berkeley

University of California must allow faculty to boycott Israel in academia

From the Daily Cal:

On Dec. 13, the 10 UC chancellors took the unusual step of signing a collective statement that opposed the “academic boycott of Israeli academic institutions and/or individual scholars” as being a “direct and serious” threat to academic freedom. When some faculty members expressed concerns that such a high-level collective statement would have a chilling effect on campus speech and discourage faculty members from taking public positions on an issue that is well within the purview of their academic freedom, UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ responded by defending her own academic freedom to speak out on important issues. We would not want to deny her that right, but we do have some unanswered questions about the collective statement:
How does Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions, or BDS — the movement to boycott, divest and sanction the Israeli state for its occupation of Palestine — pose a “direct and serious threat to academic freedom”? Like the South African anti-apartheid boycott and divestment movement of the 1980s, BDS targets state-funded Israeli institutions and Israeli commercial activities. It does not try to prevent anyone from saying anything or attempt to sanction or thwart individuals for their political positions.

Why did the 10 chancellors make a statement against BDS and BDS alone? Why no mention of the attacks on students and professors by such organizations as the Canary Mission and the David Horowitz Freedom Center? These organizations have targeted and continue to target and often defame UC scholars and students for advocating for justice in Palestine or offering courses that submit Israeli policy to critical analysis. These blacklists, in effect, thwart academic careers, not only academic speech. According to one report, in the last year, there were 289 known incidents of suppression of U.S.-based Palestinian advocacy.

Moreover, if the chancellors are worried about threats to academic freedom in this policy domain, why no mention in the statement of the Israeli state’s routine violation of the academic freedom of Palestinian students and faculty members on the West Bank?

If the chancellor does not believe that the joint declaration would “have a chilling effect on the debate and discourse … on this campus,” then how to explain The Daily Californian soliciting and then shutting down a BDS perspective on the chancellors’ statement? A chancellor’s personal statement of views is very different from a joint statement by the 10 UC chancellors — the latter veers closer to a UC position than personal opinion. Is such a position, unexplained or defended, an effective way of promoting discussion on a complex political issue worthy of protected and open debate?

How and why did the chancellors come to make a joint statement on this particular issue? Was there direct or indirect pressure on the chancellors to make this statement? Soon after the collective statement was issued, 101 organizations of the Academic Engagement Network defending Israeli policy wrote a thank-you letter to the 10 chancellors. Perhaps these organizations never asked the UC chancellors for such a statement; perhaps the motivation for the statement was spontaneous and autonomous. But the possibility of external pressure looms larger as the university relies more heavily on private donors. In any case, the lack of transparency in the reasons for this unusual joint statement calls into question the invocation of academic freedom. As Christ knows well from having to deal with invasions by right-wing provocateurs wearing its mantle, academic freedom is already being twisted for too many other inappropriate purposes in our time.

Finally, we know a number of faculty members who support this very letter but feared to put their name to it. What does that say about the already existing chilled climate for speech that the chancellors’ letter has exacerbated?

Michael Burawoy is a Sociology professor, Paul Fine is an Integrative Biology associate professor, Gillian Hart professor emerita and professor of Geography, Lyn Hejinian is an English professor, Celeste Langan is an English, Christine Rosen is a Business professor, Leslie Salzinger is a Gender and Women’s Studies professor and James Vernon is a History professor at UC Berkeley.

UC Berkeley Suspends and Reinstates Course on Palestine

During the fall semester of 2016, pressure on UC Berkeley administrators from off campus organizations resulted in the suspension of a student led course on Palestine – Ethnic Studies 198: Palestine: A Settler Colonial Analysis.

The cancellation of the course was a violation of free speech and academic freedom and raised a number of questions about governance and procedure at the university. This marks the second time  that an anti-Palestinian organization has attempted to cancel a student led course on Palestine at the UC system.

After strong pushback from students, faculty, lawyers, and academic associations, the course was formally reinstated on September 19th, 2016.

Relevant links regarding the issue are below:

Pressure letter led by AMCHA Initiative and other groups

Palestine Legal Letter

Statement by students of Ethnic Studies 198

Analysis by Academe Blog

Electronic Intifada Coverage

Middle East Studies Association Letter

California Scholars for Academic Freedom Letter

Palestine Legal Statement on Reinstatement of Ethnic Studies 198

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

 

Sadia Saifuddin’s confirmation as UC Regent is a defeat for anti-BDS lobby

Recently, anti-BDS groups Stand With Us and The Simon Wiesenthal Center attempted to defeat the nomination of divestment advocate Sadia Saifuddin to the position of Student Regent of the University of California. This attempt at punishing students for supporting BDS backfired, as Saifuddin was confirmed by resounding vote. We strongly oppose these McCarthy-ite tactics and the interference of lobbying organizations into student affairs.

The Los Angeles Times recently editorialized against the attack on her for supporting Palestinian rights. Supporters recently placed the following op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News:

Muslim UC regent: Sadia Saifuddin’s confirmation is heartening

Sadia Saifuddin’s confirmation as student UC regent designate is a landmark moment in the struggles of both the Middle Eastern Muslim South Asian (MEMSA) community and the wider community of Palestinian rights activists. Saifuddin, a 4th year social welfare major, demonstrated remarkable grace, composure and courage throughout the nomination process, even in the face of Islamophobic hate speech.

Outside political groups attempted to derail her nomination by unfairly smearing her as an extremist linked to terror. While David Horowitz railed against her in FrontPage Magazine, other groups such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center and StandWithUs organized petitions and asked their supporters to make public comments against her nomination.

This is not the first time that groups opposing divestment from companies that profit from the occupation of Palestinian land have tried to change the course of political debates and votes on UC campuses by intimidating students. But this direct attack on a student leader and the attempt to disrupt her career marks an escalation. However, we can take heart in the fact that her nomination received all but one vote.

The opposition to Saifuddin’s nomination was exclusively external. Saifuddin enjoyed near unanimous support from the student body at large. Students from a broad array of identities on campus wrote letters and spoke at public sessions. Students representing the MEMSA, Jewish and fraternity/sorority communities testified to Saifuddin’s tolerance and commitment to fighting hate speech of all kind.

Saifuddin was nominated as Regent not despite her political position but because of it. Among many other admirable qualities, her commitment to fighting Islamophobia and principled support for Palestinian equality is a significant reason so many students across the system supported her. Her divestment support is not seen as a liability but as an expression of her values. Students trust that she will uphold these values in her new position.

What does Saifuddin’s confirmation say about the intimidation campaigns to silence student speech?

It shows that intimidation has not stopped the growing student political movement. As last year’s political activity indicates, support for Palestinian rights is becoming a consensus on UC campuses, and attempts to portray the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement as anti-Semitic have become increasingly outlandish.

On the other hand, the chilling effect of this public Islamophobic campaign against a student leader has insidious effects we may never be able to measure. How many young Arab and Muslim leaders will now decide to stay out of politics to avoid being smeared as a terrorist?

Hopefully, Saifuddin’s shining example will inspire them to risk it, because it can be overcome.

Her rise to the position of UC Regent is another indicator of the growing prominence and political consciousness of the Middle Eastern Muslim and South Asian community. In the last year, student governments at Berkeley, San Diego and Irvine, as well as the UC Student Association, all passed resolutions supporting divestment. Similarly, the European Union last week made it official policy to refuse economic cooperation with any entities in Israel’s illegal settlements. Saifuddin’s confirmation is another signal that it is no longer a question of if the UC Regents will divest from companies facilitating human rights abuses against Palestinians, but when.

Berkeley Chancellor Birgenau decries divestment vote, urges “dialogue” instead

To the members of the UC Berkeley community:

In the wake of the ASUC Senate’s passage of SB 160, “A Bill In Support of Human Rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip,” I want to offer some thoughts about how we can move forward as a campus community. I also want to acknowledge that this may be the first step in a process that could, among other things, include consideration of other proposed bills that support Israeli-Palestinian cooperation.

As you all know, the ASUC is an independent student organization, and its vote in this matter will not change investment policy established by the Regents of the University of California. In addition, it is my personal opinion that targeting a single nation or state in this highly complex world is not appropriate and does little to advance the cause of peace and coexistence. Ultimately, we believe that engaging in dialogue on these difficult issues is the best hope that we have for achieving peace. It is the path that we hope world leaders will follow and our students will emulate.

This, of course, is not the first time that the Israeli divestment issue has arisen on this campus and I sincerely hope that we can avoid the rancor and divisiveness that arose in the wake of a previous ASUC vote in 2010, even as we support every student’s right to freedom of expression and acknowledge the diversity of views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  As Chancellor, a pillar of my vision for UC Berkeley has been to create a campus where equity and inclusion are fundamental values that sustain our principles of community and allow freedom of expression to occur through civilized and informed debate.

At the same time, all of our students must feel that the campus is a safe and inclusive environment for them, one in which they have the freedom to express their views without fear of intimidation. In fact, UCPD has informed me of its investigation into a recent incident on Sproul Plaza in which, according to preliminary eyewitness accounts, a Berkeley student handing out pro-divestment flyers was struck in the face. I am deeply concerned by these initial reports and must state in no uncertain terms that this behavior is unacceptable in our community.  We will take firm steps to bring perpetrators of such acts to justice. Our Principles of Community require that debate on our campus–even debate over emotional and important issues such as these–remain civil and respectful.

I and members of my administration will continue to work hard to build and sustain the sort of campus climate that I believe we all benefit from. We will also continue to support efforts like The Olive Tree Initiative, a student-led endeavor that is fostering dialogue and discussion here on campus and in the Middle East. Above all, we hope and expect that the ongoing discussion and dialogue about the conflicts in the Middle East will happen in a manner that respects and acknowledges the views and beliefs of others.

Sincerely,
Robert J. Birgeneau

Link to original

How to Expose a Hasbara Fellow

Writer should have been transparent about involvement

Daily Californian (UC Berkeley) letter to the editor 11/30/2012
We were perturbed upon reading Baruch Nutovic’s op-ed, “The hope for a lasting peace.” The problem does not lie with the author’s political stance itself. Rather, the problem is that this student has received a Hasbara fellowship and that his status was not disclosed.

Hasbara is an Israeli government-sponsored propaganda vehicle that funds students to deliver pro-Israel messages across North American campuses, with a special emphasis on getting Hasbara Fellows into leadership positions in the media and in student government.

Hasbara generously subsidized expensive flights to Israel for more than 1,000 fellows in this last year alone. There, students meet members of the Israeli government and “undergo a ‘practical activism’ curriculum,” developing strategic tools to communicate effectively about Israel” including: “how to … build important relationships with student leaders and administration” and develop “media and marketing skills.” Hasbara Fellows are required to pay a $250 deposit that they only receive back if they successfully complete a contractual obligation to perform “two semesters of dedicated Israel activism on campus as a Hasbara Fellow.”

Under the resources tab on Hasbara’s website, there is listed an Islamophobic film titled “Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West,” a film that has been endorsed by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.This does not appear to be a grassroots organization dedicated to making peace but an organization dedicated to spreading Islamophobic and racist propaganda. Baruch is anything but representative of an entire community of Jewish students — he is one of just a few Hasbara fellows on campus.

Baruch’s participation in such an organization is his right. It is also his right to express whatever he sees fit in our student newspaper. However, readers in the U.S. — who have the expectation that our press is not the mouthpiece of any state — deserve to know when an op-ed writer is state-sponsored.

Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened. The Daily Californian’s Noah Ickowitz wrote an article, “Tyranny of the majority, UCSA style,” criticizing the UCSA resolution on divestment. Since then, however, Ickowitz stated in his blog post, “In the interest of transparency,” that he had previously associated with Hasbara. Since Ickowitz made an effort to disclose his status, it seems dishonest for a Hasbara Fellow writing for the Daily Cal not to state this affiliation.

Baruch is correct to say that peace is long overdue — but it can only come about when Israel and its supporters comply with international law, end the illegal occupation and apartheid and stop the brutalization of the Palestinian people. We believe Baruch’s article is nothing other than an attempt at engineering a mobilization of students under the false pretense that this is a Jewish identity issue. Supporters of divestment include Jewish Voice for Peace and M.E.Ch.A., among many others. We remind all students that this is a human rights issue, not an identity issue.

Standards of ethical journalism behoove the Daily Cal to issue a public apology in the paper for not disclosing this invaluable information to its readers and ensure that this lack of transparency does not continue.

— Taliah Mirmalek,
UC Berkeley student;
Sharee Rivera,
Berkeley City College student

Graduate Assembly votes to denounce state assembly resolution

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.

Palestinian students welcome UCSA resolution condemning California Assembly Bill HR 35

Palestinian Students’ Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PSCABI) in the Gaza Strip welcomes a resolution passed by the University of California Student Association (UCSA), representing students of all 10 UC campuses, that reaffirms the right of its members to organize in support of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, being this the nonviolent tactic chosen by Palestinians to gain their inalienable rights, including the right to self-determination, denied by Israel for over 60 years.[1] The UCSA resolution condemns Bill HR 35, passed in the California State Assembly, that calls on the university authorities to curb student action in opposition to Israel’s three-tiered system of occupation, colonization and apartheid.[2] Bill HR 35 is a reaction to the growing effectiveness of the BDS movement around the world in holding Israel accountable and its ability to expose the true nature of Israel’s oppression of Palestinians that run contrary to the narrative of Israel disseminated for decades in the US. To blur honest debate, pro-Israel lobby groups have resorted to smear tactics and intimidation to misrepresent the intentions of Palestine solidarity activists and to “lawfare”- a form of legal harassment – to stifle freedom of speech guaranteed under First Amendment rights.[3]

The UCSA motion “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.” UC students have been among the most vocal in calling on their administration to divest funds from companies that actively enable Israel’s occupation. In 2010, UC Berkeley students ran a high-profile divestment campaign on campus that showed through moving testimonies the consequences of UC’s investment in companies that are directly responsible for human rights abuses against Palestinians, a debate which found national projection and fostered much needed debate in the US.[4] UC-wide divestment targets include Caterpillar Inc., supplier to the Israeli army of bulldozers used to destroy Palestinian homes, a war crime under the IV Geneva Convention[5]; and Hewlett Packgard, supplier of biometric monitoring systems to Israeli military checkpoints inside the occupied West Bank and technological solutions to Israel’s army and illegal colonial settlements, contributing to the caging of Palestinians in fragmented ghettos.[6]

In 2005 Palestinian civil society called on people of conscience around the world to implement Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) of Israel owing to decades of impunity and the failure of states to hold Israel accountable for persistent violations of international law. The global movement that from there emanated aims to reinstate in full the inalienable rights of Palestinians inspired by the belief in universal values which by definition rejects all forms of racism, including anti-Semitism. Students around the world have responded to the Palestinian BDS call with divestment campaigns to end all forms of complicit with Israel’s violations of international law. This mode of campus activism in US campuses is not new and is inspired by previous student struggles in support of equality, justice and human rights, among them the South African anti-Apartheid movement in which UC students played an important role.

As the South African Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu noted, students campaigning for divestment from Israel “are doing that which is incumbent on them as humans who believe that all people have dignity and rights, and that all those being denied their dignity and rights deserve the solidarity of their fellow human beings.”[7] Echoing Tutu’s words, PSCABI salutes UC students efforts to bring the BDS debate to your campuses as an expression of principled solidarity with Palestinians and we look forward to more inspiring campaigns to end UC’s complicity with Israel’s protracted occupation.

[1] http://calsjp.org/?p=1297

[2] http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml;jsessionid=d4df7d3510900146efbbc88f1045?bill_id=201120120HR35

[3] http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/blow-zionist-censors-california-backs-professors-right-call-israel-boycott-state

[4] http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2010-04-15/article/35024?headline=No-Final-Decision-on-UC-Berkeley-Israel-Divestment-Bill-after-Marathon-Meeting–By-Riya-Bhattacharjee-

[5] http://www.bdsmovement.net/2012/israel-cited-in-caterpillars-delisting-from-influential-investment-index-9168

[6]  http://www.whoprofits.org/HP

 

Jewish students support UCSA vote on HR 35

by Isabel Sausjord

Original at the Daily Cal

In the wake of the UC Student Association’s decision to take a stance for free speech and the human rights of Palestinians and all people, I was disappointed by the Daily Cal’s decision to publish three opinion pieces decrying this as an attack on the Jewish community. As a Jewish student who advocates for justice for Palestinians, I was frustrated by these portrayals that ignored my existence and mischaracterized the ideals I stand for.

Anti-Semitism should never be condoned. But HR-35, a resolution passed by the California legislature, was absolutely wrong to conflate anti-Semitic hatred with the pro-Palestinian human rights movement. Not only incorrect, HR-35 encourages the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices, chilling our attempts to educate about and advocate against Israel’s racism and human rights abuses toward Palestinians. The UCSA, with input from two UC Berkeley students including a Jewish Israeli, rejected this silencing and affirmed the need for the university’s investments to reflect its values.

I, along with several other Jewish students I know at Cal, was thrilled by the UCSA decision. The self-designated “leaders of the Jewish community” do not speak for us when they defend Israel’s occupation and human rights violations and support attempts to silence pro-Palestinian activists. The Jewish community is not a monolith, and we don’t have to be loyal to the government of Israel no matter what it does. Many of us, as throughout history, see the struggle for justice and human rights for all as a fundamental part of our Jewish identity.

Previous op-eds on the UCSA decision lament that the issue of divestment — removal of university funds from companies complicit in Israeli human rights violations — is “divisive.” I am also disappointed that this issue is so divisive. But not because disagreement on an issue should be silenced, rather the fact that support of human rights should not be contentious. It should be a no-brainer to support human rights of Palestinians, and to instead prioritize defending Israel’s government from criticism, no matter what it does, is profoundly anti-human.

The claim that advocates of BDS are unfairly singling out Israel is wrong. I and other pro-Palestinian advocates care deeply about human rights across the world. We organize around the rights of Palestinians in large part because of the U.S.’s close military and economic ties to Israel — consider that the U.S. finances Israel’s military on the order of $3 billion dollars per year — mean that Americans are involved in its human rights violations, and that we also have a great potential to effect change. As we help build the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions, we can create the pressure necessary to force Israel to end its injustices against Palestinians, much as a similar movement a few decades ago forced the South African government to cease its apartheid policies.

In the 1980s, UC Berkeley students voted to divest from South African apartheid. It’s time to be on the right side of history again. We have to prioritize our commitment to justice and humanity over loyalty to any government, including Israel. Jewish students are part of the coalition across UC and across the world fighting for equality and dignity for Palestinians, and this UCSA decision is an important victory in our struggle.

Isabel Sausjord is a sophomore at UC Berkeley.