Key take away is that the Trump admin adopts a disparate impact theory in this finding while rejecting it elsewhere.

Finally, we examine whether a university itself might be engaging in disparate treatment by being more solicitous of hostility directed at some groups than others. This claim is also likely weak as universities have good reason to tolerate political speech that offends.

Even if an environment is hostile to students of Jewish ancestry, a university would not be in violation of Title VI unless it were "deliberately indifferent" to this fact. Given the importance of debate to a university's mission, such a standard will be tough to meet.

Another way to frame a hostile environment claim is by focusing on whether the environment is experienced as hostile. However, this claim has a disparate impact quality and so will be difficult to make out -- especially given the adminstration's recent rejection of disparate impact.

2. While Title VI would prohibit a university being "deliberatiely indifferent" to a hostile environment for students of Jewish ancestry, that hostile environment most likely must arise from students treating other students different because they are Jews, not because they are Zionists.

A claim that a university has violated Title VI by tolerating anti-Zionist activities would face several significant hurdles.

1. Title VI doesn't cover religion and so antisemitism is covered only to the extent that anti-Jewish activities target people of Jewish ancestry (Jewishness as a race).