The case of a Muhlenberg College faculty member whose anti-Israel comments have been at the center of campus controversy for months has reignited in recent days, prompting a new wave of discussion about whether professors’ extramural speech is protected by academic freedom.

Last week, news broke that Muhlenberg had fired Maura Finkelstein, an associate professor of anthropology at the private Pennsylvania institution. Several organizations that track academic-freedom developments weighed in, calling her the first tenured faculty member to face such a fate for either pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli speech. Word of her termination, which the left-leaning news organization The Intercept reported, was followed days later by an announcement that Muhlenberg had settled a federal investigation into antisemitism allegations on its campus.

While much online conversation about Finkelstein’s termination in recent days focused on an Instagram post she’d shared from a Palestinian-American poet, documents from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights say it was investigating “repeated reports in a single semester regarding a professor’s classroom statements and social media posts that created a potential hostile environment for Jewish students.”

The Office for Civil Rights has since June resolved complaints at the City University of New York, the Universities of Michigan and Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Brown and Drexel Universities, and Lafayette College, all of which dealt with antisemitism allegations. Unlike at Muhlenberg, none of those cases were centered on the actions of a single faculty member. While many OCR cases begin with a single complaint, the agency often broadens the scope of its inquiry to examine other examples of possible discrimination or harassment. It did so at Muhlenberg, logging “25 other incidents of alleged harassment on the basis of shared ancestry” that appeared unrelated to Finkelstein. But it didn’t find much wrongdoing in how Muhlenberg handled those complaints, shifting the focus squarely onto the college’s handling of Finkelstein’s actions.

Eight Complaints

The Office for Civil Rights, or OCR, found that, although Muhlenberg had received eight complaints about Finkelstein, the college only considered whether her actions “had created or contributed to a hostile environment in at most only two of those eight incidents.” While “students had reported significant anxiety and fear resulting from the professor’s comments in class and on social media that impacted their access to education,” and in one instance an administrator spoke to Finkelstein about the “impact” of her conduct, OCR found, the college failed to tell those students what it was doing to resolve the situation. (Though OCR does not name Finkelstein, the office’s letter to Muhlenberg links to a Change.org petition calling for her removal that received more than 8,000 signatures.)

As part of the agreement with OCR, Muhlenberg must demonstrate by the end of the year that it has investigated whether Finkelstein’s actions created a hostile environment for Jewish students, conduct a campus-climate assessment “with respect to shared ancestry,” and provide annual Title VI training for all employees who handle discrimination and harassment claims. The college will also review its response to previous complaints of discrimination and harassment based on shared ancestry in the 2023-24 academic year and provide documentation of similar investigations for the next two academic years.

Finkelstein declined to comment. A Muhlenberg spokesperson said in a statement that the college was “grateful for OCR’s partnership in this effort and, like many institutions in similar positions, will continue to work with them to ensure the uniform, community-wide awareness and application of our policies.” While the spokesperson declined to comment on Finkelstein’s case, citing “an ongoing, confidential personnel matter,” they said the college “remains steadfastly devoted to principles of academic freedom” and “does not tolerate antisemitism, Islamophobia, xenophobia or any other form of harassment, bigotry or abuse, nor any incitement to violence or calls for genocide.”

The college did not respond to detailed questions from The Chronicle.

Details of the Investigation

Of the eight complaints Muhlenberg received about Finkelstein, only one centered on classroom activity. A student who is a self-described “Zionist and American Jew” alleged, according to OCR, that Finkelstein was “using her classroom as a political platform for spreading personal bias since October 7, and that it had become ‘the most uncomfortable classroom environment I have ever stepped foot in.’” Finkelstein, the student said, also encouraged students to read news sources she provided, “saying that American news is biased.” In a meeting with Jennifer Storm, Muhlenberg’s director of institutional equity, compliance and Title IX, Finkelstein promised not to speak directly about the Israel-Hamas war in class again, and the student eventually withdrew their complaint. Ultimately, Storm decided, Finkelstein’s behavior was not “sufficiently severe, pervasive or offensive” to constitute a violation of Title VI or the college’s equal-opportunity policy.

Another incident OCR examined involved Finkelstein taking a photo of a fundraising display for “the various war efforts in Israel,” which had been set up by students in the campus’s Hillel chapter. She posted that photo to Instagram, writing that it constituted “students raising money for genocide.” Finkelstein’s office was in the same building as the Hillel, but a student reported to the college that her “presence in the building was causing discomfort amongst Jewish students,” and that the Instagram post “created the perception of a direct targeting of the Jewish community on campus,” according to the letter. After talking with administrators about that complaint, Finkelstein agreed not to enter the Hillel area of the building, but Muhlenberg didn’t inform students of that promise or otherwise “communicate to these students the college’s efforts to ensure their equal access to education.”

Several of the other complaints were based on Finkelstein’s social-media activity, including one citing an X post in which she wrote that “Israel does not have a right to defend its occupation.” Because that complaint was made anonymously, Muhlenberg said, it was limited in how it could respond. Storm wrote in an incident report that while the college was monitoring Finkelstein’s social-media accounts, “there are no issues seen that would rise to the level of a hostile environment, intimidation, threatening, discriminatory or harassing, nor has anyone come forward to say they are unable to engage campus education, activity or employment” because of Finkelstein’s posts.

OCR disagreed, noting that Storm had failed to weigh the “totality of the circumstances, which is a required element of the Title VI standard.” In three other cases concerning Finkelstein’s online activity, OCR found that Storm did not consider whether the social-media posts in question had created or contributed to a hostile environment.

That points to a larger issue — whether Muhlenberg’s broader campus climate limits students’ ability to learn, said Liz King, senior director of the education-equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. “It’s not about the actions of the professor that are described here,” King said. “It’s about the inaction by the university and the failure of the university to follow through on really important steps to ensure students’ access to an education was not denied.”

OCR’s letter points out that Muhlenberg “has taken many steps” to address possible antisemitism, which King sees as a sign that the college was “on the right track.” “They are lauded in a way that institutions are often not” in OCR documentation, she said. “It’s just a reminder that you’ve got to see it through.”

In some ways, what OCR refers to as “proactive efforts” by Muhlenberg may have saved the college further trouble, said Howard Kallem, a former chief regional attorney for OCR. The agency, he pointed out, did not make a determination about whether Muhlenberg actually fostered a hostile environment. “I suspect one reason why OCR was willing to go this direction, without making findings, was probably because they felt Muhlenberg had done an OK job in most of the cases,” Kallem said.

Kallem questions, though, whether Finkelstein’s comments were discriminatory based on “shared ancestry” or just critical of the Israeli government. He pointed to May 2024 guidance from OCR that provides a hypothetical example of a professor in an international-studies class criticizing the Israeli government’s treatment of non-Jews. “So long as such comments do not target Israeli, Jewish, Saudi, Arab, or Indian students based on race, color, or national origin,” the guidance says, “that would not likely implicate Title VI.”

To Kallem, OCR “is at least tacitly acknowledging” that Finkelstein’s speech was protected, but is “trying to make a statement here that, ‘We don’t care what the nature of the speech was. If students feel upset by it, then it’s a problem and you need to address it in some way.’” The agency, he added, has not offered clear guidance on how institutions can safeguard against a hostile environment without disciplining protected speech.

Catherine E. Lhamon, the assistant secretary for civil rights at the Department of Education, disputed both of Kallem’s claims. Lhamon said it would be Muhlenberg’s responsibility, not her office’s, to determine whether Finkelstein had discriminated on the basis of national ancestry. “We don’t define antisemitism,” Lhamon said. “We didn’t take a position about whether the professor’s comments did or didn’t create a hostile environment,” but instead determined that Muhlenberg “didn’t apply the Title VI test appropriately.”

Lhamon added that the May 2024 guidance offers several steps institutions can take to avoid disciplining protected speech, and that the Muhlenberg letter gives examples of actions the college should have taken, such as telling students that Finkelstein had agreed not to enter the Hillel or to mention the war in class.

“I have the deepest concern,” she said, “that this supposed conflict comes up again and again. There is no necessary conflict between protecting free speech and not discriminating against your students. I am aghast that there are so many schools that are not appreciating their obligation to take steps that are protective of their students’ nondiscriminatory rights, apart from disciplining somebody for speech.”

Two Avenues of Appeal

The OCR investigation was opened on January 16, and the next day, Finkelstein learned she’d been implicated. That same day, Finkelstein told The Intercept, she shared on Instagram a post originally made by a Palestinian-American poet. “Do not cower to Zionists,” the post read, according to Finkelstein. “Shame them. Do not welcome them in your spaces. Do not make them feel comfortable. Why should those genocide-loving fascists be treated any different than any other flat-out racist. Don’t normalize Zionism. Don’t normalize Zionists taking up space.” Finkelstein reposted the poet’s words on her personal Instagram account, using the “Stories” feature that allows users to temporarily share content on the platform.

A week later, Finkelstein told The Intercept, Muhlenberg placed her on administrative leave, relieving her of teaching duties for the rest of the semester and locking her out of her college email account. Based on a report prepared by a third-party consulting firm, a committee of Muhlenberg faculty and staff members recommended that the college fire her. But in making that decision, the committee cited only the Instagram post, Finkelstein and Anita Levy, a representative of the American Association of University Professors who is advocating for her, told Inside Higher Ed. On May 30, the provost, who agreed with the recommendation, told Finkelstein she was being terminated, Levy wrote in a letter to Muhlenberg’s president.

Finkelstein then pursued two avenues of appeal. One, based on an equal-opportunity policy at Muhlenberg, was rejected last week by an external appeals officer working for the risk-management consulting firm TNG, she told Inside Higher Ed. The other appeal is pending. The faculty handbook provides that “termination will not be regarded as final until this appeal process has been completed”; though Finkelstein was fired in May, she told Inside Higher Ed that she is still receiving her salary and benefits.

Meanwhile, the AAUP plans to send three representatives to Muhlenberg to investigate further, noting on its website that “it appears that the Muhlenberg administration has not followed its own regulations regarding dismissal, or incorporated a crucial element in the AAUP’s understanding of academic due process.”