MLFA files Title VI complaint against Rice, alleges ‘discriminatory treatment’ in university’s tabling of S.RES 02

Department of Education already investigating Rice in separate Title VI case

By Riya Misra     8/21/24 10:34pm

The Muslim Legal Fund of America filed a complaint against Rice with the U.S. Department of Education, alleging the university violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through “discriminatory treatment of its Muslim and Jewish students advocating for Palestine,” according to an MLFA press release. The complaint was filed Aug. 12, on behalf of two unnamed Rice students, in response to the university’s indefinite tabling of S.RES 02, a resolution urging the Student Association to boycott and divest its spending from Israel-aligned companies, in the spring. 

MLFA — which has previously filed Title VI complaints on behalf of Harvard and Brown University students — declined to provide a copy of the complaint upon request. At time of publication, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has not yet opened an investigation in response to MLFA. A Rice spokesperson said the university has not received notice of MLFA’s complaint, and therefore declined to respond to its allegations.

The Department of Education has already opened a separate Title VI investigation into Rice, launched July 30, according to the OCR’s database of pending cases. A representative for the Department of Education denied a request for comment.

---

---

“Rice has now learned more about a Title VI investigation being conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights,” a university spokesperson said in a Sept. 4 statement to the Thresher. Rice hadn’t received any communications about the investigation up until this point, they said. 

“We cannot share specific details about the investigation itself,” the spokesperson continued. “We can, however, confirm that it is unrelated to events surrounding the Israel-Hamas war, including Rice's reactions to persons who express their views about the situation in Israel and Gaza.”

When the OCR formally investigates a complaint, it issues notification letters to the complainant and the recipient, according to the OCR’s case processing manual. A spokesperson for the Department of Education did not respond to a request for clarification on the timeline of issuing notification letters.

Christina Jump, MLFA’s civil litigation department head, said she’s aware of the active investigation but that MLFA’s complaint has “been in the works for some time” and is “in no means reactive.”

“We wanted an outside, neutral party,” Jump said in an interview with the Thresher, “which [is] the purpose of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, to have the opportunity to take a look objectively and determine whether the actions of Rice University administrative officials are appropriate, or if they are, in fact, a chilling of free speech and taken to specifically target a particular affinity group of shared heritage and its allies.

“The [university’s] handling of the Student Association’s actions and freezing their ability to go forward … bothers us as an organization, as well as bothers our clients,” Jump continued. “Coming into this fall semester, we don’t want to see the same thing happen again.”

‘They didn’t wait for the outcome of the vote’

Discussion on S.RES 02 halted just four days after its introduction on the SA floor. An unnamed student had filed a discrimination complaint with the Office of Access, Equity and Equal Opportunity, requesting that the Senate refrain from voting on the resolution. AEEO director Richard Baker approved their request as he investigated the allegation, notifying SA president Jae Kim and the resolution’s authors on March 27.

“Until further notice, you are directed not to vote on [S.RES 02] or any equivalents to [S.RES 02]. Also, until further notice, you are directed to take all necessary steps to ensure the Student Association does not vote upon it or any equivalents,” Baker wrote, according to a copy of the order previously obtained by the Thresher. At the time, Baker did not respond to a request to confirm the validity of the text. “As a reminder, Rice’s Code of Student Conduct requires students to comply with directions from Rice officials, and makes it a violation not to do so.”

“I don't know of any other times that officials with Rice University have prevented debate like that,” Jump said. “They didn't wait for the outcome of the vote.”

“Rice remains committed to ensuring the safety of its entire campus community,” the university spokesperson wrote in their Sept. 4 statement, “and to fostering a kind, thoughtful, and educational environment for the exchange of personal opinions.”

Debates over ‘legal jeopardy’

Since its introduction, S.RES 02 has been the subject of a volatile legal debate. In March, Rice general counsel Omar Syed told the Thresher that S.RES 02 would face an “uncertain” legal terrain if passed. A university spokesperson then said failure to comply with federal nondiscrimination laws may result in financial consequences, including decreased or eliminated federal funding.

“There’s absolutely nothing that a student resolution, even if passed by the Student Association, would obligate Rice University to do,” Jump said. “Therefore, there's no legal jeopardy for Rice University.”

If passed, S.RES 02 would have implemented an ethical spending advisory board to monitor allocation of SA-disbursed funds — including the Initiative Fund and approximately $400,000 of annual Blanket Tax funds — to ensure compliance with the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement. Texas state law prohibits state agencies from “contracting with businesses that boycott energy companies, discriminate against firearm entities or associations, or boycott Israel,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton wrote in a legal advisory published Oct. 18, 2023.

“Every judge in the country would say that the [legality of S.RES 02] is not ripe for consideration,” Jump said. “It’s a hypothetical. It's dependent on a resolution that hasn't been passed and actions that weren't taken.”

Moving forward with MLFA’s complaint

The OCR has acknowledged MLFA’s complaint and transferred it to the appropriate regional office, Jump said. The OCR will then gather information and decide whether to open an investigation. It may dismiss an allegation for reasons including, but not limited to, lack of OCR jurisdiction over the subject matter, lack of sufficient detail or failure to “state a violation of one of the laws or regulations that OCR enforces,” according to the case processing manual.

Matti Haacke, an organizer with Rice Students for Justice in Palestine, described the complaint as “part of a broad set of tactics of advocacy.” Haacke said he did not file the original complaint, but has been in touch with MLFA as a Rice SJP representative.

“Let's say the [Department of Education] comes to the conclusion … that Rice did discriminate on behalf of certain ethnicities and religions,” Haacke said. “That [would] give us more ability to continue our advocacy.

“In regards to resolutions in the future,” Haacke continued, “it [would] allow us to put forth resolutions that are in line with our ideals of justice and kind of put pressure on Rice to uphold both our legally protected right to express ourselves … as well as just the moral aspect of ensuring that we are allowed to express ourselves without targeted discrimination against specific ethnicities and religions.”

[7:01 p.m., Sept. 4, 2024: This story has been updated with a recent statement from a Rice spokesperson about the nature of OCR’s ongoing investigation.]

---