EdLawConnect Blog

A recent federal court decision offers timely direction for universities and other federally funded institutions navigating heightened tensions surrounding student speech on campus. In Elagha v. Northwestern University, No. 24 C 12066 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 3, 2025), the court dismissed, in part, a former law student’s Title VI discrimination claims arising from allegations that, after engaging in pro-Palestinian advocacy, she faced harassment, threats, doxing, and false police reports from other students, which led to damaging media coverage and reputational injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Northwestern and several deans failed to provide protections routinely afforded to other students or to meaningfully address her escalating safety complaints. She further alleged that the University’s inaction fueled reputational harm, triggered bar-admissions inquiries, and created a risk that defamatory statements would jeopardize her job offer. The ruling underscores both the high bar for Title VI liability and the importance of coordinated, well-documented institutional responses to student concerns.

The plaintiff alleged she was subjected to a series of escalating incidents which created a hostile educational environment, including threatening social-media posts from peers, hostile conduct during a campus protest, public exposure of private information, exposure of her scholarship status online, a professor’s inappropriate remark referencing stereotypes associated with her appearance, and a false police report filed by a fellow student that later circulated through national media. She claimed administrators were aware of these events but failed to protect her, contributing to complications during her state bar admissions process and the loss of post-graduation employment.  The plaintiff alleged that Northwestern intentionally discriminated against her by responding differently to her claims than they had to other students complaining of harassment.

Regarding the hostile environment claim, although the court acknowledged that the student’s access to education was affected, (she stopped attending classes, lost in-person instructional time, and had to self-teach a year of coursework) the court held that Title VI’s deliberate indifference standard was not met. Northwestern’s actions included excusing her absences, deferring exams, investigating the false report, and later providing corrective letters to her employer and the Illinois Bar.  Title VI, the court emphasized, does not require institutions to implement the complainant’s preferred remedy.  Instead, it requires only that the institution’s response not be “clearly unreasonable.”  The court explained that a school’s response must not be “so unreasonable,” that it constitutes an “official decision” to permit discrimination.  Accordingly, Northwestern’s actions as described above were sufficient for the Court to dismiss the hostile environment claim.

The court also dismissed the intentional-discrimination claim because the plaintiff failed to identify any specific similarly situated student outside her protected class who received better treatment. Without concrete comparators, the court found no basis to infer discriminatory intent.

Practical Takeaways for Institutions

The ruling highlights several steps that may benefit facing similar situations:

1. Document Every Response.

Even when the institution’s actions are not perfect, the Elagha court suggests that clear documentation of outreach, accommodations, investigations, and follow-up communications may provide protection under the deliberate-indifference standard.

2. Treat Complaints Consistently and Be Ready to Show It.

The court in Elagha considered evidence of past responses to student complaints in determining the reasonableness of the response at issue. Institutions may consider periodically auditing how harassment, safety, and protest-related complaints are handled across different student groups.

3. Prepare for the “Access to Education” Inquiry.

The court discussed how a student’s continued academic success alone may fail to defeat the student’s claim that they experienced a hostile educational environment. Institutions can consider proactively evaluating whether safety concerns or harassment allegations are interrupting students’ ability to attend classes, complete coursework, or otherwise participate in academic or extracurricular programs or activities.

4. Coordinate Communications Beyond Campus.

As the Elagha case demonstrates, campus incidents may involve media exposure and impact professional licensing processes. Accordingly, it is useful to have protocols for communicating with external stakeholders, including employers and licensing bodies, in response to student requests

Looking Ahead

For institutions navigating these challenges, this decision is a reminder that they can defend themselves effectively by responding to harassment complaints in a timely and reasonable manner. If you would like help evaluating your campus policies, incident-response protocols, or Title VI exposure in light of Elagha and other relevant authority, our team would be glad to discuss tailored strategies.

This AALRR publication is intended for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon in reaching a conclusion in a particular area of law. Applicability of the legal principles discussed may differ substantially in individual situations. Receipt of this or any other AALRR publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. The Firm is not responsible for inadvertent errors that may occur in the publishing process.

© 2026 Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo

Education institutions face a number of challenges as they gear up for and start the 2022-2023 school year including, but not limited to, lack of adequate staffing in a number of departments.  These staffing shortages are common in technology departments, where staff and resources have been spread thin trying to meet the increased technology demands of remote workforces, virtual learning by students, and ever changing instructional technology.  To this landscape, the threat of cyberattacks is added.

Flying somewhat under the radar (bad pun not intended), the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) approved new rules that went into effect at the end of December 2020 allowing drone operators to fly a broader range of missions without the need to obtain a certificate of authorization (“COA”).  These new regulations will have the force and effect of allowing school and community college districts to expand their existing drone operations.

California’s public education system is vital to the state’s future and success. However, there is currently no comprehensive method to track student progress throughout students’ educations and entry into the workforce. Recently, the Legislature has noted increased support for a system linking educational agencies’ databases in an effort to prioritize transparency and student welfare and success.

California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act (Penal Code section 626.9) makes possessing a firearm in a school zone punishable as a crime.  Criminal liability attaches unless the individual (1) has obtained the permission of the school district superintendent or equivalent school authority to carry a firearm or (2) falls within the exemptions under the statute.

The statute does not limit the ability of a school ...

Where is the boundary between the free speech rights of public employees who express controversial or offensive ideas or opinions, and the authority of public employers to limit employee speech that is claimed to be inconsistent with policies prohibiting harassment or other discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation or other protected characteristics? This question can be particularly ...