A Los Angeles resident has accused Dartmouth College of rejecting his application to the Tuck School of Business due to a supposed global network of Jewish supremacists, according to filings in US District Court in Concord.

The individual brought the action under a pseudonym, asserting that public identification would endanger his life and professional prospects because of influential Jewish figures worldwide. US District Judge Stephen McAuliffe rejected that request on Friday, finding the supporting claims unpersuasive and without evidentiary basis.

McAuliffe noted that the plaintiff alleged physical harm would follow disclosure because Jews routinely target opponents, yet offered no specific proof. The judge described those assertions as not credible.

The complaint states the applicant possessed strong credentials, including a GMAT score above 99 percent of test takers and an undergraduate GPA aligned with recent admits, along with distinctive professional achievements. Dartmouth informed him of the denial in May 2024.

Doe alleges bias against non-Jewish White applicants

The plaintiff maintains the decision stemmed from his identity as a White gentile. He claims nearly all White students at Dartmouth are Jewish and that non-Jewish White candidates face extra hurdles unless they are female, identify as queer, or have military service.

The filing contains multiple antisemitic assertions, including claims that Jews enslaved ancient Egyptians, fabricated the Holocaust, carried out genocide against Germans in World War II, and orchestrated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Similar suits have been filed against Harvard and the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, each attributing rejections to the same alleged conspiracy. Dartmouth offered no comment on the matter.

Plaintiff warns of career sabotage by Jewish professionals

The plaintiff contends that revealing his identity would allow Jewish human resources staff to block employment and Jewish venture capitalists to withhold funding. He further argues disclosure would lead to social ostracism through false Nazi accusations and possible assassination attempts.

One passage describes a suspected poisoning incident involving an unidentified woman the plaintiff believes was acting on behalf of Jewish interests. McAuliffe found no plausible, specific threat demonstrated in the record.

The plaintiff must decide by next week whether to appeal the anonymity ruling or proceed with his real name.