Maia Ferdman
University of California student officials are engaged in a virtual ping-pong match of sweeping and symbolic resolutions and statements regarding HR 35, a California State Assembly resolution that seeks to define anti-Semitism.
Passed in August, HR 35 was met by a counter resolution the following month from the University of California Student Association, which encourages student and faculty divestment of countries violating human rights.
In mid-October, 60 elected student officials from eight UC campuses released a letter in response to the UCSA resolution, arguing that its passage falls short of representing all students in a transparent manner.
HR 35 is contentious for numerous reasons ““ while it does call for action against anti-Semitism on college campuses, it ties certain criticisms of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism, treading dangerously close to hampering free speech.
On a UC-specific level, the most worrisome aspect of the issue lies in the manner in which UCSA passed the resolution condemning HR 35.
The letter criticizes UCSA of authoring a resolution without consulting students who actively lobby on the issue and of marginalizing students through its politicized rhetoric.
Perhaps UCSA’s most severe overstep, like that of the California State Assembly, can be found in the language employed in its resolution.
For those unfamiliar with the polarity that surrounds the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one finds that every word carries an emotional trigger and controversy of its own.
As a Jewish student myself, it is comforting to have my religious group recognized and protected by my government and my university.
But HR 35 equates legitimate forms of political protest with anti-Semitism ““ isolating those students who have justifiable claims and objections against Israeli policy. And this I cannot support.
As a UC student who values free speech, it is also comforting to know that UCSA is looking out for my rights. In the same instance, UCSA’s use of the words “apartheid” and “racism” isolates those students whose experiences with Israel tell a different story.
As an elected body, UCSA, like the California Assembly, should avoid using provocative and subjective language that only serves to disaffect, rather than engage, a large portion of its constituency.
Some of UCSA’s objections to HR 35 regarding free speech on campus do in fact fall under the UCSA mission, which is to help promote “accessibility, affordability and quality” of the UC system.
The UCSA board’s concerns, however, have been largely overshadowed, both in public discourse and in student reactions, by its stance on a geopolitical, and ultimately far-removed, issue for much of the student body.
With a constituency of more than 200,000 students across 10 campuses, the resolution does not represent a consensus among Jewish or Palestinian students and surely does not speak for the tens of thousands of students unaffiliated and unfamiliar with the issues at hand.
As representatives of every kind of student, elected officials on both sides of this issue should not push forth political agendas, but rather address real and immediate issues by peeling away unnecessary rhetoric.
The letter responding to the UCSA resolution does just that. It addresses concerns not only applicable to this specific resolution, but to UCSA procedures themselves.
It also provides reasonable and constructive demands that would improve the democratic process.
The issue of transparency, as cited in the letter to the UCSA Board of Directors, can be traced back to the lack of information regarding the Sept. 16 meeting during which the resolution was authored.
As the signatories to the letter against the UCSA resolution indicate, this clouds the inclusive dialogue necessary for such issues.
“A resolution can be an appropriate way (to voice opposition), but it needs to be all-inclusive and engage communities they claim to represent,” said David Bocarsly, fourth-year economics student, president of the Undergraduate Students Association Council and signatory to the letter.
“If an issue (comes up) about a community, before you do anything, you (first) reach out to that community,” Bocarsly said, citing his own experience on USAC.
Since September, UCSA has made an effort to increase transparency and publicity.
At the group’s last meeting on Oct. 6, which took place at UCLA, board members made sure students were aware about the meeting’s time and place, said Lana Habib El-Farra, third-year political science student, USAC external vice president and a board member of UCSA.
UCSA should continue to meet the demands of the letter pertaining to the resolution against HR 35 and all future resolutions. These demands may help set a precedent by which UCSA more carefully considers releasing blanket political statements on behalf of its constituency.
The rebuttal letter to UCSA is an attempt to move toward more sensitive policies. And while the Israeli-Palestinian issue is relevant to many students, myself included, elected bodies should encourage more inclusive conversations on campus climate and free speech rather than politicize them.
Email Ferdman at
mferdman@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
opinion@media.ucla.edu or tweet us @DBOpinion.