A US federal judge on Tuesday ruled that key parts of a lawsuit accusing Harvard University of failing to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination can move forward.

The lawsuit was filed in January by a recent graduate of the Harvard Divinity School, Alexander Kestenbaum, alongside Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. (SAA), an advocacy group. Antisemitism allegations are not new to Harvard; like other Ivy League universities, it has faced criticism for historic efforts to limit admissions for Jewish students. But reports of antisemitic sentiment have proliferated since Oct. 7, when Hamas insurgents attacked Israeli civilians, spurring Israel to wage war on Gaza.

According to Jewish campus organization Hillel, compared to the year preceding the Oct. 7 attacks, antisemitic incidents have increased by 700% across US universities. The Anti-Defamation League maintains a campus antisemitism report card, which assigns letter grades to universities based on policies and lawsuits related to antisemitism, Jewish student life, and reports of antisemitic incidents. The organization gave Harvard an F, the lowest grade in US academia, citing numerous examples of antisemitic incidents, including a statement by then-university president Claudine Gay that whether “calling for the genocide of Jews violate[s] Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment” was context-dependent. This statement ultimately led to Gay’s resignation as president. Notably, Harvard and other universities have also seen Anti-Muslim incidents in the aftermath of Oct. 7. Of 104 such incidents tracked by the organization Muslim Campus Life, nearly half reportedly occurred at Harvard.

As a student, Kestenbaum observed antisemitic messages on a university-wide chat app, which he reported to Harvard administrators. In turn, he and other graduate students lost access to the app, which was rebranded as an undergraduate messaging service. He was then asked to participate in a debate on Israel’s ostensible role in the 9/11 terror attacks. Kestenbaum claims that during a highly publicized pro-Palestine encampment on Harvard’s campus, he faced repeated episodes of harassment.

As described in Tuesday’s ruling:

Although Kestenbaum and SAA members have complained repeatedly to various Harvard offices and administrators, they claim that the situation has not improved. … According to plaintiffs, Harvard’s response has been not just simply inadequate but skewed in its bias.

In June, Harvard sought to dismiss the case on multiple grounds, ranging from free speech concerns, to a lack of standing due to Kestenbaum’s graduation, to the plaintiffs’ inability to prove discriminatory animus, as required by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Stearns sided with Harvard on the Title VI claim, finding insufficient evidence that Harvard treated antisemitic incidents differently than other forms of discrimination. He noted, however, that the incidents described in the complaint “sketch a claim that Harvard breached the implied covenant [of good faith and fair dealing] by failing to evenhandedly administer its policies.”

In other words, while the plaintiffs have not established a clear claim of discriminatory intent, they have provided evidence to support a claim that Harvard enforces some of its policies selectively with respect to different types of harassment claims, Stearns reasoned, finding that Harvard’s response was “at best, indecisive, vacillating, and at times internally contradictory.”

He also found that the plaintiffs provided ample evidence of “deliberate indifference” on Harvard’s part, stating:

To conclude that the [complaint] has not plausibly alleged deliberate indifference would reward Harvard for virtuous public declarations that for the most part, according to the allegations of the [complaint], proved hollow when it came to taking disciplinary measures against offending students and faculty. In other words, the facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students.

The parties are now expected to move forward with discovery with respect to the plaintiffs’ surviving claims.