"I have never seen the slightest evidence of anti-Semitism on campus."

but,

"There have been some speeches on campus against Israel that crossed over into anti-Semitic speech"

Does he not see the contradiction in his statements?

After having listened to Chemerinski's opinions on the radio for several years, I am not surprised that he has made another dumb comment. The guy is a liberal, and apparently, an organization man as well.

gary fouse

I think that consideration should be given to the fact that the person who wrote that article is Marla Jo Fisher. Ms. Fisher is about as credible as al Jazeera. Her reporting is extremely one sided and she always writes what is favorable and coincides with her views on this subject. At least al Jazeera makes no bones about being biased.

Nevertheless, If Chemerinsky had any self respect, he would not have taken the position after being humiliated in the first place. If he did say those things, he is either a fool, a bad researcher or corporate lackey.

Chemerinsky is new to the campus, and a lawyer - read the quote -

"I have never seen..."

JC,

Taking the allegations in the letter as true, help me understand how a conservative (like yourself) is arguing that the First Amendment's protection of Free Speech (including hateful bigoted speech) must give way to to the politically correct implementing regulations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Rogue,

I don't put myself in any ideological box...I just try to do what's right.

The politically correct implementation of Michael Drake's content neutrality policy is the problem. Everyone has a right under the 1st Amendment, but let me ask you should federal funds be sent to support vile hate speech? The university thinks so.

And Rogue....by the way.....what about my 1st Amendment Rights? Time and again, my friends and I have been intimidated while trying to documents these events at UCI. The University administration has continually ignored these blatant violations

FYI.... It's Title VI, not Title VII.

It has nothing to do with "political correctness" and everything to do with discrimination based on national origin or race.

We're not talking about free speech here.

The administration has not responded appropriately to student complaints and it just so happens that these students are often Jewish (defined by law as a national origin group). Now, not all the students who have been attacked are Jewish. Some are Israel supporters and are harassed or assaulted because they side with Israel. The administration should also be concerned about this.

The fact of the matter is students have been harassed both physically and verbally, and the administration does not respond accordingly. Instead of ensuring the civil liberties of all, Dean Sally Peterson will ask student journalists not to film in certain areas or take pictures of Muslim women. Yet this same dean will stand by idly when a student journalist is attacked by a bunch of thugs from the MSU.

Condemning hate speech does not suggest one is trying to restrict free speech. Just like the MSU has a right to bring nasty speakers who commend terrorists and are part of the As-Sabiqun movement, we have a right to raise awareness and protest!

Maybe people haven't caught on... but we have supporters of terrorists and terrorist groups in our own backyard. Surely we need to be concerned about this.

It's the proposed application of the CFR that is problematic to me.

Title VI (sorry, typo before, not my first, not my last) prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin in federally assisted programs and activities (so far, so good). The CFR regulations are fairly innocuous (I stand corrected).

The law and regulations apply to employees and agents (acting within the scope of their official duties) of the recipient of federal funds (still good). Employees and agents have a general duty to prevent a hostile environment (harassing conduct that is sufficiently severe, pervasive, or persistent so as to interfere with or limit the ability of an individual to participate or benefit) by taking prompt and effective action to prevent such if they have notice of such (questionable).

Now, the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". This right is not absolute, but is subject to exceptions (e.g., fighting words, true threats that put the recipient in reasonable fear of imminent harm). But the First Amendment does protect offensive speech, a core protection we should be loathe to see undermined, even with the best of intentions.

As I see it (Alum), there is an attempt here to restrict (horrible and offensive) speech, not just to condemn it. I share your condemnation of it. While Jon and others have chronicled many complaints against anti-semites on campus, much of it looks like protected (very offensive) speech to me. (Physical violence and true threats are obviously not protected.)

It would be one thing for the administration to engage in offensive speech. It's another for them do do something about it without violating the free speech rights of the offenders. (And hostile environment analysis reeks of political correctness.)

Is there a double standard at work here? I'd bet there is. If a group were to engage in the same alleged repetitive conduct against Muslims or Arabs, they'd likely be condemned by the administration.

This brings me to a suggestion - fight fire with fire. If this pattern of conduct is okay for one group, it's equally okay for another. Students opposed to antisemitic hate speech (or the administration's indifference to it) should engage in the same tactics to force the administration to act.

Rogue,

As for free speech, yes, horrible speech (with certain exceptions) is protected. But protected from what? Certainly from arrest. That is the true meaning of free speech. But does that mean that a university or any public place has an obligation to permit it on its campus? Is UCI forced to allow a KKK march on its campus? Or a Nazi march? What if I were to go to a Dodger game and spout stuff during a game. Would I not be removed? You bet.

As for condemning offensive speech, the administration doesn't even go that far except to refer to the fact that there has been offensive speech at times. When have they ever specifically spoken out against certain comments made by Malik Ali or M Al-Asi?

Your question about fighting fire with fire is valid, but I am not interested in denigrating anyone's religion in that manner. I think the best approach is to point out the inciteful acts and words of the msu and their dispicable speakers. The entire public needs to be made aware of what is happening here at UCI.

gary fouse
adj teacher
uci-ext

Rogue,

You are right that a double standard exists; But your explanation shows either a lack understanding of the complexity of this issue or simple naivety. If it were anyone other than Jewish students being harassed by this kind of hatred there would be a major stink; And, while you probably wont admit it, I'm quite sure that you know this to be true.

The UCI administration has condemned speech offensive to Muslims and others. The administration has, on several occasions impeded or attempted to impede peaceful protesters form walking back and forth carrying signs on a public sidewalk at MSU hate speeches. They have attempted to stop students on many occasions from filming or photographing the MSU in action and recently, they tried to stop a Christian Minister from speaking during a recent march on campus featuring Malik Ali and his MSU backers.

This is an incompetent administration that is either too scared to challenge MSU or too caught up in their own hypocritical and selective use of the First Amendment. One does not have to be a genius to see how Drake and Co. handled Chemerinsky hiring and firing over his views, then back peddled and rehired him when the heat was turned up. I am surprised at Chemerinsky for taking the Job after the humiliation. I am more surprised that a guy who everyone calls a legal genius would get in bed with these people.

I suggest that you take a look below the surface at whats going on. It stinks.

I, for one, never called Chemerinski a legal genius.

Rogue,

No worries about the type-o. I make them too.

You raise valid points, but I don't think you fully understand the bigger picture here. The university HAS discriminated against Jews. They don't appropriately investigate issues of harassment, physical harm or intimidation. You should check out the Orange County Task Force findings that chronicle exactly how the administration has failed to act and restricted the civil liberties of Jewish/pro-Israel students.

Does the MSU have a right to bring hate mongers? You bet.

Do they have a right to attack camera men and harass Jewish or pro-Israel students?

Absolutely not.

Is the university obligated to protect students from harassment and intimidation?

Absolutely!

The Office for Civil Rights (OCR) which is under the Dept. of Education reopened "sections" of the case that they completely blew over (they didn't bother to look into several incidents). The reason why the first decision wasn't to the favor of Jews was because most of the incidents submitted to the OCR were submitted more than 180 days after they occurred. That does not mean that these incidents did not happen (there was ample evidence). But the OCR decided to completely disregard any incident that wasn't submitted to them within a 180 day time frame.

In some cases, the evidence was not "conclusive." It surprises me that it took THREE years for them to say that the evidence wasn't conclusive. Most OCR investigations take no longer than 180 days.

Also, for many of the incidents that were considered, the OCR appeared to be concluding that the students were "Israeli" and thereby dismissed the issues.

Coincidentally, Israeli IS a national origin group too. So the OCR's reasoning was flawed. That is why so many Senators and Congressmen (both Republicans and Democrats) weighed in on the situation.

Do we expect the OCR's findings to rule in the favor of Jewish students? No, I sincerely doubt it. The OCR is like most bureaucratic organizations.

As for fighting fire with fire.... That is another story because it deals with students and not (directly) administrators. But I do agree.

Jews and pro-Israel students should have regular programming about Israel that is strong, discuss the Middle East and Islam in an academic setting, and establish a presence on campus! Does it mean bringing speakers to campus ranting like MSU speakers? No.

We have the truth on our side. They [the MSU] base their arguments upon lies and conspiracy theories, and are clearly a racist and bigoted group

Well said, uci alum.