Debating the University California Campus Climate: Taking On the ADL and Limits on Speech

[Event flier for below debate] [Event flier for below debate]

Debating the University California Campus Climate: Taking On the ADL and Limits on Speech

By : Jadaliyya Reports

Last summer, a University of California (UC) advisory committee published a report claiming that "anti-Israel" speech and student activism creates a hostile environment for Jewish students on campus. Civil liberties organizations and progressive Jewish groups immediately criticized the report for its flawed methodology, and for the threat it posed to academic freedom and free speech. Former UC President Mark Yudof was forced to distance himself from the report`s recommendations. However, the California State Assembly passed a resolution shortly thereafter lauding the report and recommending implementation of its recommendations.

In the below video, Yaman Salahi and Richard Barton participate in a forum hosted by UC Santa Cruz on 23 May 2013 to discuss these developments.  Salahi is a member of the National Lawyers Guild working with a coalition focused on student free speech issues, and a former member of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP). Barton is coauthor of the controversial “Jewish Campus Climate Report” and National Education Chair for the Anti-Defamation League. Moderated by Provost Helen Shapiro, the event also featured introductory remarks from UC Santa Cruz Professor of History Peter Kenez, who spoke about the history of anti-Semitism, and Professor of Feminist Studies Bettina Aptheker, who provided historical background on the idea of academic freedom.

Seeking To Limit the Realm of Acceptable Speech

Barton’s main contention through the debate was that “the Jewish community” views protest activities against Israel as anti-Semitic, and has a close identification with Israel. Salahi challenged Barton’s reliance on the notion of a monolithic Jewish community, and drew attention to SJP’s clear position against anti-Semitism. Salahi further maintained that the dispute is not about what is anti-Semitic, but rather a political dispute about how narrowly criticism of Israel must be framed to fall within the realm of acceptable discourse (specifically, whether one can do more than “oppose the occupation”).

Salahi also argued that it was important not to stick at the high-level framing discussions, but look at what people are specifically complaining about. Salahi quoted a complaint by a Jewish student who filed a lawsuit against the UC, claiming her experience at a mock checkpoint—where students dress as Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians to reenact military checkpoints in the Occupied West Bank—were “terrifying and demeaning in extreme degrees” and that “no one before had ever stopped her while carrying an assault rifle and yelling. She was ashamed and terrified for weeks.”

Salahi asked:

If that theatrical performance was so terrifying, then the real thing can only be so much worse … If you are going to object to these theatrical reenactments on campus, you have to object to the real thing in the Occupied West Bank against real people, who are going through real checkpoints, with real soldiers with real guns, that have resulted in real injuries and real deaths.

Defining Anti-Semitism

Barton and Salahi also debated the relevance of “official” definitions of anti-Semitism adopted by the US State Department and a European Union working group. Salahi noted that references to these definitions are fallacious and circular because “the groups who drafted the definitions are now the ones who want to use them against the people they disagree with,” as if they were neutral and authoritative. Barton claimed that the “genesis” of the definitions was based "the European Union and others looking at the notion of anti-Semitism within Europe, with respect to Israel." Implying that the definitions were objectively and impartially crafted, and that Salahi was deploying the trope of a Jewish conspirarcy, Barton went on to say: "To claim this is a political definition being manipulated in order to silence speech is a very troublesome characterization."

Salahi objected to the mischaracterization of his remarks, citing an article by the Jewish Daily Forward confirming that interest groups drafted the definition, which apparently is no longer in use. Salahi challenged the definition:

It did not involve to my knowledge people with different perspectives about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict who would have been able to identify some of the aspects of the definition … that try to characterize political views as being inherently anti-Semitic.

Salahi and Barton also discussed the merits of the Boycott Divestment Sanctions movement, the notion that Israel is being “singled out” for divestment, and whether it is proper for universities or university departments to sponsor “unbalanced” or “one-sided” events in the first place.

Importantly, Provost Shapiro closed the discussion with a plea to the US Department of Education (DOE) to close an investigation into UC Santa Cruz on claims that events criticizing Israel violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students, suggesting that the long duration of the investigations has created a chilling effect on administrators, faculty, and students. Provost Shapiro explained, we have been given no guidance from the federal government” and “many of us on campuses are waiting for an interpretation… about how to view these issues from the federal government…. The ramifications are that if we’re found not in compliance we risk losing federal funding, so the stakes are large.” The DOE is also in the midst of long-term investigations into UC Berkeley and UC Irvine on similar allegations.

Video of Debate

 


Additional Resources

 

 

  • ALSO BY THIS AUTHOR

    • Iranian Studies Scholars Against Scholasticide

      Iranian Studies Scholars Against Scholasticide
      31 March 2025 For public releaseIranian Studies Scholars Against Scholasticide [NOTE: The following statement has been endorsed by over ninety Iranian studies scholars fromacross North America, Eur
    • Long Form Podcast: Episode 5- International Law, The UN, and System Failure

      Long Form Podcast: Episode 5- International Law, The UN, and System Failure

      In this episode, former UN human rights specialist on international law Craig Mokhiber reflects on how Israel's genocidal military campaign has produced an unprecedented crisis for the international order, and how it might represent an opportunity make it more equitable. He also discusses the role, achievements, and failing of the United Nations and the policies that led him to leave the organisation.

    • Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      Harvard AAUP on Termination of CMES Leadership

      The Executive Committee of AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter condemns the abrupt termination of the leadership of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES): Professor Cemal Kafadar as Director and Associate Professor Rosie Bsheer as Associate Director. Though both Kafadar and Bsheer will retain their regular faculty positions, this summary dismissal of two leading Middle East scholars from their administrative positions is a political infringement on academic freedom and the autonomy of professors to shape intellectual agendas in their areas of research, teaching, and programming expertise.

Past is Present: Settler Colonialism Matters!

On 5-6 March 2011, the Palestine Society at the School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) in London will hold its seventh annual conference, "Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine." This year`s conference aims to understand Zionism as a settler colonial project which has, for more than a century, subjected Palestine and Palestinians to a structural and violent form of destruction, dispossession, land appropriation and erasure in the pursuit of a new Jewish Israeli society. By organizing this conference, we hope to reclaim and revive the settler colonial paradigm and to outline its potential to inform and guide political strategy and mobilization.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often described as unique and exceptional with little resemblance to other historical or ongoing colonial conflicts. Yet, for Zionism, like other settler colonial projects such as the British colonization of Ireland or European settlement of North America, South Africa or Australia, the imperative is to control the land and its resources -- and to displace the original inhabitants. Indeed, as conference keynote speaker Patrick Wolfe, one of the foremost scholars on settler colonialism and professor at La Trobe University in Victoria, Australia, argues, "the logic of this project, a sustained institutional tendency to eliminate the Indigenous population, informs a range of historical practices that might otherwise appear distinct--invasion is a structure not an event."[i]

Therefore, the classification of the Zionist movement as a settler colonial project, and the Israeli state as its manifestation, is not merely intended as a statement on the historical origins of Israel, nor as a rhetorical or polemical device. Rather, the aim is to highlight Zionism`s structural continuities and the ideology which informs Israeli policies and practices in Palestine and toward Palestinians everywhere. Thus, the Nakba -- whether viewed as a spontaneous, violent episode in war, or the implementation of a preconceived master plan -- should be understood as both the precondition for the creation of Israel and the logical outcome of Zionist settlement in Palestine.

Moreover, it is this same logic that sustains the continuation of the Nakba today. As remarked by Benny Morris, “had he [David Ben Gurion] carried out full expulsion--rather than partial--he would have stabilised the State of Israel for generations.”[ii] Yet, plagued by an “instability”--defined by the very existence of the Palestinian nation--Israel continues its daily state practices in its quest to fulfill Zionism’s logic to maximize the amount of land under its control with the minimum number of Palestinians on it. These practices take a painful array of manifestations: aerial and maritime bombardment, massacre and invasion, house demolitions, land theft, identity card confiscation, racist laws and loyalty tests, the wall, the siege on Gaza, cultural appropriation, and the dependence on willing (or unwilling) native collaboration and security arrangements, all with the continued support and backing of imperial power. 

Despite these enduring practices however, the settler colonial paradigm has largely fallen into disuse. As a paradigm, it once served as a primary ideological and political framework for all Palestinian political factions and trends, and informed the intellectual work of committed academics and revolutionary scholars, both Palestinians and Jews.

The conference thus asks where and why the settler colonial paradigm was lost, both in scholarship on Palestine and in politics; how do current analyses and theoretical trends that have arisen in its place address present and historical realities? While acknowledging the creativity of these new interpretations, we must nonetheless ask: when exactly did Palestinian natives find themselves in a "post-colonial" condition? When did the ongoing struggle over land become a "post-conflict" situation? When did Israel become a "post-Zionist" society? And when did the fortification of Palestinian ghettos and reservations become "state-building"?

In outlining settler colonialism as a central paradigm from which to understand Palestine, this conference re-invigorates it as a tool by which to analyze the present situation. In doing so, it contests solutions which accommodate Zionism, and more significantly, builds settler colonialism as a political analysis that can embolden and inform a strategy of active, mutual, and principled Palestinian alignment with the Arab struggle for self-determination, and indigenous struggles in the US, Latin America, Oceania, and elsewhere.

Such an alignment would expand the tools available to Palestinians and their solidarity movement, and reconnect the struggle to its own history of anti-colonial internationalism. At its core, this internationalism asserts that the Palestinian struggle against Zionist settler colonialism can only be won when it is embedded within, and empowered by, the broader Arab movement for emancipation and the indigenous, anti-racist and anti-colonial movement--from Arizona to Auckland.

SOAS Palestine Society invites everyone to join us at what promises to be a significant intervention in Palestine activism and scholarship.

For over 30 years, SOAS Palestine Society has heightened awareness and understanding of the Palestinian people, their rights, culture, and struggle for self-determination, amongst students, faculty, staff, and the broader public. SOAS Palestine society aims to continuously push the frontiers of discourse in an effort to make provocative arguments and to stimulate debate and organizing for justice in Palestine through relevant conferences, and events ranging from the intellectual and political impact of Edward Said`s life and work (2004), international law and the Palestine question (2005), the economy of Palestine and its occupation (2006), the one state (2007), 60 Years of Nakba, 60 Years of Resistance (2009), and most recently, the Left in Palestine (2010).

For more information on the SOAS Palestine Society 7th annual conference, Past is Present: Settler Colonialism in Palestine: www.soaspalsoc.org

SOAS Palestine Society Organizing Collective is a group of committed students that has undertaken to organize annual academic conferences on Palestine since 2003.

 


[i] Patrick Wolfe, Settler Colonialism and the Transformation of Anthropology: The Politics and Poetics of an Ethnographic Event, Cassell, London, p. 163

[ii] Interview with Benny Morris, Survival of the Fittest, Haaretz, 9. January 2004, http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=5412