Haley Van Erem, a former Justice Department civil-rights lawyer, says she came to believe that investigations into universities were designed to justify predetermined punishments, rather than impartially assess evidence, after she joined the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism in 2025.

She says inquiries into medical schools at Columbia, Harvard and Brown began largely with a newspaper article about pro-Palestinian statements and commencement protests, then expanded to cover the universities more broadly despite a superior’s acknowledgment that evidence of Title VI violations appeared insufficient.

At Brown, investigators told Van Erem that the university had promptly responded to a threat against a center serving Jewish students and suspended a pro-Palestinian student group after a protest; Jewish leaders and rabbis interviewed by investigators reportedly praised Brown’s response, but her proposal to find no violation was rejected.

After the administration froze $500 million in Brown funding, Van Erem and five other lawyers warned that withholding funds during a nascent investigation was inappropriate; she says officials told them the freeze was unrelated to Title VI and discouraged them from raising concerns in writing.

Van Erem also says a draft Columbia investigation treated political speech about Israel and Gaza as evidence of discrimination, raising First Amendment concerns; Columbia’s later funding-restoration settlement restricted student protests and required adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which critics say can conflate anti-Jewish hatred with criticism of Israel.

Brown’s agreement restored research grants in return for a $50 million contribution to Rhode Island workforce-development programs over ten years, changes to admissions and adoption of government definitions of male and female in housing and athletics; Van Erem disputed the White House’s claim that Brown had failed to address antisemitism, saying investigators would have struggled to establish that it mishandled complaints.

Van Erem’s account comes amid broader changes at the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, including the departure of thousands of attorneys and a shift in enforcement priorities; the article says her disclosures may encourage universities to challenge federal demands, while noting that Brown’s settlement restored research funding and protected academic activity without a finding that it had violated the law.

The article separates genuine concerns about antisemitism and Jewish students’ safety from the administration’s use of investigations and funding threats: surveys found many Jewish students feared for their safety, but students overall were no more likely than Americans generally to hold traditional antisemitic stereotypes, and Jewish students hold varied views on Zionism and Palestinian advocacy.

Van Erem left the Justice Department on May 30, 2025, and later joined two former lawyers in filing a whistle-blower disclosure with the Justice Department and Health and Human Services inspectors general, alleging procedural irregularities, unsupported outcomes and disregard for Title VI and free-speech protections; the Justice Department said it stood behind the investigations, while its inspector general said H.H.S. should handle the complaint.