Harvard Opposes Plaintiffs’ Motion To Remain Unnamed in Kestenbaum Suit

Harvard filed its opposition in court on Friday to a motion to allow two plaintiffs to proceed pseudonymously as they seek to join Harvard Divinity School graduate Alexander “Shabbos” Kestenbaum’s ongoing Title VI lawsuit against the University.

The plaintiffs, Harvard Business School student Yoav Segev and Harvard Law School student Moshe Y. Dembitzer, requested to be identified in the suit only as John Doe #1 and John Doe #2, citing fears of retaliation and harassment related to their complaints.

But lawyers for Harvard argued in their opposition that the plaintiffs’ request would unfairly disadvantage the University — and that the use of pseudonyms is unwarranted because the plaintiffs are already publicly associated with the issues in the case.

Harvard’s lawyers also claimed they were not given enough time to respond to the plaintiffs’ request, which was initially granted by a judge on March 21 — less than half an hour after it was filed. Before Harvard filed its opposition, an entry on the electronic docket showed the court had granted the motion for pseudonymity.

But that entry appeared to have been removed, suggesting Harvard will have an opportunity to make its case against the plaintiffs’ pseudonymity in court.

“There have been no withdrawn orders. The docket is currently up to date and accurate,” a docket clerk on the case wrote in an email.

Both Segev and Dembitzer were included as declarants on two Title VI lawsuits against the University that were settled in January — one from Kestenbaum and the group Students Against Antisemitism and one from the Louis D. Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education.

Though Harvard reached a settlement with both SAA and the Brandeis Center, Kestenbaum has continued to seek litigation under new counsel, and is now filing to add Segev and Dembitzer as plaintiffs in an amended complaint accusing Harvard of “severe and pervasive” antisemitism.

In the complaint, Segev and Dembitzer allege that they have faced “harassment” and “physical violence” from students and faculty as a result of their Jewish identities.

In their proposed amended complaint, Segev and Dembitzer asked Harvard to adopt required antisemitism training and enact “disciplinary measures” — including firing, suspension, and expulsion — against affiliates “responsible for the antisemitic abuse permeating the school.”

The Crimson has chosen to identify both Segev and Dembitzer because there is a compelling public interest in naming the plaintiffs in a lawsuit that seeks to change Harvard’s policies and disciplinary enforcement. Both students are known on Harvard’s campus for their involvement in pro-Israel activism, including in high-profile incidents that figure centrally in the suit.

Segev — referred to in court documents as John Doe #1 — was involved in a widely reported altercation with pro-Palestine protesters at an Oct. 18, 2023, “die-in,” according to filings by his lawyers. At the demonstration, organizers attempted to cover Segev’s camera with security vests and keffiyehs as he filmed protesters, shouting “shame” as he left.

The incident brought widespread critical attention to the University and led to ongoing criminal proceedings against two of the protesters involved, who are now facing assault and battery charges. A judge dismissed hate crime charges against the students.

In filings supporting the motion to proceed pseudonymously, Segev and his lawyers argued that he faced retaliation and harassment as a result of the incident, claiming he was “doxxed” in a Boston Globe article.

The plaintiffs cite the October protest in their complaint against the University as evidence for their allegation that “Harvard students and faculty harass, discriminate, and assault Jewish students.”

Harvard’s Friday opposition cited multiple articles in the Globe and The Harvard Crimson that identified Segev by name, though his name was redacted from the quotes included in court filings.

“Plaintiff John Doe #1 has been identified in several news reports as having been involved in the October 18 incident central to his allegations in the Complaint,” Harvard’s lawyers wrote.

Dembitzer — referred to in the documents as John Doe #2 — was accused by peers of doxxing them by sharing screenshots of a Zoom chat from a March 29, 2024, student government meeting, according to a filing by his lawyers. The screenshots — where students discussed a resolution to divest from Israel — were shared on the X account @StopAntisemitism.

Dembitzer has repeatedly denied the allegations, writing in his declaration, “Individuals exposed for their antisemitic comments quickly accused me of sharing screenshots of the antisemitic chat with StopAntisemitism, falsely claiming that I had ‘doxed’ them. I did not.”

A formal complaint submitted by a Law School student to Harvard in spring 2024 and obtained by The Crimson accused Dembitzer of violating the University’s anti-bullying policies by sharing screenshots from the March 29, 2024, student government meeting online.

Dembitzer’s lawyers described protests outside the Law School Dean of Students Office in March 2024, where they said students called for his expulsion following the doxxing allegations, according to the proposed amended complaint.

Dembitzer cited the protests against him in his declaration as an example of how he had been “directly targeted with antisemitism on campus.”

Segev and Dembitzer’s lawyers argue in the motion to proceed pseudonymously that, because both plaintiffs were involved in these past incidents, they “reasonably fear for their safety,” a justification for not litigating under their names.

According to Eugene Volokh, professor emeritus at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law and an expert in pseudonymity in litigation, courts typically consider a number of factors when deciding whether to grant pseudonymity, including “risk of retaliatory harm,” “fairness to the defendants,” and “the public interest in being able to get information about a case.”

But generally, Volokh said, courts presume that parties should participate under their own names.

He said granting pseudonymity to plaintiffs in a suit can make it significantly harder to litigate — especially in cases that go to trial.

“It’s possible to have a trial where the plaintiff is under a pseudonym,” Volokh said. “It’s just a lot harder in many ways.”

“The First Circuit makes plain that proceeding behind a pseudonym can occur only in exceptional circumstances,” Phil Brown, principal attorney at Brown Counsel, LLC, wrote in an emailed statement, referring to the judicial circuit that includes Massachusetts.

Lawyers for Harvard argued that Segev and Dembitzer fail to adequately support their claims — used to justify the motion — that being named publicly would likely lead to harassment or retaliation and potentially deter other students from coming forward with similar allegations.

They also claimed that granting pseudonymity would make it more difficult for Harvard to litigate the case by potentially stymying discovery requests, in addition to potentially damaging the University’s reputation.

The plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that their interest in remaining unnamed outweighed the public’s interest in transparency, Harvard argued.

Both Segev and Dembitzer remained unnamed as declarants in the SAA and Brandeis suits. But the standards for pseudonymity are more stringent now that Segev and Dembitzer are moving to join the case as plaintiffs, according to Volokh, since they would then be parties to the case.

A judge has yet to approve the amended complaint adding Segev and Dembitzer to the suit.

— Staff Writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at sebastian.connolly@thecrimson.com and on X @SebastianC4784.