Harvard MBA Lawsuit: How Guilty Is Harvard Of Antisemitism?

 

Judging by the allegations in a lawsuit filed against Harvard College by a former MBA student at Harvard Business School, the university deserves all the angst and harassment it is getting from the Trump Administration.

Yoav Segev, a former Boston Consulting Group consultant who graduated with his MBA in May, accuses Harvard of failing to protect him from an antisemitic assault on campus and then obstructed the investigation that followed. His 124-page lawsuit is filled with the kind of details that would convince most that Harvard has a real problem when it comes to tolerating antisemitic behavior on its campus.

In his lawsuit, Segeve describes the Harvard campus as an “out-of-control and hostile educational environment” in the fall of 2023 when Pro-Palestinian protesters paraded against Israel’s attacks on Gaza. In recounting the details of the alleged assault, his lawyers wrote that “Mr. Segev was physically assaulted by an antisemitic mob of students and student-employees on October 18, 2023. As videos of the attack show, dozens of rabid protesters surrounded Mr. Segev, grabbing and pushing him, and using keffiyehs to block him as he tried to escape and as he implored them to leave him alone. During the attack, the mob repeatedly yelled ‘Shame!’ in Mr. Segev’s face for being Jewish and Israeli.”

SEGEVE PROVOKED THE INCIDENT BY RECORDING THE FACES OF PROTESTERS

According to Segeve’s lawyers, “this malicious, violent, and antisemitic conduct violated several University policies—such as its anti-discrimination and anti-bullying policies—and it prompted criminal charges against two of the student-employees who incited the attack. Nonetheless, Harvard refused to take any reasonable action to punish the assailants or to redress the victim, Mr. Segev.”

Segeve conveniently leaves out one vital fact about the incident: It started only after he began videotaping protesters’ faces while they lie on the ground in a protest. In response, several protesters held up keffiyehs to block his phone camera. They told him repeatedly to “exit” and “turn around.” As the protesters surrounded Segev to force him away, some made physical contact with him, and one pushed Segev away. Segev pressed forward against the protester who was trying to block him. He said “don’t grab me,” and the protesters said “we’re not grabbing you.”

Ultimately, two Harvard students were singled out for their behavior during the incident. Harvard Law School graduate Ibrahim I. Bharmal and Harvard Divinity School graduate Elom K. Tettey-Tamaklo, who were charged with assault and battery, yet evaded criminal proceedings as well as a court-mandated apology requested by the District Attorney. A judge ruled in April that the pair had to complete anger management programming, a Harvard course on negotiation, and 80 hours of community service.

HARVARD’S ‘INACTION AND INDIFFERENCE’

Segev convincingly argues that Harvard took no meaningful disciplinary action against the pair–not even a slap on the wrist with a suspension from classes. In fact, argues Segev, Harvard seems to have rewarded them in the aftermath of the protest. Tettey-Tamaklo, who was a residential proctor in a freshman dorm at the time of the confrontation, graduated from Divinity School in May as a class marshal, while Bharmal, then a teaching fellow at the Law School, was awarded a $65,000 fellowship from the Harvard Law Review in April. Tettey-Tamaklo is currently doing conflict management training for peacekeepers in Africa, according to his LinkedIn profile. Bharmal describes himself on LinkedIn as a “human rights advocate, migration specialist, and writer.”

“No one doubts for a second that Harvard would have taken swift, aggressive, and public action to enforce its policies had the victim been one of Harvard’s ‘favored’ minorities,” Segev’s lawyers argue. “A recent report found that Harvard has ‘attempted to silence twenty-two scholars’ speech through petitions, investigations, and disciplinary actions’ and that Harvard has also sanctioned at least six students for their expression during a campus controversy.’ And that aggressive disciplinary enforcement was for expression deemed ‘offensive’—not for assaults, like Mr. Segev experienced. Yet Harvard refused to enforce its policies in this case, at all, simply because Mr. Segev is Jewish and does not identify as a member of one of Harvard’s favored minority groups.”

Segev’s lawsuit then details a number of actions which make Harvard look incredibly bad. “Harvard’s antisemitic discrimination against Mr. Segev is far more sinister than inaction and indifference,” his lawyers claim. “Harvard did everything it could to defend, protect, and reward the assailants; to impede the criminal investigation; and to prevent Mr. Segev from obtaining administrative relief from the University.

‘HARVARD INTENTIONALLY OBSTRUCTED THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION’

“Harvard’s antisemitic intent is obvious. Several of its faculty publicly supported the attackers and tried to blame the victim (because, the faculty said, his Jewish presence was ‘threatening’ to other students). And, of course, hundreds of rabidly anti-Israel students disrupting campus life pressured the Harvard administration. Ultimately, and shamefully, the University kowtowed to the antisemitic mob it had allowed to take over its campus.

“For one, Harvard intentionally obstructed the criminal investigation into the attack and assisted the assailants. According to the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case, she was ‘shocked’ that Harvard had essentially ‘refused’ to investigate, even after she directly requested information from the University. In addition to refusing to even assist the local prosecutor’s investigation, Harvard directly instructed its campus officer to stop investigating the attack and then retaliated against him by removing him from the investigation.”

Segev’s allegations get even more severe, claiming that Harvard has misled the court, Congress and himself for nearly two years. “Immediately after the attack, Harvard invented a facially absurd, unwritten ‘policy’ out of whole cloth, claiming that it could not discipline student-employee-assailants while there was an ongoing criminal investigation—even though there was clear, dispositive video evidence of the attack and such a policy would reward criminals, vis-à-vis less serious offenders who have faced school discipline.

HARVARD SAYS IT ACTED WITH ‘DEEP CONCERN FOR SUPPORTING OUR JEWISH STUDENTS’

“Then, while it delayed by relying on this invented policy, Harvard’s attorney represented to Judge Stearns in this Court2 and Harvard’s President Claudine Gay testified in Congress under oath that Harvard would complete a disciplinary process after the criminal process concluded and before the student-employees graduated. Yet, despite both Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) and Harvard Divinity School (HDS) having declared the criminal proceedings to be over, Harvard has never subjected the assailants to discipline, as it represented it would do. To the contrary, the assailants—who had been charged with crimes and egregiously violated school policy by attacking a fellow student—were allowed to graduate in good standing.”

Segev is asking the court for a jury trial and “compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages” along with his attorney fees.

In a statement, Harvard spokesman Jason A. Newton said that “Harvard remains committed to combating antisemitism adn enforcing our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination rules and policies at all times. Harvard has acted with deep concern for supporting our Jewish and Israeli students and will defend the University against these claims.”

 

© Copyright 2026 Poets & Quants. All rights reserved. This article may not be republished, rewritten or otherwise distributed without written permission. To reprint or license this article or any content from Poets & Quants, please submit your request HERE.