Summary:
Justice Julie Grown Denton allows defamation claim amendment
Hamilton College president Steven Tepper named as defendant
Expelled student Adyn Brenden represents himself in court
A former student expelled from Hamilton College over a 2024 incident involving graffiti that appeared to be antisemitic hate speech may move forward with a defamation lawsuit against the Clinton college and its president, a New York State Supreme Court justice has ruled.
But Justice Julie Grown Denton, of the Supreme Court in Oneida County, dismissed the rest of the suit brought by Adyn Brenden, a 19-year-old sophomore from South Dakota at the time of the incident, asking the court to overturn his expulsion, remove the punishment from his academic record and allow him to return to classes.
Brenden admitted to state police and during a college judicial review hearing that he had defaced a community mural project on Oct. 10, 2024 by painting two backward swastikas and writing words and phrases over the work of other students, which was against the project’s rules. His graffiti included the sentence, “Kill the Jews wherever you find them.”
After a hearing on Nov. 6, 2024, the college’s judicial review board voted to expel Brenden. He appealed, but the appeals board upheld the decision to expel on Dec. 11, 2024.
“The president’s words went out to the entire community before I ever had a chance to be heard,” Brenden said in a press release sent out by his father. “I’m relieved the court sees this as defamation and is letting the damages case go forward.”
His father, Jeremy Brenden, added his own statement to the release, “College must be held accountable when administrators publicly shame students and destroy their futures with unproven labels. This ruling is a notice to every campus: words have context and consequences, and the truth matters.”
Hamilton College declined to comment on the case.
To allow the defamation suit to move forward, Denton granted a motion to allow Brenden to amend his lawsuit to include a statement sent out by college President Steven Tepper to make his case for defamation and to add Tepper as a defendant.
But in a footnote to her decision, Denton warned readers not to read too much into it. Allowing the amendment is “not in any way indication” of the court’s agreement or disagreement with Brenden’s actions, Tepper’s statement or either’s explanations, she wrote.
“Nor does granting the motion serve as a precursor of how the merits of the student’s defamation claim will ultimately be resolved,” she wrote.
Denton gave Brenden, who has been representing himself since August of 2025, until April 30 to file an amended complaint with factual allegations backing up the defamation claim.
A status conference is scheduled for 10 a.m. July 13 on Microsoft Teams.
Brendan says graffiti was meant to provoke dialogue
Tepper’s statement was sent out to the college community on Oct. 12, 2024. It said that Brenden had admitted to the “vandalism and hate speech graffiti” and that the state police had charged him with first-degree harassment, a felony. Tepper also referred to the messages written by Brenden as “antisemitic.”
Brenden’s court filing argued that Tepper made those statements without evidence before Brenden’ judicial review board hearing and claimed that that “pre-judgment” affected public perception and the outcomes of his disciplinary process, and would make it harder for him to transfer to another college.
Brenden argued that his graffiti was not antisemitic, but meant, rather, to provoke dialogue on the pro-Palestinian stance of many students. He was trying to make the point, according to the suit, that supporters of Palestine, whom he also referred to as pro-Hamas, are antisemitic and like the Nazis.
“Kill the Jews wherever you find them” is a phrase Brenden found online to describe the underlying values of the pro-Palestinian movement, the suit claimed.
Denton noted that Tepper did not include all of what Brenden had told state police in his statement so that readers couldn’t draw their own conclusions on whether it qualified as hate speech.
Lawyers for the college had argued that the statement represented Tepper’s opinion, not facts. But Denton wrote that factors such as the college letterhead on which it was written and the close working relationship between the college and the state police could lead readers to view the statement as fact.
“The president could be seen as creating an impression that the student’s admission equated to guilt of the class E felony charge referenced in the public statement,” she wrote.
And Brenden could present more evidence of harm from the president’s label of “hate speech” as the case moves on, Denton noted.
Brenden's graffiti included several phrases, alterations
Besides the backward swastikas and the comment about killing all Jews, Brenden’s graffiti included the phrases “Nazis for Palestine,” “Trump shall be free,” “(a heart symbol) Armalite Rifles!” and “Stop! It’s not worth it.” Another canvas was altered to change “Abortion is healthcare” to “isn’t.”
And on another canvas with a series of words starting with the prefix “-pro,” the root words were overwritten with other words, such as “life” instead of “choice,” “human” over “planet,” and “family” over “equality.”
The college called the state police in to investigate on Oct. 11, 2024, the day the graffiti was discovered. Officers interviewed and arrested Brenden, charging him with aggravated harassment in the first degree, although the charge was later dismissed by a grand jury.
The charges against him in the college disciplinary process included conduct likely to have a substantial adverse effect on or pose a threat to any person; property damage; violation of college policies and rules; and intentionally or unreasonably interfering with the freedom of expression of others.
He admitted to the last of those charges during his hearing.
The suit originally named four faculty members and a dean who served on the judicial review or appeals boards as defendants: Ariel Kahrl, Mahogany Green, Carolyn Hutchinson, Katheryn Doran and Ashley Place, assistant dean of students for community living. None are named, though, in the defamation case.
Brendan's original lawsuit was dismissed
Brenden’s lawsuit alleged that the college failed to follow its own rules and procedures during the disciplinary process and included four causes of action that Denton has now dismissed:
Failure to consider alternative sanctions better suited to the charges and with consideration of mitigating factors.
Holding the hearing without a lawyer or faculty advisor for Brenden present.
The “irrational” decision by the appeals board in which members displayed bias.
Failure to safeguard his First Amendment rights.
Brenden also asked to amend his lawsuit to include malicious prosecution and false arrest — with Jeff Landry, associate vice president for student affairs, added as a defendant. But Denton denied the request, arguing that college officials had done nothing more than to call the state police.
This article originally appeared on Observer-Dispatch: Are swastikas always hate speech? Suit against Hamilton College says no
Reporting by Amy Neff Roth, Utica Observer Dispatch / Observer-Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
Free Newsletter
