In 2004, ZOA filed the first-ever Title VI complaint alleging campus antisemitism that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreed to investigate. Today, these legal tools—Title VI and the IHRA definition—are the backbone of efforts to protect Jewish students. They are now being used by many of the same organizations that once rejected and criticized ZOA’s approach.
By Morton A. Klein and Susan B. Tuchman, Esq.
(July 21, 2025 / JNS) In the aftermath of the Hamas-led terror attacks in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, antisemitism has surged to levels not seen in decades. Students on college campuses and in K-12 schools across the United States have been harassed, threatened, marginalized and even physically assaulted based on their Jewish identity and support for Israel.
Legal complaints have flooded the courts and the U.S. Department of Education, alleging violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal law that requires any institution receiving federal funding to maintain an environment free from racial and national origin discrimination.
The fact that Jewish students today can invoke Title VI to protect their civil rights is the result of a strategic and sustained effort that began more than 20 years ago. The Zionist Organization of America led that effort.
In 2004, ZOA filed the first-ever Title VI complaint alleging campus antisemitism that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) agreed to investigate. Filed against the University of California, Irvine (UCI), the complaint alleged that Jewish students were facing unrelenting hostility, including threats and physical assaults, that university officials failed to effectively address. Some students were so fearful for their safety that they transferred to other schools.
OCR’s investigation confirmed that the harassment was severe and pervasive at UCI, but the agency concluded that UCI had not violated Title VI. By its terms, the law protects against discrimination based on “race, color or national origin,” not religion. OCR considered Jews to be a religious group only and therefore not covered under the statute.
ZOA argued that Jews are not only a religious group but an ethnic group with shared ancestry, culture, language and a connection to a homeland. That began a six-year campaign to expand the application of Title VI to cover Jewish students. For years, ZOA stood virtually alone among Jewish organizations in this battle. Some major organizations hurt and even openly opposed ZOA’s efforts.
The Anti-Defamation League, for example, publicly criticized ZOA’s legal action against UCI. ADL leadership described the lawsuit as “disconcerting” and accused ZOA of coming in “with all guns blazing.” It asserted that “changes occur not through lawsuits but by education on campus and by working toward better communications.”
That criticism was both misguided and damaging. Civil-rights laws exist precisely because education and dialogue are not always enough. From desegregation to disability rights, transformative change in America has often occurred through litigation.
Furthermore, the ADL’s public condemnation of the ZOA complaint undermined Jewish students at UCI who had already turned to the ADL for help, which yielded no results. The ADL’s denouncement also sent a troubling signal to UCI and OCR that even the Jewish community was not unified in supporting civil rights protection for its students.
Despite that lack of institutional support, ZOA pressed forward. We testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which in 2006 issued landmark findings recognizing that antisemitism was a growing threat on college campuses and that Jewish students deserved protection under Title VI.
ZOA also built bipartisan support in Congress. In 2008, lawmakers such as Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) urged the Department of Education to enforce Title VI to protect Jewish students. That same year, at ZOA’s initiative, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations wrote to OCR calling for Title VI protections for Jewish students. In 2010, after ZOA briefed staffers at a congressional hearing convened by then-Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.), 38 members of Congress sent a letter to the Secretary of Education echoing those demands.
Finally, in October 2010, OCR issued formal guidance affirming that Title VI protections would apply to Jewish students. This milestone did not just benefit Jewish students; it extended protections to other groups, such as Sikhs and Arab Muslims, also religious and ethnic minorities.
In 2018, ZOA achieved another breakthrough. When OCR reopened ZOA’s Title VI case against Rutgers University, the agency adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism, including modern examples that involve demonizing or delegitimizing Israel. One year later, U.S. President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring all federal agencies to enforce Title VI against antisemitic discrimination and to use the IHRA definition in enforcing the law.
Today, these legal tools—Title VI and the IHRA definition—are the backbone of efforts to protect Jewish students. They are now being used by many of the same organizations that once rejected and criticized ZOA’s approach. We welcome their engagement because Jewish students need every ally they can get.
However, it’s important to remember how these protections came to exist. They were the result of strategic vision, moral clarity and the fortitude to persist, even in the face of opposition from within the Jewish community.
As antisemitism continues to rise across the country, Jewish leaders must commit to tangible strategies that will result in real protections. It is time to stop operating from outdated playbooks or turning on one another over tactics. We need clear goals, unified action and the courage to think long-term.
The Jewish community cannot afford to wait for consensus or popularity. We must act with strategy and resolve, because the safety and dignity of our children and their children depend on it.
Morton A. Klein is the national president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Susan Tuchman, Esq. is director of ZOA Center for Law & Justice.
This op-ed was originally published in JNS and can be viewed here.