By Susan B. Tuchman and Morton A. Klein
NEW YORK — After years of urging the University of California (UC) Regents to take a strong stand against campus anti-Semitism, the Regents will soon be issuing a statement that will hopefully address the problem in a meaningful way.
But as Regent Bonnie Reiss eloquently stated at the Regents’ meeting last November, the hostile climate for Jewish students will not change unless UC Chancellors act immediately and respond to threats and intimidation directed against Jewish students in the same way they would and should if Muslim, African American, Latino, or gay students were being targeted.
If only UC Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks would heed this plea.
Last October, Berkeley’s “Students for Justice in Palestine” (SJP) group held an anti-Israel demonstration in the center of the campus. After almost an hour of speeches attacking Israel, the SJP leader took the microphone and began chanting, “Intifada, intifada, we support the intifada!” This is the same as chanting, “Violence and murder, violence and murder, we support violence and murder against Jews!” The SJP leader riled up the crowd, encouraging them to repeat his terrorist threat against Jews. The scene was chilling, especially for Jewish students.
One Jewish student named Nathaniel, who had come to support a peaceful pro-Israel rally at the same time and place, was shocked – and afraid – when he heard the SJP’s leader call for violence against Jews. Holding an Israeli flag and a sign supporting Israel, Nathaniel was suddenly confronted by an SJP supporter who told him that he should be ashamed as a Jew to support Israel, and accused Nathaniel of being a “child murderer.”
Aghast at these accusations, Nathaniel was nevertheless determined to reply constructively and peacefully. Before he could, the SJP supporter told him to “f_ _k off,” stating that Nathaniel “disgusted” him. He demanded that Nathaniel leave the rally.
Nathaniel knew he had every right to remain at the rally. He put his sign in front of the SJP supporter, to show that he was not going to be intimidated, nor was he going to leave. The SJP supporter became more aggressive, grabbing for the sign and violently pushing Nathaniel, who defended himself by pushing back. Nathaniel’s fiancé arrived and at her urging, they left.
Shortly thereafter, Nathaniel filed a harassment complaint with the university. In addition, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) wrote – twice – to Chancellor Dirks, urging him to take two basic but important steps: First, we asked him to publicly condemn the SJP for chanting terrorist threats against Jews. Second, we urged him to ensure that Berkeley’s rules were enforced and wrongdoers were held accountable. We identified at least three provisions of the Student Code of Conduct which may have been violated when the SJP incited violence against Jews, resulting in the harassment and physical assault of a Jewish student.
Chancellor Dirks refused to take either step. And despite the university’s promise to investigate Nathaniel’s harassment complaint, there is no indication that an investigation has been completed, and Nathaniel’s concerns for his personal safety remain unaddressed.
A Berkeley official told Nathaniel that privacy laws preclude the university from releasing the results of a disciplinary hearing against his attacker. That isn’t true. Privacy laws permit the university to disclose to an alleged victim of a violent crime the results of any disciplinary proceeding against the alleged perpetrator, regardless of the results of the proceeding.
Moreover, the laws protect the privacy of individual students, not student groups, so there is no legal bar to Berkeley disclosing the discipline, if any, imposed on the SJP.
Chancellor Dirks’ silence in response to terrorist threats made against Jews on campus – and to the physical assault of a Jewish student that occurred minutes later – stands in stark contrast to how the Chancellor responded when Muslim students were reportedly targeted. Only weeks after refusing to issue a statement condemning the SJP’s public incitement of violence against Jews, the Chancellor issued exactly such a statement condemning alleged threats against Muslim students. Titled “Campus Statement on Muslim Community Safety,” the Chancellor and other senior administrators “express[ed] our support and concern for members of our Muslim community,” and urged individuals with any information “to come forward so that we can begin a process of holding accountable those who are responsible.”
The disparity in the Chancellor’s responses to anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim harassment is outrageous, reprehensible and intolerable.
Regent Bonnie Reiss raised this very problem at November’s Regents meeting. She implored all the UC Chancellors to ponder this question: Why do they seem less concerned about acts of hate, threats and intimidation directed against Jewish students than they seem to show when Muslim students and other groups are targeted? Chancellor Dirks will surely have a tough time answering this question – but students, alumni, donors, public officials and the community should make sure he provides a satisfactory answer.
The forthcoming Regents statement will hopefully be an important step toward improving the campus climate for Jewish UC students. But as Regent Reiss emphasized, the Chancellors have a crucial role to play – now. It’s time for Chancellor Dirks to start demonstrating moral leadership and respond to the harassment and intimidation of Jewish students with the same force and seriousness he has shown when other groups are targeted.
*
Susan B. Tuchman, Esq. is the Director of Zionist Organization of America’s Center for Law and Justice, and Morton A. Klein, is the National President of Zionist Organization of America.
To the Editor,
As a proud member of the Bay Area Jewish community, and a dedicated employee of the University of California, Berkeley, I am dismayed by Ms. Tuchman and Mr. Klein’s ad hominem attack on Chancellor Nicholas Dirks. Please allow me to correct just a few of the many unfounded allegation they saw fit to include in their opinion piece:
First and foremost, the claim that Berkeley’s chancellor “ignores Jews”, and acts in a “reprehensible” fashion towards our Jewish students is simply preposterous, and the authors know that. As Chancellor Dirks explained in a letter sent to Tuchman and Klein months ago, he has directed his administration to be unrelenting in its efforts “to ensure that every student on this campus feels safe, respected and welcome regardless of their origins, beliefs, or perspectives.” And, that’s not just talk. As described in that same letter, the chancellor recently formed a new, first-of-its-kind committee on Jewish student life. This group includes staff, faculty, students, alumni and leading members of the Bay Area’s Jewish community, and its sole mission and purpose is to ensure that the University is doing all that it can to provide a warm and welcoming environment for Jewish students.
I will leave it to others to figure out why Tuchman and Klein applauded the chancellor for this important step in their own letter to him, but now see fit to describe his treatment of Jewish students as “outrageous” in a public forum.
Despite the authors claims to the contrary, the University is expending a great deal of effort on its investigation of the incident described. To date, we have not been able to determine if the alleged assailant is affiliated with the campus. We believe that there must be consequences for the violation of campus rules, but the case cannot proceed until we determine the individual’s identity.
When Klein and Tuchman talk about “terrorist threats” on the Berkeley campus, they are actually referring to a group of undergraduates who participated in a demonstration against Israeli policies. As the authors know, the Supreme Court of the United States has made it amply and repeatedly clear that, like it or not, the sort of speech and expression used at that demonstration is protected by our Constitution. The fact that this public University must respect and defend free speech must not be mistaken for an endorsement of the ideologies, perspectives and strategies espoused and supported by the dozens of groups that every year hold demonstrations on this campus. As a public institution UC Berkeley may not prohibit or punish speech based on its content, even content that is highly offensive, hateful, or bigoted or that advocates violence as an acceptable form of political action. Courts have repeatedly and consistently stricken attempts by public universities to regulate offensive and even racist student speech that violate these principles. At the same time we do understand that constitutionally protected speech may be disturbing and insulting to Jewish students—yet another reason that we, at Berkeley, require every new student to participate in a program designed to foster civility, tolerance and respect.
Finally, Berkeley takes great pride in its vibrant Hillel chapter; the broad range of other Jewish student groups; the Institute for Jewish Law and Israeli Studies at the Berkeley law school; our Magnes Collection of Jewish Art and Life; and our world class Center for Jewish Studies. It is no accident that our data indicate the vast majority of Jewish students at Berkeley feels welcome, safe and respected. In response to a recent campus climate survey that sought to measure levels of comfort by religious affinity, 75% of our Jewish students said they felt “very comfortable” or “comfortable” at Berkeley. This number is essentially identical to the campus average of 76%, and two points higher than comfort levels reported by students with a Christian affiliation.
Sincerely,
–Dan Mogulof, Berkeley, California