The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
UCLA Dismisses Its Appeal of Injunction That Ordered It to Avoid Repetition of Exclusion of Jewish or Pro-Israel Students from Parts of Campus
Its lawyers just filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, and UCLA announced this to employees, with a link to FAQs "to help employees understand how to carry out their responsibilities consistent with the requirements of the preliminary injunction." Some excerpts from the FAQs, which generally strike me as consistent with the injunction:
University policy states that no individual or group of individuals may prohibit or obstruct any student from accessing any ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities on the basis of their religion, race, or any other protected characteristic, or on the basis of their political or other viewpoints, including their beliefs about the state of Israel. Individuals must also comply with all of the University's time, place, and manner policies and other policies that may impact campus events or expressive activities.
If any individual or group of individuals is prohibiting or obstructing students from accessing ordinarily available campus areas, programs or activities in violation of University policy, University officials will act to promptly restore access to students, while also limiting risks of substantial disruptions to campus operations or risks to health and safety. That includes by:
- Informing individuals that they are engaging in a policy violation and directing them to change their conduct and/or remove the barrier to access.
- Warning individuals of the potential consequences of failure to comply and further directing them to comply.
- If individuals fail to comply and barriers to access remain, the University will involve appropriate resources which may include the Campus Fire Marshal, the UC Police Department, and/or other state or local law enforcement agencies to assist with removal of the barriers to access and take other appropriate action which may include involving law enforcement and may result in discipline and/or arrests.
- Instituting the applicable campus review process for members of the University community who are cited for a violation of campus rules or law.
What should employees do if the barrier to access cannot promptly be removed?
In some instances, it may not be possible to promptly remove a barrier to access, such as where doing so might threaten the health and safety of University community members or campus safety teams. In those circumstances, University employees should take alternative measures to promptly restore access while efforts are undertaken to remove the barrier to access. These measures may include:
- Providing alternative access to a building or space, such as through a different doorway or walkway.
- If feasible, moving the specific program or activity to another building or space to ensure continued access for all students.
- If it is not possible to promptly remove the barrier or to promptly move the program or activity to another location, consistent with the requirements set forth in the injunction, the University may deem it necessary to deny access to any students to a particular space or program or activity until access can be restored for all studen For instance, if access to a University library is blocked for some students and the University cannot promptly restore access, then the University may need to close services in the library for all students until access can be restored.
The Court's order covers "any ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas." What does that mean?
The University will broadly construe campus areas, programs, or activities to include any area of campus that is ordinarily open to students, as well as any building, class, or activity that students can ordinarily access, including Zoom or digital programs, and University-sponsored off-campus activities. The order does not require that students have access to areas that are not ordinarily open to all students, such as faculty lounges, administrative offices, and student housing, but students may not be excluded from such areas solely on the basis of their religion or other protected characteristic, or political views, including their beliefs about the state of Israel….
The Court's order said that the University's campus security teams should not "aid or participate" in "any obstruction of access for Jewish students to ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas." How should a security team ensure it does not "aid or participate" in such an effort?
If individuals are obstructing access for any students to ordinarily available programs, activities, or campus areas and do not [disperse] when instructed to do so, campus security teams should take actions to promptly restore access to the program, activity, or campus area and to elevate the issue to the appropriate campus official if assistance is needed. As explained above, if it is not possible to promptly remove the barrier or to promptly move the program or activity to another location, the University may deem it necessary to deny access to all students to a particular space or program or activity until access can be restored for all students….
Does this mean that the University will prohibit protests that express a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel message?
No. The First Amendment protects the rights of students to protest whatever their viewpoint, and the Court made clear that its order was not meant to limit the content or viewpoints espoused in any protest or other expressive activities. Protests, however, must comply with the University's time, place, and manner rules, as well as other content- and viewpoint-neutral University policies. such as those that prohibit threats or violence. In addition, protesters may not restrict the free movement of others on campus by blocking or obstructing access to a University facility or space.
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
At least as written, why the hell did it take a court order for this to be presented as stated policy?
Too bad EV is no longer an employee at UCLA, he might have had the opportunity to decide what to do in light of the answer to FAQ "What should employees do if the barrier to access cannot promptly be removed?"
“Send for the chainsaws”.
When in doubt, water cannon can solve most problems.
I think it is a refreshing trend that several universities are agreeing to stop the one-sided enforcement of rules. University statements that they will not issue official positions on public or political issues contribute to the fresh air. Ideally, they will return to doing what they have always been expected to do.
Perhaps. Or maybe UCLA just drew an unsympathetic panel and went for the discretion is the better part of valor route.
The appeal a pr disaster with a very questionable chance of success considering the university's argument that it had no duty to ensure access. It was also an embarrassment to the political leadership of the state. Lastly, a loss on appeal could set precedent for other schools, and at least be binding throughout the entire 9th Circuit.
I can envision a mob of protestors blocking one entrance to a facility and only letting certain people enter, and the university will not do anything more than direct the other people to the back entrance and still comply with the order.
The trial court already found that to be unacceptable. A "separate but equal" back entrance for Jews would violate the order.
At best, the school could redirect access as they forcibly open all access.
Dave’s FAQ
No one is allowed to keep others from accessing the open campus areas. Everyone must follow the rules.
If you try to obstruct people’s access, Security will give you a warning and a chance to fix your conduct. If that doesn’t work, you and your obstructions will be forcibly removed from campus, and you will be expelled.
What should employees do if the barrier to access cannot promptly be removed?
Call Security.
What are the “open campus areas”?
Any place that is ordinarily open to students.
The Court’s order said that the University’s campus security teams should not “aid or participate” in “any obstruction of access for Jewish students to ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas.” How should a security team ensure it does not “aid or participate” in such an effort?
If you find someone trying to obstruct people’s access, give them a warning and a chance to fix their conduct. If that doesn’t work, forcibly remove the obstructions and those persons from campus, and record their names.
Does this mean that the University will prohibit protests that express a pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel message?
No, of course not. Stupid question.
Next?
When their notice of appeal was reported, I asked what legal basis the University had for their appeal. Looks like the answer was 'nothing'.
What if students are masked and refuse to identify themselves? (Personally, I would inform them that, for all I knew, they weren’t students and would be reported to the police.)
Trespassers?
What should employees do if the barrier to access cannot promptly be removed?
In some instances, it may not be possible to promptly remove a barrier to access, such as where doing so might threaten the health and safety of University community members or campus safety teams
This is a bit of a euphemism-- what this refers to is scofflaws intentionally making them difficult to remove without injuring them, such as putting themselves in sleeping dragon style restraints. Yeah, it's hard to remove the barrier without injuring the University community member because they intentionally made it hard to remove the barrier without injuring them. If you're less shy about removing the barrier even if it risks injuring them, then I suspect you would see less of this behavior. They assumed the risk when they did this, call them on it.
"If individuals are obstructing access for any students to ordinarily available programs, activities, or campus areas and do not disburse when instructed to do so..."
I'm delighted to see that ignorance of the English language is no barrier to obtaining a prestigious and high-paying position in educational administration.
They don't have to leave (disperse), they just have to pay up (disburse).
What is the policy when, for instance, pro-Palestinian demonstrators assemble, say they welcome the entrance or passage of Jews, and the Jews say, "No way, too dangerous, we're being excluded and you have to break up that demonstration to give us free access."
“What about this stupid hypothetical?”
Faculty can determine the facts and act accordingly. Duh.
No matter what, why, or who, no student (or other agitators) shall prevent any other student from accessing student spaces. It's not the students responsibility or right to prevent other students movement. Fucking PERIOD.
Is, "Protect the rights of Jews and they'll conspire to abuse the system," really your best take? Sorry, "the Jews," as you say, because we all work together in these conspiracies. Maybe they should just have a blanket policy for when the Jews do Jew stuff. After all, Jews instigated this whole thing by killing Jesus.
Drewski — Your anti-semitism detector is on the fritz. It's spewing false positives which have nothing to do with the inputs.
Is the local prosecutor willing to take criminal cases against pro-Palestinian protesters?
Probably not, and that's assuming the school didn't ask the prosecutor to drop the charges.
However, with the injunction in place, if the schools doesn't act to punish students, faculty and others who violate it, they're going to be back before the same judge and he's not going to be happy. It will also set the stage for even more lawsuits with a high probability that the administrators lose any immunity or indemnity and be personally liable.
Likely that arrestees will beat the rap (one way or another), but they won't (hopefully) beat the ride to jail.