Being Jewish at UCLA

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community, how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”  That question was posed UCLA undergrad Rachel Beyda in her appearance before the student government (USAC), as part of her application to serve on the Judicial Board.  To his credit, the student body president intervened, saying that the question was inappropriate.  Nonetheless, the questioner persisted, and Beyda was compelled to explain that being Jewish had nothing to do with being biased.  But that was not the end of it.  Three other members of the student government pursued the same line of questioning, having obviously assumed that being Jewish raised legitimate questions that had to be answered.  This story is on the front page of today’s New York Times, and it was first reported three weeks ago in an oped (by Beyda’s roommate) in the Daily Bruin.

Beyda maintained her composure while answering the offensive questions, and she was then asked to leave the room while the USAC members debated her appointment (the meeting was open to everyone but Beyda, and a videotape has been posted on Youtube).  During the discussion, which lasted over 40 minutes, four members of the USAC repeatedly questioned Beyda’s general ability to be fair, given that she belonged to a Jewish sorority and was active in Hillel.  One remarked “it’s not her fault, but she’s part of a community.”  Another actually raised the possibility of “divided loyalty.”  Initially, the USAC vote divided 4-4, and Beyda’s nomination failed.  No one had said anything negative about her qualifications; the only objection was that her Jewishness raised a “conflict of interest.”  At that point, a faculty advisor intervened and explained that the students had misunderstood “conflict of interest.”  Another vote was taken, and this time the appointment was unanimously approved.

The worst aspect of this incident is that seemingly intelligent undergraduates could so blithely discuss whether membership in the Jewish community might exclude an otherwise qualified applicant.  Although that is the very definition of bigotry – making assumptions about an individual based upon group identity – nobody at the meeting raised the very obvious issue of anti-Semitism.  Even the faculty advisor spoke only about the difference between real and perceived conflicts of interest, saying nothing about the manifest ethnic and religious prejudice that was evident from the objectors’ questions.

Only following the oped by Beyda’s roommate did the no-voters apologize, in their own letter to the Daily Bruin.  But it was not much of an apology:

Our intentions were never to attack, insult or delegitimize the identity of an individual or people. It is our responsibility as elected officials to maintain a position of fairness, exercise justness, and represent the Bruin community to the best of our abilities, and we are truly sorry for any words used during this meeting that suggested otherwise.

Really?  What exactly were their intentions when they challenged Rachel’s impartiality, solely because she is Jewish?  And what alternative “words used during this meeting” could possibly have made it any better?  The problem was not the language of their questioning, but rather the sentiment behind it.    

Undergraduates need to be forgiven for their mistakes, but they also need to learn from them.  In this case, the four objectors seem to have learned very little, as they appear to be completely blind to their own implicit expression of anti-Semitism, even after it has been pointed out to them.

And even as he criticized the vote, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block made no reference to anti-Semitism, saying only that “No student should feel threatened that they would be unable to participate in a university activity because of their religion.”  This is “a teaching moment,” Block later told a reporter, “in which the students are learning about governance.”  But shouldn’t they also be learning about prejudice?  In a similar incident several years ago, in which an undergraduate posted a video that disparaged Asian-Americans, Block was far more direct, saying that he was “appalled” by the video, which he found “shameful” and “indefensible.”  And that was in response to the words of a single undergraduate, in contrast to official actions on an elected student body.

There is a creeping resurgence of anti-Semitism on American campuses, and it is not going to be remedied unless faculty and administrators are willing to confront it directly.

For more on the problem of anti-Semitism on campus, see this statement by the Alliance for Academic Freedom.

Comments

[Ken Waltzer]

Thoughtful observations on a situation that illustrates how BDS militancy on behalf of boycott or divestment shades over -- in the attitudes and actions of many adherents -- to blatant anti-Semitism. Also thoughtful discovery how university officials (or journalists or other commenters) cannot bring themselves to characterize the attitudes and behavior as what it is --- anti-Semitic or Judeophobic. If the chancellor cannot call it what it is, how can students learn? Block is right, this is a teaching moment. So TEACH!!!!

[anon123]

It should be pointed out that the four students who opposed Ms. Beyda were Fabienne Roth, from Switzerland, Negeen Sadeghi-Movahed, an Iranian-American, Manjot Singh, a Sikh, and Sofia Moreno Haq, a member of the Muslim Student Association. Whether they regard this as a teachable moment or not, only time will tell. Whether the people who appointed them onto the Judicial Board regard this as a teachable moement, only time will tell.

[Eric Muller]

anon123, how is your insinuation that these four voted against the Jewish student because they are Iranian, Sikh, Muslim, and, uh, "from Switzerland" any less deserving of condemnation than their questions of, and votes against, the Jewish student?

[anon123]

Eric, I did not say that. I presented the facts as represented in the UCLA Bruin. There is a big difference between voting to keep someone off of board based on their religion, and identifying the people voting.

[[M][@][c][K]]

It's funny, I found myself in an argument yesterday with someone who was trying to maintain that no Arab groups opposed to Israeli policies especially with respect to Palestine were anti-Semitic in their views (I may have asked the person who denied any anti-Semetic critics of Israel if they were f***ing delusional.) What caused the argument was my point that the virulent anti-Semitism of many such groups, there tendency towards Holocaust denial was fundamentally hurting the Palestinians cause because it has a "circle the wagons effect" on the Jewish diaspora, many of whom in surveys are, in fact, in the US and UK, more critical of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians than non-Jews. (Inter alia, in the UK a similar effect could be seen among the Irish.) Moreover, because there are loud anti-Semites among critics of Israeli policy, it is easy to be seen as an anti-Semite for such criticism, and to be blunt, many of Israel's defenders have been pretty willing to fling that accusation quite spuriously - and hint at it prolifically.

There may be legitimate reasons to consider whether some advocates of Israeli policy can make fair judgments - this is a particularly hot issue as efforts have been made to bar J-Street from some campus Hillel, while the Steven Salaita situation makes BDS opponents seem particularly hypocritical right now. I find the increasing conflation of Israeli policy with Jewishness a deeply worrying phenomenon and one that has the potential for a very ugly debate. There has also been a fairly unfortunate recent case https://www.usac.ucla.edu/jboard/cases/14-3_SJPvSinghRogers.pdf where Singh at least would likely have been Sikh, which might have been a factor in Manjot Singh's concerns, something fairness dictates that anon123 should have acknowledged. Indeed that case does make difficult reading in the context of conflicts of interest - given that it happened last year and must have been on the mind of many members of the court, it would have been fair to ask someone who is vocally supportive of Israel and opposed to the BDS campaign what she might have done in such a case - it would be impermissible to ask her if her religion or ethnic identity was motivating that view.

Similarly, Netanyahu's claim in his recent speech to speak for all Jews was something I recognise as being deeply offensive to many Jews - indeed I would regard it as a perversely anti-Semitic statement in itself, to the extent that it claims that all Jews agree with Netanyahu. Indeed it would be fair to suggest that anon123's post is pretty well as appalling as suggesting that someone who is Jewish cannot be fair - indeed it pretty well couches the question in terms of their religion for which anon123 should be, anonymously, ashamed.

To put it more simply, Jewish ≠ Zionist ≠ Likud supporter

You can support the existence of Israel and question its policies, and you can ask whether AIPAC is good for Israel, or bad, but this is one of the worst areas imaginable to tread into.

[Barry]

Ken: "Thoughtful observations on a situation that illustrates how BDS militancy on behalf of boycott or divestment shades over -- in the attitudes and actions of many adherents -- to blatant anti-Semitism. "

Actually it doesn't, unless there was a casual link mentioned which I didn't spot.

Please note that this is just another flavor of accusing women or blacks or gays of being biased (as opposed to straight white men of acceptable religious beliefs).

[Rudyard Holmbast]

Claiming that the BDS movement is not anti-Semitic is absolutely hilarious. Do those making that claim really think anyone believes them? When the ONLY country you target for divestment and sanctions happens to be the world's sole Jewish state(and a liberal democracy), despite the fact that the list of countries with far worse human rights records is a mile long, your pleas that you are not anti-Semitic are ludicrous on their face. Here's a tip for the BDS bigots: no one believes you.

[[M][@][c][K]]

Re: Rudyard Holmbast

"many of Israel's defenders have been willing to fling that charge quite spuriously"

QED

[Jonathan H. Adler]

Eric - I think the better question raised by anon123's post is why the four questioners did not think that they, themsleves, had conflicts of interest under their understanding of what that would mean. (Of course, this only further shows the ridiculousness and insidiousness of their position.)

JHA

[Ken Waltzer]

Don't know who Barry is but -- Barry -- yes, it certainly does. Identifying a Jewish student who is active in campus Jewish institutions (sorority, Hillel) and questioning her fitness for a general judicial office qualifies in my mind as anti-Semitism. Three of the four questioning students were and are BDS supporters. Walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quack like a duck -- it's a duck.