Former DOJ Lawyers Resign Over Controversial UC Antisemitism Probes

Nine former attorneys from the Department of Justice (DOJ) have resigned, citing concerns over the handling of investigations into alleged antisemitism at the University of California (UC). These lawyers, who were tasked with examining complaints from Jewish students and faculty, reported feeling pressured by the Trump administration to conclude that UC had violated civil rights laws, leading to their departures during the investigation.

In interviews with The Times, the former civil rights attorneys shared their experiences under what they described as chaotic conditions. They indicated that they were given strict directives from the outset, including a 30-day deadline to prepare a rationale for potential lawsuits against UC. According to Ejaz Baluch, a former senior trial attorney, “It shows just how unserious this exercise was. It was not about trying to find out what really happened.”

The investigations gained momentum amid escalating protests at UCLA related to Israel’s conflict with Gaza in the spring of 2024. A task force formed by UCLA later determined that there were widespread perceptions of antisemitic bias on campus. As a result, a group of students filed a lawsuit against UCLA, which culminated in a settlement worth millions. The former DOJ attorneys indicated that this lawsuit and reports from conservative media outlets provided a foundation for the federal investigations.

One attorney remarked, “UCLA came the closest to having possibly broken the law in how it responded or treated civil rights complaints from Jewish employees,” yet they acknowledged that their investigations did not yield sufficient evidence to support legal action against the university. Another attorney asserted that the investigation had devolved into a “fraudulent and sham investigation.”

The DOJ faced criticism regarding its approach to the investigations. In late July, Harmeet K. Dhillon, the DOJ civil rights chief, announced findings against UCLA, claiming the university failed to take appropriate action in response to credible claims of harm. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi warned that UCLA would “pay a heavy price” for its actions.

The former attorneys expressed that their work was fundamentally altered by political appointees who influenced the investigations before they began. Jen Swedish, a former deputy chief on the employment discrimination team, stated, “The political appointees essentially determined the outcome almost before the investigation had even started.”

In response to the allegations and ongoing investigations, UC has adopted a cautious strategy, focusing on negotiations to avoid a protracted legal battle and to protect its substantial federal funding, which amounts to $17.5 billion. A UC spokesperson affirmed that the university would continue to act in good faith for its students and faculty.

Despite the DOJ’s pressure, no lawsuit has been filed against UC. In August, the DOJ demanded a settlement that included a $1.2 billion fine and significant policy changes at UC campuses in exchange for lifting a freeze on federal grants. Governor Gavin Newsom referred to the proposal as “extortion.”

The legal environment remains contentious as federal investigations primarily focus on the pro-Palestinian protests occurring at UC campuses. Tensions escalated further following an attack on a UCLA encampment by a pro-Israel group, drawing criticism from university officials regarding the lack of timely police intervention.

Throughout the investigations, the former DOJ attorneys highlighted their concerns regarding the rushed process and the concentration of legal resources on the UC probes, which detracted from other pressing discrimination cases. They noted that many lawyers from the employment litigation section were reassigned to focus on UC, limiting their capacity to address other significant cases.

As these investigations unfolded, the former attorneys maintain that their findings indicated that while incidents of harassment occurred, particularly at UCLA, they did not substantiate claims of a systemic hostile environment that violated federal laws. Their insights reflect a broader concern that the investigations were driven more by political motives than by a genuine effort to uphold civil rights.

The ongoing tensions at UC campuses have led to significant changes in university policy regarding protests and free speech. In June 2024, Jewish students and faculty filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination related to protests that obstructed their access to campus facilities. Following this, UC agreed to pay $6.45 million to settle the federal suit and implemented policies to regulate campus protests more stringently.

As the situation continues to develop, former DOJ attorneys express concern over the implications of political pressure on legal integrity. “I think there were absolutely Jewish people on campuses that faced legitimate discrimination. But the way we were pushed so hard to investigate, it was clear to so many of us that this was a political hit job that actually would end up not helping anyone,” remarked one attorney.

While UC is navigating negotiations with the DOJ, the environment remains fraught with challenges. The university aims to protect its mission and funding while addressing the serious allegations raised by students and faculty. The former attorneys’ experiences shed light on the complexities of balancing political pressures with the pursuit of justice in civil rights investigations.