The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Berkeley Students Post Anti-Semitic Cartoons, Disrupt Dinner at Dean Chemerinsky's Home
"I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism."
Back in October, UC Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote that "Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now." At the time, I praised Erwin's bold remarks, though I feared things would only get worse. And they have.
Last week, Berkeley Law Students for Justice in Palestine depicted Dean Chemerinsky in a cartoon with blood-soaked utensils. This image appeals to the ancient blood libel that has pervaded anti-semitic propaganda for millennia. That students thought this image was appropriate is shocking. Failure to use the appropriate pronouns is immediately grounds for cancellation. But invoking the trope that Jews eat children is just another meme.
The purpose of this cartoon was to encourage students to protest a student dinner that Chemerinsky was scheduled to hold at his home.
Regrettably, students protested the dinner at Erwin's home. So far, I have only found a short video posted by supporters of the protest. It shows Chemerinsky's wife, Prof. Catherine Fisk, trying to take the microphone away from the student. We do not know what happened beforehand. Remarkably, the student said she had a First Amendment right to protest in Erwin's home. Erwin, ever the teacher, actually said "the First Amendment does not apply." Even as these students are disrupting a dinner at Chemerinsky's own home, Erwin still felt compelled to be the bigger person, and an educator.
Antisemites at @BerkeleyLaw are targeting their professors.
When Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Prof. Catherine Fisk invited 3Ls to dinner, students called for a boycott and then came to their home with a mic to protest.
Now @sairasameerarao is spreading this video without context. pic.twitter.com/mHILs5To8m
— Steve McGuire (@sfmcguire79) April 10, 2024
Here is Erwin's description of the event:
I write this with profound sadness. Since I became a dean, my wife and I have invited the first-year students to our home for dinner. We were asked this year by the presidents of the third year class to have the graduating students over for dinner because they began in Fall 2021 when COVID prevented us from having dinners for them. We were delighted to oblige and designated three nights – April 9, 10, 11 – that graduating students could choose among. I never imagined that something that we do to help our community would become ugly and divisive.
Last week, there was an awful poster, on social media and bulletin boards in the law school building, of a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork, with the words in large letters, "No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves." I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism, with an image that invokes the horrible antisemitic trope of blood libel and that attacks me for no apparent reason other than I am Jewish. Although many complained to me about the posters and how it deeply offended them, I felt that though deeply offensive, they were speech protected by the First Amendment. But I was upset that those in our community had to see this disturbing, antisemitic poster around the law school.
The students responsible for this had the leaders of our student government tell me that if we did not cancel the dinners, they would protest at them. I was sad to hear this, but made clear that we would not be intimidated and that the dinners would go forward for those who wanted to attend. I said that I assumed that any protest would not be disruptive.
On April 9, about 60 students came to our home for the dinner. All had registered in advance. All came into our backyard and were seated at tables for dinner. While guests were eating, a woman stood up with a microphone, stood on the top step in the yard, and began a speech, including about the plight of the Palestinians. My wife and I immediately approached her and asked her to stop and leave. The woman continued. When she continued, there was an attempt to take away her microphone. Repeatedly, we said to her that you are a guest in our home, please stop and leave. About 10 students were clearly with her and ultimately left as a group.
The dinner, which was meant to celebrate graduating students, was obviously disrupted and disturbed. I am enormously sad that we have students who are so rude as to come into my home, in my backyard, and use this social occasion for their political agenda.
The dinners will go forward on Wednesday and Thursday. I hope that there will be no disruptions; my home is not a forum for free speech. But we will have security present. Any student who disrupts will be reported to student conduct and a violation of the student conduct code is reported to the Bar.
I have spent my career staunchly defending freedom of speech. I have spent my years as dean trying hard to create a warm, inclusive community. I am deeply saddened by these events and take solace that it is just a small number of our students who would behave in such a clearly inappropriate manner.
Erwin
Things will only continue to get worse.
UPDATE: Here is a video that shows more of the disruption. The student says that the National Lawyers Guild informed her she has a First Amendment right to speak at Chemerinsky's home. The NLG also organized the protest of my event at CUNY on (checks note) the importance of free speech.
This clip shows the protester was asked to leave repeatedly and refused, even after the homeowners threatened to call police. She held on to the mic, risking pulling an older woman down. She said that because she was a Muslim women, she could not be touched. pic.twitter.com/hrvQ38J7Ep
— Laura Powell (@LauraPowellEsq) April 11, 2024
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
Love to see Blue on Blue.
It's like the Nazis vs. the Bolsheviks all over again.
This man had a big hand in cultivating the sort of culture that is now coming after him.
Reap what you sow.
That's why I also love when black thugs do the racial attacks on Asians in places like New York and California. Asians have long voted 80-20 for Democrats, so they deserve it for siding with these people, rather than joining the WASP elite and ganging up on the undesirables.
Same goes for Jews.
Comparing Dean Chemerinsky to a Nazi or a Bolshevic, and taking joy in attacks on him from the illiberal left, is offenive. But I still prefer Mr. Pride's snark to Josh's crockodile tears.
Josh feins sypathy and respect. But in matters of constutional law, which is Chemerinsky's life's work, Josh wants everything Chemerinsky cares about to be destroyed by magafied courts.
At best, Josh's piece is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" exercise.
Still, it was nice to see Chemerinsky's letter to the student body posted.
You're not aware that you can respect someone, and still disagree with them about matters of constitutional law?
No. He is not.
It should be possible to "respect someone, and still disagree with them about matters of constitutional law." Josh does seem to have that capacity when he differs with others on the right with respect to dicrete constitional issues.
Big picture, though, Josh wants to see all constitutional law rewritted by Alito, the ADF, and the Trumpiest wing of the Fifth Circuit. It is a world view that does not leave room to respect opponents on the left (even the center left).
For the sake of consistency, he should overlook disruption and trespass at a left-wing law dean's home?
The fact that you cannot conceive of disagreeing with someone without wishing them ill does not require others to conform to your barbaric delusions.
.
"Liberals," ladies and gentlemen.
Right-wing antisemite tries to whistle past the graveyard.
That's not adding anything to the conversation... as usual
Seems like a “sunlight is the best disinfectant” situation. Who are the students who actually did this? I bet you most of them have jobs by now. Are their employers aware of this? If so, are their employers knowingly or unknowingly students who engage in this contact?
Volokh has run a few pieces on how political opinions might be protected, but that doesn’t stretch to the conduct of refusing to leave private property when asked. These legal careers can be over before they start and these people can do something else with their lives.
"The dinners will go forward on Wednesday and Thursday. I hope that there will be no disruptions; my home is not a forum for free speech. But we will have security present. Any student who disrupts will be reported to student conduct and a violation of the student conduct code is reported to the Bar."
Yes, but what about the 10 who already did this? They shouldn't get off scot free.
"Repeatedly, we said to her that you are a guest in our home, please stop and leave. About 10 students were clearly with her and ultimately left as a group."
They should be lined up against a wall and sprayed with machine gun fire, like the Americans did to the Nazis during the Battle of the Bulge.
As if the Bar will do anything -- my guess is the Cali Bar supports this crap.
LOL, the Bar is in California, run by left wing Dems
here's hoping Chem knows better
Left wing Dems = antisemites?
Is that your take?
Is that still controversial? Some people never learn.
Using antisemitism like a broad partisan brush is pretty fucked up, actually.
Don't devalue antisemitism, you partisan hack.
That’s not an argument.
It is an accurate description of you.
"Left wing Dems = antisemites?"
No.
Left wing Dems = free pass on all non-right-wing protests
Read these comments. Plenty of the lefties here calling or just going on the obvious assumption that this is bad.
Yep. After three years of watching these bad behaviors as if you were just bystanders. The heckler's veto got a pass like it was political speech. The schools are only now seeing the malignance of their inaction. The left supported that inaction through its vocabulary, as it often does, by calling all left-leaning disruptions "protest," as if to suggest (but never dare say) there was some kind of protected speech implication.
It's apparently appropriate now for the left to [possibly] advocate for punishment of those bad behaviors. (Maybe for other violations too? Maybe?) Don't dare explain how it made sense for the left to be extremely tolerant of those behaviors for the past three years.
> These legal careers can be over before they start
I can hardly wait for them to be made judges and partners of law firms
Or they could get Crystal Clantoned.
Somewhat tersely worded statements serve a purpose, but if you want to deter future infractions, punish the existing infractions, including by expulsion if the circumstances and governing standard so dictate.
Microphone Girl needs to have her Bar application file plumped up with a report on her misconduct. Like affidavits from the host and hostess. Don't even bother with the student conduct committee.
Her friends, too. Accepting an invitation with fraudulent intent....
You have to think that after 3 years the Dean and his wife would know who these clowns are. The guest list is a good place to start.
Oh, yeah. You think the dean would have figured out, like was posted here last week, that the woke ideology he seems to espouse (except when it turns up in his backyard garden party) has antisemitism baked in from the beginning.
He should have expected this.
He's very "saddened" by this behavior. That's elite-speak for, "I'm the adult in the room, and [blah] [blah] [blah]."
It's not easy to simultaneously hate Zionism and be sympathetic to victimization of Jews. It kind of gets your knickers all bunched up, and you look like you're not saying what you're saying (or like you're saying what you're not saying).
How should gay-bashers who wrap themselves in silly superstition and childish nonsense be handled?
Or Federalist Society racists?
That would probably depend on whether they commit disruption and trespassing at a private home.
Chemerinsky has no one to blame but himself.
This is the world he worked to create.
Schools seem to be taking these violations more seriously. Varderbilt expelled three students for a sit-in recently, and Pomona had a bunch of students arrested and suspended.
Well, actually they had had a bunch of students arrested and siad they'd be suspended. I won't hold my breath on the latter.
The expulsions were not for a "sit in" they were for shoving their way in through a security guard.
After intimidation, violence inevitably follows.
Just look at the West Bank, or Gaza.
Yeah, see what is happening to Hamas? They intimidated and abused their own people. Now they will die.
Just horrific. Liberals should (and are!!!) loudly condemn the actions of these pieces of shit. I hope that every firm that offered post-graduation positions are informed of this. If they want to keep that offer, that's fine. It will be an informed decision, and those firms can live with their individual decisions. If my company were hiring for additional in-house, and if I were part of the hiring process; it's certainly information I would want to be given.
These students wanted publicity. Why not give them exactly what they wanted? Let's publicize their names. So that, for years into the future; when someone Googles their names, this incident is one of the first things we read.
I always (as I grew up) associated antisemitism with uneducated and, well, dumb people. It is profoundly disturbing to see multiple examples of extraordinarily-well-educated and intelligent people who also belief this crap.
What a depressing story. (My respect for the dean has gone up tenfold, for how he has handled this entire matter...from before the dinner, to during the dinner, to this post-event period.)
"I always (as I grew up) associated antisemitism with uneducated and, well, dumb people. It is profoundly disturbing to see multiple examples of extraordinarily-well-educated and intelligent people who also belief this crap."
There are centuries - nay, millennia - of history overflowing with extraordinarily well-educated and intelligent antisemites. While it is indeed profoundly disturbing, the fact that it is a surprise is frankly bewildering.
You folks are both making a major mistake here --- these law students are not well EDUCATED -- they are well indoctrinated and well trained, but NOT WELL EDUCATED and there is a difference.
Plenty of otherwise intelligent anti-semites throughout history…though I’m not sure whether these protesters are necessarily intelligent.
Educated, perhaps, if you mean enrolled (so far as I know still enrolled) in an institution of higher education. But university affiliation can certainly coexist with anti-semitism. Check out the universities in the Weimar Republic.
"I always (as I grew up) associated antisemitism with uneducated and, well, dumb people."
At some point in this interview Niall Ferguson asserts that college students / college graduates / academics were overrepresented among Nazi Party members.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpMQSVp7NTg
Maybe a Second-Amendment solution?
No. He doesn't support the 2nd Amendment. Read my post below.
.30-06?
"Best and the Brightest" my (Redacted)
Back in October, UC Berkeley Dean Erwin Chemerinsky wrote that “Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now.”
Well, then, he has never read a history book covering the thirties and forties in Europe.
Or even kept up with current events on the left.
tips on tolerance from right -wing bigots at a bigoted, white, male, right-wing blog are always a treat.
Early years on this guy. lol of course
A pity they both cannot be punished
“Things will only continue to get worse.”
For whom?
Nuke Gaza
This red hot take is getting stale… you need some new material
What you fail to understand is that to come to the middle, one must first start from BOTH ENDPOINTS and the problem here is that no one is willing to articulate the right wing endpoint so that the compromise is struck somewhere between the middle and far left.
I've seen this happen for 30 years -- we really do need active Klan chapters in this country to balance BLM, and active NeoNazis to balance Antifa.
George Floyd was a balance between those of us who found his death regrettable and the radical Black fringe, with spineless authorities then pandering to the latter.
Now if we had 10,000 Nazis marching, chanting "Kill all Niggers" and perhaps burning crosses in the middle of Interstate Highways, the response would have been quite different on two levels.
First, they would have brought out the snow plows, or at least Federal Troops and made it very clear that blocking Interstate Highways would not be tolerated.
Second, Derek Chauvin would have received the same sentence that Mohammed Noor did. The existence of a vocal right wing extreme would have shown the extent of the irrationality of the left wing extreme, and NEITHER would have been pandered to.
So I'll say NUKE GAZA -- not because I really want to see it done but because (a) I want to defend my right to even SAY that, and (b) I want to balance the debated. If they are going to bring in the Jewish blood libel (which, as a Christian, I'd never even heard of -- I had to ask a Jewish friend what the bleep the Hamas Fan Club was talking about) then I'm going to say Nuke Gaza. Incinerate It All....
Are you drunk?
“we really do need active Klan chapters in this country”
No.
Agree. Even for Ed that's out there.
My pop-psychological theory of Ed is that he's in it for the reaction. Histrionic personality disorder, it's called.
As Nuke Gaza and machinegun immigrants has gotten repetitive, he's reaching for new material to try and shock increasingly jaded commenters.
Meanwhile, you just continue to go right on tsk tsk'ing and tut tut'ing while collecting your Soros bux, State Dept. Gold Star, and unearned wages off the back of those who actually contribute to society.
You want to pick Internet fights so bad you will side with Ed, lol.
Remember the Goldwater Rule, Gaslight0....
I disagree. First of all, in the real world it's just called "trolling." Second, we actually do have right wing trolls here, like White Pride and Jumaira and such. Dr. Ed appears to be crazy-but-sincere. (Not honest, obviously; he lies about every story he tells. But sincere, in that he is taking the positions he believes in. He's just really really dumb.)
The sad thing David is that I don't lie -- I don't even embellish.
“Christmas tree stores were driven out of business by Charlie Baker’s Covid closure orders.”
“Embassies are sovereign territory”
Just another day at the Volokh Conspiracy. With the weekly racial slur.
Carry on, clingers.
Why did Eisenhower march his troops through the liberated death camps? He said it was because he didn't want anyone to ever be able to say it hadn't happened. That it wasn't really as horrific as it actually was.
We need a few Klan chapters so that people have a real reference to what REAL White Supremacists (or whatever they are) really are. Kinda like using a tank of pure Carbon Monoxide gas to calibrate the machines which check auto emissions.
I believe in Milton's Areopagitica (see https://www.gutenberg.org/files/608/608-h/608-h.htm and I'm not afraid of the Klan spewing their hatred. Give them some rope and they'll hang themselves, they can't help but do so.
What I am afraid of are artificially unbalanced forces -- we need the Klan to balance the rhetoric of BLM, to force BLM to also show everyone who THEY are so that they can hang themselves too.
understand the difference?
“We need a few Klan chapters”
Again. No. 1000 times no.
You need the Klan to balance BLM? Don't you already have the cops?
Nige explains why we need the Klan.
Does Nige understand what Mohammed Noor did?!?
We hardly need the Klan, we've got you.
“we really do need […] active NeoNazis”
No.
“So I’ll say NUKE GAZA”
Say it loud, say it proud! Don’t limit yourself to the Applebees in Dover-Foxcroft after 10pm! You’ve claimed to have a job— try it at work!!!
Dr. Ed 2: That made sense to me. I don't know why they think it's out there, especially for you. I thought it was uncharacteristically modest. And good points, too.
A dittohead! Say it ain’t so… weren’t you the one who went to the Trey show?
I'm just affirming the particular point I think he made about how group identities, and the cartoonishly preferenced positioning we give them in the political analysis, obscures the absurd swings (and implications) of moral relativism that are being applied to all of humanity therein.
I usually don't like DrEd2 stuff. So I thought this was an occasion to denote feeling otherwise. Still, liberal expression and hot words don't easily offend me, so I hope you won't infer too much from this.
(Phish? Trey? How was I supposed to know there's a difference? I was a last minute replacement for a real fan who had to cancel. Anyway, I'd've sworn there was nothing but Phishheads in that room. Nothing but.)
It’s pretty hard for me to grok how you can be a fan of someone like Trey Anastasio and also think that the statement “we really do need active Klan chapters in this country”… “make[s] sense” to you.
Is the KKK really vibrating with love and light? Is Ed?
Anyways, I know at least one other MAGA phish fan so I’ll just take this moment to appreciate life’s rich and varied tapestry. Have a blessed day— and be sure to stream the sphere!
Is this the same Phish that caused a riot at UMass Amherst in the 1990s? 300+ broken plate glass windows, one of the worst riots they ever had.
I am almost certain, for various reasons, that you are mistaken, although I was not around the band in ‘94 and ‘95.
I am open to being persuaded but I am unwilling to take anything you say at face value at this point.
https://phish.com/tours/dates/tue-1995-12-05-mullins-center-university-of-massachusetts/
I do not make things up.
In fairness, the band may not have known about the riot which occurred after the concert.
That link doesn’t say anything about a riot. It says they played Umass in 95. Which I did not dispute— that’s why I said I wasn’t around in 94 and 95.
This is your, like, 10th version of a Umass riot story. I am skeptical of any connection between Phish and “rioting” having had a lot of experience with the fan base.
As I said, if you can provide some sourcing indicating some connection I am open to being convinced. But I am long past taking your word for anything.
You completely mistake his point (and quite intentionally, it seems). He wasn't at all endorsing the KKK or suggesting, as you do, that it would bring "love and light." His point, a non-literal abstract point, would give Americans helpful perspective on the meanings of radicalism, of hate, of racism, and more meaningful context within which to consider the rhetoric of current movements and how we've positioned them.
I'm not a Phish fan. I'm not a Trey fan. I'm not an Ed fan. I'm not a MAGA fan. I'm not a KKK fan.
It's as if nothing I write actually registers with you. It's as if you think I'm a hollow shill for something I don't even know what. You read me wrong. All wrong.
You are making a fair point, but I still think Ed is wrong. My preference for the amount of KKK we have in society is the same as the amount of Antifa I want: zero.
Ed seems to be saying that Bill Ayers making bombs means we need Eric Rudolph as a counterbalance. I disagree with that.
Making bombs, no.
But we need a few hateful bigots on all sides just to remind people what hateful bigotry actually IS and hence what it is not.
As he said, he wrote, "NUKE GAZA - not because I really want to see it done but because (a) I want to defend my right to even SAY that, and (b) I want to balance the debate."
Ed typically makes extreme statements, and doesn't usually ad caveats like that. So I thought this was not only a moderate post (for Ed), but also one in which he is making clear that he's not speaking in literal terms. It's more like a proposed thought experiment.
I would suggest that if the KKK were active in the U.S. like they were in the early part of the 20th century, the left wouldn't have spent the past three years screaming about the prevalence and danger of "white supremacy" in the rest of the white population. If there were real Jim Crow laws being enforced to prevent black Americans from voting, the left wouldn't have been screaming that checking a voter's ID is "Jim Crow 2.0."
This isn't to say that there isn't a problem of racism, but to suggest that we wouldn't be redefining the terms of evil to include relatively benign behaviors if we still had the relatively evil practitioners around as context. Ed isn't talking about how to combat the forces of evil. He's talking about how to put the meaning of evil in realistic perspective.
Anyway, that's my point, if not Ed's.
Cautioning people not to criticise bad things the wrong way – what a useful exercise – while excusing truly extremist statements as ‘thought experiments.’ We’re not suppose to *believe* the Dr Eds mean the things they say, but we must police the words and actions of the people against whom such things are directed in case they speak too loudly.
'we need a few hateful bigots' is the sort of thing you say when you know full well the bigotry will not be directed at yourself. 'We need to keep the uppity folk in line' is what that is saying.
"I would suggest that if the KKK were active in the U.S. like they were in the early part of the 20th century, the left wouldn’t have spent the past three years screaming about the prevalence and danger of “white supremacy” in the rest of the white population. If there were real Jim Crow laws being enforced to prevent black Americans from voting, the left wouldn’t have been screaming that checking a voter’s ID is “Jim Crow 2.0.”"
I agree there. But still. If we had a nice smallpox epidemic or kids were still getting polio every summer, it would be easy to show antivaxxers why they are wrong. I'd rather just keep trying education and persuasion than have the epidemic, though.
Nige, did you miss the reference to the (small) tanks of Carbon Monoxide? I used to deliver them and I inquired why I was delivering something so lethal to auto dealerships -- and it was explained to me that a known concentration of CO was needed to calibrate the equipment to measure an unknown concentration (in exhaust), at least with the machines they had then.
We need a real rabid racist Klansman to demonstrate what racism REALLY is because otherwise you have things like Morris Dees and the SPLC drifting into calling everything racism at which point nothing is.
It's why Eisenhower marched his troops through the death camps -- he didn't want it compared to what we did to the Japanese Americans, which was bad, but there were clear differences....
Without a reference point, it becomes way too easy to call everything you don't like and everyone proposing it "evil" and the end result of that is that evil ceases to have any meaning.
"“I would suggest that if the KKK were active in the U.S. like they were in the early part of the 20th century"
While the first and third incarnations of the Klan were put down by Federal lawmen, this incarnation imploded when the members learned just how corrupt their leaders were. See: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/history/retroindy/2018/11/14/murder-madge-oberholtzer-rape-poison-and-kkk-d-c-stevenson/1978705002/
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
"“I think we need more KKK chapters in this country— not because I endorse their substantive views on domestic terrorism or race, oh heavens no I would never— but just to bring some helpful perspective to the American people."
I think we need a few articulate racists of all racists so that we all know what racism actually IS -- and hence what it isn't.
Your example of me saying that in front of HR is exactly why we need this, and my Black friends know that "I walk the walk" and, at worst, would ask me to explain what I meant. Which is exactly what I stated above.
Absaroka: I agree.
‘We need a real rabid racist Klansman to demonstrate what racism REALLY is’
Who needs it? Black people? You need a Klansman to racesplain racism to black people?
‘Without a reference point, it becomes way too easy to call everything you don’t like and everyone proposing it “evil”’
Do fucking tell. Do we need real lizard people, real pedophiles, real Communists to act as reference points for you lot?
“We need more KKK for balance” is crazy on stilts, however much you want to try and walk it back with these absurd disclaimers. Believe me— I understand your and Ed’s point quite well enough and the equivalency you are trying to draw here.
Why don’t you try this line out at work? Preferably in front of HR and a black colleague, if you have any:
“I think we need more KKK chapters in this country— not because I endorse their substantive views on domestic terrorism or race, oh heavens no I would never— but just to bring some helpful perspective to the American people.”
Your literal interpretations completely fail to elucidate Ed's point, or to address mine. I do get your point that I'm an idiot who needs an education in why the KKK is bad.
What you fail to understand is that only a fucking idiot thinks this way. (To be sure, there are plenty of fucking idiots in the world.) "Taking an insane position so that the average comes out where I want" is not how things work in the real world. In the real world, if one takes an insane position, people just ignore it entirely.
If one side says "$100,000" and the other responds with "$200,000," that can result in a compromise at $150,000. But if one side says "$100,000" and the other responds with "$5,000,000," that's not going to result in a compromise at $2,550,000; it's going to result in people saying, "You're crazy; go away."
Which is, in fact, how everyone responds to Dr. Ed.
You clearly have never been involved in the leadership of a large university.
"Janitor" is not "leadership."
The number of commenters who are using this as a way to try and tar Chemerinsky really shows how seriously the right takes antisemitism.
And ideological freedom, for that matter.
Well, he was caught on tape saying he was going to use DEI criteria instead of merit, so he is kinda getting what he deserves.
And what’s the intellectual freedom issue involved here?
Sorry, 12", I'm not feeling the schadenfreude.
Protesters - aspiring future lawyers perhaps? - invaded his property. That's a bad thing in and of itself. Also, it may make liberals like him more willing to distance themselves from, and maybe fight, the radical leftist types who think such behavior is all right.
“ Protesters – aspiring future lawyers perhaps? – invaded his property. That’s a bad thing in and of itself.”
Yeah, but California taxpayers pay him a lot of money to make sure stuff like that doesn’t happen.
I’m not going to presume his guilt – unless someone can show me he’s actually done something like appeasing offenders on campus.
Rather than the schadenfreude, why not say it’s his home and whether he’s a leftist is irrelevant?
Further, the whole situation of many radical leftists supporting terror and hating on Jews ought to drive a wedge between those radical leftists and standard-issue liberals. The two groups have been allied closely of late (to close ranks against Trump?), but now perhaps the regular liberals will finally reconsider the alliance as they realize who they’re allied with.
"I’m not going to presume his guilt – unless someone can show me he’s actually done something like appeasing offenders on campus."
There's video of what he's done. Again, he's the Dean. It's not like he has nothing to do with the quality of Berkeley Law grads.
.
Oh yeah, it was really hard to "realize" who BLM supporters and the "woke" crowd really were...
The reason things have gotten as bad as they have (and are likely to get much worse) is that there's really nothing liberal (in the classic sense) about your average "liberal." They'll go along with pretty much anything "radical leftists" come up with. They'll continue to lie (about how the real menace is Trump and his supporters) -- even to themselves! -- until the end.
How can you say this and think you’re actually one of the good guys and not a piece of shit?
Do you see a lot of people saying 'he doesn't like DEI so he deserves all the antisemitism?'
We used to have friendly, respectful debates. What the fuck has happened to you?
“ How can you say this and think you’re actually one of the good guys and not a piece of shit?”
That’s not an argument.
He’s the Dean of the fargin’ university. If the people graduating from the university are antisemitic pieces of shit, whose fault is that?
I mean, as members of the public, we’re relying on him to make sure that public universities don’t produce…that.
"whose fault is that?"
Given he has rebuked them, etc., not really his.
And he didn't say he was using DEI criteria instead of merit. If what he said was objectionable, then accurately characterize it. If you have to change the substance of what he said, that betrays a lack of confidence in your point.
More relevant to this thread, how does valuing diversity (which is what he said) warrant disruptive house guests?
You're getting very close to Trump style glee over someone getting hit in the head with a hammer because you don't like their ideology.
How on Earth is the Dean of Berkeley not responsible for the product it produces?
Students are humans, not products, as it turns out.
Hard for someone working at a Russian troll farm to truly comprehend institutions with a purpose other than mindless conformity.
Um, they're both, as it turns out.
He said, "And if you depose me, I'll deny I said it... If anybody says, we should prefer this candidate over this candidate because his person would add diversity... don't say that. You can think it, you can vote it, but our discussions aren't privileged, so don't ever articulate that that's what you're doing."
You can have your opinions, but not your own facts.
And if you're hiring candidates because of their skin color instead of their ability to produce thoughtful students, this is what you get.
Thank you for providing the actual quote.
Your assertion was this: saying he was going to use DEI criteria instead of merit
He didn't say he was going to use DEI criteria, he said others could factor in diversity. He didn't say instead of merit, he said others could use diversity as a factor. These are the facts. You pretend they are otherwise by suggesting he said he would use DEI criteria "instead of merit".
You can have your opinions, but not your own facts. Yes, and the same applies to you. You're the one trying to have your own facts.
And if you’re hiring candidates because of their skin color instead of their ability to produce thoughtful students, this is what you get.
This is a great example of a non-sequitur. If you didn't have logical fallacies, you'd have nothing at all.
"This is a great example of a non-sequitur."
Not at all.
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/10/29/chemerinsky-nothing-has-prepared-me-for-the-antisemitism-i-see-on-college-campuses-now/?comments=true#comment-10296649
It's cute you think this is a logical argument.
For the record, he's the dean of the law school, not the university.
Yeah, 12 was one of the more reasonable commenters on the right. Something has happened to him.
The right wing commenters here all seem to be devolving with more ad hominem, less substance, and more extremism than in the past. The past was no panacea, but it's definitely worse now and in significant part because of the deterioration of individual commenters who used to be reasonable and largely polite, though we disagreed.
I too remember when 12″ was more and better than just a knee-jerk anti-anti-Trumper (and whatever its predecessor was... (anti-anti-tea-partier?)). But our remembering that just shows how long we’ve been prowling these threads. I’d guess it’s been a decade or more since 12 was a constructive interlocutor here. Whatever happened to him happened long ago.
This is true.
The middle is ceasing to hold....
::man becomes an asshole::
Ed - "This proves revolution is coming!"
Says the dude that's always been an asshole.
Yo mama.
If it makes you feel better, I'd say the same thing about the good Reverend AK. 🙂
Typical leftist projection. The anti-Semites are on the left.
How quickly you memory hole Charlottesville! (As just one example.)
How quickly they memory-hole the most recent CPAC.
CPAC has gone RINO.
"The same progressive-imbued media that melted down when moral degenerates marched in Charlottesville treat the thousands of moral degenerates who participate in hundreds of Charlottesvilles across the country as innocuous 'protesters.'"
source: https://thefederalist.com/2023/10/30/liberal-jews-have-no-reason-to-be-surprised-by-progressive-antisemitism/
They don't treat anti-war protestors the same as Nazis? How mean!
A few loud people =/= "the right"
34,000 dead in Gaza, millions displaced, the whole territory bombed to dust with no clear plan for rebuilding or a return to peace.
But, no, sure - let's focus on whether this poster is "antisemitic" and whether the people protesting Israel's war on Gaza have crossed the line of civil discourse, and try to get them fired.
"Things will only continue to get worse." Did you mean to refer to the ethnic cleansing or...?
I think it means trespassing on the Dean's home.
(And we all know Berkeley's law dean is up to his elbows in complicity with Israel. /sarc)
I suppose we could safely ignore *all* trespassing and disruption because there's always something worse than trespassing and destruction going on in the world.
"I suppose we could safely ignore *all* trespassing and disruption because there’s always something worse than trespassing and destruction going on in the world."
Yeah. No.
Rules are rules!
I’m not sure where you’re getting that I think we should ignore “trespassing and disruption” just because there happens to be a US-funded and supported genocide happening on the other side of the planet. I’m just saying it’s odd to be outraged by the “trespass and disruption” part of the OP but completely indifferent to the violence in Israel.
If you’d like to provide a moral analysis to explain your “No, let’s indeed sweat the small stuff” take, I’d be eager to see how you’re squaring that circle. But the primary purpose in noting the conflation of these evils of dramatically different degrees is to try to understand the protesters from their own, internal perspective. Sure, from one perspective, they come off as completely obnoxious, attacking the wrong person the wrong way. If one keeps in mind that they’re protesting a profound evil, though – maybe we’d focus less on the “antisemitism” of it all and rather more on how our ordinary political process and discourse makes it seem futile to try to do something about it any other way.
I’m not quite sure what the connection is between disruptively trespassing on a liberal Jewish guy’s property in America…and a war involving Israel.
Well, I *do* see a connection, but it’s not a credit to those who make the connection.
"how our ordinary political process and discourse makes it seem futile to try to do something about it any other way"
The President of the United States is pressing for a cease-fire. Will disrupting some Jewish guy's dinner make the President even more supportive of a cease-fire?
.
He probably only means: ignore trespassing and disruption where the victims happen to be Jewish. Right, Simon?
(A true progressive, this one!)
The Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry numbers, parroted by any number of media outlets, not really to be believed. Are there civilian casualties? Never actually have heard of a war without civilian casualties. And this particular war was started by Hamas whose strategy is to put civilians in harms way. Israel goes out its way to avoid civilian casualties. All Hamas as to do is surrender and the war ends. I'd say they should also release the hostages but the animals have likely murdered them all by now.
Talking point, talking point, talking point. You bore me, chat-bot.
"a return to peace"
SimonP means the days of October 7, when Israelis could be massacred and raped by Hamas. SimonP's "good old days" he wants to return to.
Fair enough, Israel has never really let the Palestinians in the occupied territories live in "peace," and so has continuously had to deal with militant violence throughout the last several decades. The "return to peace" I'm speaking of is something that has never really existed since the establishment of Israel, and more of a hypothetical situation where the Israelis and Palestinians can live alongside one another.
It didn't exist before the establishment of Israel, either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre#:~:text=The%20Hebron%20massacre%20was%20the,the%20Temple%20Mount%20in%20Jerusalem.
How you must yearn for those good ol' days when Arabs could just massacre Jews with impunity,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_O'Clock_Follies
"It's okay to harass American Jews because I think Israel did bad stuff" is pretty much textbook antisemitism, so it's not surprising that SimonP would endorse it.
Hey, David - fuck you!
Does anyone care that one side (Hamas) has been systematically using pre-planned organized sexual abuse and rape as a weapon of war, starting October 7 and continuing to today, while the other side, (Israel) has refrained from that particular war crime? Maybe Israel’s problem is that she is treating the enemy too gently. They don’t like being starved and bombed? Maybe they should sample the Hamas treatment: see if they prefer being starved, bombed, and raped.
EXACTLY!!!!
Hamas has no problem blindly firing rockets into residential neighborhoods of Israel.
Maybe Israel ought to line up 155mm Howitzers along the border and just send HE & WP rounds into random parts of Gaza. I'm told that is called "shake & bake" -- level the buildings with the HE and then incinerate the survivors with the WP.
No one is defending Hamas here that I've seen, though there's a few that came close.
Bottom line - war crimes do not have a good history of stopping war crimes.
The other issue is Israel is having the common problem with asymmetric urban warfare – who and where is the enemy?
Hamas sucks. Israel sucks. People who support Hamas’ lethal, bigoted attacks are as bad as people who support Israel’s immoral, illegal, lethal, bigoted, right-wing belligerence, and vice versa.
I always wondered why we didn't just nuke Tokyo -- there wasn't enough still standing in Toyko to make it worthwhile. Dresden is a very difficult call, but our attitude toward Berlin was "make the rubble bounce." War gets ugly if you have a persistent enemy that hides behind civilians.
What I find interesting is that other Muslim countries want no part of running Gaza.
'has refrained from that particular war crime?'
There are widespread reports of sexual abuse of people detained by Israel, I'm sorry to say.
'They don’t like being starved and bombed?'
War is psychopathy by other means.
I don’t see any blood on the knife and fork in the Steve McGuire social media post. Was it altered?
I never thought I would see such blatant antisemitism, with an image that invokes the horrible antisemitic trope of blood libel and that attacks me for no apparent reason other than I am Jewish.
Well then you’re too dumb to be a professor. The ADL, who pretty uncontroversially speaks for Jews, says that Jews are inextricably tied to Israel. And, the protesters are very explicitly targeting Israel’s actions.
So, you have two fuckin’ easy outs. Either repudiate the ADL or repudiate Israel. Your total failure to do so legitimizes the students’ inferences entirely.
Sorry genocidal Jewish maniacs, all you need to do is one or the other. Are you able? The evidence is that you prefer the ongoing genocide. The students are right.
(I know Jews who've done one, the other, or both. It's on you.)
The ADL speaks for the ADL , not for "Jews", but yes, Jews have a connection to Israel, that doesn't make any individual Jew responsible for actions of Israel, good or bad.
The protesters are free to protest Israel’s actions- on their private property or in public forums- not in someone's private residences, where they are guests and asked to leave.
Jews have a connection to Israel, that doesn’t make any individual Jew responsible for actions of Israel, good or bad.
Of course it does. Just like a Catholic is responsible for speaking out against pedo bishops, Jews are responsible for speaking out against a genocidal Israel. In either case, a refusal to do so can legitimately support an inference that you're defending the institution that you claim you have a connection to. Or just disclaim the connection. Either would be fine.
"Of course" is not an argument. Are you just doing a bit here?
Huh? That wasn't the extent of my argument. There's an analogy, a logical progression, and some consequents. Care to address the substance?
No, of course you don't. That's the whole point of the "antisemitism!" dodge. Any argument that makes you uncomfortable can just be written off with an accusation of bad faith. Not unlike Trump's mantra of
Fake News
!The thought that an individual member of a group is responsible – in any way- for the actions of some other member of the group is bigotry at its purest. Some might say racism.
If someone has a responsibility to speak out against some bad act (and that' a big IF in an of itself), that responsibility exists wheter or not one is a member of the group.
For example, if you truly believe the nonsense you just posted here, then you have a responsibility to speak out against the atrocities and war crimes that Hamas perpetrates on a daily basis, because they are war crimes and atrocities, not because you are a Palestinian or a Muslim
I have spoken out against Hamas's atrocities. It's not that hard. Try it sometime!
The thought that an individual member of a group is responsible – in any way- for the actions of some other member of the group is bigotry at its purest.
What a dumb thing to say. Well, you seem to self-repudiate later on so I'm just leaving it alone for now.
If someone has a responsibility to speak out against some bad act... that responsibility exists wheter or not one is a member of the group.
Perhaps, based on some sort of more generalized shared identity like being Americans or even just for the sake of humanity. But the responsibility is more acute the more associated you are with the act. If it's your spouse, for example, you're practically implicated. The responsibility is also maximized when, as with Israel's actions in the war, the bad acts can be attributed to the institution itself, not just some random "bad egg" within it.
A phenomenon that we've seen in recent years is that in any situation in which a noose is displayed or depicted, it's taken as a sign that the party responsible favors the lynching of black people by white. It doesn't matter if that noose is shown in a Western movie or in a dramatization of 'Oliver Twist'; for right-thinking people, it can only be interpreted as an act of racist aggression.
There seems to be a parallel to that in Chemerinsky's and Blackman's assertion that the sanguinary knife and fork in the poster can only be a reference to the anti-Semitic blood libel. This strikes me as just as much an over-reach as that committed by radical black activists and their SJW allies in their reaction to any appearance of a noose.
What the students did is repugnant. But don't we need additional facts to know if the First Amendment applies? Was the dinner paid for by Cal funds? Who has title to the Dean's house, the Dean, who purchased it with his money or is it provided by the University, which holds title? Do these facts bear on whether the on campus protection accepted by the administration for this horrible speech also applies at the Dean's house?
None of those facts, if true, wld satisfy any element of the state action doctrine (for purposes of attribution), nor can it plausibly be contended that a premises (whatever be the status of the legal title) which is beneficially possessed as the private home of a state school Dean, ought be construed constitutionally as functioning as a property devoted to "public" uses.
On the facts of this case, the relevant 1st Am. putative "protection" isn't only of "speech" but (more aptly) of "assembly". Namely, the argument is that the students enjoyed, on premises whose legal possession is intended to be, & is in fact used as a private faculty home, a Fed. Constitutional right not only of speech per se but of *overtly protesting while expressing & publishing such speech*.
The previous poster might want to think about the Capitol on J6: that's unequivocally government property, operated and controlled by state actors, but that doesn't mean that the insurrectionists had a 1A right to be there on that day, even if what they were doing could be characterized as "protest."
His home is not any sort of public forum, regardless of who paid for or owns it.
Precisely.
Even a more humble counter-example ought be sufficient: regularly-enrolled students invited to their professor's office at a State university for a discussion on (eg) the potentially political content of a proposed curriculum of academic study, would not enjoy a constitutional right to occupy that office for the purpose of expressing a putatively protected right to freedom of speech. This is so notwithstanding that the office is the property of the State university & that the professor's salary is paid by it & that the professor can reasonably be understood to be acting under a pedagogical duty imposed on him by the internal rules of the State institution.
'This image appeals to the ancient blood libel that has pervaded anti-semitic propaganda for millennia.'
I've seen anti-semitic cartoons, this doesn't seem to conform to anything explicitly anti-semitic, (the giveaway is usually the nose) inasmuch as you have to conflate criticism of the killing in Gaza with the Blood Libel, as if the killing in Gaza is as much an invention as the blood libel.
I'm open to corrrection, perhaps there's some aspect of anti-semitic imagery I'm ignorant of that is present.
A whole lot of people who have been whining that Campuses have stamped out dissension and disagreement having some odd reactions to evidence of dissension and disagreement on campuses.
.
Umm, don't you think they're "whining" about the double-standard? They're wondering why "political correctness" doesn't cover antisemitism. You seem to be an expert; care to explain it?
They're protesting a war that is killing tens of thousands. Your insdiscriminate and cynical blanket accusations of anti-semitism are pure bad faith, and if anything hel obscure actual anti-semitism. Plus, the people who went from family values and law and order and patriotism to Trump complaining about double standards?
The most shocking thing about this story is that Chemerinsky has been a dean at *Berkeley* since 2017, and he said, "Nothing has prepared me for the antisemitism I see on college campuses now."
Has he ever walked around the campus? Anyone paying attention to Berkeley in particular should have seen this coming decades ago.
Just like "nothing" has prepared him for leftist assaults upon private property rights he is seeing now.
Now that it is his very own ox that is the one being gored, that is.
Sorry, you don't get to turn a blind eye to the Summer of Burn Loot and Murder (to name but one glaring example), and coyly explain away that what you knowingly do you should not be doing then feign shock and surprise when the very people you purport to educate choose to apply those very same sorts of tactics and moral flexibility upon you.
Yeah, I hope they both lose.
But him more so, because his attitude reflects a deep truth. That Marxism/modern leftism is nothing more than a reaction to the respect for the rights and personal autonomy of individuals enshrined by the Enlightenment. Hegelians of all stripes wanted a return to aristocracy, they just argued over the form it would take and the justifications thereof.
Chemerinksy would never admit it, but his real beef with this act is that it was directed against him, and he's supposed to be above that. He's the new nobility.
Zionist "Chem"??? Organic or inorganic?
Seriously, though, the guy is reaping what he sowed. Doesn't mean it isn't a bitter harvest, but has he actually learned anything from the experience?