ucsa

On to the Regents: In Historic Vote, UC Student Association Endorses Call for Divestment in Support of Palestinian Rights

For Immediate Release:

On to the Regents: In Historic Vote, UC Student Association Endorses Call for Divestment in Support of Palestinian Rights

Contact: Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA, sjpucla1@gmail.com
(SJP at UCLA can coordinate contacts with other student organizations)

On the morning of February 8, 2015, hundreds of students gathered in Tom Bradley International Hall at UCLA as the UC Student Association (UCSA) deliberated motions in support of divestment from companies engaged in the systematic violation of Palestinian rights in the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip. Students from across California arrived to speak in favor of divestment, and to highlight the nearly 90 student organizations across the state which joined the call for the UCSA to endorse divestment. The historic vote passed in an overwhelming majority of 9-1 with 6 abstentions (click here to read the full text of the divestment motion).

The UC Student Association is the official voice of the student body of the University of California, and represents hundreds of thousands of undergraduate and graduate students across the UC system. Today it became the first multi-campus student association to vote in favor of divestment. This landmark vote is undoubtedly the largest victory thus far in the campus divestment movement in the United States.

Since 2012, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, UC Riverside, UC Los Angeles, and UC Davis have passed resolutions through their campus undergraduate student governments calling on the UC Regents to divest endowment and pension funds from companies such as Raytheon, Hewlett-Packard, Caterpillar, and Cemex, which facilitate and profit from Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories, its construction of settlements in contravention of international law, its violent bombing campaigns in Gaza, and its construction of checkpoints and walls throughout the West Bank. In addition, the statewide union representing teaching assistants, tutors, and readers – UAW 2865 – recently held a statewide membership vote which resulted in nearly 2/3rds support for divestment.

Students for Justice in Palestine chapters and their many allies across the UC applaud and celebrate the UCSA’s decision to affirm student activism, endorse the divestment call, and carry it forth to the UC Regents.

Quotes regarding the divestment victory:

UC Berkeley External Vice President Caitlin Quinn commented on the nature of this victory and UCSA’s relationship to the student body: “I’m so proud that we passed it, and thankful for and humbled by the years of organizing that went into this. The work is far from over, but finally UCSA has taken the progressive stance many students have been waiting for.”

The External Vice President’s office at UC Riverside addressed the issue of accountability, stating: “We are aware of the unfortunate reality of a Board of Regents that has a very poor record of accomplishment of respecting democratic calls by the student body of the University of California…As firm believers in backing up words with action, we look forward to ensuring that the UCSA remains devoted to the follow-up work critical to an effective campaign.”

UCLA Student Safwan Ibrahim commented on the meaning of divestment to Palestinians at the UC: “As a Palestinian student in the UC system, it’s incredible to see the amount of intersectional solidarity across campuses, and to witness the shift in conversation regarding support of Palestinian human rights. It is especially inspiring to see the UCSA representatives take up the responsibility of carrying our voices to the Regents.”

UC Irvine SJP issued a statement, emphasizing the relationship between the student movement and the call from Palestinian civil society: “As privileged students living in this state, it is our obligation to obey the Palestinians’ call for BDS and push divestment from corporations that profit from and participate in the violation of Palestinian human rights…we hope to see a liberated Palestine in our lifetimes.”

UC Santa Cruz Committee for Justice in Palestine issued a statement, writing “This vote was a product of a monumental struggle that has spanned decades. It is a victory that has opened new fronts for the struggle for justice in Palestine. We would like to especially thank all of our allies, without whom we could have never gotten this far.”

UAW-2865 member Alex Holmstrom-Smith commented on the meaning of this vote to graduate students and student-workers: “I am happy that the UCSA has also listened to the voice of graduate students and student-workers, who earlier this year voted by an overwhelming margin to support BDS and the Palestinian call for justice.”

Students from earlier divestment campaigns also shared their feelings about the historic nature of this accomplishment. UC Berkeley graduate Emiliano Huet-Vaughn reflected: “When we put forward the initial divestment bill at Berkeley in 2010 we knew the pro-divestment position would eventually become the consensus. It is remarkable that student activists across the UC have made that day happen so quickly. The Regents should note this moment as one in a proud tradition of UC student activism, and, seriously consider whether they want the current generation of UC students, also tomorrow’s leaders, to remember them as supporters of – or as impediments to – justice.”

The University of California Community Calls on the University of California Student Association to Support Divestment

Organizations:

AF3IRM, Orange County
Afghan Student Association, UCB
African/Black Student Alliance, UCSC
Afrikan Student Union, UCLA
Alkalima, UCI
Alpha Lambda Mu, UCSD
Arab Student Association, UCB
Armenian Students’ Association, UCLA
Armenian Student Association, UCR
Asian and Pacific-Islander Student Alliance, UCSD
Autonomous Students, UCSC
Ballet Folklorico de UCR
Bengali Student Association, UCLA
Bhagat Puran Singh Health Initiative, UCLA
Black Pre-Law Association, UCLA
Black Student Union, UCSB
Black Student Union, UCSD
Boycott from Within, Israel
Bruin Feminists for Equality, UCLA
Coalition of South Asian Peoples, UCSD
El Congreso, UCSB
Familia X, UCSC
Fem Newsmagazine, UCLA
Fossil Free, UCLA
Graduate Students of Color Collective, UCSB
IDEAS, UCSB
Incarcerated Youth Tutorial Project, UCLA
Islamic Awareness, UCB
Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Israel
Jewish Voice for Peace, Bay Area Chapter
Jewish Voice for Peace, UCLA
Jewish Voice for Peace, UCSB
Kaibigang Pilipin@, UCSD
Law Students for Justice in Palestine, UCB
Law Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA
Lebanese Student Association at Berkeley, UCB
Mentors For Academic and Peer Support, UCLA
Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlán (MEChA) de UCSC
Movimiento Estudiantil Chican@ de Aztlan (MEChA) de UCSD
Muslim Law Students Association, UCLA
Muslim Student Association West
Muslim Student Association, UCB
Muslim Student Association, UCD
Muslim Student Association, UCLA
Muslim Student Association, UCR
Muslim Student Association, UCSC
Muslim Student Association, UCSD
Muslim Student Union, UCI
Muslim Students Association, SCU
National Lawyers Guild
Native American Student Alliance, UCSD
Native American Student Association, UCR
Native Roots, UCLA
Night of Cultura, UCLA
Pakistani Student Association, UCB
Pakistani Student Association, UCSD
Palestinian Youth Movement
Pan-Arab Student Association, UCSD
Queer Alliance, UCLA
Queer Alliance and Resource Center, UCB
Samahang Pilipino, UCLA
Sikh Student Association, UCSC
Socialist Organizer, UCB
South Asian Advocacy Group, SJSU
Student Affirmative Action Committee, UCSD
Student Coalition Against Labor Exploitation, UCLA
Student Sustainability Collective, UCSD
Students Against Mass Incarceration, UCSD
Students for Justice in Palestine, SCU
Students for Justice in Palestine, SJSU
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCB
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCD
Students for Justice in Palestine, CSUF
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCI
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCLA
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCR
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCSB
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCSC
Students for Justice in Palestine, UCSD
Students for Justice in Palestine, USC
UAW-2865
Unión Salvadoreña de Estudiantes Universitarios (USEU), UCLA
United Afghan Club, UCLA
United Arab Society, UCLA
United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), UCR
United Students Against Sweatshops (USAS), UCD
Young Queers United for Empowerment, UCB

Faculty:

Ahmed Shabaik, Professor, UC San Diego School of Medicine
Andrew Paul Gutierrez, Professor Emeritus, College of Natural Resources, UC Berkeley
Barbara A. Barnes, Professor of Gender & Women’s Studies, UC Berkeley
Beatrice Pita, Lecturer, Literature, UC San Diego
Camille F. Forbes, Associate Professor, Department of Literature, UC San Diego
Caren Kaplan, Professor, American Studies, UC Davis
Curtis Marez, Associate Professor, Ethnic Studies Department, UC San Diego
Dennis Childs, Associate Professor, Literature, UC San Diego
Fatima El-Tayeb, Professor of African-American Literature and Culture, UC San Diego
Fred Lonidier, Emeritus Professor, Visual Arts, UC San Diego
Hamid Algar, Professor of Islamic Studies, NES Department, UC Berkeley
Harvey Goldman, Professor of Sociology, UC San Diego
Hatem Bazian, Lecturer of Near Eastern and Asian American Studies, UC Berkeley
Ivonne del Valle, Associate Professor, Spanish and Portuguese, UC Berkeley
Jerome R Hoffman, MA MD, Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UC Los Angeles School of Medicine
Jin-kyung Lee, Associate Professor, Department of Literature, UC San Diego
Jody Blanco, Associate Professor, Literature, UC San Diego
K. Wayne Yang, Associate Professor, Ethnic Studies Department, UC San Diego
Karen Brodkin, Research Professor, Anthropology, UC Los Angeles
Lisa Rofel, Professor, Anthropology, UC Santa Cruz
Marie Kennedy, Visiting Professor, Urban Planning Department, Luskin School of Public Affairs, UC Los Angeles
Martha Lampland, Associate Professor, Sociology/Science Studies, UC San Diego
Michael Burawoy,Professor of Sociology, UC Berkeley
Ricardo Dominguez, Associate Professor, Visual Arts, UC San Diego
Robin D. G. Kelley, Distinguished Professor of History & Gary B. Nash Endowed Chair in United States History, UCLA
Rosaura Sanchez, Professor, Literature, UC San Diego
Roshanak Kheshti, Assistant Professor, Ethnic Studies, UC San Diego
Samer Madanat, Xenel Professor of Engineering, and Chair, UC Berkeley
Sarah Haley, Assistant Professor, Gender Studies, UC Los Angeles
Shelley Streeby, Professor, Ethnic Studies and Literature Department, UC San Diego
Sohail Daulatzai, Professor of Film and Media Studies, African-American Studies, UC Irvine
Susan Ervin-Tripp, Professor of Psychology, Emerita, UC Berkeley

Students:

Yoel Haile
Arman Azedi
Maggie Sager
Matthew Adams
Matthew Adams
Hawraa Salami
Rasha Howlader
Masood Mokhlis
Mohamed Hussin
Fatima Elkabti
Evan J Dykman-Burke
Victoria Brykalski
Irene Morrison
Aaminah Khan
Yacoub Kureh
Kyla Burke
Kyla Burke
Jacquelene Obeid
Matthew Palm
Olivia
Derek Matthews
Eman
Fabiha Hossain
Maheen Ahmed
Naseem Golestani
Arturo Gomez
Daniel Valverde
Loubna Qutami
Westyn Narvaez
Batool Bany-Mohammed
Joseph Nazzal
Devin Murphy
Ismah Ahmad
Jacob Manheim
Omar Hassan
Alexandra Holmstrom-Smith
Anas Tresh
Homaira Faquiryan
Raquel Pacheco
Beezer de Martelly
Aaminah Khan
Colleen Casabal
Fatima Kamil
Moiz Ansari
Ali Abuelhassan
Mustafa Alemi
Sandra Jon Amon
Jaimeson L Cortez
Asad Yazdani
Maggie Quan
Nesreen Shatila
Ramisa
Natalia Custodio
Rana Tawfik
Humza Ali
Ghada Abulebdeh
Mairead Swyney
Alexandria Zaydahr-Kulka
Nitasha Kour
Hibah Khan
Kayla Newcomer
Nicolas Monteiro
Hilda G Uriarte
Kareem Kamel
Erineo Garcia
Sana Khan
Maaz Ahmad
Wafaa Eldereiny
Aaron Muñoz-Alvarado
Yusra Khafagi
Ali Jishi
Omar Issa Attar
Daniyal Aleem
Sarah Rahimi
Amy Huang
Safwan Ibrahim
Sarah Wolley
Samah Malik
Adam Milbes
Malika Mirvokhidova
Samad Raheem Guerra
Nour Katabi
Michael Oshiro
Bayan Abusneineh
Ayesha Rasheed
Mohsin Farooqui
Mina Saeid
Sukayna Jaidi
Tina Matar
Rasha Moubasher
Aminah Rahman
Nur Mirza
Ayesha Hussain
Juliann Hong
Ana R. Mendoza
Simran Anand
Ahmed Abdelgany
Sahar Pashtoonwar
Liliane Laborde-Edozien
Juan Manuel Heredia
Aaser Ali
Nesreen Shatila
Bria Stuart
Pati Vargas
Benjamin Hyunjae Kim
abdul hai naqvi
Zahra Mirza
Todd Lu
Ahmed Ali
Areeb Mehmood
Elizabeth Thornton
Samantha Pineda
Jillian Mariano
Alex Yu
Salsabil Gehan
Nosibah Gehan
Natasha Khokhar
Amani Proctor
Ahmed Abdelgany
Iris Delgado
Sarah Whetzell
Bushra Bangee
Casey Zirbel
Ali Shahbaz
Christine Ciganovich
Ali Hamdan
Syeda Fatima
Anuja Bose
Samuel Weeks
Alaa Abuadas
Catherine Bender
Anuja Bose
Sarah Larbah
Halleh Hashtpari
Cathy Chu
Sara Murdock
Phi Hong Su
Marge Sussman
Ellen Brotsky
Malak Kudaimi
Golzar Arvin
Art Motta
Kris Hidalgo
Preeti S
Rita Qatami
Laura Beebe
Gary Yeritsian
Nhada Ahmed
Muna Sinada
Basila Nathan
Hamdi hangol
Erum Khan
Jonathan Koch
Lina Stepick
Aiman Arif
Gary Fields
Freda Fair
E.K. Ziman
Wessam Awadalla
Eli Guzman-Martin
Gaby Guerrero
Katherine Berjikian
Shadin Awad
Damanjit Singh
Katherine Berjikian
German Octaviano
Carly Calbreath
Alborz Ghandehari
Ani De Grigorian
Tahmina Achekzai
Salam Awwad

Alumni:

Dana Saifan
Pouneh Navabi
Usamah Simjee
Sara Ahmad
Humera Durrani
Josue Castellon
Eidah Hilo
Daniel Rojas
Sean O’Neal
Osama Shabaik
Amina Larbah
Razmig Sarkissian
Liz Jackson
Anthony Delgado
Amal Dalmar
Raihan Dakhi
Loay EL

SJP West Voices Concerns about Student Regent-Designate Nominee

Dear members of the UCSA Board,

SJP West is writing to voice serious concerns about the recent developments surrounding the student-regent designate, Avi Oved, and the possibility that he accepted a financial contribution from Adam Milstein during his political campaign in 2013. While Students for Justice in Palestine is an organization with views on Israel/Palestine and divestment that are at odds with those of Oved and his party slate, the issue at hand is not divestment, but the potential violation of transparency and ethicality so integral for a student representative to uphold. The evidence presented to date suggests that a student who will potentially be tasked with representing the entire University of California student body willfully undermined the democratic process by seeking outside funding from an individual with a partisan political agenda. This is profoundly troubling because it sends the message that student political favors are for sale and that the general student body’s needs may be of secondary importance to the desires of such off-campus political donors.

Despite political differences, all students should be able to know that our representatives are only answerable to student concerns and not those of outside entities. Student representatives must be solely accountable to their constituents. It is absolutely essential for these charges to be thoroughly ruled out: how can we hold state and federal leaders to account if we cannot even do the same for our own student leaders? We need to be absolutely certain that the student regent designate’s loyalties lie with UC students first and foremost and not with outside organizations.

Furthermore, we find Milstein’s public displays of racist and Islamophobic sentiment repugnant, and Avi Oved’s potential solicitation of funds from such a donor to be a matter of grave concern. Representing the UC’s diverse student body requires a student regent with a demonstrated commitment to openness and tolerance. Avi Oved’s refusal to distance himself publicly from this exchange suggests an incompatibility with these qualities. Even excluding the substantive content of Mr. Milstein’s beliefs, the possibility that the integrity of student government is being undermined by outside forces to further a particular political agenda is unacceptable and must be investigated thoroughly.

Finally, it is very alarming that Oved refused, for no apparent reason, to join the UCSA’s conference call specifically held for him to answer questions and be accountable to his constituents. In addition to this, his lack of explicit denial of accepting those contributions from Milstein and of the email’s authenticity are also disturbingly telling. Both participation in a conversation about these allegations and an assurance that the contributions did not take place would have been crucial to preserving student trust in their student regent-designate. An investigation is hence paramount to ensure that Oved is the right candidate for this position and that students can trust him to represent them fairly and transparently.

We hope that these allegations will be investigated in as scrupulous a manner as possible. The credibility of our student representation may very well depend on it.

Sincerely,

Students for Justice in Palestine West

Jewish Voice for Peace at UCLA

UC Student Petition Against HR-35 Surpasses 1,000 Signatures

Download the press release here

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 9, 2013

UC STUDENT PETITION SUPPORTING UCSA’S RESOLUTION AGAINST HR-35 SURPASSES 1,000 SIGNATURES

Students voice their united opposition to California Resolution HR-35 and thank the UC Students Association for vocally opposing it while taking a morally consistent stand against racism. HR-35 proposes broad bans on student speech supporting Palestinian rights and criticizing discriminatory Israeli policies.

Today a petition signed by UC students and recent graduates who support the University of California’s Student Association (UCSA) resolution regarding HR-35 surpassed 1,000 signatures. Signers applauded UCSA “for standing up on behalf of the UC community and defending [their] right to advocate for human rights,” and for representing the “majority viewpoint at the UC which opposes racism in all forms, whether it be anti-Jewish acts by anti-Semites or anti-Palestinian policies undertaken by Israel in its discriminatory and illegal occupation.” The petitioners thanked the UCSA for its robust rebuke of State Assembly bill HR-35.

HR-35 is a non-binding resolution passed through the California State Assembly over the summer. The bill inappropriately labels criticism of Israeli state policy as anti-Semitic and recommends broad forms of censorship of students and faculty at the UC to prevent criticism of Israel.

Attorney Liz Jackson, cooperating counsel with the Center for Constitutional Rights characterized HR-35 as “an anti-democratic attempt to intimidate and silence students from expressing pro-Palestinian views.” Jackson explained, “HR-35 mislabels advocacy for Palestinian rights as inherently anti-Semitic. This is a complete distortion of students’ human rights advocacy. To argue that such speech should be restricted, as HR-35 does, is to decimate the principle of free speech and it is plainly unconstitutional.”

HR-35 is part of a well-documented pattern of intimidation against those speaking out in support of Palestinian rights on UC/CSU campuses, noted in a recent letter from civil rights groups to the UC Administration. Its passage comes shortly after the release of a controversial Campus Climate report that recommends similar forms of censorship of pro-Palestinian students, ranging from limiting the pro-Palestinian speakers allowed on campus to “enforcing balance” when pro-Palestinian speakers do come to campus.

Both the climate report and HR-35 have been widely criticized and opposed by civil rights groups such as the National Lawyers Guild and Center for Constitutional Rights, community organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace and the Council on American Islamic Relations, and academic groups such as the California Scholars for Academic Freedom and the Middle East Studies Association. The ACLU of Northern California recently warned of the “chilling effect” that related federal lawsuits targeting Palestine human rights activists are having on UC students’ constitutionally protected speech rights.

UC Berkeley student Ley Cerezo added that “HR-35 inevitably encourages a climate of fear in a student body whose dedication to activism ought not to be censured nor even reserved for mere toleration, but celebrated in a system of public universities. Just as we speak out against the many injustices sustained by various bodies of government, so too do we continue our opposition to any illegitimate limitations on our speech.”

Today’s petition, signed exclusively by current and former UC students in the space of a few weeks, demonstrates the breadth of public opposition to censorship and attacks on the pro-Palestine community. Students say that as a new year starts and students return to campus, they look forward to collecting more signatures and building public awareness of threats to pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Read full petition here: https://sites.google.com/site/ucstudentsagainsthr35/ and find a link to this press release and other relevant backgroud information at www.ucsjp.posterous.com.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

UCSA rejects effort to reverse vote on HR35

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

Debunking attacks on the UC Students Association

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:


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:

 
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?

 

Resolution defending free speech should be lauded

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…

 

Anti-Hate Or Anti-Speech?

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

Open Letter To Critics Of The UCSA Resolution On HR 35

Written by SJP members at UC Berkeley and published in the Daily Californian on October 2nd

Last month, the UC Student Association, a coalition of the UC student governments across each campus, expressed its principled opposition to anti-Semitism but deep concern with the language of a state Assembly bill purportedly about the topic, HR 35. The concern stems from language in the bill that conflates anti-Semitism with legitimate criticism of Israeli state policies. For example, HR 35 equates anti-Semitism with statements that Israel’s policies may be racist or constitute apartheid, as Nobel Peace Prize winners Jimmy Carter, Desmond Tutu and Mairead Maguire, among many others, have suggested, or with advocacy for boycotting Israel and complicit companies until the state ends such policies. Civil rights groups and faculty members have already recognized the threat such a definition of anti-Semitism poses to free speech and academic freedom on our campuses, and through its vote, the UCSA now has too. We applaud the UCSA for speaking up for the free speech rights of students.

We also applaud the UCSA for calling on the UC Regents 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.” Rather than singling out Israel for criticism, as some have suggested, the UCSA vote helps to correct HR 35’s efforts to singularly protect Israel from criticism that would be directed at any other nation engaging in similar practices. As the UCSA resolution makes clear, all states should be held accountable for their human rights violations, with boycotts or divestment being legitimate nonviolent tools to do so. SJP supports an ethical investment policy that would broadly target human rights abuses in multiple countries. We recognize the importance of naming Israel in that list because the United States has given more in military aid to Israel than any other country in our lifetimes, giving United States residents a special responsibility for the human rights abuses Israel commits and a special opportunity to make change.

Specifically, SJP advocates using boycott and divestment to target companies that are directly complicit in the human rights abuses attending Israel’s occupation, such as Caterpillar Inc., a company in which our school invests more than $5 million, according to the most recent end-of-year investment report. Caterpillar supplies massive weaponized bulldozers to the Israeli Defense Force that are routinely used to demolish Palestinian homes and farmland as part of Israel’s ongoing theft of Palestinian land taken to establish exclusionary Jewish-only settlements that are illegal under international law. These are not “alleged” human rights violations, as some have recently impugned, but the honest reality affirmed by myriad human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and the United Nations, all of whom decry the human rights abuses perpetrated by Israel with America’s support. The UCSA view that we should not be profiting from these human rights abuses should hardly be controversial, and, in most corners of the university, it clearly is not, as evidenced by the overwhelming majority votes in the UCSA and in in all three divestment votes at Berkeley in 2010.

Since the UCSA vote, however, some — including the editors of this paper — have raised objections. Though we suspect their true concerns are with the substance of the bill, their chief expressed complaint has been procedural. In response, it is worth noting that UCSA student leaders did nothing to make this bill less public than any of their other legislative efforts. HR 35’s passage was sudden and unexpected, and the UCSA had a duty to promptly respond in defense of student rights. The suggestion that the Jewish community on campus was selectively and intentionally excluded from the conversation, as has been alleged, is absolutely false. In fact, a Jewish Israeli student was one of two students to address the UCSA on the day of its vote, a fact conveniently ignored by those attempting to craft a narrative of Jewish exclusion. This student approached the UCSA because his own research on Israel’s ethnic cleansing is threatened by HR 35, and he hoped his student government would stand up for him. There’s nothing devious about petitioning your elected representatives to protect your rights — and it’s not really reasonable to demand that a student invite those who seek to restrict his free speech rights to a hearing about his right to speak freely. But there is something worrying about some people’s attempt to lend their marginal viewpoint defending Israel’s occupation the moral weight of an entire ethnic and religious minority, disregarding the many Jewish students on campus who firmly oppose Israel’s policies in the process.

Due to institutional features of the UCSA — UCSA representatives from across the state are only in the same city to cover all business matters for a full day once a month — the UCSA forum is not an ideal forum for long debates about HR 35 and divestment. To those wishing for more robust debate, we can relate. The longest public debates on the topic of Israel/Palestine on this campus came about as a result of the 2010 divestment hearings in the ASUC, initiated by SJP members. Though we recognize that fewer and fewer students stand in opposition to granting Palestinians universal human rights, we are eager to engage with those who do not yet share this opinion. In fact, on numerous occasions, our members have sought out a debating partner among those who defend American support for Israel’s policies, only to find no one willing to debate on the other side. We hereby extend an open invitation to any remaining critics of the recent UCSA resolution, including recent opinion writers Joey Freeman and Noah Ickowitz, to participate in a respectful, academic debate with fellow students regarding HR 35 and the ethicality of boycotting and divesting from Israel and complicit companies. We would like this debate to be moderated by a mutually agreed upon unbiased party — and failing that, we’d even be willing to settle for a moderator like The Daily Californian.

As published in the Daily Californian on Oct. 2nd, 2012