• Home
  • Chapters
  • Donate
  • BDS
    • SJP West BDS Campaigns
SJP WEST

hr 35

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

December 13, 2012 by sjpwest

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

Posted in: News Tagged: campus climate, department of education, free speech, hr 35, title VI

California State University Long Beach Students Pass Anti-HR35 Bill

December 9, 2012 by sjpwest

Link

Students filed into the Board of Directors meeting this week to voice their opposition and frustration with California’s HR35 Resolution. HR35 was passed by the California Assembly in August to encourage university officials to increase their actions to stop anti-Semitism on campuses.

The problems with HR35 stem from the language used in the resolution. It has led to the interpretation that any student who protests against the Israeli government should be condemned and punished for their ethnic and hateful motivations.

Members of Students for Justice in Palestine spoke at the meeting to express their contempt for HR35. They believe students should have their basic First Amendment rights on a public university campus to challenge Israel’s governmental policies.

Secretary for Cultural Diversity, Ojaala Ahmad, coauthored a resolution in opposition to HR35. She urged senators to understand the importance of overturning HR35. Ahmad said, “HR35 mainly circulates around free speech and education. It stifles robust political debates and curbs freedom of expression because they claim it is anti-Semetic.”

ASI Vice President Jonathon Bolin added, “I usually try to remain unbiased, however I have to say that this is especially troubling because freedom of expression should be encouraged on university campuses.”

The passionate public comments of students and careful explanation of HR35 from Ahmad led senators to pass the resolution against HR35 in its first reading. There were suggestions for revising particular portions of the resolution, and will be further analyzed in the meetings to come.

Posted in: Activism Tagged: california state university, hr 35, long beach

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

December 4, 2012 by sjpwest

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

Posted in: Activism Tagged: campus climate, hr 35, title VI

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

December 4, 2012 by sjpwest

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.

Posted in: Solidarity Tagged: campus climate, felber v yudof, hr 35

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

November 9, 2012 by sjpwest

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.

Posted in: Activism Tagged: campus climate, free speech, hr 35, ucla

Graduate Assembly votes to denounce state assembly resolution

November 7, 2012 by sjpwest

Following a similar action taken by the UC Student Association, the UC Berkeley Graduate Assembly voted Thursday to pass a resolution denouncing HR 35, a state Assembly measure aimed at curbing anti-Semitism at the state’s higher education institutions.

The Graduate Assembly resolution argues that HR 35 encourages university administrators to censor legitimate criticisms of the state of Israel and infringes upon students’ freedom of speech and academic freedom.

“HR 35 sets a dangerous precedent by threatening to infringe on free speech rights by conflating criticism of political ideology and practice with racism or hate speech,” the resolution reads.

The resolution was drafted to point out the difference between the two issues, said Bianca Suarez, author of the resolution and the Graduate Assembly’s Campus Affairs Committee Vice President.

The Graduate Assembly’s resolution follows a similar one that was passed by the UC Student Association in September — a move that received a heated response from some members of Jewish and pro-Israel communities who felt they did not have enough input in the legislative process.

Unlike the association, however, the Graduate Assembly publicized the upcoming vote by posting the proposed resolution online about a month ago and consulted with various committees within the assembly in the interim, according to Bahar Navab, the assembly’s president.

Still, only nondelegates in favor of the resolution were present at Thursday’s meeting, despite it being open to all campus students, according to Suarez. Only one assembly delegate voted against the resolution.

Tom Pessah, a UC Berkeley graduate student and member of the campus group Students for Justice in Palestine, spoke at Thursday’s meeting in support of the resolution. He argued that HR 35 hindered his academic research and viewed the passing of the Graduate Assembly’s resolution as a step in the right direction for the university.

“Lobbyists working to stifle free inquiry and activism regarding Israel’s racist policies — past and present — cannot intimidate and silence democratic student governments,” Pessah said.

continue reading…

Posted in: News Tagged: berkeley, hr 35, ucsa

UCSA rejects effort to reverse vote on HR35

November 7, 2012 by sjpwest

In response to the “UC Leaders Letter”

Download the UCSA Response Letter

To the authors of the UC Leaders Letter,

Thank you for your letter. We greatly appreciate you sharing with us your perspective.

We understand that this is a very personal and difficult issue for many UC students. UCSA is the collective voice of all UC students, and we are elected to represent you all and take stances on behalf of all UC students. We strive to do that as best we can on all of the issues that come before us. As representatives of 10 UC campuses, including undergraduate, graduate, and professional students, we decided that our resolution opposing HR 35 was reflective of the values of our constituents and voted to support the resolution 12-0-2. We understand and respect that there is disagreement on this issue among UC students. Still, we stand by our decision and stand by the resolution.

Our Board weighed the issues involved in our resolution opposing HR 35 carefully and seriously. There are 18 voting members of our Board and over 40 total members of our Board representing a diverse range of viewpoints. There was a long and spirited discussion. We considered this resolution line by line, and we voted in the way that we believe reflects the views of our student bodies. We would like to clarify that this was done in an open meeting, and all of our meetings are open to the public. Furthermore, we would also like to point out that this resolution was not under consideration for months prior to the Board meeting. The Board reacted to the passage of HR 35 in the Assembly in a timely manner due to the fact that this resolution passed the Assembly without any consultation with students. We continue to believe that it was critical for UC students to express our opposition to HR 35 and its impact on free speech and free expression on our campuses. As stated in the resolution, we also believe that universities should not engage in “unethical investments in companies implicated in or profiting from violations of international human rights law, without making special exemptions for any one country.” This particular clause, as well as the other clauses of our resolution should be read and understood on its own, and is not intended to be directed at any particular country.

By no means is it our goal to create division between UC students. We recognize the fact that students must stand as one in order to enhance the quality, affordability and accessibility of the UC system. It is crucial for us to ensure that the myriad of views held by our constituents are represented by the Board, and we take that responsibility very seriously. The External Vice-Presidents, the elected officials of each campus, always strive to ensure that the Board recognizes their constituent’s opinions and perspectives. As student leaders, we welcome and encourage constructive campus dialogue. It is for this reason that we believe that a stance against the Assembly’s Resolution, HR 35, was needed– in order to protect the quality of the UC education by ensuring that no one’s freedom of speech or academic freedom is put in jeopardy.

We apologize that you feel that you were excluded from the conversation, and we want to make it clear that it was not the intention of our Board for that to be the case. Whenever a resolution is presented to the Board, the author has the option of providing background information to the Board as they see fit. In this case, the author believed it was important to bring in a small group of students who were undertaking academic research that they felt was under attack by HR 35. There was no collective discussion or decision made by the UCSA Board as to who would or would not be included in the conversation—that was a decision made by the individual representatives of our Board that presented the resolution. While we stand by our resolution, we also agree that more student voices on this issue, and other issues, would have been valuable. For that reason, at our Board meeting at UCLA, we invited concerned students to come and speak to our Board. We also would like to extend an invitation to any UC student to come and speak to us at future Board meetings as well. You are welcome at any time. We also hope you will have a dialogue with the many students that expressed concerns about HR 35 and consider the negative implications that parts of HR 35 have on your fellow students academic and free speech rights.

In the future, we are committed to working to make sure that more student voices and perspective are consulted and included in decisions that we make as your representatives. Ultimately it is the responsibility of each individual External Vice- President to reach out to constituencies on their campus that may have a viewpoint or experience on a particular issue. Moving forward, this is a commitment that we make as a Board as well as in our individual capacities as elected student representatives. We also assigned to our Campus Action Committee the responsibility of discussing how we can ensure that we are engaging more students with our work and decision-making process. We are committed to ensuring that our agendas are not just sent out to the External Vice-Presidents and student governments before our Board meetings, but also posted on our website.

Again, thank you for your letter. We greatly appreciate your perspective, and hope to work closely together on the critical issues that we face as UC students in the near future.

Sincerely,
Raquel Morales
2012-13 UCSA President

Posted in: News Tagged: hr 35, ucsa

Debunking attacks on the UC Students Association

November 5, 2012 by sjpwest

Recently, the UC Students Association passed a resolution rejecting California Assembly Bill HR 35. Following this vote, pressure groups attempted to bully the UCSA into reversing its vote and decision. This effort has proven unsuccessful to date, but the following article examines criticism of the UCSA resolution published in the UCLA Daily Bruin and shows why critics are largely misleading the public or arguing in bad faith:

Daily Bruin article criticising the UCSA:
http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/ucsa-unfairly-sides-on-divisive-issue

1. “The
UCSA resolution condemns the state of Israel as a violator of international human rights law, encouraging all institutions of higher education to “cleanse” themselves of investments with the nation.”

FALSE. The resolution says “encourages all institutions of higher learning to cleanse their investment portfolios of unethical investments in companies implicated in or profiting from violations of international human rights law, without making special exemptions for any country;”
http://calsjp.org/?p=1297

This isn’t just a technical difference, it’s fundamental. The resolution says Israel should be treated exactly like any other country. Our opponents are saying it should be treated differently , and that every regular procedure (such as the UCSA) should be changed when dealing with it. The author of the op-ed had the resolution in front of him, quoted it, and deliberately misrepresented it. (here – maybe some background on this person – has he any connections to external advocacy groups?)

2. “rejecting California Assembly bill HR 35, a piece of legislation seeking to quell anti-Semitic activity on college campuses”

FALSE. HR35 doesn’t just quell anti-semitic activity on campuses, in uses this excuse to quell criticism of Israeli policies. The author of the op-ed had the UCSA resolution in front of him. It reads: “While HR 35 purports to oppose anti-Semitism, much of HR 35 is written to unfairly and falsely smear as “anti-Semites” those who do human rights advocacy focusing on Israel’s illegal occupation http://calsjp.org/?p=1297
By deliberately ignoring this criticism the author misleads the readers.

3. “To begin with, no representatives of the Jewish campus community attended the meeting”

FALSE – one of the students who presented at the meeting in favor of the bill is an Israeli Jew.
MISLEADING – the UCSA meets once a month do discuss a packed agenda, allowing about half an hour for every item. There are no “representatives” of any community at these meetings. This misrepresents the process of that body.

4. Not until the day of the vote did Arielle Gabai, president of the UC Berkeley Jewish Student Union, even hear of the meeting.

This exposes the hidden agenda of the author – not to represent Jewish students, but to represent students paid to advocate on behalf of Israeli policies. http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/israel-program/additional-fees
Including Gabai – http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/cgblog/266/69/UC-Berkeley-s-Friend-Request-Pending-Campaign

The Jewish Student Union at UC Berkeley is not a representative body, since it excludes groups like JStreet which aren’t popular among hasbara fellows:

Article by hasbara fellow Jacob Lewis http://www.hasbarafellowships.org/news/hasbara-in-the-news/articles-written-by-hasbara-fellows
 
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/63819/cal-jewish-groups-right-to-deny-j-street-u-admission/

5. “Furthermore, the hearing took place on the Sabbath, which happened to fall a day before the Jewish New Year of Rosh Hashanah, impeding members of the Jewish community from attending.”

FLASE and MISLEADING. The hearing took place two days before Rosh Hashana, a date that has no religious significance for Jews. The UCSA meetings, convening busy students who study during the week, are always held on Saturdays. There was no special timing for this meeting. While one could argue that in general, ultra-orthodox observant Jews would be unable to travel on that day, most Jewish students are not ultra-orthodox. Pro-Israel advocates showed up to the very next UCSA meeting which was also held on a Sabbath, since like most other Jewish students on campus they are able to travel on that day.

6. By blatantly omitting the Jewish narrative from dialogue over the resolution, the UCSA failed to garner a truly collective voice on this divisive issue.

FALSE The resolution which was co-authored by an Israel Jew, mentions “expressing the UCSA’s opposition to all racism, whether it be the racism of campus and global anti-Semitism or the racism of Israel’s human rights violations, neither of which our campuses should tolerate, support, or profit from.”

MISLEADING the only “divisive” issue the author mentions is that “The UCSA resolution condemns the state of Israel as a violator of international human rights law”. This is like saying that the connection between smoking and cancer is “divisive” because tobacco companies deny it. Any students who are not trained to be advocates for the Israeli government consider this a well-proven fact, as documented by an endless number of human rights orgnizations. There is no serious human rights organization which disputes this.

7. Students for Justice in Palestine stated that talk of the resolution was avoided to prevent “unwanted lobbying” on the issue. Subversive behavior like this demonstrates a complete undermining of the democratic process.

MISLEADING. Over the past two years pro-Israel advocates at UC Berkeley have initiated two lawsuits and one federal investigation against SJP. Both complaints were dismissed, and the judge wrote that “a very substantial portion of the conduct to which plaintiffs object represents pure political speech and expressive conduct”. The UC Berkeley university spokesperson, Dan Mogulof, referred to the latest investigation as a way to shop for more venues and courtrooms to tell the university to violate the constitutional rights of students involved in the demonstrations.
http://www.dailycal.org/2012/10/04/federal-officials-investigate-complaints-about-anti-semitism-at-uc-berkeley/

To expect students whose constitutional rights are under assault to reach out to the same Israel advocates who are either involved in these attempts, or refuse to denounce them, is beyond absurd. The Jewish Student Campus climate report, which recommended new prohibitions on student free speech on campus, was attended by Arielle Gabai, the same hasbara fellow, who failed to invite Jewish students with opposing politics to represent themselves.   

8. The UCSA unfairly sided on an issue that has historically divided campuses.

MISLEADING – the UCSA cannot conduct a referendum among students to see who supports each bill and only proceed if 100% of the campus agrees. As OPPONENTS of the UCSA bill recently admitted (letter to UCSA board of directors) “Many members of the Jewish community, and many supporters of this letter, believe HR 35 infringes on our First Amendment rights”. Since advocates of Israeli policies (often working on behalf of external, non-student bodies)  will continue to do so in the near future, the expectation of consensus around Israeli policies is another way of saying this small group should always be able to veto the will of the majority. The UCSA bill was passed 12 for, 2 abstentions, zero against.

9. Laden with loaded words and factual errors,

FALSE – the author fails to point out one single error in the bill. This mirrors the past tactics of Israel advoctes: during the 2010 divestment debate at UC Berkeley, students were instructed:
“
DON’T try to deconstruct the bill. DON’T focus on addressing the fallacies/specifics of the bill. Instead, focus on how it is an attack on the Jewish community”

http://mondoweiss.net/2010/04/anti-divestment-talking-points-avoid-the-facts-and-charge-anti-semitism.html
It is interesting to see how many of these talking points from two years ago were repeated in this op-ed.

10. As the document continues, it accuses Israel of being an apartheid state. Yet, Israel has never institutionalized the systematic oppression of any racial group within its borders

FALSE here is a South African legal report on the apartheid analogy: http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Media_Release-378.phtml

11. The
UCSA surpassed the scope of its responsibilities while marginalizing students who support Israel.

MISLEADING – here we could mention the many groups of UC students who are marginalized by pro-Israel advocates who work with hate-mongers like AIPAC and Aish International (funders of hasbara fellowsips) – Palestianins, Jewish Israelis and Iranians who want to prevent a war between their countries (something AIPAC is pushing hard for), Armenian students (experienced years of genocide denial by AIPAC), muslims (islamophobic materials produced by Aish International, like the film obsession), etc. Read more on AIPAC here http://www.occupyaipac.org/about/articles-on-aipac/
Advocates of Israeli policies are representing huge external lobbies like AIPAC who have expressed their desire to take over student government:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VDYGLY1WBQ?wmode=transparent]

“we’re going to make sure that pro-Israel students take over the student government and reverse the vote…This is how AIPAC operates in our nation’s capital. This is how AIPAC must operate on our nation’s campuses.”
Are they the ones being marginalized, or the student government which is under attack?

 

Posted in: Activism Tagged: hr 35, ucsa

Resolution defending free speech should be lauded

October 28, 2012 by sjpwest

The UC Students Association should be commended for courageously standing in opposition to HR 35, the recently passed California Assembly bill that equates legitimate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism and seeks to censor free speech and political activism across California’s public universities.

It should go without saying that all forms of racism and bigotry, including anti-Semitism, should be vigorously opposed by all members of the University. But one glance at the language of the bill reveals that HR 35 is less concerned with combating bigotry than it is with claiming that criticism of Israeli state policy is anti-Semitic, a position that is strongly opposed by many prominent Jewish groups on both sides of the political spectrum.

HR 35 is an attempt to silence and intimidate the growing student movement for Palestinian equal rights and, more specifically, to stifle the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign against Israel for its continued violations of human rights and international law.

While HR 35 bypasses decades of academic and legal scholarship in order to stifle criticism of Israel at the University (a space whose most intrinsic function is to allow for the free exchange of ideas), groups like Students for Justice in Palestine base their positions on equal rights and international law. We believe that HR 35 is a reaction to the growing public consensus that Israel’s behavior towards the Palestinians is wrong.

The brutal military occupation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the systematic discrimination against Palestinians inside Israel’s own borders and the denial of the right to return for civilians who endured ethnic cleansing in 1948 are objectionable behaviors that increasing numbers of students are standing up against on campuses across the United States.

The effort to stifle criticism of Israel on campuses has already resulted in attacks on the academic freedom of professors at UCLA and other campuses.

And now, as groups like Students for Justice in Palestine and the National MEChA have endorsed calls for boycott, divestment and sanctions, defenders of Israeli apartheid have become so desperate as to support criminalizing free speech.

The UCSA was quick to respond to this, expressing their “strong opposition to HR 35 and expressing the UCSA’s opposition to all racism, whether it be the racism of campus and global anti-Semitism or the racism of Israel’s human rights violations, neither of which our campuses should tolerate, support, or profit from.”

The UCSA isn’t the only group opposed to HR 35 and other attempts to stifle criticism of Israel on campus. California Scholars for Academic Freedom, Jewish Voice for Peace, the Berkeley Free Speech Movement Archives, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the Asian Law Caucus, the National Lawyers Guild, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the UC Student-Workers Union, Angela Davis and, most recently, David Myers, chair of the UCLA history department, have all weighed in to criticise HR 35 or other similar efforts.

As UC Berkeley spokesman Dan Mogulof put it, “One can object deeply to the policies of Israel. Our students should have a right to protest what they believe to be an unlawful and immoral action.”

When our critics oppose fake checkpoints and mock walls on campus because they make students uncomfortable, we remember that the discomfort felt by looking at the wall or seeing a student dressed up as a soldier is just a fraction of the discomfort felt by Palestinians who face real checkpoints, real walls and real soldiers on a daily basis.

When they argue that boycotts are extreme measures, we reply that boycotts are a tactic that UCLA students have used many times before, most notably to pressure the South African government to abandon its apartheid policies.

And when opponents of Palestinian rights claim that we are singling out Israel for special criticism, we remind them that this was a common claim made by defenders of apartheid in South Africa.

As Desmond Tutu wrote in 2010, “The same issue of equality is what motivates the divestment movement of today, which tries to end Israel’s 43-year long occupation and the unequal treatment of the Palestinian people by the Israeli government ruling over them. The abuses they face are real, and no person should be offended by principled, morally consistent, nonviolent acts to oppose them. It is no more wrong to call out Israel in particular for its abuses than it was to call out the Apartheid regime in particular for its abuses.”

Hodali is a graduate student in comparative literature and a member of Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA.

http://www.dailybruin.com/article/2012/10/resolution-defending-free-speech-sh…

 

Posted in: News Tagged: hr 35, ucla, ucsa

Anti-Hate Or Anti-Speech?

October 25, 2012 by sjpwest

However, Joey Freeman, who served on the UCSA board last year and publicly opposed its bill, candidly told me, “If it was the other way around, I don’t know if Tikvah (the pro-Israel advocacy group on campus) would reach out to [SJP] either.” Instead, Freeman put the blame on UCSA board members. Shahryar Abbasi, who represents Berkeley at the UCSA, said in an email, “[T]here were procedural mistakes made and they are being addressed.” That seems to suggest that the matter would soon be settled as merely a bureaucratic issue, but it is more than that.

The UCSA resolution also responded to HR 35’s attack on the SJP-supported movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction (BDS) parties complicit in the Israeli occupation of the Palestinians, calling the tactics “important social movement tools” and encouraging divestment from all countries with human rights violations (although Israel was the only one specifically referenced). Had there been more debate allowed at the proceedings, Freeman believed, “there probably would have been more of a discussion around BDS itself rather than the procedure.”

Tom Pessah, a Jewish-Israeli Berkeley grad student and a co-author of the UCSA bill, argues just the opposite: that this attack on the procedure of the UCSA bill is intended to “divert attention” from the content of the bill and BDS. “This has been the way to shut down discussion on Israel-Palestine for decades,” he said, recalling challenges to a hotly-debated divestment bill at UC Berkeley three years ago that critics claimed attacked and marginalized the Jewish community.

When pressed on whether he believed BDS was anti-Semitic, Freeman relented that BDS efforts at Berkeley should be protected under free speech: “I strongly disagree with it, but I do think they have the right to pursue it.”

With Freeman’s step forward the goose chase finally comes to an end. The allegations of silencing are revealed—at least in effect if not in intent—as functioning to divert attention from the content of the resolution, from talking frankly and openly about the “red line” of BDS, in line with a multiplicity of taboo topics smothered by a more formidable silence whenever the words “Israel” or “Palestine” are uttered in the mainstream.

full article

Posted in: News Tagged: bds, hr 35, uc berkeley, ucsa
« Previous 1 2 3 Next »

Search

Archive

Recent Posts

  • University of California must allow faculty to boycott Israel in academia
  • Open Letter to the University of California taskforce: the Intersections of Policing and Divestment
  • UC Irvine Repeatedly Failed to Protect the Rights of SJP Members
  • Associated Students of UC Davis Pass Resolution Condemning Cyberbullying Website Canary Mission
  • California State University – East Bay passes divestment resolution

Categories

  • Activism (67)
  • Anti-Divestment Materials (12)
  • News (73)
  • Solidarity (30)
  • Support (5)
  • Uncategorized (1)

Tag Cloud

academic boycott aclu aipac aish international amcha anti-semitism bds berkeley boycott brandeis center california scholars for academic freedom california state university campus climate claremont department of education dialogue divestment felber v yudof free speech hasbara fellowship hate speech hr 35 intolerance irvine irvine 11 irvine divests jvp Kenneth Marcus legislature napolitano regents sabra SDSU stanford student government title VI uc berkeley uc davis ucla uc riverside ucsa uc san diego uc santa barbara uc santa cruz Yudof

Copyright © 2019 SJP WEST.

Omega WordPress Theme by ThemeHall