Court partially dismisses lawsuit alleging MIT of tolerating antisemitism
Case against Prof. Michel DeGraff thrown out in its entirety
Boheng Cao–The Tech
On Jan. 5, Massachusetts District Judge Richard G. Stearns granted a motion to dismiss some of the accusations against the Institute in the case Sussman v. MIT. In this case, plaintiffs William Sussman and Lior Alon, along with the Louis D. Brandeis Center Coalition to Combat Anti-Semitism, alleged that MIT “failed to act reasonably” to address on-campus antisemitism and “wrongfully terminated” the contract of two Israeli Jewish employees.
The plaintiffs had additionally filed a joint complaint against Professor Michel DeGraff, claiming that the professor publicly “harrass[ed]” them through a “series of online posts and mass emails.” The complaint against DeGraff has now been dismissed by the court in its entirety.
This dismissal largely concludes the six-month legal battle that began with the original filing of the lawsuit on June 25, 2025. The only remaining complaint against MIT is an additional claim lodged by anonymous plaintiff John Doe on Sept. 17, 2025. Without further motions to dismiss, this part of the case is expected to proceed to trial later this year.
As the district court only ruled on the motion rather than the case itself, it never evaluated the veracity of the plaintiffs’ accusations, but merely took them to be true. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to submit a valid claim with legal standing, even if all their allegations were indeed factual.
The original lawsuit came in the context of campus protests amidst the ongoing Israel-Gaza War and allegations of war crimes on both sides. Israel has been accused by multiple international bodies, such as the International Corps of Justice, United Nations, and Amnesty International, of perpetuating genocide in Gaza. These accusations led to calls to end research linked to the Israeli Ministry of Defense that culminated in a pro-Palestine encampment in April and May 2024.
The plaintiffs allege that they were threatened by encampment demonstrators because of their Israeli and Jewish identities, blocked from passing through protest spaces, exposed to antisemitic graffiti and chants, and ignored by the Institute's Discrimination and Harassment Response Office. Alon, a postdoctoral researcher who later became an instructor in the mathematics department, reported worsening mental health and a string of rejections from tenure-track positions that he attributed to his views. As a response to perceived harassment, Sussman left MIT’s Electrical Engineering and Computer Science graduate program and joined the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. Doe claims that he experienced antisemitic hostility from lab coworkers, ultimately culminating in a dismissal from his lab.
The Institute rejected the allegations in its motion to dismiss filed on Oct. 8, stating that they “responded promptly and appropriately” to claims of discrimination and retaliation. The motion argued that President Sally Kornbluth proactively condemned “targeting” and “calls for violence” after demonstrators spray painted slogans or distributed flyers with potentially controversial content. MIT’s motion to dismiss also pointed to the Institute’s heightened security and disciplinary measures against protestors, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims failed to meet the strict “deliberate indifference” standards under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As MIT receives federal assistance, Title VI prevents it from deliberately ignoring substantial risks to an individual’s safety or rights.
Furthermore, MIT’s motion contests the plaintiffs’ account of events. It states that no concrete threats or acts of violence were perpetrated against the plaintiffs, mentioning that Doe was granted a higher-paid position at MIT after being dismissed from his lab. The motion also argued that political disagreements, along with anti-Zionism independent of race-based discrimination or antisemitism, constituted protected speech that did not demand further action beyond MIT’s response.
The Institute’s motion cited the case StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. MIT (2024), in which another set of plaintiffs had attempted to sue MIT for similar charges which included Title VI violations. This case was also dismissed — a ruling upheld by a First Circuit appeals court in Oct. 2025.
Professor DeGraff similarly submitted a motion to dismiss the charges against him. Noting the differences between Zionism and Judaism, DeGraff argued that the court’s adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA)’s definition of antisemitism, as urged by the plaintiffs, would be tantamount to a First Amendment violation. This definition of antisemitism has been interpreted to preclude criticism of Israel and has faced extensive controversy, particularly from proponents of other definitions of antisemitism like the Jerusalem Declaration of Antisemitism.
DeGraff’s motion adds that the plaintiffs failed to show “pervasive harassment,” demonstrate that his comments had “illegal motivations,” or explain why his actions caused emotional distress.
In its final ruling, the district court stated that while MIT’s response “left much to be desired” and was “far from what should be expected by a university administrator,” the court did not believe that MIT “affirmatively [chose] to do the wrong thing in either instance.” Even though the court conceded that Sussman’s departure from MIT was, at face value, “deeply troubling,” it noted that the stringent deliberate indifference test was not satisfied by the claim that “an institution could or should have done more.”
The court also ruled that Alon had not experienced “materially adverse” retribution from either MIT or DeGraff after his reports of discrimination to MIT. Even if Sussman had experienced such retribution, the court continued, the lack of deliberate indifference would have rendered his complaint untenable.
The court concluded that the claims do not fit in the “severe and pervasive racial harassment within the scope of Title VI.” It also rejected the plaintiffs’ direct discrimination claim due to a lack of opposition from the plaintiffs, along with the hostile work environment claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (equal employment opportunity). The court additionally dismissed the Louis D. Brandeis Coalition’s legal standing in the case.
In a statement to The Tech, DeGraff said that he “welcomes the dismissal,” calling the original lawsuit “frivolous.” He acknowledged the limitations of the ruling in its lack of fact finding, as the case never proceeded to court, but commended the court for its adherence to the precedent established in StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice. DeGraff continues to see the lawsuit as part of a “nation-wide pro-Israel lawfare campaign that threatens free speech and academic freedom,” noting that he is still removed from the MIT Linguistics department and is facing a pay freeze — a disciplinary measure that he views as retribution for his pro-Palestine stance. DeGraff also noted that he received insults and attacks from the plaintiffs and other colleagues.
In his statement, DeGraff warned of increasing institutional acceptance of the IHRA definition of antisemitism and what he perceives as a “Palestine exception” to free speech. He pointed to the suspension of Prahlad Iyengar for his involvement in pro-Palestine movements, along with the role of Canary Mission in threatening pro-Palestine activists.
Contrary to Doe’s accusations of discrimination, MIT spokesperson Kimberly Allen stated that the plaintiff’s allegations “omit critical details” about MIT’s “significant outreach and support.” However, the details of this support are not publicly available due to the plaintiff’s anonymity. Allen further underscored MIT’s “rights to answer and litigate” Doe’s claims over the course of the upcoming trial.
As of this publication, plaintiffs Alon and Sussman have yet to respond to The Tech’s request for comment.