On November 18, 2025, FAIR filed a federal civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights against the South Brunswick Board of Education in New Jersey. The complaint alleges violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stemming from the Board’s discriminatory treatment of Vice President Deepa Karthik following a personal social media post reflecting her Hindu identity.
Deepa Karthik, twice-elected to the Board and unanimously chosen as Vice President in January 2025, posted on her personal Facebook page that as a Hindu, she does not consume Halal products and questioned why Halal certification was extending beyond meat to items like tea, coffee, and rice.
Within days, a coordinated campaign emerged demanding that the Board take action against her. At a May 22nd Board meeting, more than a dozen speakers unleashed what can only be described as a verbal assault on Ms. Karthik, making explicit connections between her Indian nationality, Hindu identity, and her personal dietary choices. Speakers repeatedly invoked their community’s demographic strength and political influence, reminders of the “95% Hindu” makeup of their organizations and the percentage of district students they represented.
The Board’s response revealed a troubling pattern of preferential treatment. While allowing anti-Karthik speakers to exceed time limits and violate decorum rules without consequence, the Board later aggressively policed Ms. Karthik’s supporters – many of whom were also Indian and Hindu – by imposing stricter time enforcement and additional speaking rules not applied to the original complainants.
Most concerning, the Board held secret meetings with unnamed “community members” before announcing on June 4th that they were removing Ms. Karthik from the Policy and Education Committees, positions that are integral to her role as Vice President. The Board President even admitted these posts were made in Ms. Karthik’s personal capacity and “not a Board matter,” yet proceeded with punitive action anyway.
Notably, months earlier, Ms. Karthik had actively supported providing Halal food in district cafeterias and had championed Muslim and Jewish awareness initiatives, demonstrating her consistent respect for all faith communities in her official capacity. Yet the Board never shared this context with the angry speakers or acknowledged her track record of supporting religious accommodation for all students.
This case represents a clear instance of discrimination based on shared ancestry and ethnic characteristics protections that are explicitly covered under Title VI. When a Hindu woman expressing beliefs grounded in her Indian identity faces removal from elected responsibilities while those attacking her receive favorable treatment, this is prima facie discrimination in action.
