The Daily Pennsylvanian is a student-run nonprofit.

Please support us by disabling your ad blocker on our site.

College senior Eyal Yakoby speaks at a press conference on Dec. 5, 2023. Credit: Jada Eible Hargro

Penn filed a new motion to dismiss and strike the claims in the ongoing, amended lawsuit alleging an insufficient response to antisemitism on campus. 

In the motion, Penn states that the plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed on the grounds that their challenge is "premature," given that the University's response to antisemitism is ongoing. This is the latest update in the lawsuit that was first filed by Penn students in December of last year. 

A University spokesperson declined to comment. In response to a request for comment, plaintiff and College senior Eyal Yakoby wrote, "strongly encourage everyone to read this amazing article" — referring to an opinion piece in The Daily Pennsylvanian from another plaintiff, Wharton and Engineering junior Noah Rubin.

Penn submitted 30 pieces of evidence along with the motions, ranging from statements from former Penn Presidents Amy Gutmann and Liz Magill, public safety messages, Penn’s intended actions to combat antisemitism, and University policies regarding open expression, academic freedom, and disciplinary actions.

The lawsuit, initially filed by Yakoby and College first year Jordan Davis, alleges that Penn subjected them to a "pervasively hostile educational environment,” according to the preliminary statement. In March, two new plaintiffs — Rubin and Students Against Antisemitism, Inc. — joined the lawsuit.

Penn wrote in the filing that it responded reasonably to all incidents alleged by the plaintiffs, contending that they do not “plausibly allege” that Penn’s response was insufficient or unreasonable. In addition, the University cites that the plaintiffs’ motions for injunctive relief have a “lack of standing.”

“Penn is committed to supporting Plaintiffs. But even in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, those incidents do not rise to a level stating a viable Title VI claim for any of them,” the University stated in the motion. 

The motion says that the court should specifically strike requests regarding disciplinary actions and judicial regulation of donations. Penn claims that court regulation of donations “goes well beyond any reasonable relationship to the actual claims at issue." The motion also cites that relief requiring Penn to take any specific disciplinary action has been held as precedent by the Supreme Court.

In the motion, Penn cited examples from several lawsuits involving other universities, including those against the University of Chicago, Drexel University, and Temple University, among others. 

The motion also requested to present the claims in an oral argument.