Just when antisemitic protests seem to be quieting down on university campuses, we now learn that antisemitism pervades the entire Philadelphia school district:
While American universities have faced unprecedented scrutiny (and DOJ ire) for antisemitism, the nation’s public schools are also gaining attention for anti-Jewish harassment.
A recent civil rights lawsuit against the Philadelphia School District reveals antisemitic rot that runs just as deep in one of the largest public-school systems in the country.
Unfortunately, setting a trial date was long delayed due to the district’s blatant disregard for the actions that were taking place. The same article linked above writes that Philadelphia educator Heather Mizrachi finally sued the district for their lack of response.
According to the filing, she was targeted by colleagues and ignored by school leadership after raising concerns about antisemitic displays and harassment following the horrific attacks.
The lawsuit says that for months on end, Mizrachi was subjected to social media posts from her co-workers calling for the destruction of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. They equated Jews and Israelis to white supremacists, referred to Israel as a ‘terrorist state,’ and cheered on the violent Hamas attacks, according to the filing.
Meanwhile, the district made little effort to mitigate the situation. Mizrachi’s complaints were ignored, discounted, or ridiculed. Nor can the school district claim that she’s one lone complainer, for others also reported a problem:
A group called the School District of Philadelphia Jewish Family Association made similar allegations in a complaint to the education department under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry.
After that complaint was filed, a group of pro-Palestinian teachers called Philly Educators for Palestine said that while any incidents of discrimination should be addressed, it’s not antisemitic to criticize Israel or advocate for Palestinians. The group said the complaint was an attempt to silence teachers and students and a distraction from “the carnage being inflicted upon Palestinians in Gaza by Israel.”
This response from the pro-Palestinian group is not atypical; these groups often make a tepid effort to criticize discrimination. Notably, the Civil Rights complaints don’t allege that anyone criticized Israel. They all allege that Jews were attacked because they are Jewish and Israel is the world’s only Jewish state. Also, as a matter of logic, to claim, after the barbarism of October 7, that it is perfectly acceptable to defend the Palestinians as virtuous, and to label Israel’s actions as barbarism, is beyond the pale.
What the antisemites in Philadelphia’s education system are doing is not random. They are well-organized. Teachers and administrators joined together to harass Jewish students and staff, while efforts to remedy the situation ranged from pathetic to non-existent:
The SDP itself has approved or sponsored a series of anti-Semitic events, including ‘walkouts’ that isolate Jewish students and disrupt their educational experience, as well as faculty lecture series and ‘Teach-Ins’ where ‘Zionists’ are called ‘exterminators.’ Parents have regularly reported a host of troubling incidents affecting their children to the administration, but the SDP has done nothing to address, much less curtail, the hostile environment that has plagued the school district since October 7. At most, misguided administrators have attempted to ‘resolve’ problems involving teachers by moving Jewish students into new classes, which serves only to normalize anti-Semitism throughout the SDP.
The system was so egregious that even the Biden administration felt compelled to step up, even if only in pro forma fashion. In December 2024, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued a complaint against the school district, which led to a voluntary resolution (i.e., no litigation):
A federal investigation has determined that the Philadelphia school district has not adequately addressed incidents of antisemitism and other examples of ‘harassment based on shared ancestry’ that occurred in and around schools recently.
In a resolution agreement with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights stemming from a complaint filed by some parents and Jewish organizations in May, the district agreed to publicly declare its intolerance of harassment and discrimination on its website, post a statement in every school, and review and revise its anti-harassment policies by Jan. 9.
The district must also send the revised policies to all school administrators, who must ‘distribute, convene, and discuss the revised policies and procedures with site-based staff.’ It must also train staff annually, and provide age-appropriate training and information on racial and ethnic discrimination to all students in grades 6-12.
The DOE complaint sounds pretty comprehensive, doesn’t it? The district, however, responded in the usual generic fashion, insisting that it cares about everyone and, of course, it wants all its students to be safe—a claim at odds with the complaints against it:
In response, officials issued a statement saying the district ‘strives to create welcoming and inclusive environments that allow our students to feel safe and heard. The District takes all complaints of bullying, harassment, and discrimination seriously, including allegations of Antisemitism and Islamophobia.’
The statement continues, ‘OCR has recognized areas where the District has shown its commitment to this important work and also identified areas needing additional attention and improvement. The voluntary resolution agreement outlines ways in which the District will continue to improve upon its processes.’
Despite the school district’s carefully scripted statement of its good intentions and proposed new direction, the feedback from the Office of Civil Rights tells a different story:
OCR has Title VI compliance concerns, however, that the District has not demonstrated its fulfillment of its Title VI obligations to evaluate whether a hostile environment existed based on the information about which it had notice and if so that it took steps reasonably designed to eliminate any such hostile environment and prevent its recurrence. For example, the District produced no information reflecting its evaluation of whether a hostile environment resulted for Jewish students when a teacher (Teacher 1) stood on stage at a school assembly, criticized a District choice – responsive to concerns raised with the District that that assembly’s planned content could create a hostile environment for Jewish students – not to hold an earlier scheduled assembly, and asked the student audience ‘was it really the quote-unquote antisemitism that made you uncomfortable or was it the truth?’
In other words, the voluntary resolution between OCR and the district was a complete waste of time. Teachers, students, and staff all realized that no one was serious about dealing with the problem. Despite the complaints following October 7, the perpetrators continued their behavior. Thus, the “voluntary resolution” by the district was just short of being a farce.
Ultimately, there were no consequences for antisemitic behavior within the district; no one was penalized or held accountable in any way that was documented. Judging by appearances, the district was complicit in these activities.
Fortunately, a federal judge is permitting the case to go to trial in December 2025.
Maybe there will finally be some consequences.
The Philadelphia School District building (edited). Public domain.
