Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[Revoltingest]

So do the ZCubs.

I don't know what that is.
Spelling error?
Clarify.

 

[PureX]

How is censorship conducive to an institution of learning?

Weeding out misinformation is essential to effective education. Every system of education "bans" misinformation from it's curriculum to the best of it's ability.

 

[PureX]

I'd read that (same source) the other day.
They try to hard to make it about banning Jews.
It's perfectly reasonable for student groups to
ban speakers who advocate Zionism. That's
not banning Jews. Not all Jews are Zionists.
Feigning victimhood...very weak.

BINGO! This, exactly.

 

[rosends]

I read part of the article but am lost. Any clarification would be appreciated:

1. many of the groups in question are not united by, nor do I assume their scope to be, issues of the middle east, and are placing their ban based on a loose intersectionality argument. Did they first ban any speaker who contradicts the positions that define their incorporation?

2. would this include not allowing a speaker who is a Zionist to speak on issues unrelated to the middle east? Would the Queer group not allow an anti-gay legal scholar to discuss second amendment rights?

3. Could a group called "law students for plastic bags" ban speakers who are pro-Islam on general principle? Do they need to state some sort of invented sympathy and affiliation with those victimized by Islam as that is tied to the victimhood of plastic bags? Or can any group choose to ban people by the people's association with anything they happen not to like, or even just on a whim?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It does not host all discussions.

Neither do most true Scotsmen.

 

[PureX]

They should allow both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine groups. And pro-peace groups. Let them debate it.

What makes you assume they have not already done so, and concluded that the zionists are full of crap? And anyway, students at Berkley are not dolts. They are quite capable of recognizing ethnic cleansing when they see it, and when they hear it being rationalized, and they are equally capable of refusing to give it a platform from which to propagandize such inhumane behavior.

 

[Revoltingest]

Neither do most true Scotsmen.

You must be making some points with your last 2 posts.
I sense that you fancy them as clever.
Well, that doesn't work when they fly right over my head.
I'm not that learned.
Be clear or be gone, Einstein!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What makes you assume they have not already done so, and concluded that the zionists are full of crap? And anyway, students at Berkley are not dolts. They are quite capable of recognizing ethnic cleansing when they see it, and when they hear it being rationalized, and they are equally capable of refusing to give it a platform from which to propagandize such inhumane treatment.

So all zionist are crap promoting for ethnic cleansing?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Be clear or be gone, Einstein!

 

[PureX]

Is it your assertion that advocating violence is characteristic of all zionism and all zionists?

Yes and no. They don't advocate violence unless and until the Palestinians within the Israeli state object to being so marginalized and abused and stripped of their power and possessions that they dare to try and fight back. Then violence is quite acceptable to the zionists, and in excess.

 

[PureX]

So all zionist are crap promoting for ethnic cleansing?

Yes. They don't want to call it that, of course, but that is their singular goal. They want the state of Israel and whatever territories Israel chooses to annex to be Jewish. Period. They want to cleanse Israel of the Palestinians.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes and no. They don't advocate violence unless and until the Palestinians within the Israeli state object to being so marginalized and abused and stripped of their power and possessions that they dare to try and fight back. Then violence is quite acceptable to the zionists, and in excess.

All zionists?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So all zionist are crap promoting for ethnic cleansing?

Yes.

Thanks for your clarity.

 

[Stevicus]

Several student groups at UC Berkeley have changed their bylaws to prohibit "Zionist," ie pro-Israel, speakers from their groups. This has led to fairly significant backlash, particularly this article that has been making its rounds:

Berkeley Develops Jewish-Free Zones

The article made such a hubbub that Berkeley's law school dean (who is also Jewish and publicly expressed concern about the scope of the change) wrote a response (which the original author included and replied to in the link above).

From the article:

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

It is now a century since Jewish-free zones first spread to the San Francisco Bay Area (“No Dogs. No Jews”). Nevertheless, this move seems frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night.

The groups which are imposing these bans don't strike me as white nationalist or MAGA/Trump supporters, but they seem to embrace a similar mindset and ideological position related to identity politics - which is still quasi-nationalistic no matter how they try to spin it. Imagine what would happen if a European-American Christian Law Students Association tried to ban people of a certain political/ideological belief.

The main problem is having mutable and easily changeable political principles and ideals based on the racial/national/gender identity of its adherents. This is the reason why many on the left have painted themselves into an ideological corner they can't easily get out of.

 

[PureX]

The groups which are imposing these bans don't strike me as white nationalist or MAGA/Trump supporters, but they seem to embrace a similar mindset and ideological position related to identity politics.

If the Klan came to speak to a student group, suggesting that all black people in the U.S. be rounded up and sent back to Africa, or subjugated to the point of poverty and powerlessness by a white dominant society, most of those students would conclude that the Klan is full of crap, is inhumane, and is absurdly and dangerously self-centered.

So why should these students invite the Klan to come and spew their bile, again? And why would the other student groups, hearing of this, invite them at all? When does "free speech" become just a load of pointless, unwanted, crap? Never? Do students have to put up with this crap over and over and over year after year, just to satisfy the ideal of "free speech"?

My bet is that these students at Berkley understand this issue far better than most of us, here, do. As they have heard, read, and debated it in depth and extensively. And they are done with the Zionist spiel. They've heard it fully, and rejected it fully. And now they don't want to hear it, anymore. Which they should certainly have a right to.

 

[rosends]

If the Klan came to speak to a student group, suggesting that all black people in the U.S. be rounded up and sent back to Africa, or subjugated to the point of poverty and powerlessness by a white dominant society, most of those students would conclude that the Klan is full of crap, is inhumane, and is absurdly and dangerously self-centered.

So why should these students invite the Klan to come and spew their bile, again? And why would the other student groups, hearing of this, invite them at all? When does "free speech" become just a load of pointless, unwanted, crap? Never? Do students have to put up with this crap over and over and over year after year, just to satisfy the ideal of "free speech"?

My bet is that these students at Berkley understand this issue far better than most of us, here, do. As they have heard, read, and debated it in depth and extensively. And they are done with the Zionist spiel. They've heard it fully, and rejected it fully. And now they don't want to hear it, anymore. Which they should certainly have a right to.

Does the article say that they are banning pro-Zionist speeches or speakers? If the speaker is pro-Zionist but the content is unrelated, is the speaker banned anyway? The language that I have read leans towards an a priori banning of someone based on what might be unrelated political opinions.

 

[PureX]

Does the article say that they are banning pro-Zionist speeches or speakers? If the speaker is pro-Zionist but the content is unrelated, is the speaker banned anyway? The language that I have read leans towards an a priori banning of someone based on what might be unrelated political opinions.

I see little point in the presumed difference your eluding to, here. Should the above exampled Klansman be invited to speak on, let's say, abortion, even though he is known to support racial cleansing? What legitimacy will his ideas on abortion have given that he is known to support racial cleansing? And why not just invite someone that is not a racist to come speak on abortion? It's not like only Klansmen are the experts on abortion.

 

[Left Coast]

It does not host all discussions.
I recall one subject I broached, but was told it violated the rules.
And of course, in the DIRs, I've received many demerits.
Why should student groups have less ability to restrict
speech than those who run RF & the DIRs?

Can you imagine us enacting the actual policy in question? Preventing anyone who supports Israel from posting or starting an OP?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Is it your assertion that advocating violence is characteristic of all zionism and all zionists?

Nope. That's why I said '...not addressing the original comment...'
My point had nothing to do with Zionism at all, nor Judaism.
It's a general point about what I see as the point of free speech and discourse. Where nationalists are resorting to violence (whatever type of nationalism they support), I would normally see that as a legitimate basis to restrict diologue. Even then I'd say it's contextual, but basically I'm suggesting each case should be treated on it's merits, on the willingness of the speaker to use words rather than violence.

 

[Yerda]

That seems to be the case. Berkeley's law school dean explains it that way.

If that's true I dont really know how to take this. It could well be discrimination but more importantly it's absolutely mental.

I'm not going to define zionism.
That would lead to derailment.

That's fair. I don't really want to get into definitions. I'm suggesting that by some understandings of the word "zionism" banning all speakers who advocate for it could be discriminatory. It could rule out about 99% of Jewish people.

I think of Britain in Ireland as an analogy for this. If a student group said, no advocates for colonial occupation in Ireland as speakers, I'd think it reasonable. If they said no speakers who think Britain should exist they'd be ruling out the entire British-identifying population, which I'd say is discriminatory (or could be).

Or if this was reversed, and a student group was proscribing speakers who argue that Palestinians are entitled to state we'd probably say it was at best an attempt to stop people sympathetic to Palestinian statehood from speaking - most Palestinians included.

If this is just a straight up free speech issue, then student groups have to be entitled to invite who they like but it maybe crosses a line when entire national identities are proscribed.