A federal judge in Texas has ruled that a lawsuit by anti-Israel student groups against university officials for alleged viewpoint discrimination may continue.
Students for Justice in Palestine is a coalition of anti-Israel organizations with various campus chapters in Texas. The group is suing to challenge a March executive order issued by Gov. Greg Abbott that required universities to update campus policies to address antisemitic speech.
Robert Pitman, an Obama-appointed judge, found that the lawsuit has standing to continue against the University of Houston System Board of Regents, the University of Texas System Board of Regents, the President of UH, the President of UT San Antonio, and the President of UT Austin.
Abbott’s executive order required universities to adopt policies against antisemitic speech and acts as defined by the state.
Texas Government Code defines antisemitism as “a certain perception of Jews that may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.” The code cites the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s examples, like “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.”
“The revised university policies chill a kind of expression that is a hallmark of university activity… the Court finds the Defendants cannot show this expression sufficiently rises to the level of a ‘substantial disruption’ at the university level,” reads the ruling. “To the contrary, this type of passionate political debate is essential at universities, where students are forming their worldview as adults.”
The anti-Israel network also claims that UT President Jay Hartzell violated students’ First Amendment rights by canceling a protest and suspending the UT Palestine Solidarity Committee.
Pitman ruled that the group’s suspension was viewpoint discrimination.
In April, over 100 people were arrested after a UT Palestine Solidarity Committee protest where students clashed with Austin Police Department officers and Texas Department of Public Safety officers.
“The Court acknowledges that if Plaintiffs ultimately succeed, the Court will need to grant relief,” the ruling continues. “Appropriate relief will focus on eliminating the connection between the university policies, GA-44’s definition of antisemitism, and the IHRA’s examples of antisemitism because it is that connection that chills Plaintiffs’ speech.”
