Editorial – The Inexcusable Tolerance of Jew Hatred at UCLA

Editorial – The Inexcusable Tolerance of Jew Hatred at UCLA

In a shocking and deeply troubling incident, the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) allowed a “Jew Exclusion Zone” to operate on its campus, a decision that federal District Court Judge Mark Scarsi rightly condemned as “unimaginable” and “abhorrent.” This reprehensible situation, in which pro-Hamas protesters were permitted to set up barricades and checkpoints that effectively barred Jewish students from accessing significant parts of their campus, represents a grievous violation of the core values that any academic institution should uphold.

UCLA files an appeal with the 9th Circuit challenging the Preliminary Injunction Order prohibiting protesters from blocking Jewish students’ access to campus.

UCLA is represented by four attorneys from @omelvenymyers – a corporate “biglaw” firm that charges approx. $3,000/hr… pic.twitter.com/meJwYi4y2C

— The Persian Jewess (@persianjewess) August 15, 2024

The actions taken by the protesters—requiring Jewish students to disavow allegiance to Israel as a condition for moving freely on their own campus—constituted not only a blatant act of anti-Semitism but also a direct assault on the First Amendment rights of these students. The freedom to exercise one’s religion without coercion or discrimination is a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. For UCLA to allow such a violation to occur on its premises is not only legally indefensible but also morally reprehensible.
These students were not merely inconvenienced; they were subjected to an environment of intimidation and exclusion that has no place in any institution of higher learning. The fact that UCLA officials allowed this to continue for a week before taking action, and then permitted it to happen again later that month, raises serious questions about the university’s commitment to protecting the rights and safety of all its students.

In response to the lawsuit filed by the three Jewish students, Judge Scarsi took the extraordinary but necessary step of issuing a preliminary injunction against the university. This injunction is not just a legal technicality; it is a critical measure to prevent the recurrence of such discriminatory practices. By stating that “any part of the campus that is shut down for Jewish students must be shut down for everyone,” Judge Scarsi underscored the principle that all students deserve equal access to university facilities, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Scarsi’s order is a much-needed reinforcement of a bedrock principle: government-run universities like UCLA are explicitly barred by the Bill of Rights from allowing any attacks on the religious freedom of their students, Jewish or otherwise.

Live footage from @UCLA tonight as a third encampment is attempted to be established.

One heavily masked man declared that he hates Zionists and that he loves Jews and Jews aren’t Zionists. A minute later this same person is with his other masked buddy who proudly states that… pic.twitter.com/IECdgUzAXE

— Documenting Jew Hatred on Campus at Columbia U (@CampusJewHate) June 11, 2024

UCLA’s decision to appeal this injunction, claiming that it would “hamstring our ability to handle events on the ground,” is not only disingenuous but also deeply concerning. What the university fails to acknowledge is that its primary responsibility is to ensure that no student is subjected to discrimination or harassment. If upholding this responsibility requires a reevaluation of how campus events are managed, then so be it. The protection of students’ constitutional rights must always take precedence over administrative convenience.

UCLA, as a public institution funded by taxpayer dollars, has an unequivocal obligation to ensure that all students, regardless of their religious affiliation, have full and unfettered access to campus facilities. The events that led to the creation of a so-called “Jew Exclusion Zone” on its campus were not just a lapse in judgment; they were a fundamental violation of the rights enshrined in the First Amendment. For a university that prides itself on being a beacon of higher learning and inclusivity, this failure is both shocking and inexcusable.

Judge Scarsi’s order, which demands that any area of the campus closed to Jewish students must be closed to everyone, underscores the simplicity of the solution: equality in access is non-negotiable. UCLA’s administrators, who are compensated with six- and seven-figure salaries, must be held to the highest standards of accountability. If they are incapable of ensuring that all students have equal access to campus spaces—free from discrimination and harassment—they do not deserve the positions they hold.

Look at all the Nazis Pro Hamas at UCLA, all organized with equipment, all financed by who? They hate America, they hate Israel, and they hate Jews. pic.twitter.com/Ddhvcwyv4J

— Raylan Givens (@JewishWarrior13) May 2, 2024

The implications of Scarsi’s ruling extend far beyond the confines of UCLA. UCLA’s handling of this situation is a glaring example of what happens when the principles of fairness, equality, and respect are compromised. The university’s leadership must be held accountable for their inaction, and immediate steps must be taken to ensure that such an incident never occurs again.

The preliminary injunction imposed by Judge Scarsi is a critical first step, but it cannot be the last. UCLA, and indeed all universities, must implement stronger measures to protect the rights of all students, to foster an environment of true inclusion, and to ensure that the values of justice and equality are not just talked about but practiced on their campuses.

In the end, this is not just about UCLA or even about the specific students involved in this case. It is about the kind of society we want to live in—a society where everyone, regardless of their religion, race, or beliefs, can pursue their education free from fear and discrimination. Anything less is unacceptable.

UCLA is adamant that anti-discrimination laws must not apply to Jews. Gavin Newsom is the head of the UC system and could stop UCLA from pursuing its anti-Semitic agenda. But he wants to be president someday and the Democrat Party does not tolerate opposition to Jew hatred. https://t.co/69WW5yEIIK

— Ayn Reagan (@AynReagan) August 15, 2024

However, the problem of religious discrimination on college campuses is not confined to public institutions alone. Private universities, including prestigious names such as Harvard and Columbia, are also on notice. These institutions receive billions in federal and state funding, tuition assistance for their students, and research grants for their faculty. With this financial support comes the legal and ethical responsibility to protect students from discrimination based on race, gender, or religion.

Yet, there is a troubling trend among university administrators and faculty, many of whom lean heavily to the left, to selectively apply these protections. They may be quick to act against discrimination when it targets favored groups, such as racial minorities or LGBTQ+ individuals, but often show reluctance or outright neglect when the victims belong to groups that are less politically popular, such as Jewish students.

Imagine the outcry if campus rioters were to set up a “Queer Exclusion Zone” or a space where Black students were barred from entering unless they renounced their identities. Such actions would be met with swift and decisive responses, as they should be. The fact that similar protections are not automatically extended to Jewish students is a glaring double standard that must be addressed.

The case at UCLA is not unique. Earlier this year, six Jewish students filed a lawsuit against Harvard, citing similar instances of religious discrimination. Harvard’s defense—that it has a First Amendment obligation to promote free speech on campus—rings hollow in this context. Free speech does not include the right to infringe upon the religious freedoms of others. Universities have a duty to create environments where all students can learn, grow, and express themselves without fear of discrimination or exclusion.

Heaping shame upon shame. The court issued a stinging rebuke of UCLA for discriminating against Jews. Instead of responding to the court’s scathing decision by committing to fixing its illegal, apartheid, racist behavior, UCLA doubles down on Jew-hatred by appealing the decision. https://t.co/jRNyHLl6tM

— (((John Mirisch 🌸))) (@JohnMirisch) August 15, 2024

In a pivotal decision, Federal District Court Judge Richard G. Stearns decisively rejected Harvard University’s dubious attempt to shield itself behind the First Amendment in a case concerning rampant anti-Semitism on campus. The court’s ruling strikes at the heart of a growing and alarming trend in American higher education, where the principle of free speech is increasingly being misused to justify the perpetuation of discrimination and bigotry. What Jewish students at Harvard and other universities have endured is not a matter of free expression but a blatant violation of their basic rights—a violation that demands accountability from all levels of society, including trustees, alumni, parents, and, most importantly, our elected officials.

Harvard’s argument that it could hide behind the First Amendment to excuse its failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism is, as Judge Stearns rightly pointed out, deeply flawed. The First Amendment is a cornerstone of American democracy, designed to protect the free exchange of ideas and the right to speak without fear of government reprisal. However, it does not, and should not, serve as a shield for institutions that allow the most egregious manifestations of Jew hatred to flourish within their walls. The suffering endured by Jewish students at Harvard is not an unfortunate side effect of free speech; it is a direct result of the university’s failure to take a firm stand against anti-Semitism.

So the University of California wants to be able to have anti-Jewish discrimination at UCLA.

They are appealing a decision that would have barred it.

They are requesting a court give them permission to allow Jew-hatred on their campus. https://t.co/ePQvu6wHob

— The World According To Rich (@rich_toronto) August 15, 2024

This ruling should serve as a wake-up call to other universities that may be tempted to follow Harvard’s example. The court’s message is clear: the First Amendment cannot be used as an excuse to abdicate the responsibility of protecting students from discrimination. Instead, universities must ensure that their campuses are safe and inclusive environments for all students, regardless of their religion or background.

The court’s decision also underscores the urgent need for stakeholders within these institutions to take a stand. Trustees, alumni, and parents—those who have a vested interest in the future of these universities—must have the courage to demand accountability. Financial contributions and support should not be given unconditionally. When a university fails to protect its students from discrimination, it forfeits its claim to the trust and support of its community.

Withholding support, whether through donations or other forms of engagement, is a powerful tool that can drive change. By making it clear that anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated, stakeholders can compel universities to take the necessary steps to address these issues head-on. This is not just about protecting Jewish students; it is about upholding the values of equality, justice, and human dignity that are supposed to be the bedrock of higher education.

Equally important is the role of our elected officials in this fight. Politicians must demonstrate the courage to withhold public funding from institutions that fail to protect their students from discrimination. Public universities, in particular, have a special obligation to uphold the rights of all students, as they are funded by taxpayer dollars and serve the public good. When these institutions fall short, it is the duty of our leaders to step in and ensure that public funds are not being used to support environments that foster Jew hatred.

The recent comments by Vice President Kamala Harris, expressing sympathy for pro-Hamas protesters while attempting to navigate the thorny issue of anti-Semitism, highlight the complex and often fraught nature of this debate. Leaders must be unequivocal in their condemnation of all forms of hate, regardless of the political context in which they arise.

Amid the failures of institutions and the often lukewarm responses of politicians, the Constitution remains the ultimate protector of those who find themselves out of favor, such as Jewish students on college campuses. The judicial branch, with its mandate to uphold the principles enshrined in the Constitution, has proven to be a crucial bulwark against the encroachments of bigotry and discrimination. Judges like Richard Stearns, who are willing to stand up to powerful institutions and enforce the law impartially, are the true heroes in this ongoing battle.

Their courage to prioritize constitutional principles over political correctness or institutional reputation is a reminder that the judiciary’s role is not to navigate the murky waters of social acceptability but to uphold justice and protect the rights of all citizens. In times when other branches of government may falter, the courts must remain steadfast in their commitment to these foundational ideals.

The fight against campus anti-Semitism, and against all forms of discrimination, requires the concerted efforts of every part of our society. Universities must not be allowed to hide behind the First Amendment when they fail to protect their students. Trustees, alumni, and parents must use their influence to demand change. Politicians must be willing to withhold public funding from institutions that do not meet their obligations. And above all, the courts must continue to uphold the Constitution’s protections, ensuring that justice prevails, even when it is unpopular or politically inconvenient.

As we look to the future, the actions taken in response to this ruling will set the tone for how our society deals with discrimination in all its forms. We must demand that our institutions live up to their highest ideals and that our leaders have the courage to do what is right, even when it is difficult. In the end, it is the strength of our convictions and the integrity of our actions that will determine the kind of nation we become.