Canel v. Art Institute of Chicago, 1:23-cv-17064

Plaintiff Shiran Canel, a Jewish and Israeli student, sued the Art Institute of Chicago (SAIC), alleging antisemitic and anti-Israeli discrimination under Title VI and state law based on her experiences as a student in the Master of Arts in Art Therapy and Counseling program.
Allegations included a problematic admissions interview process, social media posts and on-campus activism critical of Israel, classroom hostility, changed grading standards, and an allegedly biased final assignment.
Plaintiff complained to the administration about these incidents, seeking both formal and informal remediation.
SAIC investigated, reversed the initial admissions denial, apologized, and later withdrew the disputed assignment changes.
The case comes before the court on SAIC’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court dismissed the federal Title VI claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the supplemental state law claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Hostile Educational Environment (Title VI)	Canel suffered pervasive, severe anti-Jewish/Israeli harassment at SAIC; SAIC was deliberately indifferent.	Events were mostly political speech/isolated incidents; SAIC responded reasonably to complaints.	No hostile environment; no deliberate indifference shown.
Deliberate Indifference	SAIC failed to intervene or provide adequate protection/responses to her complaints.	SAIC took prompt remedial actions (investigations, apologies, assignment withdrawal).	SAIC’s actions were adequate, not clearly unreasonable.
Direct Discrimination (Title VI)	Canel was denied educational benefits due to her Jewish/Israeli status.	No specific denial of benefits; any negative actions were not based on protected class.	Insufficient facts pled for direct discrimination.
Jurisdiction on State Law Claims	State law claims should proceed based on federal question.	Supplemental claims must be dismissed if federal claims are dismissed.	Declined supplemental jurisdiction; state law claims dismissed without prejudice.

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (standards for pleading, motion to dismiss)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility and specificity requirement in pleadings)
Davis v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629 (deliberate indifference in Title IX/VI cases)
Shaare Tefila Congregation v. Cobb, 481 U.S. 615 (antisemitism as a form of racial discrimination)
Doe v. St. Francis Sch. Dist., 694 F.3d 869 (knowledge and deliberate indifference in school discrimination)
Gabrielle M. v. Park Forest-Chicago Heights, IL. Sch. Dist. 163, 315 F.3d 817 (concrete negative effect required for educational deprivation under Title VI)
Jauquet v. Green Bay Area Cath. Educ., Inc., 996 F.3d 802 (remedial adequacy and sufficiency for school liability)