campus climate

SJP-West Statement on Dismissal of Title VI Claims at 3 UC Schools

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters on the West Coast celebrate the U.S. Department of Education’s (DOE’s) dismissal of Title VI claims against three University of California schools, UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Irvine, alleging that activism supportive of Palestinian human rights creates a hostile educational environment for Jewish students. These accusations were only the latest episode in a long series of attacks against Palestine solidarity activists that aim to intimidate, censor, and smear speech in support of Palestinian freedom and equality.

In an attempt to stifle Palestine solidarity activism, these Title VI complaints repeated the tired claim that supporting Palestinian human rights or voicing criticism of Israel’s policies is inherently anti-Semitic. As such, the Jewish community on campus was incorrectly portrayed as uniformly supportive of Israeli state policies in order to support the argument that pro-Palestine speech creates a hostile environment for the Jewish community. In fact, SJP chapters have a long track record of opposing all bigotry, including anti-Jewish bigotry, on campus.

We view this attempt to use the Civil Rights Act to limit students’ ability to speak out for the rights of oppressed groups as a perversion of the spirit of the law and the cause of equality and justice that undergirds it. We are pleased that the Department of Education dismissed all three cases, finding that the allegations either lacked merit or were examples of speech “that a reasonable student in higher education may experience.” These findings echo the department’s 2007 conclusions from UC Irvine, which stated that “speeches, articles, marches, symbols, and other events at issue were not based on the national origin of the Jewish students, but rather based on opposition to the policies of Israel.” The dismissals finally lift a threat that has been hanging over our universities since 2004, when the first complaint to the DOE was made against UC Irvine.

Such complaints, and the years-long DOE investigations, contributed to a devastating chilling effect on student activists and organizations, and led to unwarranted scrutiny of constitutionally protected speech by administrators worried about federal investigation. We welcome the dismissal, but hope that DOE will take steps to make sure that such investigations are handled more expeditiously in the future.

These dismissals represent the sixth major victory for SJP’s speech rights on campus in the 2012-2013 academic year:

  • In 2012, Felber v. Yudof, a federal lawsuit filed on similar legal grounds, was settled out of court with no meaningful ramifications, after a federal judge ruled that the complained-of speech activities were constitutionally protected.
  • Recommendations for broad censorship and monitoring of SJP speech made by the Campus Climate Advisory Council have also been effectively stopped.
  • The UC Student Association (UCSA) voted overwhelmingly to condemn California Assembly Resolution HR-35, which endorsed the Campus Climate reports. The UC Berkeley Graduate Student Association and over 1,000 students and recent graduates joined the UCSA in opposing HR 35.
  • Student senates at UC Berkeley, UC Davis, UC Santa Barbara, and UC Irvine, as well as the UCSA passed resolutions condemning Islamophobic and anti-Palestinian comments made about SJPs and Muslim Students Associations (MSA) by UCSC Lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin.
  • Sadia Saifuddin was confirmed to the position of UC Student Regent without opposition, despite efforts to stop the nomination based on her support for divestment.

While we do not expect that attempts to silence and intimidate SJPs will cease, we are confident that the anti-Palestinian groups that filed these claims can neither successfully silence us nor present the campus community with a viable argument for Israel’s policies of occupation and discrimination. We therefore reaffirm our commitment to speak out for justice in Palestine and will continue to work towards the day that the UC system cuts its financial ties to corporations that profit from the oppression of the Palestinian people.

 

 

 

US Dept. of Education Dismisses Title VI Claims Against UC Berkeley, UC Santa Cruz, and UC Irvine

It is a great day to be a Palestine campus solidarity activist. The US Department of Education has dismissed legal claims filed by some pro-Israel students claiming that the Pro-Palestinian activism at UC Berkeley, Santa Cruz, and Irvine provided a hostile and anti-semitic enviroment for Jewish students on campus. What does Title VI mean?

As explained by Electronic Intifada’s Nora Barrows-Friedman:

“The complaint was filed under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which protects students against discrimination based on race or ethnic background. Israel-aligned groups and individuals have claimed that Jewish students face anti-Semitism, harassment and intimidation because of activism by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Muslim student groups, and have filed claims with the Department of Education alleging violations of Title VI.”

This particular Title VI claim against UC Berkeley has been fought and brought back over a long period of time, as Barrows-Friedman points out:

“The Title VI complaint at UC Berkeley was filed by Zionist students last year after a suit against the University of California’s governing body, the Regents, was thrown out by a judge because of a significant lack of evidence. The original complaint attempted to make connections between Students for Justice in Palestine and the Muslim Student Union and Hamas, and compared the climate on UC Berkeley campus to that of the Holocaust. However, despite the suit being thrown out, the students re-filed the complaint as a Title VI claim with the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.”

Is is also important to note that these claims conflated being pro-occupation with being Jewish. The only Jewish students that these claims acknowledge are those who are pro-occupation. The use of civil rights law to stifle Palestinian solidarity activism on California campuses has seen a major defeat today. To read up more on this wonderful victory check out the links below:

 

Dismissals:

Read the DOE’s letter to UC Berkeley

Read the DOE’s letter to UCSC

We will post DOE’s letter to UCI as soon as it is made public.

 

News:

–Nora Barrows-Friedman’s piece on Electronic Intifada

–Los Angeles Times article on the dismissal of Title VI claim at Berkeley

–UC Berkeley News Center article on the dismissal

–UC Santa Cruz News Center article on the dismissal

 

Solidarity statements:

–Center for Constitutional Rights statement celebrating the dismissal

–ACLU statement celebrating the dismissal

–CAIR statement in support

 

SJP National Voices Support for University of California Organizers

Nearly 50 years ago, students at the University of California fought to win the right to free speech on their campuses. It is deplorable that today, pro-Palestinian students must find themselves fighting once again for their basic rights.

As the Ad Hoc Steering Committee for the National Students for Justice in Palestine Conference, we write to express our solidarity with organizers and academics at California public universities advocating for Palestinian rights, and decry the troubling pattern of institutional intimidation and silencing of Palestine solidarity work taken by the University of California Office of the President, the California State Assembly, and non-university pressure groups. This includes a disputed UC “campus climate report” and State Assembly bill that both openly conflate Palestinian solidarity with hate speech, and ongoing Federal investigations at several UC campuses based on similar allegations. While proponents of these efforts present them as attempts to combat anti-Semitism, they fail to provide evidence supporting their claims, and ignore the long history of anti-racist work undertaken by the very groups they target. These efforts instead represent an attack on the Palestine solidarity movement and an attempt to slow the growing campaign to divest California universities from corporations that enable and profit from Israel’s abuses of Palestinian human rights.

These developments are particularly disturbing because the proposals offered specifically target Palestine solidarity activists, threatening to subject them to special monitoring and censorship. Prescribing selective restrictions on political speech in this manner could create a de-facto second class of students who are systematically denied their first amendment rights on campus.

In light of these troubling developments, we:

1. Reiterate our long-standing position against anti-Semitism along with all forms of bigotry. We believe that Universities have an ethical and legal obligation to protect all students from harassment and intimidation based on their race, nationality, or religion. We highlight our prior public statements, history of anti-racist work, and ongoing collaboration with diverse allies to confirm our clear anti-racist organizing principles. Accordingly, we find this attempt to label all campus support for Palestinian rights as anti-Semitic to be false, misleading and dangerous, both for the fight against anti-Semitism and the fight for human rights for all.

2. Call on the university to heed student calls to officially table the controversial “campus climate report” that has been criticized by academics and civil rights groups alike. We also ask that balanced and credible task forces to be given the responsibility of reviewing and studying these issues, rather than stacked with individuals with a demonstrated history of bias.

3. Call on the UC Administration to condemn HR 35, not only for flouting the First Amendment, but for suggesting a politicized definition of Anti-Semitism that is designed to curb criticism of Israel rather than isolate real instances of bigotry and discrimination. The UC should also clarify its prior support for the bill and involvement in its writing and passage.

4. Call on the University of California Administration to cease misrepresenting and stifling advocacy for Palestinian rights, and call for clear and consistent policies that support the academic freedom and free speech rights of all members of the UC/CSU community.

5. Call for greater transparency from the University of California Administration regarding its institutional links and collaboration with outside pressure groups, especially those with histories of attacking students in support of Palestinian rights.

We thank the numerous civil rights groups that have written and advocated for the rights of students and faculty at the University of California. Below we include specific explanations and criticism of each major aspect of censorship that SJPs face at the university.

http://sjpnational.org/2013/02/05/sjp-national-voices-support-university-cali…

UCLA Undergraduate Council Rejects Campus Climate Reports

Earlier in the 2012-2013 academic year, UCLA’s Academic Senate was asked to make a recommendation regarding the Campus Climate Reports. It distributed the reports to its committees for review. The Undergraduate Council’s negative recommendation was recently made public, and is copied below. Shortly after this letter was issued, the Academic Senate dropped its review of the Reports and declined to issue any formal findings.

UCLA Undergraduate Council Response to the Campus Climate Reports

Audio: NLG’s Liz Jackson on University of California’s direct role in “disparaging” campus Palestine activists

Interview with Liz Jackson of the National Lawyers’ Guild and the Center for Constitutional Rights about how civil rights groups are challenging the University of California as a climate of fear silences pro-Palestinian speech.

Link to the audio (mp3)

Original link with transcript

SJP at UCLA Petitions Academic Senate not to Recommend Campus Climate Reports

Click here to download the SJP Letter to Academic Senate

Academic Senate
University of California, Los Angeles

Dear Members of the Academic Senate,

Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA is a diverse group of students educating and organizing at the University of California in support of Palestinian rights. Our group advocates for the end of the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, for equal rights for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and in support of the rights of Palestinian refugees as outlined by international law. As clearly stated in our constitution and in statements we have signed, our group is clearly and unequivocally opposed to all forms of bigotry and hate, including but not limited to racism, sexism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism.

We understand that the Academic Senate has been asked to provide its opinion on the recently released Campus Climate reports. Because the reports have serious implications for the rights of our members, and because we have been largely excluded from the process of generating them, Students for Justice in Palestine would like to take this opportunity to explain our position and urge the Academic Senate not to endorse the report’s dangerous recommendations.

We oppose the Campus Climate reports on two major grounds, first that it constitutes an effort to censor and repress pro-Palestinian speech on campus; and second, that the report was formulated and written in an illegitimate manner that is symptomatic of a biased approach to these issues by the University of California Administration.

• The Campus Climate Report is a clear threat to speech on campus, based on the following recommendations:

– Review policies on sponsorship, neutrality and balance

Efforts to review sponsorship of events or take steps to ensure balance constitute a clear threat to the free speech rights of students and faculty. Which campus administrative body will be in charge of determining which speakers and events are acceptable and which require balancing? Will they enforce this rule for all topics and not just those related to the injustices of Israel’s occupation? We raise these questions not to indicate that we would endorse the recommendation if further elaborated, but to highlight the clear potential for political speech on campus to be monitored, judged, and censored. Moreover, applying these recommenda- tions only to speech advocating for Palestinian rights will render pro-Palestinian students second class citizens at the University of California.

– Adopt a hate speech-free campus policy

We affirm that our speech is not hate speech. We support the equal rights of Palestinians and the application of international law to their situation. We do not engage in or support violence against, the demonization of, or discrimination against any group or people. Our constitution, long track record of opposition to all forms of bigotry, and the absence of any accusations made against our group should confirm that we are not and have not been practitioners of hate. Unfortunately, the report repeatedly fails to distinguish between criticism of Israeli policy and anti-Semitism, raising the possibility that legitimate criticisms of Israel’s human rights abuses will be categorized as hate speech. As such, we are concerned that instead of promoting tolerance, this recommendation will instead have the effect of sup- pressing views critical of Israeli policy. Therefore, while we are opposed to hate speech, we are skeptical as to how it will be defined and the biases that might be present in the processes used to determine it.

– Adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that may include criticism of Israel

Our student group opposes anti-Semitism and works to clearly define our work as critical of Israeli policy, not critical of any ethnic or religious group. But we are worried that an adoption of a definition of anti-Semitism that includes criticism of Israel will blur the distinction between criticism of state policy with criticism of racial, religious, or ethnic groups. This would be akin to labeling criticism of American policies as anti-American, a possibility that echoes past efforts to stifle free speech in our country. Our concerns stem from the report’s reference to the 2005 working definition offered by the European Union’s Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (now renamed to the Fundamental Rights Agency). The defini- tion offered by this working group (which has since been dropped) is not problematic in our view, but the examples that accompany that definition clearly include criticism of the State of Israel as examples of anti-Semitic speech. We are extremely worried by the possibility that these examples might be incorporated in a definition of anti-Semitism at the UC.

The working definition reads: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” We endorse this view. But we object to the examples cited, which include criticism of Israel such as “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” “Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation,” and “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Is- raeli policy to that of the Nazis.” While our group is focused on advocating for Palestinian rights and is not engaged in these debates, we believe that if these examples of speech be- come part of a common understanding of anti-Semitism, it will move legitimate, non-bigoted criticism of Israel outside the bounds of acceptable public discourse. If this recommendation were to be adopted and the UC defined anti-Semitism as something which included criticism of Israel, it would effectively label our student group as a hate group and in fact smear many professors and students whose research deals with Israel’s discriminatory policies.

We view each of these three recommendations as leading down the same dangerous path. Whether outright banning speakers from campus, forcing balance upon events and groups, defining hate speech, or labeling criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, each of these recommendations has the frightening possibility of both misrepresenting our group and limiting our speech rights on campus. Be- cause these recommendations single out pro-Palestinian speech for special treatment, they would effectively make us second class citizens on campus with fewer rights to free speech than other students. We believe that just as critics of American policy should not be restricted from engaging in free speech on campus by being labelled anti-American or forced to include balance at their events, we too should not be subject to these limitations on our ability to advocate for our beliefs. We have no objections to the other recommendations listed in the report that deal with dietary needs, cultural competency, and religious accommodations and we regret that the legitimate religious and cultural needs of students have been mixed with clear attempts to limit speech that is objected to by other groups on campus.

• Strong objections to the process by which the report was written:

– Jewish Students Report offers no evidence that SJPs can respond to

We wish to point out that the Jewish Students’ Campus Climate Report offers no substanti- ated evidence that SJPs have engaged in hate speech. Considering that the recommendations it makes have the potential to enact sweeping censorship on campus, we would expect that there would be ample documentation backing claims of inappropriate behavior. Rather than this being the case, it is simply asserted as if fact that SJPs have committed offenses. How- ever, we strongly reiterate that we have not been accused of any provable instance of hate speech. We can neither apologize for nor defend ourselves against claims that are not backed by any evidence. We find this to be extremely troubling given the serious consequences that can stem from these accusations.

– Jewish Students Report should not have been chaired by Richard Barton

Richard Barton, one of the co-chairs of the report, is a member of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a political organization that has a record of attacking Students for Justice in Palestine and other organizations in support of Palestinian rights (including other groups that have voiced objection to these reports, such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations). In 2010, this organization placed SJP (as a collective national body, which we are not) on a list of the top-10 anti-Israel groups in America. After this inci- dent, SJP chapters, including every chapter in the UC system, took the opportunity to write a joint public statement reiterating our longstanding opposition to all forms of racism and bigotry, including anti-Semitism, and reiterating our clear and principled stance in support of Palestinian equal rights. Given the ADL’s prior attempt to misrepresent our organization, we are concerned that the appointment of a high ranking member of this group may have brought bias or a political agenda into the process.

– Report knowingly excluded the voices of critical Jewish students

In the same vein, there is ample evidence that the report excluded opinions that ran contrary to its findings. In addition to the serious questions regarding the report’s methodology raised in the attached letter from the Ad Hoc Jewish Committee, Jewish students who did not agree that criticism of the state of Israel’s policies constituted anti-Semitism have also confirmed that the testimony they gave to the report’s authors was omitted from the final report. We also note that, like at other UC schools, our SJP has many Jewish students whose opinions and beliefs were not included or solicited, who also do not believe that criticism of Israel is hate-based, and who would also be censored and silenced by the report’s recommendations.

– Report inappropriately framed as Jewish-Muslim

While the Jewish Students Campus Climate report spent a great deal of time on the Israel- Palestine debate on campus, the Muslim and Arab report was primarily focused on reli- gious and other cultural concerns for those students. The framing of this issue as a Jewish-Muslim problem provides an inaccurate religious connotation to a political disagreement about rights and state policies. Political disagreements about state policies of Israel do not fall uniquely along religious or ethnic lines and they do not represent a shorthand for inter-religious or inter-communal tensions on campus. To frame these oppressions as a disagreement between Jews and Muslims is to inappropriately simplify those religions by condensing their long, diverse, and rich legacies into a contemporary political question that is not representative of those religions, their diverse adherents, or their long histories. It also erases from view Jewish, Christian, Hindu, atheist and other students in our group, something which no campus administration should ever allow to happen.

– Report excluded the opinions of Students for Justice in Palestine

At UCLA, our group was not contacted or consulted about the reports save a small and nowhere near comprehensive online survey briefly posted to our Facebook group. This is no substitute for an engaged interview of SJP members that would allow us to voice our substantive concerns and defend ourselves from what we consider baseless or politicized accusations. More importantly, it is not the place of Muslim and Arab students to represent SJP, to be used as a substitute for our group, or to be asked to administer a survey about our experiences. We can speak on our own behalf, and as a party that will surely be affected by the report, SJP should have been included in this process. The Muslim/Arab report did at times reference issues relevant to SJPs, but this is not equivalent to or an adequate replace- ment for the active involvement of our groups in this process. We are deeply concerned that this exclusion of SJP has persisted through the current UCLA review process, and we at- tach several important documents by the National Lawyers Guild, Center for Constitutional Rights, Jewish Voice for Peace, and Middle East Studies Association that we strongly believe that the review should include.

– Report also reflects a biased approach to speech regarding Israel and the Palestinians

UC President Mark Yudof has a record of bias

In his public statements about the formation of the Campus Climate process, Pres- ident Yudof stated that he initiated these reports in response to “the unfortunate events of spring 2010,” one of which was a political protest at UC Irvine, now re- ferred to as the Irvine 11 incident. Framing the Irvine 11 as a problem is an example of the troubling political orientation of the Campus Climate process and the singling out of pro-Palestinian speech for additional scrutiny. Similar protests of government speakers happen regularly, including an identical protest this spring by a student immigrant rights group at UCLA against a speech by US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano. We do not view these types of protest as a problem and are therefore troubled by the origin and framing of the reports. Second, in November of 2011, President Yudof made public comments to the Anti Defamation League supporting the backdoor censorship of SJPs at UC Irvine. Third and most recently, President Yudof’s office revealed that he had given strong endorsement to much of HR35, the widely condemned California Assembly resolution that defines terms like apartheid as hate speech when applied to Israeli policy and recommends broad forms of censorship against pro-Palestine groups on campus. For these reasons, we do not have confidence in President Yudof’s ability to administer the Campus Climate process in a fair manner.

Censorship of pro-Palestinian speech at the UC is an ongoing problem

We also wish to call to your attention the many attempts at censorship that have occurred throughout the UC system and at UCLA as well. These have created a climate of intimidation for pro-Palestinian students, summarized with examples in the attached Center for Constitutional Rights letter. In the past year at UCLA, Professor David Shorter of the UCLA World Arts and Cultures Department was the target of a censorship attempt, and last week, a graduate student teach in about Gaza held at UCLA was plagued by repeated calls for censorship. This was a traumatic experience for many students and we foresee this becoming the future for our political speech should the recommendations listed in the Campus Climate Report be adopted.

In summary, we write to express strong objection to several recommendations in the Campus Climate Reports, particularly three that, if adopted, will lead to the censorship and second-class status of pro-Palestinian students at UCLA. We believe that the process by which the reports were written has not been impartial and has not included the viewpoints of pro-Palestinian student groups. We are also deeply troubled that the Academic Senate is entering a review of these reports without consideration of our position on any of these matters. We are afraid that the systematic exclusion of our group, which has the most to lose from this process, will result in an uncritical review.

We attach for your consideration a series of letters and documents which we believe provide im- portant context and support for the positions we have laid out in this letter. We urge you to consider them. Please contact us at sjpucla1@gmail.com with any questions, concerns, or requests for clarification that you may have.

Yours sincerely,

Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA

 

Climate of fear silencing Palestinian, Muslim students at University of California, rights groups warn

Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students are frequently too frightened to express their political opinions or join Palestine solidarity and other groups at University of California (UC) campuses because of fear that they will suffer harm, a coalition of civil rights groups has warned.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, and four other civil rights organizations wrote to UC President Mark Yudof on 3 December to “express our collective alarm about developments at University of California (UC) campuses that threaten students’ civil rights and forsake the University’s responsibility to make the campus welcoming for a range of political viewpoints on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The letter came in advance of a meeting today of the “Advisory Council on Campus Climate” which the University created in response to complaints from Zionist groups. The other groups signing on to the letter are the Asian Law Caucus of San Francisco,American Muslims for Palestine, National Lawyers Guild, San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Chapters and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, San Francisco Bay Area.

According to a press release from the groups:

the letter points to the rash of baseless legal complaints that have increased scrutiny of student activism on Palestine, to a UC-initiated “campus climate” report that labels Palestinian rights advocacy as anti-Semitic and threatening to Jewish students, and to numerous public statements by UC officials that disparage such activism as “bad speech” and compare it to truly anti-Semtic and racist incidents on campus, such as noose-hangings and graffiti disparaging Jews, Muslims and the LGBTQ community.

Read the rest at The Electronic Intifada

Letter to University of California President Advising Him of Need to Protect Protect Pro-Palestinian Speech on Campus

Link to CCR Article

Download the CCR Letter

Today, CCR and other civil rights groups submitted a letter to University of California (UC) President Mark Yudof, pressing him to consider the chilling effect of efforts to target Arab, Muslim and other students advocating for Palestinian rights on UC campuses, and to take affirmative steps to protect pro-Palestinian speech on campus.  In particular, the letter points to the rash of baseless legal complaints that have increased scrutiny of student activism on Palestine, to a UC-initiated “campus climate” report that labels Palestinian rights advocacy as anti-Semitic and threatening to Jewish students, and to numerous public statements by UC officials that disparage such activism as “bad speech” and compare it to truly anti-Semtic and racist incidents on campus, such as noose-hangings and graffiti disparaging Jews, Muslims and the LGBTQ community.

The letter details ways that students have been affected by these negative depictions of their activism, including an increased fear of harm to their professional careers, immigration status, and for their safety;  intimidation, threats and vandalism by other groups; and a sense that the University’s mis-characterization of their message reflects its efforts to undermine their free speech rights.

The civil rights groups are urging the UC President to take affirmative steps to ensure that students who advocate for Palestinian rights are equal members of the university community whose viewpoints are recognized as valuable contributions to an issue of great public concern.  It also urges the President to renounce efforts to taint all student activism on Palestine as anti-Semitic, and to correct the mischaracterizations of these students’ nonviolent and anti-racist advocacy.  CCR and the other signatories will continue to monitor attempts to intimidate Palestinian rights activists on college campuses, and to advocate on their behalf.

Don’t Talk About Palestine! (UCLA Event on Censorship)

This is the video from the event “Don’t Talk About Palestine,” which highlighted and protested the ongoing censorship of students and faculty whose activism and or scholarship touches on the question of Palestine. The event was held on October 18, 2012 at the UCLA Law School, and featured Rahim Kurwa of UCLA SJP, Yaman Salahi of the NLG, Estee Chandler of Jewish Voice for Peace, and Professor David Shorter of UCLA.

The audio of the event is here.

With a separate clip from David Shorter’s speech.