Banning of Pro-Israel Speakers at UC Berkeley Student Groups

[Quagmire]

The two sides of that argument:

- Zionist speakers should be banned
- Zionist speakers should not be banned

Right now, a club can take either position. You want to forbid clubs from taking the first position, leaving only one position available.

That's not the argument we were discussing, as you well know

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's not the argument we were discussing, as you well know

Do you have this thread confused with another one?

This thread is about university student clubs banning Zionist speakers.

 

[Revoltingest]

All things in moderation, as they say. There is no need to invite unnecessary criticism when one can accomplish their goals (inviting whatever speakers one wants to a group, for example) without it. This does not mean being eternally silent out of fear.



I'm genuinely undecided whether it should be allowed. Part of the issue is that I don't think we know the exact extent of these bylaw changes and whom they would exclude. If they exclude nearly an entire ethnic group, I think that's deeply problematic and foolish even if technically legal.

I don't see it as excluding an ethnic group.
It's about what people advocate. That can
certainly have a disproportionate effect. But
I oppose such compelled speech for private
parties. They should have more such rights
than the university itself, which has a function
of exposing students to a broad range of ideas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm genuinely undecided whether it should be allowed. Part of the issue is that I don't think we know the exact extent of these bylaw changes and whom they would exclude. If they exclude nearly an entire ethnic group, I think that's deeply problematic and foolish even if technically legal.

Not knowing what they say is easily remedied. When I googled Berkeley Law Queer Caucus (just because they were one of the clubs listed in the article), I found the club's home page without any issue, including links to the club's constitution and bylaws.

I couldn't open the files on my phone and couldn't be bothered to go open up my laptop, but if this really matters to you, you can find your answers easily.

 

[Quagmire]

Do you have this thread confused with another one?

This thread is about university student clubs banning Zionist speakers.

No. But as usual while trying to discuss something with you I'm going to have to spend a half hour trying to get you back on point for every 5 minutes I spend expressing my position.

I'll get back to you when I have that much time to waste.

 

[Left Coast]

What meaningful difference do you see between what you suggested ("host speakers that support BDS") and ths position that the clubs have taken ("do not host speakers who oppose BDS," effectively)?

On one hand, you simply invite speakers you want. In the other, you go out of your way to say speakers with other perspectives are not allowed.

As I mentioned before, the groups could get the same outcome without the unnecessary backlash if they went with option 1.

 

[Left Coast]

Not knowing what they say is easily remedied. When I googled Berkeley Law Queer Caucus (just because they were one of the clubs listed in the article), I found the club's home page without any issue, including links to the club's constitution and bylaws.

I couldn't open the files on my phone and couldn't be bothered to go open up my laptop, but if this really matters to you, you can find your answers easily.

I may do more research when I have time. Thanks for the suggestion though.

 

[Left Coast]

I don't see it as excluding an ethnic group.
It's about what people advocate. That can
certainly have a disproportionate effect.

Disproportionate effect is legally relevant. A great many laws and policies have been overturned specifically because of their disparate impact on certain groups.

So again, they could have the same speakers as they'd want anyway if they avoided the whole ban, even if it was deemed technically legal.

 

[Revoltingest]

Disproportionate effect is legally relevant. A great many laws and policies have been overturned specifically because of their disparate impact on certain groups.

Relevant in government, employment, & public accommodation.
But a private group that is dedicated against certain politics
& acts...in this case involving terrorism & oppression...there
is less legal coercion available to government.

So again, they could have the same speakers as they'd want anyway if they avoided the whole ban, even if it was deemed technically legal.

The issue I see here is the right to exclude some groups.

Could a Jewish student group exclude Nazis, KKK, etc in your view?
I'd say yes. But a government venue could not exclude them,
even with their heinous agendas.

 

[Left Coast]

Relevant in government, employment, & public accommodation.
But a private group that is dedicated against certain politics
& acts...in this case involving terrorism & oppression...there
is less legal coercion available to government.

The issue I see here is the right to exclude some groups.

Could a Jewish student group exclude Nazis, KKK, etc in your view?
I'd say yes. But a government venue could not exclude them,
even with their heinous agendas.

The question is whether a belief that Israel has a right to exist is essentially inherent to what it means to be Jewish. If it doesn't, I can see your point. If it does, then the policy crosses the line from exclusion of a certain political view to exclusion of an ethnic group.

 

[rosends]

The question is whether a belief that Israel has a right to exist is essentially inherent to what it means to be Jewish. If it doesn't, I can see your point. If it does, then the policy crosses the line from exclusion of a certain political view to exclusion of an ethnic group.

this is part of the problem -- people aren't aware of the various possible definitions of "Zionist" and the coverage and implications of each. The other words in the definition presented in the article are equally problematic.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To go back to a question I asked that nobody seems to want to answer so far: what do you think would be appropriate ways for a student club to take action that's aligned with the BDS movement?

BY appropriate do you mean supportable?

 

[Revoltingest]

The question is whether a belief that Israel has a right to exist is essentially inherent to what it means to be Jewish.

I've heard arguments from some Jews that
the state of Israel is premature. Something
about no messiah yet.
But nonetheless, I still oppose compelled
speech, even if the effect is exclusion of
most Jews.

Should a Jewish student group be forced
to host speakers opposing Israel or Jews?
I wonder if compelled speech goes in
both directions.

 

[Left Coast]

I've heard arguments from some Jews that
the state of Israel is premature. Something
about no messiah yet.
But nonetheless, I still oppose compelled
speech, even if the effect is exclusion of
most Jews.

Should a Jewish student group be forced
to host speakers opposing Israel or Jews?
I wonder if compelled speech goes in
both directions.

I believe the distinction the author makes is that opposition to Jews or Israel is not confined to one ethnic group. Whereas Jews are an ethnic group.

 

[Left Coast]

this is part of the problem -- people aren't aware of the various possible definitions of "Zionist" and the coverage and implications of each. The other words in the definition presented in the article are equally problematic.

As a Jewish person, do you feel like Zionism, by any of its definitions, is inherent to Jewishness? How do you feel about the policy in question?

 

[rosends]

As a Jewish person, do you feel like Zionism, by any of its definitions, is inherent to Jewishness? How do you feel about the policy in question?

Absolutely, at least to certain segments of the Jewish population and to certain definitions of "Zionism."

Some less traditional sects might look at many form of Zionisms as unnecessary (and some individuals whose political ideology far outstrips their sense of geographical heritage might see it as detrimental). But for a vast chunk of Judaism, Zionism is an expression inherent to the religion (codified into Jewish belief) so to ban one is inevitably to take a shot at the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe the distinction the author makes is that opposition to Jews or Israel is not confined to one ethnic group. Whereas Jews are an ethnic group.

OK.

 

[rosends]

I believe the distinction the author makes is that opposition to Jews or Israel is not confined to one ethnic group. Whereas Jews are an ethnic group.

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning here -- why are Jews an ethnic group?

 

[Left Coast]

I'm not exactly sure of your meaning here -- why are Jews an ethnic group?

Jews - Wikipedia

Ethnic group - Wikipedia

The link above says:

an e

thnic group or an ethnicity is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, culture, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area.[1][2][3] Ethnicity is sometimes used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism, and is separate from the related concept of races.

Do you not consider Jews to be an ethnic as well as religious group? Perhaps race is more appropriate?

(Don't ask me why the quote is bracketed so oddly, can't seem to fix it.)

 

[rosends]

Jews - Wikipedia

Ethnic group - Wikipedia

The link above says:



Do you not consider Jews to be an ethnic as well as religious group?

That is a wonderfully broad definition and can then include most any group -- I just never thought of Goth kids as an ethnic group, but they are distinguished by their culture.

I have heard Judaism called an ethno-religion: it is a belief system with genetic elements.