Jewish-free zones at the University of Berkeley in California

Nine different groups of law students at Berkeley have changed their original free-speech bylaws to ensure that they do not invite speakers who might support Israel and its positions. The leftist interpretation of postcolonialism is riddled with anti-Semitism and Israel-hatred, although neither Judaism nor Israel are burdened with the history of colonialism. (JR)

Von Kenneth L. Marcus/JNS.org

Nine different groups of law students at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have started the new academic year with a change in the bylaws to ensure they will never invite speakers who support Israel or Zionism.

Dies sind keine Gruppen, die nur einen kleinen Prozentsatz der Studentenpopulation ausmachen. Dazu gehören Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent und der Queer Caucus.

The dean of Berkeley Law, Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has noted that even he would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

It is now a century since Jew-free zones first spread in the San Francisco Bay Area („No Dogs. No Jews.“). Nevertheless, this step is scary and unexpected, like a bang at the door at night.

Berkeley law students are not the first to exclude Zionists. At the State University of New York at New Paltz, activists expelled two victims of sexual assault from a survivor group because they were Zionists. At the University of Southern California, they expelled the vice president of the Jewish student government, Rose Ritch. At Tufts University, they tried to oust student Judiciary Committee member Max Price from the student government’s Judiciary Committee because of his support for Israel.

Exclusion of Jewish Americans

These exclusions reflect the changing face of campus anti-Semitism. The most well-known incidents are no longer just about toxic language poisoning the campus environment. Now anti-Zionist groups are directly targeting Jewish Americans.

Anti-Zionism is simply anti-Semitic. The use of „Zionist“ as a euphemism for „Jew“ is nothing more than a trick. Like other forms of anti-Semitism, it is an ideology of hatred that treats Israel as the „collective Jew“ and smears the Jewish state with defamations similar to those used for centuries to denigrate individual Jews. This ideology establishes a conspiratorial worldview that has occasionally erupted into violence, including mass shootings. Moreover, Zionism is an integral part of the identity of many Jews. His rejection is thus analogous to other forms of hatred and bigotry.

Anti-Semitism not covered by freedom of expression

Some commentators defend these exclusions on grounds of free speech, arguing that „groups also have the right to be selective and set their own rules for membership.“ They are wrong. As Dean Chemerinsky explains, the arguments for free speech go the other way: Berkeley’s anti-Zionist statutes restrict the freedom of speech of Zionist students.

Discriminatory behavior, including anti-Zionist exclusions, is not protected as freedom of expression. While hate speech is often constitutionally protected, such behavior can violate a variety of civil rights laws, such as Section VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is not always the case that student groups have the right to expel members in ways that reflect hatred and bigotry. In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of another Bay Area University University of California law school, Hastings College of the Law, to require groups of students to accept all students regardless of status or creed. In particular, the court approved Hastings‘ decision to require Christian groups to accept gay members.

Legal precedents aside, major universities generally require student groups to accept „all arrivals,“ regardless of „status of beliefs.“ They also adopt rules aligned with federal and state law that prohibit discrimination based on various classifications such as race, ethnicity, heritage, or religion. Those who adopt such rules must not exclude Jews from this protection.

Immoral provisions of the statutes

The real problem, discrimination, is not mentioned here. By adopting anti-Jewish statutes, these groups prevent their successors from collaborating with pro-Israel spokesmen and groups. In this way, the exclusionary statutes function like racially restrictive agreements that permanently exclude the participation of minorities.

Universities should not be legally forced to do what is obviously right. Anti-Zionist policies would still be monstrously immoral, even if they were not also illegal. Students should be ashamed of themselves. As well as adults standing quietly by or meekly mumbling about free speech, while parts of the universities follow the path of the Nazis‘ infamous call for „Jew-free“.

Kenneth L. Marcus is the founder and chairman of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law, which represented Jewish students in the New Paltz, Tufts, and USC cases discussed above. He served as the 11th Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights.

This article was originally published by The Jewish Journal.