In re University of California at Irvine
The question has been given urgency by the extent to which it was recentlyflubbed. The OCR’s administrative resolution last year in the landmark case
In reUniversity of California at Irvine
dismissed widespread and serious anti-Semitism claims brought against that university in part on the grounds that the relevant allegations do notconstitute “national origin” discrimination.
Among other deficiencies, OCR’s decisionfailed even to consider well-documented claims that Irvine’s Jewish students facedactionable forms of racial discrimination.In
, the Zionist Organization of America alleged that Irvine has fostered ahostile environment for Jewish students, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits “discrimination because of … race ... [or] national origin” (but notreligion) in programs or activities that receive federal funds. ZOA alleged that Irvine’sJewish students have been physically and verbally harassed, threatened, and otherwiseabused; that Jewish property has been vandalized; and that a Jewish Holocaust memorialwas destroyed.In a surprising departure from standard agency protocol, OCR flatlyignored ZOA’s allegation that Irvine’s Jewish students faced racialdiscrimination. OCR reviewed allegations of national origin discrimination only
OCR Case No. 09-05-2013. This case is discussed at length in Kenneth L. Marcus,
Jurisprudence of the New Anti-Semitism
, Wake Forest L. Rev. (forthcoming 2009).