{shortcode-30327970f9ffde811b058055154e93000f154a5c}
Lawyers for Harvard issued a final ask to dismiss a lawsuit by Harvard Business School graduate Yoav Segev on Tuesday, writing in a reply memorandum that Segev failed to provide evidence for his claims of direct discrimination or conspiracy.
The filing came in response to Segev’s Nov. 17 opposition to the University’s original motion to dismiss. Segev alleged in his response that he faced harassment long after the October 2023 pro-Palestine protest where he said he was assaulted. With Harvard’s final motion filed, a judge is expected to issue a ruling on the dismissal request.
In the memorandum in support of the dismissal motion filed Tuesday, Harvard’s lawyers argued that Segev “distorts the facts and misrepresents — or simply ignores — the law” in his opposition to the motion to dismiss.
Segev first filed suit against the University and the Harvard University Police Department in July, arguing that they had violated his Title VI rights by permitting instances of antisemitism against him and other students on campus.
He further alleged in an amended complaint that the University, and specifically Harvard Executive Vice President Meredith L. Weenick ’90 and former Harvard police chief Victor A. Clay had engaged in a “conspiracy” against him by failing to thoroughly investigate the October incident, when Segev alleged he was physically assaulted by pro-Palestine demonstrators while filming a protest outside the Harvard Business School.
The two graduate students involved in the incident were charged with assault and battery in May 2024, though the charges were dropped in July of this year when the students agreed to participate in a pretrial diversion program including anger management programming, a Harvard course on negotiation, and community service. One student was removed from his first-year proctor position within weeks of the October 2023 protest.
Segev accused Harvard of obstructing the work of federal investigators and failing to launch its own investigation into the students’ actions following the incident. But Harvard’s lawyers disputed this claim in their motion to dismiss, noting that HUPD had worked with the FBI to investigate the alleged assault.
But in an opposition filing to the motion to dismiss submitted earlier this month, lawyers for Segev pushed back against Harvard’s characterization of his complaint, arguing that they left out key allegations — separate from the October 2023 incident — in their initial motion.
The lawyers described further instances of alleged discrimination against Jewish students, including an incident at a student event that Segev attempted to register for in November 2023. According to Segev, administrators at the event had a separate list for Jewish students that categorized them based on whether they were ‘peaceful’ or ‘protestors.’
Segev claimed that University administrators dismissed this incident as insignificant.
“Harvard administrators told Mr. Segev and others who objected to Jewish blacklisting that it was ‘not a big deal,’” the lawyers wrote.
Segev’s lawyers also pointed to the usage of antisemitic speech on the anonymous social media platform Sidechat as further evidence of a “hostile environment” at the University that they alleged deprived Segev of educational benefits.
Lawyers for Harvard disputed the relevance of the incidents in their latest memorandum, arguing that the online speech cited by Segev did not constitute “personal harassment” because it did not target him directly. They did not specifically address the November student event in their rebuttal, but wrote that Segev’s ability to graduate from HBS in the standard two years invalidated his claims of lost educational benefits.
A Harvard spokesperson declined to comment on Segev’s motion, referring The Crimson back to the Tuesday memorandum. Lawyers for Segev did not respond to a request for comment.
Segev had previously attempted to sue Harvard on the basis of the October incident as an anonymous plaintiff in a separate Title VI lawsuit filed by HDS graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum, though his request to join was denied by a judge.
That suit was settled in May for an undisclosed amount.
This latest complaint comes as Harvard continues to negotiate with the Trump administration over a deal that would potentially close multiple federal investigations into the University, and provide further protection for billions of dollars in federal funding that were frozen last spring, in part a result of Harvard’s alleged failure to respond to campus antisemitism.
A judge ruled in September that the funding freeze was unconstitutional, resulting in a majority of funding being restored, according to Harvard.
—Staff writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at sebastian.connolly@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @SebastianC4784.
—Staff writer Julia A. Karabolli can be reached at julia.karabolli@thecrimson.com.
