PositionPaperonIssuesSurroundingtheUniversityof

CaliforniasProposedStatementofPrinciplesAgainst
Intolerance

StudentsforJusticeinPalestinechaptersattheUniversityofCaliforniahave
issuedthefollowingpositionpaperontheStatementofPrinciplesAgainstIntolerance
beingdiscussedbyaworkinggroupoftheUniversityofCaliforniaRegents.

TableofContents

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Background
PositionontheUniversitysResponsibilitiestoProtectFreeSpeech
PositiononAntiSemitism
Positiononthe3DDefinitionofAntiSemitism
ConcernsabouttheEffectsofAdoption
WhatShouldbeDone?

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 supportofPalestinianhumanrightsandfreedom
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 inour
larger commitment to socialjustice.Thiscommitmentplacesusinoppositiontoallforms
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 publicstatementsbyourorganizations,ourconstitutionswhichareonfilewith
our campuses Student Activities Offices, and through ouractionsinsolidaritywithother
groupsfacingissuesofbigotryandracism.

Thus, we donotfindourselvesinconflictwith theUCRegentsattempttoissuea

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 positions1, then
thiseffortwillbeallthemorebeneficialforus.

Seeoneofmanyexampleshere:
http://dailybruin.com/2015/11/12/offensiveposterstargetingsjpresurfaceoncampusforthirdtime/
SuchoffensivepostershavebeenfoundonmostSouthernCaliforniaUCcampusesoverthepast
year,includingrecentlyatUCSanDiego.

Position on the Universitys 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 administrations2. These include unconstitutional recommendations in the 2012 UC
Campus Climate report 3, rejected Title VI claims against several UCs4, an attempt to
shut down a Palestinian students academic freedom at UC Riverside5, and, most
recently, an effort to deny funding to graduate organizations that endorse or are
associatedwithproPalestiniangroups6.

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
Professors7. We second the warnings issued by the UC Academic Senates Academic
Freedom Committee about the threats to speech and research posed by the potential
StatementofPrinciplesAgainstIntolerance8.

See:
http://sjpwest.org/2012/10/11/timelinetheuniversityofcaliforniarecord/
See:
http://sjpwest.org/2013/01/01/uclaundergraduatecouncilrejectscampusclimatereports/
4
See:
http://sjpwest.org/2013/09/03/sjpweststatementondismissaloftitleviclaimsat3ucschools/
5
See:
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/norabarrowsfriedman/amchaattemptblockpalestinianvoicesu
niversitycoursefails
6
See:
http://palestinelegal.org/news/2015/11/18/palestinelegalandpartnersdemandthatuclaceasedisc
riminationagainstsupportersofdivestmentfromisrael
7
See:
www.aaup.org/file/1940Statement.pdf
8
See:
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/ucaf/documents/UCAFmemotoRegentsworkgrou
ponintolerance_10.19.2015.pdf
2
3

PositiononAntiSemitism:

We understandantiSemitismtobehatredof,prejudiceagainst,hostilitytowards,
or discrimination against Jewish people a form ofbigotrythatismanifestedina variety
of ways in societies around the world. We unequivocally oppose this form of bigotry as
wedoallothers.

Positiononthe3DDefinitionofAntiSemitism:

We see the 3D definition of antiSemitism (speech that demonizes Israel,

delegitimizes Israel, or applies a double standard to Israel) as a definition thatconflates
criticism of IsraelwithantiSemitism.Becausecriticismofastatespoliciesandpractices
is not an expression of bigotry towards a people, we oppose this definition. We believe
thatthe3DdefinitionisinappropriateattheUCfor4overarchingreasons.

1. ManyJewishstudentsarenotaggrievedbycriticismoftheStateofIsrael:

Jewish identity and the state of Israelarenotcontiguous.ManyJewishstudents,

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 thestateiscriticized.Thus,associatingcriticismof
IsraelwithantisemitismexcludesmanyJewishstudents.Thisdoesnotmeanthatwedo
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
oftenexcludedfromgroups9thatclaimtospeakfortheentiretyoftheJewishcommunity.

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

citizens:

By associating criticism of Israel withantisemitism,thisdefinitioninappropriately

places routinepoliticalspeechcommonlyusedtopressurestatestochange theiractions
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
processofencouragingchangesinthebehaviorofgovernmentsaroundtheworld.

3. Each component of the 3D definition is vague, open to competing

interpretations,andsuretochillbothacademicandpoliticalspeech:
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.Considerthefollowingexamples:

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


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 explainwhatthistermwouldmeanwhenapplied
to a UC campus political environment. Would criticismofIsraelspoliciesbeconsidered
demonizing? Would calling for social and economic pressure on the state to incentivize
changesinitspoliciesbeconsidereddemonizing?
One example might be the use of the word apartheid in referencetotheIsraeli
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 andapartheidSouthAfrica.Yetthisisnotaparallelmadelightly,butisin
factanareaofintellectualinquiry,includingbyIsraeliandSouthAfricanacademics.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 theLosAngelesTimes,Ifastudentstatesthat Palestinians shouldhave arightof
return, is she seeking to delegitimize Israel or just airing a controversial opinion?11 If a
student says that Israel should exist as a country that treats all of its citizens with legal
equality,isthisdelegitimization?

c. DoubleStandards

The definition suggests that demanding Israel take actions that are not
demanded ofotherstateswouldbeconsideredantisemitism.Butitishardtoknowwhat
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?12 It is clear that this standard reflects little understanding of how advocacy
groups work. While SJP is primarily focused on the issue of Palestine, this does not
See:Yiftachel,Oren.2009."CreepingApartheid"inIsraelPalestine.
MiddleEastReport
,no.
253.MiddleEastResearchandInformationProject(MERIP):737.andSoske,John&Jacobs,
Sean.2015.
ApartheidIsrael:ThePoliticsofanAnalogy.
Chicago,Il:Haymarket.
11
SeeChemerinskysarticlehere:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/oped/laoe0925chemerinskyucspeechregulation20150925stor
y.html
12
SeetheLATimeseditorialhere:
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/laedantisemitism20150716story.html

10

mean that the organization and itsmembers donotsupportotherissuesofsocialjustice

in other parts of the world, including issues in their own local communities inCalifornia.
But maintaining an organizational focus on one issue while trusting that other
organizationswill effectivelyadvocateonotherissuesisacommonandimportantwayto
buildaneffectiveorganizationoverthelongterm.

ConcernsabouttheEffectsofAdoption:

In addition to opposing the 3D definition for all the reasons stated above, we
wish to draw attention to the frighteningscenarioofimplementationthatwouldunfoldon
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
theUCwouldentershoulditadoptdefinitionsofspeech.

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 thedefinitionhavestatedthattheywishtoclassifyboycottanddivestment
activism, mock apartheid walls, and campus weeks of action as antisemitic.13 Not only
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 restrictionsonspeech,we
invite a debate on the issues because we trustthat ourpositions infavor ofequalityand
humanrightswillultimatelyprovemostpersuasivetothegeneralpublic.

13

SeecommentsmadebyTammiRossmanBenjaminhere:
http://forward.com/news/national/309450/whatisantisemitism/

WhatShouldbeDone?

As we stated in the outset, we oppose all forms of racism and bigotry and
potentiallywelcometheUCRegentsincreasedfocusontheseissues.

We believe that an approach focused on acts suchasdiscrimination,vandalism,

or violence is a much more productive way to address issues of campus climate than
attemptingtocreatelabelsforspeech.

However, we believe that the UC Regents should not take steps that would
actively or by implication regulatespeechinanyway.Thisisapositionthatisconsistent
withourreactiontoincidentsofhatespeechagainstourowncommunities14.

Rather, the university should promote the free and open exchange of ideas and
create more spaces for studentstolearnanddebateissuesofcontemporary importance
atthelocalandgloballevel.

In addition, we urge the UC to consider structural racism on our campuses.

Structural racism,andparticularlytheunderrepresentationofseveralminoritygroupson
ourcampuses,isadeeplyunjustdynamicthattheUCadministrationcan doagreatdeal
toremedy.

Finally we urge the UC to acknowledge the fundamental importanceof bothfree

speech and academic freedom to a functional UC community issuesalreadyraisedby
theUC AcademicSenatesCommitteeonAcademicFreedom15.TheUCRegentsshould
specifically commit to respecting these principles in any and all deliberations they
engageinwithrespecttotheirStatementofPrinciplesagainstIntolerance.

14

See
http://dailybruin.com/2015/11/12/offensiveposterstargetingsjpresurfaceoncampusforthirdtime/
15
Seethestatementhere:
http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/committees/ucaf/documents/UCAFmemotoRegentsworkgrou
ponintolerance_10.19.2015.pdf

Thisstatementisendorsedby

StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,Davis
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,Irvine
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,SantaBarbara
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,SantaCruz
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego
StudentsforJusticeinPalestineatUniversityofCalifornia,Riverside

10