A former Justice Department civil-rights attorney says federal investigations into alleged antisemitism at several prominent universities were rushed, politically driven and, in some cases, unsupported by sufficient facts or law.
Haley Van Erem made the allegations in a whistleblower disclosure filed with inspectors general at the Justice and Health and Human Services departments and with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Her attorneys said investigators faced “predetermined outcomes” and procedural irregularities while reviewing schools including Columbia and Brown, according to reports published Aug. 18 and 19 by The Associated Press and Reuters.
Van Erem, who spent nearly a decade in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was assigned to HHS work involving Title VI, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. The complaint says some inquiries expanded beyond their original scope and that officials did not pursue recommendations to investigate reports of anti-Muslim bias on campuses.
The disclosure also alleges that certain Middle East studies faculty members and Muslim professors were scrutinized based on assumptions rather than specific complaints, raising concerns about free speech, academic freedom and equal enforcement of civil-rights protections.
The Justice Department disputed Van Erem’s account of her role. A department spokesperson told Reuters that she did not work on university investigations while at DOJ and said the department stands behind the integrity of the investigations.
The administration created its multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism in February 2025, saying its first priority would be addressing antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses. The Justice Department’s announcement said the task force would coordinate through the Civil Rights Division.
The whistleblower claims remain allegations and have not been adjudicated. The disclosure has been sent to federal oversight offices, where it could prompt further review of how the investigations were opened and conducted.
WASHINGTON — A former Justice Department civil-rights attorney says federal investigations into alleged antisemitism at several prominent universities were rushed, politically driven and, in some cases, unsupported by sufficient facts or law.
Haley Van Erem made the allegations in a whistleblower disclosure filed with inspectors general at the Justice and Health and Human Services departments and with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. Her attorneys said investigators faced “predetermined outcomes” and procedural irregularities while reviewing schools including Columbia and Brown, according to reports published Aug. 18 and 19 by The Associated Press and Reuters.
Van Erem, who spent nearly a decade in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, was assigned to HHS work involving Title VI, the federal law that prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. The complaint says some inquiries expanded beyond their original scope and that officials did not pursue recommendations to investigate reports of anti-Muslim bias on campuses.
The disclosure also alleges that certain Middle East studies faculty members and Muslim professors were scrutinized based on assumptions rather than specific complaints, raising concerns about free speech, academic freedom and equal enforcement of civil-rights protections.
The Justice Department disputed Van Erem’s account of her role. A department spokesperson told Reuters that she did not work on university investigations while at DOJ and said the department stands behind the integrity of the investigations.
The administration created its multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism in February 2025, saying its first priority would be addressing antisemitic harassment in schools and on college campuses. The Justice Department’s announcement said the task force would coordinate through the Civil Rights Division.
The whistleblower claims remain allegations and have not been adjudicated. The disclosure has been sent to federal oversight offices, where it could prompt further review of how the investigations were opened and conducted.
