Introduction

• Draw a connection between what is happening on the national level and UCLA: the antisemitic activity that occurred in D.C. during Netanyahu visit

  • Graffiti at UCLA

  • Similar symbolism at the UCLA protest

  • Lavie Levi’s statement

• Opening incident: The protest itself—the intention was to bring UCLA to the table but nothing productive came of the week-long encampment, rallies and protests. The only lasting result—serious incidents involving discrimination and violence

  • Eli Tsives blocked from entering an area of campus (taken on video)

    • He made a point to emphasize “that he pays tuition”

  • Physical barriers were also in place to keep so-called “Zionists” out

    • Masked non-affiliates with weapons attacked the encampment

• Transitional statement

  • There was clear rule breaking on both sides, so why did UCLA allow it to continue for days until things got completely out of hand?

• Thesis statement: A lack of oversight by UCLA administration has led to problematic incidents involving discrimination and violence

Background and Context

• UCLA is the most popular university in the US by application

• UCLA philosophy:

  1. “Academic freedom in its fullest terms”

     • 1st amendment rights as a student at UCLA

     • Block’s House Opening Remarks - constitutional freedoms above everything

     • ACLU weighs in

       • (Not passed the senate, H.R. 6090, criticized for being symbolic, too vague)

       • The question of Israel’s statehood is “political” and protected

       • Harassment based on this speech, however, is not protected

  2. Self-governance

     • UCLA takes a very hands-off approach to guidance and oversight based on these principles

       • Positions on issues taken by student governments are not positions taken by the university (by PACAOS-63.00)

     • USAC has a set of bylaws

       • I.D. Conflict of Interest

         • Discrimination represents a conflict of interest when involved in political activity

       • II.E. Removal Process

         • The process for initiating a hearing solely based on the identification of cause

         • Removal from Council requires 2/3 vote

     • UC student government has the right to take positions on public issues

       • UCLA USAC’s own constitution is more specific in limiting powers

     • USAC constitution

       • Preamble

       • I.D. USAC shall not participate in discrimination

       • II.B.3.a.

         • rights of students to participate in all activities

         • rights of students to a fair hearing of grievances

     • USAC charges mandatory fees from student tuition in order to run a large portion of undergraduate life

       • not all fees are at USAC discretion

         • fee breakdown

         • more recent fees paid number

         • 86.11 Conditions for Support “Particular programs and activities of a Registered Campus Organization funded from compulsory campus-based student fees shall be open to participation by the entire campus community.”

  3. UCLA “expects” students to function autonomously using value systems in place

     • photo of the statue

       • considered discrimination based on the above definition

     • Mary Osako statement

       • True Bruin Values

       • Principles of community

  4. “Student safety” is a concern because the campus is open to the public

     • UCLA is a land-grant institution

     • This makes UCLA open-access

• How does UCLA policy and enforcement support the above? Where there is a lack of systems, what patterns have emerged?

  • Policies, reporting, consequences

    • Student misconduct

      • There are systems in place and information is available wrt conduct and consequences

      • Effectively none of this matters, because if a student is reported, an administrative hold is placed on their myUCLA account to force engagement

    • Group misconduct

      • Similar systems are in place for group misconduct

        • Section II. Definitions, Section K, Student Group

          • USAC

        • Section III.B, Types of Misconduct includes 202.11, Discrimination and Harassment

          • 202.11a Discrimination

          • 202.11b Harassment

  • “Weak” handling

    • Acknowledgement by Jewish groups that antisemitism exists on campus

      • Grant—LA Campuses United Against Antisemitism

      • Campus Impact Network (CIN)

      • Antisemitic display was a catalyst for discussion about ongoing issues with antisemitism on campus

    • Osako said “The protest has ended and the display has been removed.”

      • The distinction between protected and unprotected speech should be well understood by the administration and students alike

      • What is depicted in the display shows clear discrimination (by the above definitions)

      • Why did they wait for the protest to be over before removing it?

    • Incidents occurring on Nov 7th & 8th

      • Nov 7th

      • Nov 8th rally in support of Palestine

        • Students went viral for screaming hate speech

      • Block and Drake respond

        • Policy measures function as symbolic gestures

        • No accountability efforts

          • Zero acknowledgement of non-affiliate problem

          • No compulsory incident reviews with persons involved

  • Vague promises of investigations and punishment

    • Non-affiliate policy

    • Incident of aggressive harassment (IG post 10-12)

    • UCLA spokesperson addresses the incident (Daily Bruin 10-27) at an event

      • This needs a follow-up inquiry, doubtful there is any info on it that is publicly available

    • There was no statement made by the UCLA administration or Gene Block

      • Block made a general statement about the Gaza conflict on 10-13

      • No statement is an act of condemnation of the students in and of itself

      • Yet another exercise in the conflating of protected and unprotected student activity

      • Only* Hillel addressed the issue specifically (10-12)

  • Complete inaction with respect to organizational activity

    • Background and context

      • Establish the position of these organizations

        • Protected activity

          • Qualification of this speech as abhorrent or not is irrelevant, it is protected

          • They dispute the statehood of Israel

            • The broader picture shows more than interest in ending the Gaza conflict, or ending “occupation”

            • They use several mechanisms to undermine Israel’s legitimacy

    • Unprotected activity

    • Student grievances

  • Events, rallies, and Demonstration handling faces criticism

    • Article by the Bruin—UCLA faces scrutiny for safety issues at protests for Israel, Palestine (12-5)

      • covers issues of slow responses from UCLA administration liaisons, security failure issues and imbalanced policing

      • “university does not restrict or control the views shared by student groups.”

        • this is their “blanket statement” that reserves them the right not to get involved even when discrimination and harassment are occurring

  • Consequences

    • The implications of a failure to acknowledge emerging patterns

      • A toxic campus environment for Jewish students

      • An unsafe campus environment for pro-Palestinian students

Refresher Notes

• USAC can take political positions

  • the idea that they must be “inclusive” of everyone does not equate to “political correctness,” their ideas, their positions, need not be inclusive of everyone

  • but they cannot exclude anyone that wants to participate, that is the line. E.g. if someone of Israeli origin does not believe Israel should exist, then they must be included if that’s what they want

  • Therefor, UCLA would take the position, that regardless of what CAC’s constitution implies, their X posts are within the codes of conduct

  • However, once they began discriminating, we can view these positions as contributing to a hostile environment because they are motivated by bias. Thus they are in violation of Title VI by totality of circumstances.

• There are 2 issues at hand

  • UC policy—no one can be denied on any grounds

  • Title VI—no one can be denied benefits where discrimination is occurring

• The encampment would not allow “Zionists” through. What is the definition? They were deliberately vague. There was no evidence to suggest that “Zionist” did not mean an individual who believes in Israel’s statehood.

  • Is this a Title VI violation? Technically, no. Discrimination based on national origin by its “purest” definition would be hating someone of Israeli origin whether or not the state exists. They did not exclude anyone based purely on their national origin.

  • This clearly is a violation of UC policy, more specifically—

    • Based on an obligation to pay student fees, there is a de facto contractual agreement in place, that should someone decide to go to UCLA

      • They must renounce Israel to do so

  • This is a violation of Title VI—

    • Based on an obligation to pay student fees, there is a de facto contractual agreement in place, that should someone be Jewish and decide to go to UCLA

      • The student gov’t and associated organizations will side against them, i.e exclude them

    • Discrimination was occurring inside the encampment (red triangles)

    • UC, like Michigan, willfully conflates Title VI protected and unprotected activity

    • Where unprotected activity exists, there must be a coordinator in place to receive constructive notice and to determine whether a hostile environment exists based on totality of circumstances

• Where did USAC mess up

  • When they did not respond to Hillel—denied benefits

  • When they participated in the encampment—denied benefits

  • When they would not condemn discriminating behavior

    • CAC, UC Divest, general campus climate activity, etc.

    • Encampment exclusion activities

    • Involvement of their own organizations, CAC and the other USAC org, in the encampment while they partook in exclusion—internal accountability

    • They have in the past condemned antisemitism happening elsewhere in the country. They can’t condemn it occurring on their own campus? Isn’t it their job to be working on behalf of all the students?

  • When they partook in discriminating behavior

    • CAC discriminates

    • We would assume USAC had constructive notice of CAC’s activity via direct call outs by DB and Hillel, their own Insta activity

    • They took no measures to hold CAC accountable via impeachment hearings—corruption

• They’re treating student gov’t like a club that a group of friends belong to. How can anyone take them seriously?

• This is related to UC philosophy cultivating a microcosm of corruption.