The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
U.C. Berkeley School of Law Faculty Statement in Support of Jewish Law Students
Given David Bernstein's and my posts here on this controversy, I thought I'd pass along this statement from various UC Berkeley Law School faculty members, which was released late last week:
We hereby endorse the principle of free and open speech at the law school. This includes the fundamental principle that all students should be freely admitted to all student groups and under no circumstances should any student be denied admission to any student group.
We are highly aware of the extensive discrimination against Jews in World and U.S history. In particular, we note that 2 of 3 Jews in Europe were murdered during the Holocaust and that the United States has engaged in extensive discrimination of Jews during its history.
With this background, we also condemn the discriminatory bylaw adopted by a small minority of our law student groups refusing to accept speakers who have Zionist views or beliefs. We believe this rule is not only wrong but is antithetical to free speech and our community values. These bylaws would also impermissibly exclude a large majority of our faculty from participating in the work of these organizations, including our Dean.
Many Jews (including some of us signing below who are Jewish) also experience this statement as antisemitism because it denies the existence of the state of Israel, the historical home of the Jewish people. For many Jews, Zionism is a core component of their identity and ethnic and ancestral heritage. As an educational institution we hope that the student groups that have now endorsed a "No Zionist speakers" pledge will engage in dialogue on these issues.
[Signatories below.]
Initial signatories are members of the Advisory Board of the Academic Engagement Network
Mark G. Yudof, Professor of Law Emeritus, U.C. Berkeley School of Law
Steven Davidoff Solomon, Alexander F. and May T. Morrison Professor of Law, Faculty Advisor Jewish Students Association at Berkeley Law
Subsequent signatories
Malcolm Feeley, Claire Sanders Clements Professor Emeritus
Peter S. Menell, Koret Professor of Law
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law
Chris Hoofnagle, Teaching Professor of Law
David Singh Grewal, Professor of Law
Mark Gergen, Robert and Joann Burch D.P. Professor of Tax Law and Policy
Paul M. Schwartz, Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law
Kenneth A. Bamberger, The Rosalinde and Arthur Gilbert Foundation Professor of Law
Daniel Farber, Sho Sato Professor of Law
Elisabeth Semel, Chancellor's Clinical Professor of Law
Richard Buxbaum, Jackson H. Ralston Professor of International Law
Frank Zimring, Simon Professor of Law
Christopher Edley, Jr. , Interim Dean, Berkeley School of Education, Hon. William H. Orrick, Jr. Distinguished Professor and Dean Emeritus, Berkeley Law School
Eric Stover, Adjunct Professor of Law
Melvin Eisenberg, Jesse H. Choper Professor of Law
Orin Kerr, William G. Simon Professor of Law
Robert P. Bartlett, I. Michael Heyman Professor of Law
Robert Cole, Professor of Law
Eric Biber, Edward C. Halbach Jr. Professor of Law
Calvin Morrill, Stefan A. Riesenfeld Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology
Eleanor Swift, Professor of Law,
Carolyn Patty Blum, Clinical Professor of Law
David B. Oppenheimer, Clinical Professor of Law
Lauren B. Edelman, Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology
Daniel L. Rubinfeld, Robert L. Bridges Professor of Law
Catherine Crump, Robert Glushko Clinical Professor of Practice in Technology Law
Harry N. Scheiber, Distinguished Professor of Law and History
Jonathan S. Gould, Assistant Professor of Law
Just to be clear, I should note that this particular controversy didn't involve groups rejecting members based on their beliefs, but rather groups doing so as to speakers.
To get the Volokh Conspiracy Daily e-mail, please sign up here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
“As an educational institution we hope that the student groups that have now endorsed a “No Zionist speakers” pledge will engage in dialogue on these issues.”
It is pointless to negotiate with your executioners.
“We hope that the NSDAP groups that have now endorsed a “No Jews” pledge will engage in dialogue on these issues.”
Why all the coverage of Berkeley, but none of a worse situation at CUNY Law? The faculty unanimously passed a BDS resolution. The NYC City Council Committee on Higher Education held a hearing on antisemitism. Someone filed a complaint against CUNY Law with the ABA. https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3506744-cuny-law-facultys-problematic-endorsement-of-anti-israel-stance/
Well, I did post about this controversy in late May. I don’t recall hearing about the ABA complaint, though; thanks for letting me know.
Another chance to nip at those ankles!
Every accusation is a confession.
Don’t say nip.
Here is the ABA complaint. https://twitter.com/SAFECUNY/status/1541284419410984961
Some people are anti-Zionist without being anti-Jewish.
But the BDSM types…I think the leading lights of that movement manage to be both.
So it’s not a question about whether generic “anti-Zionism” is anti-Semitic. It’s about this particular situation.
“But the BDSM types”
Please don’t insult those with alternate lifestyles
Yes, I suppose it not as bad to be a masochist as to be a sadist.
Masochist: “Hurt me!”
Sadist: “No.”
I can understand that, before the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, you could (in theory anyway) be “anti-Zionist” without being anti-Jewish — you could support Jews but not want them to have their own state, or at least not in Palestine. But today to be anti-Zionist don’t you have to support the elimination of the State of Israel and the eviction (or worse) of its Jewish inhabitants? And isn’t that anti-Jewish?
I guess that depends how strong the “anti” is in your anti-Zionist beliefs.
There may be those who daydream of a multiracial and multireligious paradise in the Israel/Palestine area but would not support using military force or selective boycotts to gain such an objective.
And then there are those who are open to using stronger means to stamp out Zionism, and probably replace it with something less hippieish than the hypothetical person above would want.
I think lots of people hold a definition of anti-Zionist that is roughly “Israel should exist according to roughly the 1949 borders” while not being at all supportive of ongoing expansion into the West Bank. That seems like a pretty plausible way to be both completely supportive of the idea of a Jewish state of Israel while calling yourself anti-Zionist.
Maybe so, but do the particular people under consideration – the boycotters and deplatformers – define it that way?
Except those people tend to justify the suicide bombings and rocket attacks as well.
You do recall that expansion began with the 1967 war.
No, they argue that expansion began in 1948.
You can be anti-Zionist without supporting the elimination of the State of Israel.
Israel was probably a bad idea, but it’s been 75 years and there’s no going back.
I mean, the Holocaust was kind of a bad idea. After that, Israel was not only a good idea, but an inevitable one.
Sure, Israel was a good idea if you like killing and oppressing fully innocent Palestinians, the inevitable consequence of Zionism.
In a word, nonsense. There is nothing “inevitable” about these outcomes – had the Arab population of the British mandate for Palestine agreed to the UN partition plan, none of those killings, on either side, would have come to pass.
There was nothing inevitable about that.
It has happened, but it wasn’t inevitable. To argue that it was is to say that either there is something inherent in ethnostates that produce those results (cf. Denmark, South Korea, Thailand) or that there’s something inherent to a Jewish ethnostate that produces that result.
One can (and should!) be a zionist who supports justice for Palestine, and there is nothing contradictory about those two things.
75 years of evidence suggests that you’re wrong.
You have to understand, bigots try to hide behind reasoning which does not actually prove their innocence but instead proves the desperation they have in justifying their bigotry.
Hence I am not against Jews… only Zionism.
Its fun to watch them bend over backwards while digging a deeper hole
OK, let’s have some good old-fashioned loyalty oaths.
“No Communists”
Nothing on the sedition trial (or guilty pleas), or evangelical heartthrob Herschel Walker, or Trump Law: Secrets For Sale Or Barter, but this white, male, bigot-hugging conservative blogs features wall-to-wall coverage of student group activity at strong, mainstream, liberal-libertarian law schools.
What a bunch of feeble ankle-nippers.
Those sorts of things are 1) covered ad nauseum elsewhere, and 2) only somewhat a matter affecting legal scholarship and/or legal academia.
People come here for EV’s leading right-libertarian perspective on significant legal scholarly and academic questions. Multiple law professors at the (mainstream, public) law school I attended would cite him as being quite useful for that, even though they disagreed with him. It’s how I first started coming here.
But alas, the mere fact that he leans* right means that to you, he’s indistinguishable from the crazy “far right” — but fortunately not so for most reasonable folks across the bulk of the spectrum.
*Though he seems to be a mix of conservative and libertarian, he was notably an early supporter of SSM, and I don’t believe has taken any strident views on abortion one way or the other. He also doesn’t seem particularly religious. So perhaps not a neat fit on the spectrum (like most libertarian-ish people…), but clearly no extremist…contrary to your frequent insinuations.
People come here for the faux libertarian right-wing polemics; for the frequent vile racial slurs; and for the comments section in which liberals are censored and conservatives can write just about anything they wish, no matter how threatening or bigoted.
The proprietor endorsed John Eastman and Ted Cruz and hasn’t said a discouraging word about either. He launches vile racial slurs about as frequently as most people buy a bag of m&ms. His devotion to free expression flutters with the right-wing political winds. How much further right could he go?
“People come here for the faux libertarian right-wing polemics; for the frequent vile racial slurs; and for the comments section in which liberals are censored and conservatives can write just about anything they wish, no matter how threatening or bigoted.”
The ability to read minds is quite impressive; even more so when the thoughts you are privy to are those of internet strangers whom you’ve never met.
Were you born with this amazing ability, or did you have to work at it?
Was that comment directed to me or instead to Cheerio?
Either way, the important point is that you are a bigot awaiting replacement by your betters, which has made you disaffected and cranky.
“you are a bigot awaiting replacement by your betters”
Why do you insist on peddling debunked white nationalist conspiracy theories?
“the comments section in which liberals are censored and conservatives can write just about anything they wish, no matter how threatening or bigoted.”
The only person I have seen banned is David Behar. Was he a liberal?
Wait he was banned? I had him on mute so didn’t notice.
His entertaining patter about all lawyerdom being lawfare wrecking the nation as a parasitic plague in excess of $1 trillion a year got a bit personal to the hosts, making the Reverand’s ancient rumored “slack-jaw” comments look positively jovial and warmly as a non-problematic Dr. Seuss story in front of a fireplace.
Ah I have the Rev on mute as well. Boring, predictable, and prolific doesn’t make for an entertaining troll.
He wasn’t entirely wrong about the damage lawyers do to society, though I think he carried it a bit far. I muted him only because I found him getting repetitive.
A bit far? He blamed lawyers not for the things lawyers do — filing lawsuits and the like — but for the existence of laws and the actions of government. I am pretty sure that lawyers did not in fact cause the war in Ukraine.
I believe Prof. Volokh said in a thread recently that he banned Behar not because of the message or even the tone or repetitiveness, but the fact that Behar insisted on dominating the comments threads by posting 10 comments in a row each and every time he posted. And Prof. Volokh asked him to stop and he refused.
It came out today that the FBI was lying to the court about evidence and withheld testimony from Capitol Police that Oath Keepers were shielding it’s members from the crowd.
What should happen to Democrat officials who lie in court proceedings to jail Conservatives?
Please don’t say “let them keep the $95M they stole from lockboxes”. Because that was pretty gross.
I hope those defendants, if convicted, spend the rest of their deplorable, un-American, worthless lives in prison.
BCD, you keep making stuff up out of thin air. You have zero credibility. Surely the few rubles you get for this rubbish aren’t worth your time?
https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-capitol-police-officer-told-agents-that-oath-keepers-shielded-him-sealed-fbi-record-shows_4782023.html
You could do a simple web search to check what he said … or you could do what you do.
Yes, but if the only source you find is Epoch Times, you should assume it’s false.
And did you read the story? BCD claimed it “came out today.” But the actual story that “came out” — not yesterday, when BCD’s comment was posted, but last week — is that a disbarred former lawyer for one of the defendants claims that there’s a secret document filed with the court that says that someone said this, but that the prosecution “withheld” this in some fashion.
That makes no sense in any context. If a disbarred lawyer who hasn’t worked on the case for months knows about it, then it obviously couldn’t be secret, could it? And thus it wasn’t “withheld.”
Well, at least the Berkeley Law School facility provided a fine list of potential cancelees, by signing this statement.
Based on other threads, though, I thought it was the evil professors indoctrinating the kids with all of these bad ideas, though?
Based on other threads, though, I thought it was the evil professors indoctrinating the kids with all of these bad ideas, though?
The statement in question contains only 30 signatures out of…well, I’ll let you do some counting.
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/our-faculty/faculty-profiles/
“We hereby endorse the principle of free and open speech at the law school.”… except for speech about 2020 Election theft, COVID hoax, or AGW hoax.
I’m sure you have some examples of those ideas being suppressed at Berkley Law?
“Ideas” is a strong word there. “Graffiti” might be more appropriate.
Many Jews also experience this statement as antisemitism because it denies the existence of the state of Israel, the historical home of the Jewish people.
Cute.
?
a) Not a fan of antisemitism being in the eye of the beholder. It renders the term meaningless, same as “racist.” Does “Many Jews also experience this statement as antisemitism” mean anything other than “I’m Jewish and offended?” You’re kind of supposed to be offended. That doesn’t make the statement antisemitic, at least by itself.
b) The SJP statement absolutely does not “deny the existence of the state of Israel,” quite the opposite in fact.
In other words, this type of rhetoric is likely to backfire in exactly the same way that “woke” has backfired. Claiming that you’re the victim of race-based aggression when you’re not just makes people skeptical of such claims in general. Saying that anything that makes you feel bad is antisemitic just makes people think that being antisemitic is fine because it’s not any worse than just making a Jewish person feel bad.
Jewish people don’t need lessons in what antisemitism is from an Adolph-worshipper.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. I’m not on SJP’s side. I’m pro-Israel. And I’m seeing all these mistakes being made.
1. Don’t take the bait, and especially don’t overreact by mischaracterizing SJP’s statement. There are a lot of disinterested people out there who will look at SJP’s statement and think, seems reasonable enough to me, I don’t see where they’re calling for genocide or the destruction of Israel, or really anything antisemitic at all. (I have no problem with a didactic statement pointing out calmly why SJP’s position doesn’t work. But escalating the accusations of insensitivity will backfire.)
2. Relatedly, the optics for Israel aren’t good. It’s spent the last few decades being defiant / aggressive rather than conciliatory, and since they’re not the ones suffering, that makes it at least look to a casual observer like Israel is satisfied with the current situation. So bringing attention to the issue with these big, public battles likely will break in SJP’s favor. Because of Israel’s defiance, it feels like the best way out of the situation is to put pressure on Israel. Better to keep the temperature low until Israel is in a better position for a public debate.
Have you noticed that the anti-Israel movement is gaining strength rapidly, with BDS and SJP and whatnot? It’s separate from the white nationalist antisemitism revival… but oh my god if the two movements were to start finding common ground. Anyway, if your plan to push back against BDS and SJP is to say “antisemite” a lot, it’s not going to work. It already isn’t working.
Even if what you’re saying were otherwise right, has being woke “backfired”? Particularly here? Remember that the intended audience is not some commenter on The Volokh Conspiracy; it’s members of the Berkeley law school community. And in particular, the most woke members of that community, who employ that exact sort of language and argumentation themselves on a regular basis.
I figured they needed to use that sort of phrasing just to get the number of signatories they did get. As Wuz points out above, the signatories are hardly a large proportion of the overall faculty (though I was glad to see OK among them).
That’s a good point. But still, hypocritical at best. Everyone has equal access to a hurt butt.
Claiming that you’re the victim of race-based aggression when you’re not just makes people skeptical of such claims in general.
Like what LJSP did by claiming that Israel’s “occupation of Palestine” is “racist”.
“LSJP is calling ALL student organizations at Berkeley Law to take an anti-racist and anti-settler colonial stand and adopt the bylaw into their constitutions ASAP!”
I have (extremely reluctantly) decided to be ok with “anti-racist,” just because it’s better than calling everything racist. At least now, you can be not anti-racist without being racist.
In other words, I think you’re wrong that LSJP is claiming Israel’s “occupation of Palestine” is racist. Only that it’s not anti-racist. It’s kind of like the distinction between colorblind and affirmative action. Neither is racist, and colorblindness also isn’t anti-racist.
Which is still a little dumb, I know, but at least it means “racist” can remain meaningful. Maybe the signatories should have said
Many Jews also experience this statement as lacking in anti-antisemitism
or is anti-antisemitism just semitism?
In other words, I think you’re wrong that LSJP is claiming Israel’s “occupation of Palestine” is racist. Only that it’s not anti-racist. It’s kind of like the distinction between colorblind and affirmative action. Neither is racist, and colorblindness also isn’t anti-racist.
You should win a gold medal for the mental gymnastics and contortions required to reach that conclusion. I wonder why they didn’t feel the need to also encourage taking an “anti-pedophelia stand”, or any other “anti-{insert-bad-thing-here}” stands?
Like I said, I think it’s dumb, but it’s better than the alternative of a couple years ago, when even colorblindness was “racist” for not being pro-minority. I wish we wouldn’t have let the definition of “racist” slip away, but we did, so now “anti-racist” is the best we’ve got.