Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[rosends]

I think there are other reasons besides the club's bylaws why Ruth Bader Ginsburg won't be speaking to any Berkeley student clubs any time soon.

Yes, but it shows that the scenario is not very fantastical. Justice Elena Kagan (who spoke at Berkley in 2019) would also be out of the running, and she isn't even dead! I think it sad that a group called "Women of Berkley Law" would choose not to want to hear from a supreme court justice. I'm sure that getting a local woman lawyer is the same thing, though. Of course, as you say, if they realize that this isn't best serving their constituency they can just change their by-laws so they won't be hypocrites, and then change them back after they hear from the top court justice.

And though I'm sure your opinion of what law students would do is rooted in your experience and understanding, I would just love to read an actual statement put out by the Women of Berkeley Law group in which they explicitly say that they would not want to hear from Justice Kagan. And maybe one by the Law Students of African Descent saying that, given the chance, they would not want to have President Biden (or VP Harris, who is from Berkeley) speak to them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, but it shows that the scenario is not very fantastical. Justice Elena Kagan (who spoke at Berkley in 2019) would also be out of the running, and she isn't even dead! I think it sad that a group called "Women of Berkley Law" would choose not to want to hear from a supreme court justice. I'm sure that getting a local woman lawyer is the same thing, though. Of course, as you say, if they realize that this isn't best serving their constituency they can just change their by-laws so they won't be hypocrites, and then change them back after they hear from the top court justice.

Well, since in this fantasy scenario you've set up, female Supreme Court justices are lining up - and even coming back from the dead - to speak to this student club, I trust that they'd be able to get Sonia Sotomayor instead.

And though I'm sure your opinion of what law students would do is rooted in your experience and understanding, I would just love to read an actual statement put out by the Women of Berkeley Law group in which they explicitly say that they would not want to hear from Justice Kagan. And maybe one by the Law Students of African Descent saying that, given the chance, they would not want to have President Biden (or VP Harris, who is from Berkeley) speak to them.

We haven't talked at all yet about what *I* think any students would do. So far, our tangent has been about you presenting possibilities and me asking if they would really be that bad.

As for any of the names you trot out: without getting into how "Zionist" any particular person is, I fully concede that there are plenty of powerful, popular people who are Zionists. Holding a principled stand will often involve personal sacrifice, and when considering all the personal sacrifices that have been made in pursuit of the rights of the Palestinian people, the sacrifice of not being able to see a famous person speak on campus is pretty mild.

I have no idea whether these Berkeley students will stick to a principled stand. I have no idea whether, after this crop of students graduate, the next crop of students will keep these bylaws.

... but I think it would be good if they did.

 

[rosends]

Well, since in this fantasy scenario you've set up, female Supreme Court justices are lining up - and even coming back from the dead - to speak to this student club, I trust that they'd be able to get Sonia Sotomayor instead.

What I set up clearly isn't a fantasy, as it is based in actual events that have involved multiple justices. If dismissing it as fantastical helps anyone avoid it as a real situation, then so be it.

As for any of the names you trot out: without getting into how "Zionist" any particular person is,

But that's the point. The language doesn't ask "how Zionist a person is." Anyone to whom that word is even remotely attached is automatically excluded and that seems like an overstepping which has practical applications that go beyond what (IMHO) the students were including. Their principled stand would take them in a direction which I don't know that they intended, let alone considered.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well, since in this fantasy scenario you've set up, ...

Ridiculing an entirely legitimate thought experiment is just petty.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I set up clearly isn't a fantasy, as it is based in actual events that have involved multiple justices. If dismissing it as fantastical helps anyone avoid it as a real situation, then so be it.

I'm not dismissing it; the answer would be the same if they had a weekly guest lecture series featuring only US presidents and Supreme Court justices.

I just think it's interesting that even you - someone who describes himself as a Zionist - need to reach for rare, outlier scenarios to try to find one where you're willing to argue that the sacrifice of this principled stand might go against the students' self-interest.

But that's the point. The language doesn't ask "how Zionist a person is." Anyone to whom that word is even remotely attached is automatically excluded and that seems like an overstepping which has practical applications that go beyond what (IMHO) the students were including. Their principled stand would take them in a direction which I don't know that they intended, let alone considered.

If you're focusing on "the language" of these by-laws, I trust you've read at least one of them for yourself... right?

Could you share a link?

 

[rosends]

I'm not dismissing it; the answer would be the same if they had a weekly guest lecture series featuring only US presidents and Supreme Court justices.

I just think it's interesting that even you - someone who describes himself as a Zionist - need to reach for rare, outlier scenarios to try to find one where you're willing to argue that the sacrifice of this principled stand might go against the students' self-interest.

But that's the point -- it isn't necessarily rare and is a practical and real world application. One tests any policy by trying to apply it to various real cases. In this case, I am just applying it to actual events that have taken place and ones that are within the realm of practical possibility. Harris, a lawyer, spoke at Berkeley in 2012.

If you're focusing on "the language" of these by-laws, I trust you've read at least one of them for yourself... right?

Could you share a link?

I read the instagram post by the group ( https://www.instagram.co m/p/Ch2ty0FvdWJ/ ) which does nothing to define "Zionist" but uses the word repeatedly. It talks of "support" but doesn't quantify it.

Can you show me anywhere where the words are defined and quantified so i can adjust my understanding?

edit --[GALLERY=media, 9800]Pal by rosends posted Oct 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM[/GALLERY]

Here is an image taken directly from the by-law
https://www.instagram.co m/p/Chh_43tpLnm/

 

[rosends]

After reading through the instagram posts, and seeing how the group explicitly equates Israel and the US in terms of their founding and occupying land of others, I wonder why there hasn't ben a boycott and a banning of speakers who support the existence of the US. I mean, that would be the more consistent and principled stand to take.

 

[Stevicus]

After reading through the instagram posts, and seeing how the group explicitly equates Israel and the US in terms of their founding and occupying land of others, I wonder why there hasn't ben a boycott and a banning of speakers who support the existence of the US. I mean, that would be the more consistent and principled stand to take.

Well, in the U.S., the damage is already done and the milk has already been spilled. But many of us today, including our own government and political leadership, have expressed regret and condemnation of past atrocities committed by the US government. We recognize that such actions were wrong. We have reformed, at least to some degree, although there's still a long way to go.

The "existence of the US" is more of an abstraction. We could still have the same land and people living on it and restructure it into something different. We could totally start over from scratch, with a new flag, new government, new constitution where all citizens would be truly equal and free. We probably should have done that, at least in the sense that it would give us a clean break from the past, a strong, affirmative statement that we're no longer like we used to be. But too many people want to cling to old ideals and old foundations which may be cracking underneath.

But in the final analysis, it really doesn't amount to a hill of beans what a bunch of snooty pudknockers from Berekley think about the U.S., Israel, or anything else for that matter. Everyone has their own perceptions, their own views of the world, so I don't see how theirs are any more valid or important than anyone else's. Nobody likes lawyers anyway.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that's the point -- it isn't necessarily rare and is a practical and real world application. One tests any policy by trying to apply it to various real cases. In this case, I am just applying it to actual events that have taken place and ones that are within the realm of practical possibility.

And you have to go with events that happen every few years at best. I consider these rare.

Harris, a lawyer, spoke at Berkeley in 2012.

Invited by the Berkeley Law School itself, not by any student club, from what I gather by a quick googling.

If you're going to try to bring up "practical real world applications," at least make them relevant.

I read the instagram post by the group ( https://www.instagram.co m/p/Ch2ty0FvdWJ/ ) which does nothing to define "Zionist" but uses the word repeatedly. It talks of "support" but doesn't quantify it.

Can you show me anywhere where the words are defined and quantified so i can adjust my understanding?

edit --[GALLERY=media, 9800]Pal by rosends posted Oct 7, 2022 at 9:28 AM[/GALLERY]

Here is an image taken directly from the by-law
https://www.instagram.co m/p/Chh_43tpLnm/

Thank you - finally some material from one of the groups itself and not a journalist's paraphrase of what the bylaw says.

... but we are talking about a bylaw. It's very common for an organization's bylaws to speak to overarching ideas, and then, if needed, for lower documents (policies, standing orders, etc.), to fill in the details of implementation of the things spelled out in the bylaws.

... so you're upset that the bylaw provides a level of detail that's typical of a club bylaw?

 

[rosends]

And you have to go with events that happen every few years at best. I consider these rare.

And I don't consider them fantasies.

... but we are talking about a bylaw. It's very common for an organization's bylaws to speak to overarching ideas, and then, if needed, for lower documents (policies, standing orders, etc.), to fill in the details of implementation of the things spelled out in the bylaws.

... so you're upset that the bylaw provides a level of detail that's typical of a club bylaw?

I am upset that a by-law constructed by the ostensible future of the legal profession lacks the precision of language that I would demand of a 10th grade class. If the by-law is attempting to establish a followable policy, then it is incumbent on the framer to anticipate and clarify.

 

[Left Coast]

And you have to go with events that happen every few years at best. I consider these rare.


Invited by the Berkeley Law School itself, not by any student club, from what I gather by a quick googling.

If you're going to try to bring up "practical real world applications," at least make them relevant.


Thank you - finally some material from one of the groups itself and not a journalist's paraphrase of what the bylaw says.

... but we are talking about a bylaw. It's very common for an organization's bylaws to speak to overarching ideas, and then, if needed, for lower documents (policies, standing orders, etc.), to fill in the details of implementation of the things spelled out in the bylaws.

... so you're upset that the bylaw provides a level of detail that's typical of a club bylaw?

You're trying very hard to make reservations about this change seem unreasonable.

The bylaw says that these groups won't invite, "speakers who have expressed and continued to hold views in support of...the apartheid state of Israel."

Furthermore, the commentary of these groups on the rationale for this bylaw is a criticism of Israel from its very founding as a country. And the original meaning of "Zionism" was support for the founding of Israel as a state.

So it's isn't at all unreasonable or unrealistic to ask...is this bylaw saying that anyone who supports the existence of the state of Israel can't speak? If it does, it excludes the vast majority of Jewish people. Which it isn't unreasonable to say...is deeply problematic.

Can you not understand the concern?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're trying very hard to make reservations about this change seem unreasonable.

No, I've been asking for the reasoning behind any reservations. The quality of those reasons stands or falls on its own merits (mostly "falls" so far, IMO).

The bylaw says that these groups won't invite, "speakers who have expressed and continued to hold views in support of...the apartheid state of Israel."

Right. It sounds reasonable to me to oppose an apartheid regime, and I think this is a reasonable description of the current situation.

Furthermore, the commentary of these groups on the rationale for this bylaw is a criticism of Israel from its very founding as a country. And the original meaning of "Zionism" was support for the founding of Israel as a state.

So it's isn't at all unreasonable or unrealistic to ask...is this bylaw saying that anyone who supports the existence of the state of Israel can't speak? If it does, it excludes the vast majority of Jewish people. Which it isn't unreasonable to say...is deeply problematic.

Well, let's look at the actual text:

Furthermore, in the interest of protecting the safety and welfare of Palestinian students on campus, (insert organization name) will not invite speakers that have expressed and continue to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.

Maybe before asking what "Zionism" means, we should ask what "and" means... specifically the one I've bolded.

In particular, we could ask how its meaning would be different from "or" in this context.

The bylaw even goes on to speak to implementation:

While Law Students Justice for Palestine respects the approach of each individual organization in their implementation of this provision, suggested strategies can include publicly stipulating the organization's position of anti-racism and anti-settler colonialism to speakers, ensuring that proposals for speakers emphasize the organization's desire for equality and inclusion, and informing speakers of the event's goals and mission values.

Can you not understand the concern?

I think it's important to be watchful for anti-semitism, but I think that these claims that the bylaws would exclude "the vast majority of Jewish students" are misrepresenting what's going on here.

This is not some purge of Jewish members from student clubs. This is clubs saying to prospective guest speakers, "before we book you for this event, you should know that our club supports Palestinians' rights? Do you support them too?"

 

[Left Coast]

No, I've been asking for the reasoning behind any reservations. The quality of those reasons stands or falls on its own merits (mostly "falls" so far, IMO).


Right. It sounds reasonable to me to oppose an apartheid regime, and I think this is a reasonable description of the current situation.


Well, let's look at the actual text:


Maybe before asking what "Zionism" means, we should ask what "and" means... specifically the one I've bolded.

In particular, we could ask how its meaning would be different from "or" in this context.

The bylaw even goes on to speak to implementation:

Right, so the question remains - are speakers permitted who support the existence of Israel, even if they oppose things that state does? It's not clear. That's the issue.

I think it's important to be watchful for anti-semitism, but I think that these claims that the bylaws would exclude "the vast majority of Jewish students" are misrepresenting what's going on here.

This is not some purge of Jewish members from student clubs. This is clubs saying to prospective guest speakers, "before we book you for this event, you should know that our club supports Palestinians' rights? Do you support them too?"

I think that's reasonable if you're correct about the interpretation of what these groups mean. If you're not, and it's a more extreme view...that's an understandable criticism that certainly "stands on its own merits."

 

[rosends]

Right. It sounds reasonable to me to oppose an apartheid regime, and I think this is a reasonable description of the current situation.

Though that begs an analysis of the application of the word "apartheid" and there are a plethora of voices on many sides who have opinions about whether the word is the right one to use.

Maybe before asking what "Zionism" means, we should ask what "and" means... specifically the one I've bolded.

Absolutely! The list of three items is not clear whether they are contingent on each other or independent characteristics.

In particular, we could ask how its meaning would be different from "or" in this context.

We could and someone should ask precisely that question!

I think it's important to be watchful for anti-semitism, but I think that these claims that the bylaws would exclude "the vast majority of Jewish students" are misrepresenting what's going on here.

That depends on the expansiveness of the definition of "Zionist". If it is to be read and understood as 'anyone who has stated any support for the existence of an autonomous Jewish state in any form' which is certainly one possible definition, then it automatically does exclude the vast majority of Jews and a huge chunk of other people.

This is clubs saying to prospective guest speakers, "before we book you for this event, you should know that our club supports Palestinians' rights? Do you support them too?"

Does the concept of "supporting Palestinian rights" inevitably exclude being a Zionist? Many ardent Zionists would say that it doesn't.