Position Paper on Issues Surrounding the University of California’s Proposed “Principles Against Intolerance” 

  

Students for Justice in Palestine chapters at the University of California have issued the following position paper on the “Principles Against Intolerance” being 

discussed by a working group of the University of California Regents.   

  

Table of Contents  

1. Background 2. Position on the University’s Responsibilities to Protect Free Speech 3. Position on Anti­Semitism 4. Position on the “3D” Definition of Anti­Semitism 5. Concerns about the Effects of Adoption 6. What Should be Done? 

 

   

1 

Background  

Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) chapters at the UC system are                       independent student organizations which work in solidarity with the Palestinian people.                     Our members come from all segments of the UC community, particularly Palestinian                       students. We educate and advocate in support of Palestinian human rights and freedom                         ­ and against policies and actions that perpetuate the nearly half century of occupation                           and longer history of dispossession that Palestinians have experienced. This ranges                     from grassroots educational work and events to organized boycott and divestment                     campaigns.  

 Our work in support of Palestinian freedom, justice, and equality is rooted in our                           

larger commitment to social justice. This commitment places us in opposition to all forms                           of racism, bigotry and discrimination towards anyone on the basis of race, ethnicity,                         gender, sexuality, ability, class, religion or national origin. This is demonstrated in                       numerous public statements by our organizations, our constitutions which are on file with                         our campuses’ Student Activities Offices, and through our actions in solidarity with other                         groups facing issues of bigotry and racism.  

 Thus, we do not find ourselves in conflict with the UC Regents’ attempt to issue a                               

statement against intolerance. Rather, the UC Regents’ increased attention to these                     issues is a welcome step given the long history of racism on our campuses. If such an                                 effort can reduce the bigotry faced by Palestinian students and other members of SJP                           chapters in general and particularly when advocating for their political positions , then                       1

this effort will be all the more beneficial for us. 

 

   

1 See one of many examples here: http://dailybruin.com/2015/11/12/offensive­posters­targeting­sjp­resurface­on­campus­for­third­time/ Such offensive posters have been found on most Southern California UC campuses over the past year, including recently at UC San Diego. 

2 

Position on the University’s Responsibilities to Protect Free               Speech 

 Students and faculty at the UC, particularly Palestinians, have historically and                     

recently been subject to threats to free speech by the UC or outside entities pressuring                             UC administrations . These include unconstitutional recommendations in the 2012 UC                   2

Campus Climate report , rejected Title VI claims against several UCs , an attempt to                         3 4

shut down a Palestinian student’s academic freedom at UC Riverside , and, most                       5

recently, an effort to deny funding to graduate organizations that endorse or are                         associated with pro­Palestinian groups .  6

 We unequivocally oppose any and all activities by the UC Regents that would                         

limit or chill free speech. We believe that any effort to improve campus climate that                             prohibits or threatens the free speech of students, faculty, or staff ultimately does more                           long term and widespread harm to the university than good. We also support the                           principles of academic freedom outlined by the American Association of University                     Professors . We second the warnings issued by the UC Academic Senate’s Academic                       7

Freedom Committee about the threats to speech and research posed by the potential                         Principles Against Intolerance .  8

      

 

   

2 See: http://sjpwest.org/2012/10/11/timeline­the­university­of­california­record/ 3 See: http://sjpwest.org/2013/01/01/ucla­undergraduate­council­rejects­campus­climate­reports/ 4 See: http://sjpwest.org/2013/09/03/sjp­west­statement­on­dismissal­of­title­vi­claims­at­3­uc­schools/ 5 See: https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/nora­barrows­friedman/amcha­attempt­block­palestinian­voices­university­course­fails 6 See: http://palestinelegal.org/news/2015/11/18/palestine­legal­and­partners­demand­that­ucla­cease­discrimination­against­supporters­of­divestment­from­israel  7 See:  www.aaup.org/file/1940 Statement.pdf   8 See: http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/ucaf/documents/UCAFmemotoRegentsworkgrouponintolerance_10.19.2015.pdf  

3 

Position on Anti­Semitism:  We understand anti­Semitism to be hatred of, prejudice against, hostility towards,                     

or discrimination against Jewish people ­ a form of bigotry that is manifested in a variety                               of ways in societies around the world. We unequivocally oppose this form of bigotry as                             we do all others.   

 

   

4 

Position on the “3D” Definition of Anti­Semitism:  

We see the “3D” definition of anti­Semitism (speech that demonizes Israel,                     delegitimizes Israel, or applies a double standard to Israel) as a definition that conflates                           criticism of Israel with anti­Semitism. Because criticism of a state’s policies and practices                         is not an expression of bigotry towards a people, we oppose this definition. We believe                             that the “3D” definition is inappropriate at the UC for 4 overarching reasons.  

 

1. Many Jewish students are not aggrieved by criticism of the State of Israel:  

Jewish identity and the state of Israel are not contiguous. Many Jewish students,                         including members of SJPs, attest to the fact that they do not identify with the state,                               refuse to identify with the state until it changes its policies, or identify with the state but                                 do not feel personally attacked when the state is criticized. Thus, associating criticism of                           Israel with anti­semitism excludes many Jewish students. This does not mean that we do                           not understand the position of Jewish students who do identify with Israel, but that                           position is not universal among all Jewish students, and particularly not among Jewish                         students who are members or allies of Students for Justice in Palestine, and who are                             often excluded from groups  that claim to speak for the entirety of the Jewish community.  9

 

2. The definition re­defines criticism of states as bigotry towards their                   citizens: 

 By associating criticism of Israel with anti­semitism, this definition inappropriately                   

places routine political speech commonly used to pressure states to change their actions                         into the realm of bigotry. Criticism of other countries is not considered bigotry against                           residents of those countries ­ indeed that criticism is often a fundamental step in the                             process of encouraging changes in the behavior of governments around the world.  

3. Each component of the “3D” definition is vague, open to competing                     interpretations, and sure to chill both academic and political speech: 

Each component of the “3D” definition is so vague and so poorly defined that,                           even if our first two overriding concerns did not exist, it could not be implemented on                               campus in a way that did not lead to outright or implied censorship of speech about                               Palestine. Consider the following examples:   

9 See: http://www.openhillel.org/about.php and https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/stifling­dissent/  

5 

 a. Demonization 

 The definition makes little attempt to clarify the boundaries around this concept.                       

Although it provides some egregious examples of actions and speech that SJPs do not                           engage in, it makes little other effort to explain what this term would mean when applied                               to a UC campus’ political environment. Would criticism of Israel’s policies be considered                         demonizing? Would calling for social and economic pressure on the state to incentivize                         changes in its policies be considered demonizing? 

One example might be the use of the word “apartheid” in reference to the Israeli                             occupation. Some students who identify strongly with the State of Israel may feel that                           use of this word amounts to demonizing Israel, in that it makes an implicit parallel                             between Israel and apartheid South Africa. Yet this is not a parallel made lightly, but is in                                 fact an area of intellectual inquiry, including by Israeli and South African academics.  10

 b. Delegitimization 

 Again, the definition makes no attempt to explain what speech falls under the                         

category of delegitimization and what speech does not. As Erwin Chemerinsky pointed                       out in the Los Angeles Times, “If a student states that Palestinians should have a right of                                 return, is she seeking to delegitimize Israel or just airing a controversial opinion?” If a                             11

student says that Israel should exist as a country that treats all of its citizens with legal                                 equality, is this delegitimization?  

 c. Double Standards 

 The definition suggests that demanding Israel take actions that are not                     

demanded of other states would be considered anti­semitism. But it is hard to know what                             this would mean in practice. As the Los Angeles Times asked, “Would pro­Palestinian                         students who mounted a protest against Israeli policies in the West Bank be judged                           anti­Semites because they didn't also demonstrate against repression in Egypt or                     Russia?” It is clear that this standard reflects little understanding of how advocacy                         12

groups work. While SJP is primarily focused on the issue of Palestine, this does not                             

10 See: Yiftachel, Oren. 2009. “"Creeping Apartheid" in Israel­Palestine”. Middle East Report, no. 253. Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP): 7–37. and Soske, John & Jacobs, Sean. 2015. Apartheid Israel: The Politics of an Analogy. Chicago, Il: Haymarket.  11 See Chemerinsky’s article here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op­ed/la­oe­0925­chemerinsky­uc­speech­regulation­20150925­story.html 12See the LA Times editorial here: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la­ed­anti­semitism­20150716­story.html  

6 

mean that the organization and its members do not support other issues of social justice                             in other parts of the world, including issues in their own local communities in California.                             But maintaining an organizational focus on one issue while trusting that other                       organizations will effectively advocate on other issues is a common and important way to                           build an effective organization over the long term. 

 

   

7 

Concerns about the Effects of Adoption:  In addition to opposing the “3D” definition for all the reasons stated above, we                           

wish to draw attention to the frightening scenario of implementation that would unfold on                           our campuses should the Regents adopt this or other similar definitions. Who would                         monitor speech? Who would determine what speech fit or did not fit a particular                           definition? What metric would be used? Would individuals have any right to respond to                           these labels? What penalties might exist? These questions illustrate what kind of world                         the UC would enter should it adopt definitions of speech.  

 The future implications for the adoption of such parameters are extraordinarily                     

troubling, but we are already beginning to see students and faculty worry about the                           effects of these proposals on their work and speech. Unfortunately, the positions of                         some advocates of the “3Ds” provide plenty of reason for students to be afraid. Some                             proponents of the definition have stated that they wish to classify boycott and divestment                           activism, mock apartheid walls, and campus weeks of action as anti­semitic. Not only                         13

does this represent a large range of SJP work, but it strikes us as an attempt to shut                                   down a debate rather than engage in it. Instead of calling for restrictions on speech, we                               invite a debate on the issues because we trust that our positions in favor of equality and                                 human rights will ultimately prove most persuasive to the general public.  

 

   

13 See comments made by Tammi Rossman Benjamin here: http://forward.com/news/national/309450/what­is­anti­semitism/  

8 

What Should be Done?  

As we stated in the outset, we oppose all forms of racism and bigotry and                             potentially welcome the UC Regents increased focus on these issues.  

 We believe that an approach focused on acts such as discrimination, vandalism,                       

or violence is a much more productive way to address issues of campus climate than                             attempting to create labels for speech.   

However, we believe that the UC Regents should not take steps that would                         actively or by implication regulate speech in any way. This is a position that is consistent                               with our reaction to incidents of hate speech against our own communities .  14

 Rather, the university should promote the free and open exchange of ideas and                         

create more spaces for students to learn and debate issues of contemporary importance                         at the local and global level.  

In addition, we urge the UC to consider structural racism on our campuses.                         Structural racism, and particularly the under­representation of several minority groups on                     our campuses, is a deeply unjust dynamic that the UC administration can do a great deal                               to remedy.  

 Finally we urge the UC to acknowledge the fundamental importance of both free                         

speech and academic freedom to a functional UC community ­ issues already raised by                           the UC Academic Senate’s Committee on Academic Freedom . The UC Regents should                       15

specifically commit to respecting these principles in any and all deliberations they                       engage in with respect to their Principles against Intolerance.   

    

       

14 See http://dailybruin.com/2015/11/12/offensive­posters­targeting­sjp­resurface­on­campus­for­third­time/  15 See the statement here: http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/ucaf/documents/UCAFmemotoRegentsworkgrouponintolerance_10.19.2015.pdf  

9 

This statement is endorsed by  

Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Berkeley Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Davis Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Irvine 

Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Los Angeles Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Santa Barbara Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Santa Cruz Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, San Diego Students for Justice in Palestine at University of California, Riverside 

10