When
the University of California’s Board of Regents unanimously adopted
a statement condemning antisemitism on its campuses, it became the first
public university system to do so since the push for economic boycotts of
Israel emerged on campuses across the nation.
But
the measure — an attempt to combat hostility toward Jewish students amid this
growing opposition to Israel — softened a proposed flat-out condemnation of
anti-Zionism, or opposition to the creation of a Jewish state. And it seems
unlikely to quell battles that have rocked campuses here and across the nation.
Even as the measure was unanimously approved by the university’s governing body
on Thursday, objections were raised from across the political spectrum.
Pro-Palestinian groups complained that it was designed to stifle opposition to
Israeli policies. Academics worried that it would impinge on free speech. And
Jewish organizations, while praising the measure as an important first step,
said it did not go far enough in addressing hostility they said Jews have faced
on University of California campuses.
In
the end, the Board of Regents dropped from the final resolution a direct
condemnation of anti-Zionism, language that had prompted an explosive debate
about free speech in one of the country’s most vaunted public university
systems. Instead, the final language simply read: “Antisemitism, antisemitic
forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the
University of California.”
No
penalties were outlined for those who violate the policy.
Still,
Dima Khalidi, the director of Palestine Legal, an advocacy group based in
Oakland, said that pro-Israeli groups had “succeeded in convincing the regents
that Palestine advocacy is inherently antisemitic, and should be condemned.”
She said the regents’ action was even more troubling, given the intense
scrutiny that Muslims are facing in the current climate.
“It’s very clear that they have as a goal a
restriction of political speech criticizing Israel and its policies,” she said.
But
Norman J. Pattiz, a regent who helped write the measure, argued that a
resolution specifically addressing antisemitism was necessary because of what
he suggested was a double standard: While attacks on immigrants or Muslims are
usually quickly condemned by the universities, he said, “it seems to be
different for the Jewish community.”
“When I was a kid — I’m 73 years old now —
when people wanted to attack me, they called me a dirty Jew,” Mr. Pattiz said.
“Today, you don’t hear that as much as you hear things like ‘Zionist pig.’ ”
Across
the country, the growing calls to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel — a
movement known as “B.D.S.”— has led to emotional battles on one campus after
another. Following student votes on divestment on several campuses, swastikas
have been painted on the doors of Jewish fraternities. But supporters of
Palestinians say accusations of antisemitism are being used to silence any
opposition to Israel.
Some
of the most bitter fighting has taken place in the University of California
system, where nearly all of the student government councils have approved
divestment proposals. However, no universities have actually divested.
The
regents said that they felt their report, “Principles Against Intolerance,” was
needed to help ease hostility against Jewish students that has arisen on a
number of campuses amid the growing opposition to Israel over the country’s
treatment of Palestinians.
“Expressions of antisemitism are more coded
and difficult to identify,” the report said. “In particular, opposition to
Zionism is often expressed in ways that are not simply statements of
disagreement over politics and policy, but also assertions of prejudice and
intolerance toward Jewish people and culture.”
At
the Berkeley campus, antisemitic graffiti — “Zionists should be sent to the gas
chamber” — appeared on the wall of a bathroom in a university building. At the
University of California, Los Angeles, one student was questioned about how she
could be impartial on a judicial board, given that she was “very active in the
Jewish community.”
“B.D.S. is in virtually all of its aspects antisemitic,”
said Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a Hebrew lecturer at the University of California,
Santa Cruz, and one of the founders of the Amcha Initiative, a group that
combats antisemitism on campuses and that pushed for the University of
California resolution. She said students now faced “classic antisemitism merged
with a new anti-Zionism. These things are so intertwined. Students who are not
even openly supportive of the Jewish state are being targeted because of their
perceived support.”
She
added that the university was the first to specifically recognize “that there
are forms of anti-Zionism that are antisemitic. That’s huge.”
Mr.
Pattiz added that the compromise statement clearly distinguished between antisemitism
and anti-Zionism.
But
many did not agree, saying that the regents were effectively trying to quiet a
debate about Israel and Palestine that had been going on for generations.
“This is the culmination of a campaign on
behalf of pro-Israel organizations to equate criticism of Israel with antisemitism,”
said Tallie Ben Daniel, an academic council coordinator for Jewish Voice for
Peace, which supports the B.D.S. movement. “There are people who see any
criticism of Israel as antisemitic. That erases the very real moral problems
that people have with the policies of Israel.”
Omar
Zahzah, a graduate student of Palestinian descent at U.C.L.A., said any
condemnation of anti-Zionism had personal implications for him: His relatives
were displaced during the 1948 war that helped establish the modern Jewish
state, and he wanted to continue to tell his family’s story.
“Campuses remain a hotbed of repression for
this type of discussion, even as debates about Palestine are becoming a
mainstream issue,” Mr. Zahzah said.
