contend that Columbia’s response to doxxing was unduly delayed. While the university announced a doxxing task force in November 2023, a formal anti-doxxing policy was not adopted until March 2025. Crucially, this new policy was not applied retroactively, leaving students targeted during the interim period without recourse, the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit identifies Shai Davidai, a former Columbia business professor, as a central figure behind the harassment and doxxing faced by the plaintiffs. During his tenure at Columbia, Davidai, an Israeli citizen and a vocal critic of pro-Palestinian demonstrators, frequently named protesters on social media. Columbia initiated an investigation into Davidai’s conduct in February 2024. In October of that year, the university temporarily revoked his campus access, citing his "repeated harassment and intimidation of University employees." His faculty status and salary remained unchanged during this period. However, the lawsuit claims Columbia abruptly closed the case the following summer without disclosing its findings. Davidai departed from the university in July 2025.
In response to the lawsuit, Davidai characterized it as "lie-riddled" and part of an "anti-Jewish, anti-Israeli, and anti-American campaign" waged by the plaintiffs. He vehemently denied doxxing anyone, stating on social media, "I have never doxxed anyone, and I never would." He urged the plaintiffs to "look up what that word actually means," implying a misunderstanding or misapplication of the term.
The lawsuit details the severe psychological toll on the plaintiffs, alleging they suffered from PTSD, panic attacks, sleep disturbances, nightmares, significant weight loss, and hospitalization as a direct result of the doxxing and harassment campaigns. Bahia Munem, a former lecturer at Columbia’s Center for the Study of Ethnicity and Race, is also cited. The lawsuit claims she resigned two years prior to the end of her contract due to institutional indifference to prolonged harassment. "A scholar who had been recognized, promoted, and extended by Columbia was forced to leave the institution she had served for four years because Columbia refused to protect her," the complaint states.
External Influences and Privacy Concerns
Columbia has been under intense public scrutiny, partly due to its role as a focal point for pro-Palestinian student encampments in spring 2024 and its subsequent handling of the backlash. The plaintiffs allege that external political influences, including federal lawmakers and former President Donald Trump, improperly shaped Columbia’s responses to pro-Palestinian protests and the harassment of Palestinian students.
In August 2024, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, then chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx, demanded extensive internal documentation from Columbia concerning antisemitism on campus. The lawsuit asserts that the university voluntarily surrendered this information, including student disciplinary records and files from closed and ongoing investigations, "in violation of Columbia’s own policies and applicable privacy protections." Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that Columbia failed to properly redact these disciplinary files, leading to the "unlawful disclosure of their personally identifying information." This action, the plaintiffs argue, contravened the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which restricts colleges from sharing student educational records without written consent. The university’s actions, the lawsuit contends, demonstrate a pattern of prioritizing external pressure over the privacy and well-being of its Palestinian students and employees.
About the Author
