Gregory Brown, deputy assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Department of Justice and Class of 1989 alumnus, signed five of the seven letters from the DOJ pressuring Ryan to terminate the University’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and alleging that the University had violated Title VI.
The first of the seven letters was sent April 11 and the final letter was dated June 17. This was not the first time Brown openly took a stance against the University.
Prior to his work for the DOJ, Brown represented the plaintiffs for the cases Goldstein v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2024) and Bettinger v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2023). The New York Times reported that both the Bettinger and the Goldstein cases were referred to Brown by The Jefferson Council — a conservative group of “concerned and invested alumni” who had expressed discontentment with Ryan’s leadership in recent years.
In both cases, Brown represented students suing the University who claimed that they had faced discrimination and a hostile on-Grounds environment as a result of their ethnicity, race, religion or personal beliefs. Both of these cases ended in settlements unknown to the public and were voluntarily dismissed by judges.
Goldstein v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2024)
One of the letters was sent to Ryan and the University May 2 and detailed “antisemetic discrimination, harassment and abuse, and related retaliation occurring within the University of Virginia’s education environment.”
This on-Grounds “antisemetic discrimination” discussed in the May 2 letter was a key concern in the Goldstein case. Over the course of 2024, Brown represented Matan Goldstein, then a first-year Israeli-American student, against Ryan, the Rector and the Board of Visitors, Students for Justice in Palestine and Faculty for Justice in Palestine.
Both Brown and the University filed hundreds of pages of evidence in their arguments. Brown submitted 248 pages total between his initial and amended complaints. Briefs supporting motions to dismiss claims asserted by Brown on behalf of Ryan, Hardie and the Board of Visitors totaled 127 pages. The court documents from Goldstein’s case are public and accessible via Court Listener.
Brown and Gavalier, the firm representing Goldstein in his case, did not respond to two email requests or a phone call for comment. Goldstein did not respond to two email requests for comment.
In an initial complaint dated May 17, 2024, Brown wrote that Goldstein, who is observant in his Jewish faith, suffered a hostile environment on Grounds that prohibited freedom of expression and practice of his faith during his first year at the University.
Goldstein alleged that on Oct. 7, 2023 and in the ensuing period, he was a victim of the backlash following the “atrocities” and “savagery” that occurred against the state and people of Israel. In response, Jewish students voiced their outrage, but according to Brown, Ryan and Hardie did nothing other than deny and gaslight the group’s experiences.
According to Brown, both Ryan and Hardie had the ability to stop the alleged hate but chose not to do so.
“The Plaintiff is a victim of hate-based, intentional discrimination, severe harassment and abuse and illegal retaliation,” the complaint read. “The Defendants have illegally and maliciously changed his life forever, depriving him of fundamental rights, privileges, opportunities and enjoyments and have harmed him financially, physically and mentally.”
In response to Goldstein’s claims, defendants Ryan, the rector and the Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint July 16, 2024. They argued that Goldstein had failed to state a claim, meaning the complaint did not allege sufficient facts to support a lawsuit, even if all of the facts wer true.
The University claimed that Goldstein had no facts demonstrating “offensive harassment” that effectively denied equal access to his education. The University rejected the argument of a fostered “hostile environment” and dismissed the claim that Hardie or Ryan acted with “discriminatory intent.”
“Plaintiff alleges no facts to support a retaliation claim,” the University’s motion read. “Plaintiff’s hostile environment harassment claims fail because Plaintiff has not alleged facts showing severe, pervasive and objectively offensive harassment.”
Brown, in giving background on Goldstein, wrote that antisemitism “appeared to be alive and well ‘on Grounds,’” and that University leadership was “uninterested in hearing or doing anything about it.”
As a specific example of this antisemitism on Grounds, the complaint mentioned the protests on the Rotunda steps in support of Palestine on October 25, 2023. Hundreds of students participated in a rally, where they demanded the University acknowledge the casualties in Gaza as genocide and divest in military technology used in the Gaza attacks. At the rally, students chanted holding signs and wearing the colors of the Palestinian flag.
A small group of students supporting Israel formed as the rally grew. Goldstein was one of these students, where he displayed his beliefs by wearing a Yarmulke and a Star of David and waving the flag of Israel.
“Matan, in an extraordinary act of courage, conviction, and faith — an 18-year-old, college freshman away from home for the first time — decided to attend [the rally], wearing his Yarmulke, his Star of David and carrying the flag of Israel,” the complaint read.
Goldstein claimed that he experienced intense backlash from his peers at the rally, as well as from “hateful” demonstrations and encampments he was forced to navigate through on his way to class.
“At the event, Matan was berated, insulted, threatened with violence, and physically assaulted,” the complaint read. “The events of the October 25, 2023, ‘rally’ deeply scarred Matan and have had lasting negative effects upon him and his experience at The University of Virginia.”
Goldstein later filed an amended complaint in which Brown provided more specificity to the claimed “backlash.”
“Four or more protesters converged on Matan” the amended complaint reads. “Once they came into physical contact with Matan, they shoved him and tried to forcibly drag his flag from his hands and knock Matan down or off the steps.”
These events were reported to the University Police Department by a University professor who Goldstein had asked to escort him out of the rally. The professor is not named in the complaint.
Goldstein asserted that an Honor Committee hearing contributed to feeling unsafe on Grounds — on an unidentified date, a student filed an Honor Charge “in retaliation for the [Goldstein] speaking to a member of the national media about antisemitism at U.Va.” Goldstein did not specify what Honor violation had been brought against him, but he did argue that the University should have halted the Committee’s normal processes to prevent the trial from proceeding.
The Committee ultimately dismissed the charge for a lack of evidence. The University claimed in its defense that this conclusion was a “fair application of institutional policies and practices” supported by the Honor Committee Bylaws, and the hearing did not effectively discriminate against Goldstein.
In response to the accumulation of alleged hateful incidents that Goldstein experienced, the University’s administration met his struggles with indifference, Brown said.
“The words, deeds, actions and threats at U.Va. are no different than swastikas. The words, deeds, actions and threats at U.Va. are no different than the ‘Totenkopf.’ No. Different,” Brown wrote.
The University’s motion in response assured the court that the University takes measures to ensure its students feel a sense of belonging and have equal access to resources and facilities.
“U.Va. supports its Jewish students, including Plaintiff, and other students’ First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. U.Va.’s support and care for its students is misconstrued and mischaracterized in the Complaint,” the motion reads.
Further, the University’s motion cited tangible instances in which the University responded to potential antisemitic behavior on Grounds. For example, Dec. 13, 2023, Ryan announced a Task Force on Religious Diversity and Belonging, Jan. 18, 2024, he issued a video statement addressing the ongoing conflict in the Middle East and condemning antisemitism on Grounds, and Feb. 14, 2024, he hosted a personal meeting for Jewish parents and students, including Goldstein.
Besides addressing the complaints against the administration, the University’s motion for dismissal argued that Contracted Independent Organizations, like Students for Justice in Palestine, are not controlled by the University and thus their actions cannot be used to argue for the University’s discriminatory practices. SJP and FJP were two groups within the University that were initially included as defendants, but they were both dismissed. SJP falls into the category of a CIO.
“Pursuant to U.Va.'s established policy, CIOs operate independent of the University and are not agents, servants or employees of the University,” the motion reads. “They do not have the authority to act for or commit the University to any activity, transaction or agreement. The University does not supervise, direct or control CIOs’ activities.”
The motion defended the CIOs’ ability to support students after the Hamas attacks, and said that SJP and FJP did not intend to harm students like Goldstein. Instead, the two organizations intended to “demonstrate care and sympathy for those affected and to offer supportive resources.”
SJP and FJP were soon after dismissed as defendants from the case. However, the dismissal did not apply to the other defendants, which included Ryan, the rector and the Board of Visitors.
Despite added specifics in an amended complaint on Goldstein’s behalf — which included screenshots of social media posts promoting walkouts and other events which Brown claimed to be “antisemetic” and “pro-Hamas” — Ryan, the rector and the Board once again issued a motion to dismiss the case Sept. 10, and said that the amended complaint “fails for the same reason that his original Complaint fails.”
The University argued that still there was not enough factual evidence to support Goldstein’s claim that the University treated him differently solely because of his religion or Israeli identity.
“Goldstein’s Amended Complaint may have added several hundred new paragraphs of conclusory and hyperbolic prose, but his efforts do little to correct the legal flaws in his pleading,” the memorandum in support of the motion reads. “The University of Virginia is not, was not, and has never been deliberately indifferent to Goldstein’s concerns or to antisemitism on Grounds.”
Ultimately, the case concluded Dec. 4, 2024 with Goldstein voluntarily withdrawing his lawsuit and the case being dismissed with prejudice. SJP and FJP continue to exist as organizations at the University that provide a space for students and faculty to advocate openly in support of Palestine, and Ryan, Hardie and the Visitors remained in their positions. Because the case was dismissed with prejudice, Goldstein may not bring this case to the court again.
Bettinger v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (2023)
The Goldstein case was not the first time Brown fought against the University in a lawsuit. Prior to the Goldstein case, Brown was the attorney for the plaintiff in Bettinger v. The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia. The case involved Morgan Bettinger, a then fourth-year student at the University. The lawsuit was filed July 2023 and ended in a settlement Feb. 6, 2024.
On the evening of July 17, 2020, Bettinger encountered Black Lives Matter protestors in the middle of the road on her way home from work. To a white, male dump truck driver, Bettinger said — “Well, it’s a good thing you’re here because otherwise they could have made speed bumps.”
This sentence spurred a “campaign” of harassment, bullying and “13 months of hell” for Bettinger, according to Brown. The prosecution argued that Bettinger faced public humiliation and punishment without legal or factual basis because of her race.
According to Brown, Bettinger encountered racial harassment, death threats and hatred from her peers and faculty in the ensuing months, and neither Ryan nor anyone in University administration utilized their power to protect her — very similar to Brown’s argument in Goldstein’s case.
Brown wrote that the defendants — Ryan, Dean of Students Allen Groves and University administration — were “more than happy to oblige” and to “wield the executioner’s axe” on Bettinger. He said that Bettinger’s permanent record suffered disciplinary marks that Ryan refused to remove even after the Office for Equal Opportunity and Civil Rights found Bettinger innocent.
“Under Defendant Ryan’s administration, the University has developed … an obsession with race, racism and racialist policies and ideologies,” the complaint filed by Brown read. “That institutional obsession … has led to the creation, tolerance and reinforcement … of rampant race-based prejudice and bias.”
In response to Bettinger claims, the rector and Board filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, similar to their response to Brown’s complaint in the Goldstein case.
The University claimed that Bettinger’s case was subject to a two-year statute of limitations — the complaint detailed events in June 2021, but Bettinger did not commence legal action until July 28, 2023. Therefore, the University said her claims were untimely and must be dismissed.
Additionally, the University disputed Bettinger’s claim that her race singularly motivated the discrimination and hatred brought against her.
“Plaintiff does not cite any instance in which her putative non-White counterparts engaged in the same or substantially similar conduct — allegedly threatening other students — and received more favorable treatment than she did,” the motion reads.
Just like Goldstein’s case ended, Bettinger’s case was dismissed with a joint stipulation of dismissal between the parties Feb. 1.
Read more of The Cavalier Daily’s coverage of Bettinger’s case here.
University Spokesperson Bethanie Glover declined to comment when asked about the settlements of both the Goldstein and Bettinger cases. According to Glover, the University Communications office does not customarily comment on legal settlements, especially those involving current or former students.
Read More
From the Archives: Back to School
By Finn Trainer and Clara Franklin | YesterdayThe Cavalier Daily’s Sept. 1, 1964 issue was geared towards first year students and contained articles offering readers an introduction to University life and traditions.
U.Va. Mobile ID replaced by new system accessible in digital wallet
By Grace Little | 2 days agoFor iPhone users, the new mobile ID is accessible via the digital wallet in one’s phone after downloading the Atrium Campus Connect App and adding the pass to the Apple Wallet.
Student Council and Faculty Senate host rally for community solidarity
By Lucia Gambacini | 2 days agoParticipants in the rally, who included faculty and students from all years, held up homemade signs that showed dissatisfaction with recent University events, such as Ryan's resignation and rising political influence over University affairs.
