BURSTAnna Feder worked at Emerson College in Boston for 17 years. For 12 of them, she ran the school’s exhibitions and festivals program and curated the Bright Lights Cinema Series, which screened documentaries about liberation struggles, social justice, and marginalized communities.
According to a civil lawsuit filed by Feder against the college this week, the school administration never interfered with her programming until 2023, when she scheduled a screening of the film “Israelism,” a documentary by Jewish filmmakers about young American Jews coming to reject Zionism. Following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack and the start of Israel’s assault on Gaza, Emerson leadership pressured Feder to cancel the planned November screening.
Feder agreed to postpone and screened the film in February 2024. She then wrote an op-ed in the school paper criticizing Emerson’s treatment of campus speech about Palestine. And even as a crackdown across the U.S. on all things pro-Palestine got underway, she continued a longtime partnership with the Boston Palestine Film Festival.
Then, in August, Emerson abruptly ditched Feder and her program.
“Emerson terminated Ms. Feder, cancelled the entire Bright Lights program, and barred Ms. Feder from campus,” her lawsuit says.
“We all need to find the courage in this moment and push back against the attacks on speech.”
Feder’s suit is the first of its kind in this time of campus repression. Filed in Massachusetts state court, the suit claims that Emerson violated Feder’s free speech rights and that, while it is a private college, it is nonetheless obligated to uphold First Amendment protections.
Private institutions are not as a matter of course subject to the First Amendment, which protects against government violations. Private colleges are, on the whole, permitted to enact greater restrictions on speech on their premises than public institutions.
Feder’s suit, however, claims that a Massachusetts law, Article 16 of the state’s Declaration of Rights, extends First Amendment protections usually applied to government violations of civil rights to private actors, too — including universities and colleges. (Emerson did not respond to a request for comment about the suit.)
The suit against Emerson is a test case. If successful, Feder’s effort could set a precedent for holding Massachusetts colleges — of which there are many — to legal account for constitutional violations of free speech. A minority of other states, including California, have similar statutes on the books, which could be deployed in a similar vein.
More broadly, Feder’s suit exemplifies ways those facing apparent retribution for pro-Palestine speech on campus have had to seek new ways to contest their school’s actions, including in the courts.
“If we don’t defend our rights vigorously, they will surely be taken away,” said Feder.
“It’s a scary time to be public in this way, but it’s also the highest expression of my Jewish values,” she said. “We all need to find the courage in this moment and push back against the attacks on speech — particularly on college campuses.”
Not a Budget Issue
Emerson claimed, according to Feder’s lawsuit, that it was terminating Feder’s position and canceling the Bright Lights program for budgetary reasons.
The suit directly challenges that claim: “The Bright Lights series was a very inexpensive program in comparison with other non-academic programs that were not cancelled, and Ms. Feder had recently cut the program budget even further.”
The lawsuit also notes that the series “was an extremely popular program and core to Emerson’s academic programs.” Forty percent of Emerson undergraduates are enrolled in the Visual and Media Arts department, to which the film series was consistently relevant, the suit says.
Other details in the suit suggest the termination was not a normal layoff over budget concerns.
Feder was, due to provisions in her union contract, employed for 60 days after Emerson announced her termination. During that time, she was banned from campus and told she would be fired “for cause” if she made public statements about the Bright Lights series. Feder said that she had never previously heard of such requirements during a laid-off employee’s notice period.
According to Feder’s lawsuit, she was not laid off but terminated “for asserting her legally guaranteed right to freedom of speech and expression.” That speech involved screening an Israel-critical film and “support for Palestinians and student activism in support of the Palestinian cause,” she claims.
“We are seen as dangerous to universities who claim to care about learning, but who only seem to care about avoiding controversy and difficult conversations.”
“Our film has played at hundreds of campuses in the U.S., is made by Emmy and Peabody-winning Jewish filmmakers, won the audience award for best documentary at the U.S.’s oldest and largest Jewish film festival, and tells what is arguably the defining story of American Jews in our time,” said Erin Axelman, the co-director of “Israelism.”
“Yet because our film is critical of Israel,” Axelman said, “we are seen as dangerous to universities who claim to care about learning, but who only seem to care about avoiding controversy and difficult conversations.”
Axelman noted that polling from the Israeli government showed over 40 percent of American Jewish teenagers believe Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza.
“Emerson’s behavior is pathetic, and history will judge them for it,” they added. “We stand with Anna.”
New Approach to Free Speech
If Feder’s attorneys can establish in court that the Massachusetts free speech statute applies to Emerson’s actions, it could spur the use of the law by other faculty, staff, and students in the state who believe their freedom of speech has been violated by private colleges retaliating against pro-Palestine activism.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the state’s Supreme Court has not yet decided whether private colleges and universities are covered by Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
Schools have been sued under the act before. Emerson itself faced a lawsuit in 1989 from a professor who claimed she was denied a promotion and tenure on the basis of her expression of her political beliefs. The case was settled out of court, but an initial ruling from a judge clarified that the case had merit.
There are reasons to suspect that Emerson may not be held to account. Over the last 18 months, numerous public universities, which are unambiguously beholden to the First Amendment, have readily seen Palestine student activists arrested, speakers canceled, and faculty terminated.
Even if Feder’s suit does not lead to a ruling that private colleges must uphold First Amendment free speech standards in Massachusetts, the case is nonetheless an effort to hold Emerson responsible for its treatment of Palestine solidarity speech — to, at the very least, have to face a legal challenge. For the most part, schools have only shown a readiness to respond to pressures from pro-Israel groups and their allies in government.
Schools around the country have already faced a host of federal civil suits from individuals and groups under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits against discrimination based on shared ancestry.
The vast majority of these cases have been cases of alleged antisemitism, and schools including Columbia, Harvard, and New York University have reached settlements with student plaintiffs for monetary sums and agreements to change school policies, purportedly around combating antisemitism.
These legal remedies have, in certain cases, involved the further erosion of distinctions between anti-Zionist expression and antisemitism in campus disciplinary policies and conduct codes.
Harvard, for example, agreed to adopt the contested International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism to deploy in its disciplinary processes as a part of settlement agreements. The IHRA definition, which has been used to include criticisms of Israel as examples of antisemitism, was officially embraced by the Biden administration and, in turn, the Trump administration has used the expansive view of antisemitism for its own political attacks.
Meanwhile, there have been a smaller number of lawsuits against universities for their treatment of pro-Palestine students or for discrimination against Muslim and Arab students. Pro-Palestine students, for instance, sued Columbia in February for alleged Title VI violations.
Already a “Chilling Effect”
At a time when the Trump administration is targeting Palestine solidarity activists for deportation, and right-wing doxing carries higher risks than ever, there are a number of reasons why individual students, staff, and faculty members might fear coming forward as named plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Other burdens, like expense, can also make the courts a difficult route for anti-repression work. Feder, for example, has launched a fundraiser for her legal costs.
“There are not many available resources,” said Yaman Salahi, an attorney who focuses on corporate and government misconduct. “Second, whoever would come forward as a potential plaintiff is exposing themselves to a very high risk of retaliation from employers or future employers or future schools.”
Salahi said that a “chilling effect” was already present.
“This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t come forward. It’s very important that they do. But it does require being thoughtful and strategic,” Salahi said. “I do think that without more and more test cases to try to hold firm on what is supposed to be protected expression, we are going to see a pretty troubling slide in what those freedoms look like.”
The post This College Staffer Lost Her Job After Showing a Film Critical of Israel. Now She’s Suing Over Free Speech. appeared first on The Intercept.