On October 21, 2025, the First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the U.S. District Court’s dismissal of a lawsuit brought by two MIT students and the Stand With Us Center for Legal Justice in Stand with Us Center for Legal Justice et al. v. MIT, Dkt. No. 24-1800 (1st Cir. October 21, 2025).

In this case, the plaintiffs—two students and a student membership organization—alleged that MIT failed to address antisemitic harassment resulting from pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The protests included rallies, walkouts, and a prolonged encampment. The plaintiffs claimed these events created a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students at MIT, citing specific incidents as antisemitic. The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the First Circuit upheld that decision, emphasizing MIT’s reasonable response and the protections afforded by the First Amendment.

MIT’s Response Was Not Deliberately Indifferent under Title VI

Addressing the Title VI claim, the First Circuit adopted the prevailing standard for deliberate indifference, recognizing that a university is liable only if its response to known harassment is “so lax, so misdirected, or so poorly executed as to be clearly unreasonable under the known circumstances.” The First Circuit clarified that Title VI does not require a university to craft perfect solutions or to satisfy students’ preferred remedial demands; it simply requires that the university’s responses are not “clearly unreasonable.” As the Court explained, “Title VI does not subject a private entity to damages liability merely because its response did not deter or eradicate the alleged peer harassment.”

The First Circuit provided a detailed account of MIT’s actions in response to the protests and alleged harassment on campus, describing MIT’s actions as “an escalating series of actions aimed at calming the turmoil without violence.” After the initial protests, MIT revised its campus expression rules and issued new procedures for accelerated campus action on reports of alleged harassment and discrimination. MIT also disciplined student groups that violated campus rules. MIT also met with leaders of the Jewish community during protests, instructed protestors to vacate campus spaces or face discipline, and suspended students who failed to comply. The university launched the “Standing Together Against Hate” initiative to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia and hosted related events. In response to a prolonged encampment on campus, MIT installed a 24-hour police presence, erected fencing, and ultimately cleared the encampment and arrested protestors who defied orders.

The First Circuit drew a sharp contrast between MIT’s ongoing, escalating response and cases where other schools took no remedial measures or “no action whatsoever.” The Court noted, “MIT’s response to the political divide among its students was far from ‘clearly unreasonable.’” It recognized that reasonable administrators might disagree about the speed or decisiveness of MIT’s actions, but emphasized that “perfection is not the test.” The fact that MIT’s evolving responses prevented the conflict from developing into real violence between October 2023 and May 2024 underscored the reasonableness of its approach.

The First Circuit rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that MIT “dragged its feet,” took “only minimal action,” or “fail[ed] to discipline” protestors. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that Title VI does not penalize private entities for failing to eradicate peer harassment, nor does it require universities to adopt students’ preferred solutions. “MIT’s handling of this challenging situation was simply not indifferent,” the Court concluded, and “[a]ll in all, the complaint simply fails to allege facts plausibly supporting a claim of deliberate indifference to antisemitic harassment.”

Title VI Does Not Require Universities to Limit Protected Speech

The First Circuit’s decision makes clear that Title VI does not require universities to suppress protected speech, even when that speech is controversial or offensive. In this case, the Court found that the majority of the conduct about which plaintiffs complained, such as pro-Palestinian rallies, walkouts, and encampments, was expressive activity safeguarded by the First Amendment. As the Court stated, “we do not construe Title VI as requiring a university to quash protected speech,” citing Supreme Court precedent that public debate even if upsetting receives “special protection” under the U.S. Constitution.

The Court noted that MIT, as a private institution, is not bound by the First Amendment, but reinforced that the principle of academic freedom is a “special concern” of the First Amendment,  noting that universities must allow robust and open exchange of ideas, especially on matters of public concern. The Court indicated that suppressing speech simply because it is unpopular or contentious would imperil the intellectual mission of academic institutions and violate constitutional guarantees. It further indicated that using Title VI to punish speech based on viewpoint could violate the First Amendment, as “Congress cannot skirt First Amendment concerns by passing a law requiring someone else to punish protected speech.”

The plaintiffs attempted to equate anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian speech with antisemitism, arguing that such viewpoints should be restricted under Title VI. The First Circuit firmly rejected this approach, stressing that political views, even when strongly expressed, are not inherently discriminatory. The Court concluded, “We therefore reject plaintiffs’ claimed right to stifle anti-Zionist speech by labeling it inherently antisemitic.”

Finally, the First Circuit noted that the isolated antisemitic incidents alleged by plaintiffs were neither severe nor pervasive enough to constitute actionable harassment under federal law, and did not deprive students of educational opportunities. This decision affirms that universities must respect both anti-discrimination statutes and constitutional protections for free speech when responding to campus protests and complaints.

Key Takeaways for Colleges and Universities 

This decision provides important guidance for institutions in the First Circuit (Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico) and beyond:

1. Reasonableness, Not Perfection, Is Required: Universities must respond to harassment in a manner that is reasonable under the circumstances; flawless or immediate solutions are not required.
2. Escalating, Documented Responses Matter: Accelerating well-documented actions demonstrate responsiveness. Regular policy reviews and thorough recordkeeping are important.
3. First Amendment Protections Matter: Most protest-related speech, even if disruptive, is protected. Title VI cannot be used as a tool for censorship.
4. Harassment Must Be Severe and Pervasive: Only conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that deprives students of educational opportunities, meets the threshold for institutional liability.
5. Engage Stakeholders and Promote Campus Safety: Proactive outreach and clear communication help address issues and prevent violence.
6. Be Mindful of Academic Freedom: Institutions must balance campus safety and inclusion with academic freedom and open debate.

How Hunton’s Higher Education Team Can Help

Colleges and universities should regularly review their policies for managing protests and responding to legally prohibited harassment, train staff on the applicable legal standards and campus policies, document campus actions, and consult legal counsel when incidents arise.

If you have questions about this First Circuit decision and its implications for your campus, campus speech or protests, or your Title VI compliance obligations, please contact your Hunton Higher Education attorney.