A new lawsuit filed by the Council on American-Islamic Relations’ Chicago branch last week alleges that Northwestern University violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by adopting time, place and manner restrictions on student protest and requiring students to watch an antisemitism training video.

The plaintiffs include Northwestern Graduate Workers for Palestine, a doctoral student who “is not Arab, Jewish, or Muslim, but publicly associates with these students” and a doctoral candidate of Syrian and Palestinian descent. 

Title VI prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating based on a person’s race, color and national origin — understood to include both Arabs and Jews — though the lawsuit claims that “Antizionist Jews are also a cognizable ethnic group” under the statute. The suit also accuses the Chicago-area school of violating Title VI by discriminating against those who “associate with” Jewish and Arab students “who oppose or criticize Zionism.”

The suit, filed in federal court in Illinois, claims Northwestern violated students’ rights by requiring them to agree to the school’s code of conduct, which now incorporates the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s working definition of antisemitism, as well as mandatory bias training that includes a video on antisemitism created in collaboration with the Jewish United Fund, the city’s Jewish federation. 

The training is required to be completed by Monday, or students will be prohibited from registering for classes for the winter term.

The plaintiffs claim that the mandate to watch the JUF video, which includes information on the ties between antisemitism and anti-Zionism, has “caused Arab individuals and those who support them injury in the form of emotional distress.” The two doctoral students, who are considered student employees of the university, also claim the training, which is required for their employment, violates the Illinois Worker Freedom of Speech Act.

A spokesperson for Northwestern declined to comment on the ongoing litigation. The university responded to the allegation in court filings that students must attest that they “have reviewed and agreed to abide by” the student code of conduct but “notably, the attestation does not require students to agree or enforce the substance or viewpoints expressed in the training. It merely confirms that they will comply with the university’s uniformly applicable policies — just as all students must typically do to maintain good standing.”

The suit further alleges that Northwestern implemented an “Intimidation Policy” in response to the disruptive anti-Israel encampment that overtook the university’s campus in May 2024 by now requiring “a reservation, advance notice, and a permit from the University’s administration” in order to table on university property and a permit to use devices that amplify sound, as well as limiting flyers posted outdoors to university bulletin boards. 

Students participating in the encampment engaged in several instances of harassment and intimidation of Jewish students, which were detailed by the House Committee on Education and Workforce when it called then-President Michael Schill to appear before the committee. Schill negotiated with the encampment and acceded to several of the student leaders’ demands, including allowing students to weigh in on university investments, which earned the praise of the international Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement and drew condemnation from Jewish leaders.

The requested remedies of the suit include finding Northwestern’s use of the IHRA definition, which labels some criticism of Israel as antisemitic, to be illegal and prohibiting the school from using it and for emotional distress damages for the plaintiffs.