The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, asking the court to reject amici briefs by Jewish Voice for Peace, the Middle East Studies Association of North America, and others. In May 2024, the Brandeis Center had sued Harvard University for its failure to take action against anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment on its campuses. More specifically, Harvard failed to apply its anti-discrimination policy to anti-Semitic discrimination. As part of its settlement with the Brandeis Center, Harvard agreed to incorporate the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”) definition and examples of anti-Semitism into its non-discrimination policies. The IHRA definition is the result of 15 years of negotiations involving more than 30 countries. IHRA is widely viewed as the gold standard for defining anti-Semitism and has been endorsed by world leaders across the political spectrum and utilized by numerous federal departments and agencies. Amici filed briefs opposing Harvard’s adoption of this definition. This Brandeis Center brief asks the court to disregard Amici’s briefs because they present claims outside the scope of the litigation and are meritless. The Brandeis Center argues that even if the court found the Amici briefs to be within the scope of litigation, they are meritless because they are based upon mischaracterizations of the IHRA definition. The Brandeis Center brief highlights the fact that Harvard’s application of the IHRA definition is consistent with guidance from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), the agency directly responsible for enforcing compliance with Title VI among educational institutions, and with Executive Order 13899, which requires OCR to consider the IHRA definition in responding to claims of anti-Semitic harassment. Harvard regularly files certifications with OCR agreeing to follow federal guidance and executive orders as a condition for federal funding. The Brandeis Center brief also explains that the IHRA definition provides a clear understanding of what constitutes anti-Semitism, which is essential to tackle anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment. The brief articulates the fact that modern anti-Semitism is often masked as anti-Zionism. Although Amici claim the definition prevents individuals from criticizing the state of Israel, the definition expressly states that criticism of Israel akin to criticism of any other state is not anti-Semitic. Therefore, IHRA distinguishes legitimate political discourse from anti-Semitic speech, which it characterizes according to the following categories: invokes tropes portraying Israel as demonic, calls for the destruction of Israel and its Jewish residents, or applies standards to Israel that are higher than those applied to other countries. Although the Amici also argue the definition impermissibly regulates speech, Harvard’s use of IHRA is consistent with federal civil rights law and does not violate Harvard’s own free speech rules. Additionally, the incorporation of the definition does not prevent speech protected by the First Amendment; it is merely relevant in determining whether there was anti-Semitic intent behind harassing behavior when evaluating a claim. The brief urges the court to disregard Amici’s briefs for being outside the scope of litigation and mischaracterizing the legal impact of Harvard implementing the IHRA definition into its anti-discrimination policy. Author: Ellery SaluckJune 27, 2025