Does The Stranger's macabre billionaire death fantasies include George Soros and Oprah Winfrey?

"Because this isn’t about Jewish students, or antisemitism, or protecting literally anyone. This is about suppressing dissent on college campuses, where that dissent is most likely to build power."

The Stranger can assert this, but last year, Pro-Palestinian protestors at UCLA did bar Jewish students from entering classrooms unless they denounced their faith:

'"LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles, cannot allow pro-Palestinian protesters to block Jewish students from accessing classes and other parts of campus.

[...]

'“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” Scarsi wrote.'

(https://apnews.com/article/ucla-protests-jewish-students-judge-rules-573d3385393b91dae093a8a8f0861431)

I won't accuse the Trump Administration of acting in good faith, but the reality of last year's protestors creating hostile environments for Jews on American college campuses cannot be denied.

I've heard "BRoligarchs" instead of billionaires as better foil - it's more accurate and powerful - I think.

@1:

Why do you ask? Are you just waiting to fap yourself into a frenzy by watching them die on-screen?

@2:

So, I expect this administration will also soon be sending out a similar missive regarding anti-abortion protesters creating a hostile environment by harassing students on college campuses (https://qcnerve.com/anti-abortion-protests-uncc/). Oh, wait, nevermind. This administration isn't going to do jack-shit about that, so I guess we can conclude they're just being selective about which groups they're targeting, which lends credence to Hannah's assertion that it's really just about suppressing speech they don't like.

@1,

Given that the site referenced is explicitly dealing in fictional portrayals, and that Soros and Winfrey are non-fictional people, I'm gonna venture way the fuck out on a limb here and say no.

Dweeeeeeebeeeee!!!!! You so dumb. Derb. Go paint your nails or something noxiously odiferous, but be sure to close the windows and put a plastic bag over your head. Have a day asshole!

@5: OK, perhaps, "I won't accuse the Trump Administration of acting in good faith," was a bit too obscure for you, but no, I don't expect the Trump Administration to do anything about any crime committed by anyone who supports it in any way, and anti-choice types obediently lined up to vote for him multiple times.

That said, federal law does say that schools receiving federal funds cannot allow religious discrimination on their campuses, so the government does have standing to keep schools honest. The headline post's earlier hand-waving about how it's all been taken care of, nothing to see here folks, just move along, needn't be believed either.

@6: Of course it's fictional based on real time anger. The juxtaposition of an innocuous category of billionaires with the focus of our rage misses the mark, I think.

@8: "federal law does say that schools receiving federal funds cannot allow religious discrimination on their campuses"

No. Federal law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin (all under Title VI), and sex (under Title IX). Religious discrimination is not prohibited. Antisemitism falls under the "national origin" umbrella, not any kind of religious umbrella.

@5: Don't worry, in due time this administration will also turn on the Jews as well. It never fails. 😂

A USC quarterback has never played in the Super Bowl. We're fucked.

Imagine if a President threatened to withhold federal funds from universities if they didn't suppress student criticism of Russia, or Taliban Afghanistan, or apartheid South Africa. Does anyone think thumpus or tensorna would be on here crying about the poor Russian or Afrikaner students who couldn't make it to class because they refused to denounce their human-rights-violating home countries?

Re: Tense & Ornery's latest outbursts of virulent nationalism. I bothered to check their links: not surprisingly, no one asked Jewish students to deny their faith. Blockades were erected to deny access to supporters of the Zionist state of Israel. Demanding that someone denounce a national government isn't the same as asking them to renounce their religion at all...unless that nation is a religiously-based ethnostate (theocracy, in vague, plebeian political shorthand), ;) ;).
Also, discrimination is - or has been in the past - legally defined as being treated differently for the same thing. Despite the assertions of the pro-Zionist judge, it sounds like anyone who maintained support for the Zionist state was subject to the blockade, regardless of their own faith affiliation. Thus, we can safely conclude that the lawsuit was a flagrant political action, with the plaintiffs' attorney asserting to the press that the pro-Palestine, anti-war blockade was "anti-semitic" - a grotesque misuse of the judicial system. In fact, I'm going to go so far (!) as to guess that most of the stand-their-grounders were actually conservative Christians, not persons of Jewish faith, and I wouldn't be surprised if dominionist $$$ helped fund the complaint.
So - a successful attempt to squash a vigorous challenge to the wars-for-profit machine which is the status quo of our national budget. And best of all, it also involves imposing minoritarian religious "values" onto secular education - it's no wonder Tense & Ornery loves it!

@13: Student criticism is fine, student discrimination is not. 😘

lol, US just announced it is restoring military aid to Ukraine. Can't wait for that Trump supporter to jump on here to crow about how military aid to Ukraine is now good, actually! 😂

@14: "no one asked Jewish students to deny their faith"

Of course not. Progressives are fine with Jews as a powerless religious minority. What they object to is Jewish sovereignty, not Jewish religious practice. 😉

@9 I know you will ignore this, but there is a huge difference between a billionaire like George Soros, who uses his wealth to promote democracies world wide, and Elon Musk buying Trump to turn America into a Fascist oligarchy. We can praise folks who use their wealth to help others, while calling for Guillotines for Broligarchs, and be totally consistent with our values.

Re: 15-17. Sigh...yes, I know you know how to read.

@13: Why are your counter-examples always fictional? Shouldn’t that be telling you something?

@14: The quote and source URL was right there @2, from a federal judge’s ruling: ‘… Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.” Scarsi wrote.'

So no, you didn’t check anything, and you have no factual basis for the rest of the many assertions you made in your comment.

@18: I didn't, and I concur.

While I'm confident in Prof. Wankus' literacy, I'm not so sure about Tense & Ornery. I rebutted the judge's decision in comment, but it doesn't appear to have registered.

@14: “Blockades were erected to deny access to supporters of the Zionist state of Israel.”

I like your implied assertion that it’s a-ok to block a student from entering her classroom, if she fails whatever political litmus test the local protestors have nonconsensually imposed upon her institution of learning.

(Then again, you may well have noticed a very strong — and decidedly inverse — correlation between the chance a person will tend to agree with you, and the amount of time that person has spent in classrooms.)

@23 "I like your implied assertion that it’s a-ok to block a student from entering her classroom, if she fails whatever political litmus test the local protestors have nonconsensually imposed upon her institution of learning"

So if protesters required students to denounce ISIS to enter a building you'd believe that university should lose federal funding?

By the way it's called a "hypothetical" and helps to flesh out the philosophical basis for a position. For example whether yours is principled at all or just, per usual, borne from unthinking pro-Israel bias.

@24 yes, because their actions are now violating the rights of another student. You can have strong beliefs, you can protest, you can say awful things as many of these people have done and that's all protected under the first amendment but the minute you cross the line and start restricting the freedom of other students / defacing public property / occupying buildings by trespassing and the myriad of other things these protestors have done over the last 18 months then your right to protest is no longer protected and you are subject to consequences. if you have trouble conceptualizing if this is wrong replace Jewish students with African Americans / LGBT or another historically marginalized group and if you wouldn't pull this crap on them then its not ok to do it to anyone else.

Dear headline editor: Professional's don't use apostrophe's to indicate plural noun's.

@25, What you’re missing is that we’re not talking about consequences for protesters. Punishing individuals for engaging in unlawful activities during a protest is nothing new and all protesters should prepare for it, even peaceful/passive ones. But the president is threatening to withhold funding to punish entire universities for allowing protests to happen at all which can have a chilling effect on free speech across the board. However you feel about the nature of the protests is immaterial. Anyone who cares about our first amendment rights should be appalled by Trump’s threats.

@27: “But the president is threatening to withhold funding to punish entire universities for allowing protests to happen at all…”

Not even the Stranger’s version supports your interpretation:

‘Yesterday, the Department of Education sent warning letters to 60 US colleges and universities, letting them know that they could face repercussions if they don’t “fulfill their obligations…to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.”’

The letter didn’t address protests, it addressed abusive protests, protests which infringed upon the rights of other students at those schools. (And, like most of Trump’s program, it’s highly unoriginal; Congress held hearings on this awhile ago, and the schools didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory then, either.)

“However you feel about the nature of the protests is immaterial.”

Well, the nature of these protests was aggressively intolerant of other students and their views, which is actually the problem. Right here in this thread, @14, we’re told a student can be refused entry to her classroom if she doesn’t agree with the protestors’ political views. That’s straight-up McCarthyism, and we should not have let it happen here again.

"This
is about
suppressing dissent
on college campuses, where
that dissent is most likely to build power."

thank you
Hannah. bold
Move well played

regardless
of what tS's
fascist contin-
gent claims. what's
That they say? punch a Nazi?

@24 Holy shit…. Maybe you should sit this one out, broski.

@28, Not protests but ABUSIVE protests, you say? Sorry but adding a few spicy adjectives doesn’t change my opinion and I’m a little surprised but not really to see you making excuses for Trump’s authoritarian tendencies when they suit your personal grievances.

Almost any kind of protest has the potential to disrupt people’s lives or hurt their feelings. This is a completely subjective standard and it would be an outrage to punish an entire university over the actions of students/staff who cross the line. Charge individuals if they break the law, expel them from school if they break the rules, all of that is within bounds. But the federal government punishing schools for failing to prevent any of this from happening would set a standard where all forms of student protest could be banned to protect the financial interests of the institution. All it would take is an aggrieved student to complain and then it would be up to the Trump administration to decide whether to act.

@20: An even more interesting antisemitism case to watch than Judge Scarsi's case involving UCLA is Judge Donato's case involving UC Berkeley.

Judge Scarsi's case feels exciting because he has handed down a preliminary injunction against UCLA, so you get a sense for which way the wind is blowing in his courtroom. The disappointing aspect of the UCLA case, from my point of view, is that the plaintiffs have teed it up as a religious liberty case by alleging that the protests constituted a First Amendment violation by denying Jews free exercise. The UCLA complaint will succeed only if the court ultimately determines that Zionism is integral to Jewish religious beliefs, which I regard as a less interesting question.

I predict Judge Scarsi will ultimately determine that Zionism is integral only to some Jews' religious beliefs, not all Jews, so while antizionism might constitute discrimination against the particular religious Jews in the UCLA case, it wouldn't necessarily constitute discrimination against all Jews. Also, because this is a First Amendment issue, it would be only government schools and agencies that would have to worry about this particular type of antisemitic discrimination.

By contrast, the plaintiffs in Judge Donato's case have gone straight for the jugular: a claim that antizionism constitutes antisemitic discrimination on the basis of national origin, in violation of Title VI. If the court rules broadly in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean that antizionism constitutes unlawful discrimination against all Jews, regardless of their individual religious beliefs—a much more sweeping result. 😄 Also, because this is a Title VI issue rather than a First Amendment issue, it would affect all schools that receive federal funds, which means both government schools and almost all major private schools.

So the stakes are much higher in Judge Donato's case. Also, the briefing on dispositive motions was completed a few months earlier in Judge Donato's case, so we could see an order earlier from his court than from Judge Scarsi's. What exciting times to follow civil rights law! 😄

@30: "disrupt people’s lives or hurt their feelings"

The issue is not whether the protests disrupt lives and hurt feelings but whether the protests create a discriminatory environment so hostile as to prevent access to education. I'm sure we can all agree we wouldn't want such an environment to persist. 😉

@32, I understand the particulars of the case in question and I fully support the guilty parties being punished for their actions. But discriminatory/hostile is subjective, and a country that values speech should not empower the federal government to punish entire institutions for failing to prevent individuals from breaking the law or school policy. How does any university guarantee all protesters adhere to the government’s expectations? What happens when the school takes all reasonable precautions and students still break the rules? You may trust Trump or some future administration to apply this power fairly but I don’t. Punish individual actors, not entire institutions.

'Karen Ortiz is an
administrative judge at the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission'

& Anathema
to the Fascists & a
Breath of Fresh Air to
anti-Fascists Everywhere

willing to
Stand Up and
Strike A Blow against
the fuckng Nazis, back to
Relitigate World War fucking Two

so Good on
You, Nazi
Puncher!

punch 'em
in the Balls.

@33: For Title VI hostile environment claims involving conduct by third parties, such as harassment by fellow students or by members of the public who are present on campus, the school is liable if each of the following is true:

The harassment on the basis of race, color, or national origin is sufficiently serious to deny or limit the victim’s ability to participate or benefit from some aspect of the education the school offers.
The school knew or reasonably should have known about the harassment.
The school fails to take prompt and effective steps reasonably necessary to end the harassment, eliminate the hostile environment, prevent its recurrence, and address its effects.

The defendant schools are definitely leaning into factors 2 and 3 in these discrimination lawsuits! 😂 “We didn’t know the antizionist protestors were going to target JEWS! And there was nothing we could have done to stop them!” 🤣 OK, if you say so … but let’s find out what the jurors think, ha ha!

“The county [teaming up with ICE]
is being represented by Stephen
Miller’s very own legal outfit,
America First Legal.
Eww.”

Not all Bond villains’re
Sociopaths. some’re
Psychos. Miller’s
vying for the
Himmler
Prize

or the
Ministry
of Brutality

a most proficient Multitasker
he’ll likely excell at
Both.

HMDubya
you're making
Me a Fan! Salutare!

@35: lol, either my phone or the Stranger’s website stripped out my paragraph numbering for the three elements of liable for third-party harassment. Sorry for the Kristofarian-like paragraphs, not my fault! 😄

No
one
Reads
your Tripe
ai spawn of Wormtongue

you're gonna Need to
Triple your output.

@33 Institutions also have an obligation to protect the rights and freedoms of their student body. Obama threatened Universities with similar repercussions if they did not adhere to his vision of Title IX. Government funding isn't a God given right and it can get pulled at any time for any number of reasons. That is not a violation of anyone's rights. I have yet to see anyone punished for speaking out and we have barely seen anyone held accountable for some of the egregious actions that took place and continue to take place. If a University loses their funding because they are passively letting students on campus have their rights violated I'm not going to shed any tears for them, particularly when its an Ivy sitting on a $12B endowment. Again, replace Jewish with LGBTQ and tell me how this is ok.

Meanwhile UCLA alum Troy Aikman has three Super Bowl rings.

@39, You may have memory-holed Trump I but there was a period of time ca. 2017 when anti-LGBTQ and anti-immigrant groups were on speaking tours at universities across the country. It resulted in a lot of protests and counter-protests that sometimes erupted in violence, including an incident at UW where people were shot. Many people called for speakers to be banned on the grounds of creating a hostile environment for immigrants and LGBTQ students but they were met with a shrug because the complaints were considered a threat to free speech. Fast forward to the far-right finding a sympathetic minority group and suddenly we’re being told hostile speech must be stopped at all cost.

Any member of any minority group can probably share their experiences with hostility and discrimination on campus, with or without the presence of a protest. I don’t like any of it but I also don’t think it’s the government’s place to tell universities how to handle or prevent hostile protests and I have no faith whatsoever these rules would be applied fairly.

Also re: Obama and title IX, the complaint was regarding university policy, not the actions of individual students. The individuals directly responsible for creating hostility should be held accountable, not the university they attend.

‘Have
a favorite
fictional billionaire
death? Send it to us at
billionaires@thestranger.com’

the one where they
fatten ‘em up like Veal
or Foie Gras the gooses
for the Beggar’s Banquet?

Nah.
Not That one.
the One where
they decide to all
Chip in to eliminate
Homelessness & provide
Medicare for ALL? Yep. That one.

[Spoiler ALERT:
NONE of ‘em
Gotta fucking Die!

It’s beyond
Revolutionary!]

they Still
taste like
Shite.

@41: “The individuals directly responsible for creating hostility should be held accountable, not the university they attend.”

No. Individuals have a right to be racist. Federally funded schools do not. If you’re gonna run your school on federal money, you don’t get to choose which races, colors, sexes, and nationalities you prefer to educate. If you want to run a racist school, you gotta do it on your own dime, which is perfectly legal to do. 😉

Nor can federally funded schools adopt a wink-wink approach to racism, in which they allow third-party racists to run amok on their campus while school leadership smirkingly washes their hands of it. 😅

Civil rights law doesn’t require schools to stamp out every single racist act by every third party on campus. Civil rights law doesn’t even require schools to succeed in avoiding a racist school environment. But it does require schools to make a reasonable effort to try to keep the racism to a low enough level that students who are targeted by racism can still manage to get an education.

An angry mob chasing Jewish students into the school library while campus security sits on its hands does not clear the bar set by civil rights law … even if the pursuers were acting in the name of “antizionism.” 😛

@41 I fully remember those protests and incidents. I can't recall any example where a far right protestor was limiting the rights of others, defacing buildings and occupying them as part of their cause. The way I seem to recall it was people were invited to speak on campus and rather than allow someone they disagree with to speak far left protestors would shut down the event through shouting and harassing attendees. Kind of like this:

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/07/us/former-ncaa-swimmer-riley-gaines-assault-san-francisco-state-university/index.html

As for the event you referenced the shooter was charged with a felony although not convicted because the victim refused to cooperate so there were consequences for what happened:

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/uw-police-seek-felony-assault-charge-against-alleged-shooter-during-milo-yiannopoulos-speech/

By comparison Harvard recently hosted a speaker who defended the Oct 7th attacks as justified. There were no scuffles, no one getting shouted down, no vandalism.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/palestinian-scholar-pressed-on-views-of-hamas-oct-7-attack/

So your claim that speech is being censored would seemingly apply exclusively to left wing activists. That's their right of course and as long as they keep it to speech and protest that's their choice. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about violating the rights of others as a form of protest and that's not ok and never will be. Feel free to provide an example of a left leaning speaker coming on campus and being denied / harassed and/or right wing protestors denying entry to fellow students and/or vandalizing buildings as part of their protest. I sure couldn't find any.

As for government funding, agencies insert themselves into these debates all the time. Whether it be states barring doing business with other states who pass laws they don't like (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/19/us/california-state-funded-travel-bans.html) or the federal government using the power of funding to implement policies they want (https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna32116686). You can agree or disagree with those policies but its within the right of the government to issue funding based on their policies and it is not a violation of any one rights to have their funding revoked.

@31 "If the court rules broadly in favor of the plaintiffs, it could mean that antizionism constitutes unlawful discrimination against all Jews"

If criticism of anything Israel does is antisemitism everyone should be antisemitic. If a central component of your identity is cheerleading war crimes your identity sucks. Jewish people of conscious should be absolutely opposed to any such ruling, or even argument in favor.

@45: “If criticism of anything Israel does is antisemitism everyone should be antisemitic”

True, but none of the plaintiffs in Judge Donato’s case are making any such argument, nor is anyone else anywhere else. 😂

Does HMW not read her employees slog entries? Over half of this Slog was already covered yesterday and late last week by her employees so it’s just redundant.

@46 define "antizionism" then for these purposes

@44, I’m not saying anything at all about speech being censored. I am saying that people had a complaint about speech creating a hostile environment for queer and immigrant students and they were shrugged off. I think matters were handled correctly at the time, more or less. I don’t like any of it but I support their right to host speakers and for everyone to protest and counter protest accordingly.

I brought the anti-queer events up because the complaints for hostile environment were disregarded, despite creating an environment where people were physically harmed. I agree that blocking students from accessing class should be punished but this would be a problem even absent any racism. I also think racism is a problem, but people have a right to be bigots. I just disagree that the government should be denying funding over hateful speech unless this standard is applied fairly across the board.

@49: “I agree that blocking students from accessing class should be punished but this would be a problem even absent any racism.”

True, but absent any racism, it wouldn’t be a federal case! 😄

You may wonder: OK, well, why make anything a federal case? Why not leave it to the schools to solve racist harassment on their own, the same way they would solve non-racist harassment?

And the answer is: because it turns out a lot of schools won’t solve racist harassment without a federal case. As a country, we’ve had to learn that lesson the hard way. In fact, we’re learning it all over again right now! 😆

@49: “I just disagree that the government should be denying funding over hateful speech unless this standard is applied fairly across the board.”

Not for mere hateful speech, but for hate that is so pervasive as to deny an equal education to its targets. That’s the lodestar for these Civil Rights Act cases: is it so bad that the victims can’t participate in the life of the school like everybody else?

You don’t lose your funding for bad speech. You lose your funding for discriminating in whom you choose to educate.

@barth: This is not about "hateful speech." As has been explained repeatedly (e.g. @25), it's about the protestors' violating students' rights and denying students' earned privileges. There's nothing "subjective" about it, either, because my right to wave my protest sign ends at the tip of your nose. Obvious as that.

Protestors at UCLA physically barred other students from entering classrooms unless those students said what the protestors wanted to hear. UCLA failed to ensure all students had access to their classrooms. As has also been explained, a school cannot so fail, and also take federal money.

No one has advocated for Trump's administration to shut down schools because protestors said mean things in front of other students, no matter how hard you might try to make it appear so.

@50 & 51 if protesters had demanded students denounce Israel's killing of tens of thousands of Gazan civilians during the recent offensive, and some Jewish students refused and therefore couldn't make it into the library, should that subject the school to loss of federal funding or other discipline?

@52: It’s difficult to judge whether your hypothetical event would constitute a hostile environment on the basis of race, color, or national origin based on your 30-word vignette. The totality of the circumstances is what makes or breaks a hostile environment, and 30 words don’t supply enough information to assess the totality. A short and hypothetical description like yours inevitably leaves the bulk of the circumstances to the imagination. So the answer to your question is, I can imagine circumstances where your hypothetical might constitute a hostile environment, and I can imagine other circumstances where it might not. 😜

In general though, if you’re imposing purity tests you think one nationality might be more likely to fail than others, then you’re on thin ice, civil rights-wise. After 9/11, for many, many racist Americans demanded to hear Arab Americans disavow terrorism. That was a racist demand, even if non-Arabs were also demanded to disavow terrorism, and even if Arab Americans themselves were also opposed terrorism. The demand itself was the racism, regardless of the answer, you see? 😂

Your hypothetical also fails to even to wave its fingers in the direction of two of the three elements necessary for a third-party hostile environment claim under Title VI: did the school know, and did the school act? Remember, the Civil Rights Act prohibits racist schools, not racist students! 😁 Civil rights law is complicated stuff! 😂

The complaint in the case before Judge Donato, describing a real-life hostile environment for Jews, runs to something like 50 or 60 pages. It’s difficult to make a case for a hostile environment with less detail than that.

lol, hey look, I’m like the Claudine Gay to your Elise Stefanik! 😂🤣😂🤣 And hopefully that little pocket example shows you why trying to hypothetical this stuff is a bad idea! 😉

@53 ok fair enough, so let's say it's the UCLA case, all the facts are the same, but instead of asking students to denounce Israel they asked students to denounce Israel's actions in Gaza. You and tensorna are ready to call the protesters actual questioning in that case prohibited antisemitism, does changing the question slightly make a difference?

Go, Karen Ortiz, GO!!
Grab 'em by their cowardly lil 'shrooms!

@54: The protestors can make all the demands they want; I don’t care. It’s when they start blocking other students from entering classrooms that the problem begins. Again, I do not care who the protestors are, or what they’re demanding, or of whom. It’s their infringements upon other student’s rights which is the problem.

is it anti-Semitism
or anti-Fascism?

right to
the Heart
of the Matter:

"... instead
of asking students
to denounce Israel they asked
students to denounce Israel's actions in Gaza."

--@thirteen12

this is where
being a Dictator*
truly Pays Off: YOU get
to Decide what Words mean

like Humpty Dumpty Always says
the choice is Who is to be
Master -- in this case it's
djt or some silly words.

*or Some cunning
Lingoistic manipu-
lation Specialist

@55

Ortiz ROCKS
don't she
auntie
Gee?

she got more
Balls then the Entire
corporate whing of the 'd'nc.

@54: "let's say it's the UCLA case, all the facts are the same, but instead of asking students to denounce Israel they asked students to denounce Israel's actions in Gaza ... does changing the question slightly make a difference?"

That's easy, it's still antisemitism and changing the question slightly does not make a difference.

Remember, this is a civil rights case. The totality of the circumstances is what makes or breaks a hostile environment. In the UCLA case, the totality of the circumstances included the following, all taken from the complaint:

"For example, at an October 12, 2023, demonstration at Bruin Plaza—a thoroughfare in the heart of UCLA’s undergraduate campus—activists chanted 'Itbah El Yahud' (“slaughter the Jews” in Arabic) and carried antisemitic signs." Complaint, ¶ 58.

"A few weeks later, a UCLA faculty member found a piece of paper entitled “Loudmouth Jew” accompanied by a book cover prominently featuring a swastika on top of a pile of trash placed outside the faculty member’s home." The swastika book was Philip Roth's The Plot Against America. Complaint, ¶¶ 61–63.

"On November 8, 2023, hundreds of agitators swarmed the UCLA School of Law, holding signs and chanting 'from the River to the Sea,' 'there’s only one solution,' 'intifada,' 'death to Israel,' and 'death to Jews.' Complaint, ¶ 66.

"Also on November 8, 2023, at a Students for Justice in Palestine protest, harassers chanted 'beat that fucking Jew' through a megaphone while bashing a piñata bearing an image of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu." Complaint, ¶ 67.

"For instance, later in November, the Co-Director of UCLA Chabad, Rabbi Dovid Gurevich, 'said he thinks many Jewish students have felt unsafe since the Oct. 7 attack and that his organization has recently increased security measures.'" Complaint, ¶ 72.

"And a number of Jewish students recounted seeing antisemitic symbols (such as a swastika carved into a tree), hearing anti-Jewish chants, and being subject to harassment because they are Jewish. These instances and others left many Jewish students feeling 'honestly scared for their life' when walking on campus." Complaint, ¶ 73.

"In another incident, of which Chancellor Block was aware, pro-Palestinian activists were seen on campus holding knives." Complaint, ¶ 74.

"On another occasion, a UCLA faculty member observed that the message 'Free Palestine, Fuck Jews' was scrawled on the bathroom wall in Schoenberg, UCLA’s music building. That graffiti was washed away by custodians. But after the cleaning, it was quickly replaced with new graffiti: 'Fuck Zionists.'" Complaint, ¶ 78.

"On December 6, 2023, Alpha Epsilon Pi—UCLA’s Jewish fraternity—was instructed by UCLA PD to hire extra security for a party it hosted as a safety precaution." Complaint, ¶ 80.

"And, in late March 2024, an individual placed a disturbing antisemitic statue on campus in front of the UCLA Luskin Conference Center. The statue depicted a several-foot-tall pig holding a bag of money and a birdcage with a keffiyeh, alongside a bucket painted with a star of David." Complaint, ¶ 82.

"Antisemitic images and chants became commonplace on UCLA’s campus. Swastikas, other Nazi references, and other antisemitic imagery appeared throughout campus." Complaint, ¶ 86.

"Those inside the encampment chanted antisemitic slurs like 'this is the final solution,' 'fuck Israel,' 'death to Jews,' 'death to Israel,' 'intifada revolution,' and 'from the River to the Sea.' Complaint, ¶ 90.

"The use of antisemitic imagery was common. These images included money symbols and other references that play on well-known antisemitic tropes and posters with drawings of pigs. Inverted red triangles, a common image used by Hamas to denote Jewish targets, were also present." Complaint, ¶ 97.

"Other activists held signs with the Star of David crossed out, a swastika being compared to the Israeli flag, or reading 'Nazionist.'” Complaint ¶ 98.

"Some activists chalked Stars of David onto UCLA’s sidewalks alongside directions to 'Step Here.' Complaint, ¶ 106.

"Othere were denied passage simply for wearing a Star of David necklace." Complaint, ¶ 112.

Anyways, this is all just from the first 20 pages of a 74-page complaint. The thing goes on and on with more of the same. Other relevant circumstances included the UCLA administration sending out emails—during the protests themselves—identifying antisemitism at the protests yet failing to take action to protect Jewish students from the protesters; and campus security informing Jewish students that they were the ones who needed to leave the protest area, as opposed to the protestors who were threatening the Jewish students.

In the midst of such circumstances, changing the protestors' student purity test from "denounce Israel" to "denounce Israel's actions in Gaza" would not be enough to eliminate the hostile environment on the basis of national origin. A school cannot tolerate a knife-wielding, swastika-painting, student-threatening, slaughter-the-Jews protest under the pretense that this is all just harmless free speech criticism of the Israeli military. 😂 The school itself was aware of the problem—they themselves were calling it antisemitism, and their own campus police were telling the on-campus Jewish organizations to hire extra security. It was a hostile environment for Jews, and everyone knew it, and hypothetically tweaking a small number of details wouldn't be enough to fix it. 😃

@56 nobody has a "right" to use a campus library, they have a right not to have their use prevented due to their national origin, etc.

@59: Ok, that's a privilege the person has earned via gaining admission to the school, and fulfilling all the requirements of library usage, e.g. return materials on time. The school must ensure that each person who has earned those privileges can freely use them, regardless of national origin, etc.

(One might think that the message, "don't infringe upon other persons' rights and privileges, same as you do not wish yours infringed upon," would be an easy one, but apparently some folks here need that spelled out in great detail.)

@58 so absent all that context the question itself is, in your opinion, innocuous? Or do you think in a vacuum asking someone to denounce Israel's specific actions in order to enter an area is antisemitic and violative of Jewish students' civil rights?

@61: ha ha ha, look how desperate you are to find some way to compel Jews, against their wishes, to denounce Israel as a precondition for public education without getting yourself jacketed as a racist! 😂 Maybe just leave the Jews alone? 🤪

@62 you said in 46 that no one anywhere is making a particular argument. Now you're having to conspicuously avoid explicitly making that exact argument. Any Jew (or any person really) who believes it's their religious obligation to not denounce the murder of thousands of civilians should really reconsider their beliefs.

@63 you can blame me:
after instructing🛴🔨
to Triple its output
it was Bound to
come up with
a few Boners

it's Still
learning
the Fascism
is Strong in that one

@63: I’m quite impressed — and I mean that in a really negative manner — at the lengths to which you’ll go to justify abusive protests. From laughing at children left hungry — or even denied surgery! — by freeway-blocking protestors, to demanding Jewish students mouth political formulas to enter their classrooms, you always go to bat for such tactics. Why? What do you think these tactics accomplish? More public support for the cause(s) the protestors espouse? Try reading this thread again.

Furthermore, demanding Jews, or anyone, denounce Zionism or Israel or whatever, on pain of losing a right or privilege — as I’ve written above, that’s flat-out McCarthyism: “here, either you sign this loyalty oath, or you cannot go to college, get a good job, etc.” Do you honestly believe any student forced to say whatever to enter the library now really agrees with what she was required to say? Seriously? What’s your point in all this?

@66 "Do you honestly believe any student forced to say whatever to enter the library now really agrees with what she was required to say? Seriously? What’s your point in all this?"

Obviously not, which is why it's weird these plaintiffs didn't just say whatever and instead are literally making a federal case out of it. What's their point in all this? Can it be "about suppressing dissent on college campuses, where that dissent is most likely to build power?"

@63: "Any Jew (or any person really) who believes it's their religious obligation to not denounce the murder of thousands of civilians"

An argument that no one is making, a religious obligation that no one has claimed. The demons you're grappling with right now are inside your head. Maybe grapple with the plaintiffs' actual arguments instead? 😂

@66: "it's weird these plaintiffs didn't just say whatever and instead are literally making a federal case out of it"

It doesn't seem weird to me that plaintiffs would make a federal case out of discrimination, or that plaintiffs would refuse to repeat the words a racist mob ordered them to repeat. But then, I'm one who believes in standing up against discrimination, not surrendering to it. Maybe that makes me weird! 😂😂😂

@66: “Obviously not, which is why it's weird these plaintiffs didn't just say whatever and instead are literally making a federal case out of it.”

Anyone who demands anything like this should be told to Fuck Right Off, and get out of the way. Failure to do so should bring campus security to remove the person(s) making the demand. Failure of the school to do that, when the school receives federal funds, enables a federal case to be made out of it. And that is upon the protestors who made the abusive demands. It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, or campus protests generally.

Shorter thirteen12: why can’t those pesky Jews just brush off harassment? They’re Jews, so they’re going to get harassed, and they need to own it, already.

@68: ha ha, right. "Anti-racist except for Jews" is the big idea. 🤪

@67 "But then, I'm one who believes in standing up against discrimination, not surrendering to it"

Except for Palestinians of course, they need to surrender or be "taught a lesson 😘"

@68 "Anyone who demands anything like this should be told to Fuck Right Off"

Says the person who's constantly demanding people here denounce Hamas, or Sawant, et al.

@70: Well, I distinguish between Hamas, a terrorist group whose destruction I support, and the Palestinians, a people I respect and whose national aspirations I support. That’s because I’m an actual anti-racist. You could be one, too, but first you’d have to do the work. 😇

@71: If you really can’t tell the difference between words on a screen, and a phalanx of protestors physically blocking students from entering their own school, then maybe this topic isn’t one for you to comment upon.

@72: It always comes down to some version of “the ends justify the means,” even if there’s no actual connection between the protestors’ cause and what they’re doing. Abusing students in Los Angeles because of actions allegedly taken by their nominal co-religionists halfway around the world makes for the worst kind of collective responsibility.

@2 The article you provide doesn't give factual evidence that some students were denied access because of their Jewish faith as it claims. If Libretto is correct that people were denied access for refusing to condemn Israel's violence against Palestinians, the judge in charge of the case doesn't understand what is antisemitism and appears to be colluding with the pro-Israel side (and now the Trump administration) that have tried for a long time to falsely conflate criticism of Israel and antisemitism in order to demonize and muzzle critics.

@58 Many of these incidents describe antisemitic behavior but in no case do they demonstrate that anti-Zionism is antisemitic as you gratuitously declared earlier. Independent evidence of these incidents has to be provided so that everyone can determine their veracity and so that their authors can be determined as some could be performed to discredit the pro-Palestinian movement, notably by the far right. Some antisemitic behavior is likely as racism is pernicious and I do condemn it but clear proof has to be given.

@72 You have been provided with mountains of evidence of Israeli wrongdoings in Gaza documented by the UN and various human rights organizations, and you have never condemned Israel. On the contrary you systematically deny Palestinians their right to self-determination, justify Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and deny ethnic segregation amounting to apartheid which is racism. Spare us your deceitful rhetoric.

@74: "in no case do they demonstrate that anti-Zionism is antisemitic as you gratuitously declared earlier"

thirteen12 wanted to test a hypothetical under the UCLA facts, so I gave him the facts from the UCLA complaint. Or rather, a taste of the facts. The complaint documented plenty more antisemitism at UCLA, lol! But the UCLA plaintiffs teed it up as a religious freedom case, not a national origin case, so they have no need to prove up anything related to antizionism.

The antizionism case is the UC Berkeley case, not the UCLA case. Yes, it's easy to get lost when there are this many antisemitism cases! But there is a lot of antisemitism on campuses right now! 😝

I'll spare you 35 pages of facts from the Berkeley case. Some of the conduct at Berkeley was better than UCLA: no knives! no swastikas! 😝 Some of the conduct at Berkely was worse than UCLA: home invasions! hate mail and threatening notes! angry mobs chasing Jews! spitting and use of "Jew" as a pejorative! 😝 All of this is important context for the specific antizionist actions that are at the heart of the case.

The crux of the case is a collection of bylaws and constitutions adopted by various student orgs and similar bodies to exclude Zionists. In the context of the antisemitism that was already occurring campus-wide, the plaintiffs argue that exclusion of Zionists means exclusion of Jews.

First, the plaintiffs make the familiar, obvious, and frankly, boring argument that when the exclusionary orgs say "Zionists," they really mean "Jews." The complaint even manages to catch a few of these orgs slipping up and doing just that during their trainings and in their printed materials. 😜 But accidentally saying "Jew" is a gaffe that many incautious antizionists make, and it's easy enough for the other antizionists to disavow whenever it happens. Look at our own Kristofarian and his "Jewish lobby" when what he meant was AIPAC, ha ha ha! The savvier breed of antizionist are careful never to utter the J-word, so I regard this whole line of argument as small potatoes—convincing, but trivial.

The interesting argument begins at ¶127 of the first amended complaint. Here is where the plaintiffs go for the jugular:

"But even if the students were not simply using 'Zionist' as a proxy for 'Jew,' their actions would still be anti-Semitic. For most Jews, Zionism is not a viewpoint. It is not an opinion. As the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) explains, 'Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel. ... Inherent in Zionism is recognition of the Jews’ ancestral connection to the land of Israel. ... Zionism is 'a movement for (originally) the re-establishment and (now) the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.')."
(Citations elided for brevity)

"Dean Chemerinsky [an avowed supporter of Palestinian rights, but also one of the speakers excluded by the no-Zionists bylaws, and also a victim of one of the home invasions] himself has stated, 'For many Jews, Zionism is a core component of their identity and ethnic and ancestral heritage.' ... Accordingly, he, like many other Jews, experienced the 'No Zionist Speakers' policy 'as antisemitism because it denies the existence of the state of Israel, the historical home of the Jewish people.” Id. In the wake of the bylaw’s adoption, Dean Chemerinsky explained that, 'to say that anyone who supports the existence of Israel—that’s what you define as Zionism—shouldn’t speak would exclude about, I don’t know, 90 percent or more of our Jewish students.'"
(citations elided for brevity)

"The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (“IHRA”)—whose member states include the United States—recognizes that Zionism (recognition of the ancestral connection of the Jewish people to Israel) cannot be separated from the identity of most Jews. On May 26, 2016, the IHRA adopted a working definition of anti-Semitism (the Definition) that covers acts '[d]enying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.'"

...

"The result of the amended constitutions and the Palestine 101 training was predictable. Jewish law students chose not to join student groups that adopted the Exclusionary Bylaw and whose leaders attended the Palestine 101 training. As several law school students explained, 'No organization has said ‘Jews are not welcome,’ but in practice, these by-laws and the training say exactly that. Student leaders now accept the exclusion of Jews because of an aspect of their identity. There is tolerance to marginalize us because of our faith.'"

In their prayer for relief, the plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctions requiring the school to protect students from "discrimination on the basis of their Jewish identity, including those for whom Zionism is an integral part of that identity."

So, shots fired! The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that antizionism is antisemitism. Whether Zionism is, in fact, a "core component of Jews' identity and ethnic and ancestral heritage" will be a matter of fact for Judge Donato to decide! I hope he's been assigned a large courtroom, because he's going to have an army of Jewish expert witnesses lining up to tell him that the answer is yes! 😁

More realistically, though, UC Berkely will try to get the case dismissed on procedural grounds (they've already moved for it), but if that doesn't work, they know they're fucked and they'll probably look to enter a big old crow-eating settlement with the plaintiffs. If the school apologizes, issues a "no more antizionist bylaws" directive, and covers the plaintiffs' damages and expenses, that would probably be enough to satisfy these particular plaintiffs. So we may not yet see antizionism on trial ... time will tell! 😁

@74: Oh I forgot about the rest of your stuff, ha ha!

"you systematically deny Palestinians their right to self-determination, justify Israel's occupation of Palestinian territory and deny ethnic segregation amounting to apartheid"

I systematically affirm the Palestinian right to self-determination (including in this very thread, lol), and have called Israel's settlement construction activities in the West Bank unlawful, and am supported by the 19 July 2024 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in my opinion that Israel is not engaged in apartheid. 😜

So, in other words, you are not providing factual evidence of antisemitism on the part of protesters. Only the testimony of actors involved in the dispute who have already said they wanted to conflate Anti-Zionism with antisemitism. Although, I am sure someone at some point said Jew rather than Pro-Israel, like Zionists do all the time.

Good to see you concede that some Zionists, like some Islamists as you often like to point out, do unpleasant things to other ethnic groups in the name of their religion. That's a small progress on your part however unintended given you appear to think that one of the 2 is respectable.

Denying something (access, speech, ..) to Zionists is in itself no more racist (antisemitic) than doing it to fascists, who also claim that their ideology of white supremacy is part of their ethnic identity. You are entitled to think it is wrong or unlawful to deny speech to fascists but there is no logic to claiming that it is racist even if they claim to represent the white race.

Your occasional affirmation of Palestinian right to self determination is purely rhetorical because it never translates into condemning Israeli actions that deny them self determination.

"Israel is not engaged in apartheid"

see what I am talking about? not only do you obfuscate the findings of the International Court of Justice
"the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures." but you also deny the court finding that Israel is in violation of article 3 of CERD ("racial segregation and apartheid")

@78: "So, in other words, you are not providing factual evidence of antisemitism on the part of protesters. Only the testimony of actors involved in the dispute who have already said they wanted to conflate Anti-Zionism with antisemitism"

I mean, it's a complaint, not a testimony, so it is not meant to supply evidence of anything. It is only meant to supply allegations, which it does. 😂

Speaking of testimony, "the testimony of the actors involved in the dispute," when this case moves on to trial, will indeed supply factual evidence of antisemitism. Testimony is factual evidence. Indeed, it is the oldest and most common kind. 😂

Now, if the testimony matches the allegations, which I'm confident it will since many of the plaintiffs' witnesses are themselves the plaintiffs, then it's certainly enough to support a finding of antisemitism on the part of the protestors. I didn't quote the Berkeley complaint the way I did the UCLA complaint, but it's page after page of the same kind of antisemitic conduct all over the campus for a sustained period of time. The university could, of course, choose to call the protestors as witnesses so they can testify about their side of the story ... but something tells me the university will not be eager to put those kinds of witnesses on the stand, ha ha ha!

(Just imagine that cross-examination! "So, Mr. Student-Protestor, when you shouted at them that they were 'Talmudic devils,' [¶104 of the FAC, fyi], were you criticizing their Zionism or their Jewishness?" 🤣🤣🤣)

Zionism is the movement for the self-determination of the Jewish people. To deny Zionism is to deny the Jewish right to national self-determination. To deny only the Jewish nation's right to self-determination is to discriminate against Jews on the basis of nationality. Thus, antizionism, which singles out Jews alone among the nations of the world for denial, is an example of national-origin discrimination. National-origin discrimination is allowed in many other contexts (free speech! 🤣), but it's not allowed in federally funded schools.

This is a strong case, and I expect the university will not be eager to take it to trial. Can you imagine UC Berkeley going to the mat in defense of "antizionists" who called one student a "dirty Jew," [¶80 of the FAC] or told other Jewish students they had "blood on their hands" [¶94 of the FAC]? lol, I wouldn't want to have that trial if I were the school!

I'm reluctant to relitigate the ICJ ruling with you. I don't deny the ICJ found Israel to be in violation of the conventional prohibition against "racial segregation and apartheid," but you have misunderstood the nature of the violation.

I'll make one last attempt to rescue you. Imagine some kind of hypothetical law that says, "Cocaine, heroin, and meth are illegal to possess." The police arrest some guy in possession of cocaine but no other drug. Did this guy break the law?

If you can answer that question correctly, then you can understand the ICJ ruling ... at least I hope! 🤣

To deny Zionism is to deny Israeli and their Christian allies the right to prevent Palestinians from self determining on the land they have continuously occupied for millennia, in some cases since the Bronze age. Zionist Jews can self determinate as much as they want as long as it doesn't involve forcibly taking land away from its occupants.

"Cocaine, heroin, and meth are illegal to possess."

Your analogy is as terminally flawed as it was last time you used it because apartheid is racial discrimination so spare me the usual condescending BS act. Apartheid was used to refer specifically to the use of racial discrimination in South Africa, and now it is used to refer to organized racial segregation like it is in the occupied territories such as segregation in where people can live, which roads they can use and which check points they can cross, which public facilities like water access they can use, etc ..

@79: "the right to prevent Palestinians from self determining"

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. It is not a claim regarding any other nation's self-determination. Some individuals who happen to Zionists support Palestinian self-determination (like me and Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin), and some individuals who are not Zionists also support Palestinian self-determination (like you and Hamas military commander Muhammad Dayf). Some individuals who are Zionists oppose Palestinian self-determination (like Israeli Minister of Finance Bezalei Smotrich), and some individuals who are not Zionists also oppose Palestinian self-determination (like Ottoman Imperial governor of Syria Jamal Pasha).

As this spectrum of opinion illustrates, Zionism and Palestinian self-determination are neither mutually dependent ideas nor mutually exclusive ideas. It is possible to have one, or the other, or neither, or both. In my view, it is best to have both, and most of the world agrees with me. Indeed, the accommodation of both nations' rights to self-determination is the foundation of the two-state solution, the United Nations-endorsed plan for peace and sovereignty in the lands of Israel and Palestine. I know how much weight you attach to the opinion of the UN, so don't you think you should join me over here in my UN-approved, Zionist, pro-Palestinian vision for peace? 😄

Apartheid and racial segregation are both forms of racial discrimination, and they are both prohibited by CERD, but they are not the same thing. Your breezy restatement of the definition of apartheid @79 has no basis in international law—not even from the two out of sixteen ICJ judges who agreed with you that Israel has committed apartheid in the occupied territories! 😃 To spare you my "usual condescending BS act," I won't educate you yet again on the differences, but I hope you'll choose to read up on the issue. 🤣

Finally, since you didn't like my "cocaine, but not cocaine and heroin" analogy, I'll point you in the direction of one other source that might help you grapple with that tricky little word, "and:" the United States Supreme Court! In the case of Pulsifer v. United States, No. 22-340 (March 15, 2024), the Court was faced with a list of triggering conditions joined by the word "and." The Court had to determine whether consequences would ensue only if a defendant failed all three triggering conditions, or whether a consequences would ensue if a defendant had failed just two out of the three. It all came down to the function of the word "and," with the defendant arguing the AverageBob position on the word, and the government arguing the thumpus position. I know you're dying to know, but I won't give away the ending! 🤣

aipacy
Wormtongue
& his a'i' sockbott
Flooding the Zone with
'intellectual' Dishonesty til
the Cows come Home to roost.

they'll do Well
under Thedonolde

the
Rest
of Us?

Poorly, sans
Appeasement
cum Capitulation.

aipacy
Wormtongue
& his a'i' sockbott
Flooding the Zone with
'intellectual' Dishonesty til
the Cows come Home to roost.

they'll do Well
under Thedonolde

the
Rest
of Us?

Poorly, sans
Appeasement
cum Capitulation.

@74: I provided a quote from a judge’s statement that these abuses had occurred. I don’t care about what Libretto86 wrote, because it’s just his opinion, with nothing to support his grandiose claim to have “rebutted” the judges’ decision, whatever that means. UCLA’s official report, cited in an earlier thread, confirms these abuses occurred.

Legal questions aside, blocking students (actual Jews, perceived Jews, or anyone else) from entering their classrooms unless they make an “acceptable” political statement is the very definition of McCarthyism. (His preferred statement was a loyalty oath.) That progressives now make and defend such abusive requests does little to refute the validity of Horseshoe Theory. It also tends not to gain sympathy for their cause.

@57 kristofarian: If I still lived in Seattle, Karen Ortiz would get my vote for mayor, no contest.
Sadly, Bruce Harrell is no Norm Rice. I really feel for those in the PNW housing crunch, especially those among us
Western Washington natives.