The University of California is remaining neutral on a resolution passed by the California Legislature last week that calls on the state’s public universities to increase efforts to combat anti-Semitism on their campuses.
The resolution, HR 35, states that the UC and other California public universities should prohibit activity that could be interpreted as anti-Semitic or intolerant from occurring on its campuses. It was approved with no debate in the California Assembly.
“I introduced this resolution because of the recent rise in anti-Jewish hate crimes, including assault, on California campuses,” Assemblywoman Linda Halderman, one of the legislators who introduced the resolution, said in an email statement.
The resolution was approved by 66 legislators who signed as co-authors. It is a nonbinding resolution, which means that it does not stipulate legal changes.
Because the resolution does not have actual policy implications, the UC’s stance on the measure will remain neutral, said Steve Montiel, a university spokesman.
University leaders feel that the resolution goes against the First Amendment of the Constitution, he said.
Before the resolution was approved, the UC requested that it be amended to incorporate the Constitution’s right to free speech, he added. But these amendments were not added by the state Legislature.
“We had major concerns with the (resolution’s) language regarding the First Amendment rights of students,” Montiel said.
Although there are measures the UC can take to regulate the time, place and manner in which demonstrations occur, the UC ““ as a public institution ““ cannot interfere with the content of demonstrations or protests, regardless of the subject matter, said Margaret Wu, a member of the UC General Counsel.
The UC General Counsel, a team of attorneys that provides legal services to the UC, reviewed the resolution and advised the UC not to endorse it on the grounds that its language did not accurately reflect free speech rights for students, Wu said.
The resolution has met with skepticism and criticism within the UC community, not just among officials.
Nine community, legal and student organizations sent a letter to the Legislature last Tuesday, asking lawmakers to reconsider the resolution, citing it as “poorly researched” and “highly ideological.”
In response to the criticism the resolution has received, Assemblywoman Bonnie Lowenthal said in a statement last week that she would work on a resolution that affirms the rights of free speech on campus when the state Legislature convenes again in January.
“I’m not sure what all it’s going to say, but I think it will boil down to a celebration of the First Amendment,” Lowenthal said in a statement. “And it will make clear in no uncertain terms that students in our universities should feel safe to have differing opinions.”
This is not the first time anti-Semitism has been fought on UC campuses.
In 2010, UC President Mark Yudof gathered an advisory group to address improving campus climate after racially-charged incidents occurred on several UC campuses.
And in July, a report separate from last week’s resolution was published by the UC Jewish Student Campus Climate Fact-Finding Team that recommends the UC adopt a policy that prohibits hate speech on campus, despite the possibility of legal challenges.
The report, currently under review by the University, also advises the UC to adopt a definition of anti-Semitism.
In July, faculty, students and alumni from across the UC posted an open letter to Yudof on Change.org, asking him to table the report. The letter had received about 197 signatures as of press time.
Meanwhile, StandWithUs ““ a Los Angeles nonprofit organization that works to combat anti-Semitism ““ has gathered more than 1,600 signatures for a petition supporting the report, according to its website.
In a letter sent to the chancellors of all 10 UC campuses last month regarding the report, Yudof expressed his belief that current UC policies go as far as they can given constitutional limitations.
“As I have said before, I will continue to be the first to defend students’ and faculty’s rights to free speech under the U.S. Constitution,” Yudof said in the letter.
At the heart of these types of evaluations of campus climate are polarizing issues that continually appear on UCLA and other UC campuses, such as the Israel-Palestine conflict, said Daniel Mitchell, a professor emeritus of the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs and the UCLA Anderson School of Management.
Both the resolution and the UC advisory group’s report cite examples of demonstrations such as Israel Apartheid Week and Palestine Awareness Week as problematic.
Though the resolution does not stipulate changes in policy and will not affect Palestine Awareness Week, those who participate in the event may consider other methods of expressing their opinions, Mitchell said.