New York, NY – Three professors at New York University are seeking to be added as defendants in a recently filed lawsuit that accuses the university of mishandling incidents of antisemitism on campus. The professors believe that the definition of antisemitism being used in the lawsuit could impede academic freedom and violate the First Amendment. By intervening in the case, they hope to address these concerns. The lawsuit, originally brought forward by three Jewish students, did not initially include the professors as defendants, but two of them were later named. One of the professors, Andrew Ross, had previously attempted to intervene in the lawsuit but had not completed the necessary steps at the time it was dismissed. However, the judge has now allowed Ross, along with professors Amin Husain and Rebecca Karl, to file an official motion to be included as defendants.
Ross expressed his motivation for joining the case, stating that they wanted to ensure that the university fully protects the academic freedom of its community members. He believes that the administration has been investigating students and faculty members for their speech on dubious grounds, and he felt that their voices were necessary to advocate for the affected community.
The definition of antisemitism at the center of the lawsuit is the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition, which includes various conditions such as targeting the state of Israel and accusing Jewish citizens of having greater loyalty to Israel than their own nations. The lawsuit, which has since been updated to include additional plaintiffs and violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, alleges that Ross engaged in antisemitic acts by participating in events and supporting movements critical of Israel.
The professors argue that the plaintiffs’ broad interpretation of antisemitism could harm their personal and academic freedoms. They believe that if they are not allowed to intervene, important discussions about freedom of speech and academic freedom will not be adequately addressed in court.
While NYU has requested that the professors’ request be denied, arguing that they are not eligible to become defendants, the plaintiffs’ attorney has expressed confidence in the original lawsuit. The professors, on the other hand, assert that they have been negatively impacted by the university’s reaction to the case, including the investigation and suspension of adjunct professors and students involved in speech-related activities concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The professors’ declarations highlight their concerns about the university’s adoption of the antisemitism definition and its potential stifling effect on free speech. They argue that criticism of Israeli policies should not be automatically equated with antisemitism. For them, this is a matter of defending academic freedom and the value of education in fostering informed and caring members of society.
In conclusion, the involvement of three NYU professors as additional defendants in the antisemitism lawsuit against the university reflects their concerns about academic freedom and the potential implications of the adopted definition of antisemitism. They are seeking to address these concerns by intervening in the case and raising important discussions about freedom of speech and academic freedom. While NYU has opposed their inclusion, the professors argue that their interests and the interests of the university’s community members will not be effectively defended if they are not allowed to participate in the lawsuit.