Wisconsin Student Judiciary Voids BDS Resolution Due to Religious Discrimination

One defining feature of BDS advocates is that the urgency of their opposition to Israel frequently overwhelms their commitment to central tenets of discourse, civility, and even basic democracy.  Thus, scholarly organizations such as the American Studies Association have been willing to disregard principles of academic freedom, and perhaps even their own bylaws, in order to impose an academic boycott on Israeli colleges and universities, and student protesters on campuses – most recently the University of California at Irvine – have routinely disrupted Israeli speakers.  The anger sometimes spills over into outright anti-Semitism, as when members of the UCLA student government voted against appointing a student to a committee solely because she was part of the Jewish community.

One particularly disturbing tactic in student government has been scheduling anti-Israel resolutions on Jewish holidays – sometimes with little or no notice – thus making it impossible for observant Jews to attend the meetings and voice their opposition.  This has happened at Pitzer, Cornell, Bath University (UK), and Tufts, where a recent divestment resolution was timed to coincide with Passover.

An instance of such blatant religious discrimination recently occurred at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, when the student government suspended its own rules in order to consider a previously unannounced anti-Israel resolution on Passover.

The incident began on March 29 when an Israel divestment resolution was proposed for consideration by the Associated Students of Madison (ASM) with only one day’s notice.  Following vigorous debate, the motion was tabled indefinitely.  After the meeting, a Jewish ASM representative wrote to the ASM chair requesting that the resolution not be considered at the next regular session, scheduled for April 12, which would occur on the second day of Passover (when many Jewish students would be away from campus and therefore could not attend and speak at the meeting).

Nonetheless, another divestment resolution was brought to the ASM floor at the April 12 meeting, after one representative successfully moved for a suspension of the rules.  Although such resolutions must generally be introduced at one meeting and voted upon at another, that requirement was waived because, in the words of the sponsor, it would have been a “hassle” to hold the necessary additional meeting.

Following passage of the divestment resolution, a group of Wisconsin students petitioned the student judiciary to invalidate it, arguing that the procedures had violated an ASM constitutional provision banning religious discrimination.

The student judiciary found that the resolution had indeed violated the anti-discrimination clause, stating:

Holding the April 12th meeting on Passover did not automatically violate the ASM Constitution. Introducing legislation that members of the Jewish community had expressed interest in, when it was known that these members would not be able to attend due to religious observance, does violate the Constitution.

Additionally,

[M]ultiple constitutional violations occurred at the April 12^th meeting and Jewish students were the subject of discrimination by their elected representatives. This is unacceptable, and future sessions are warned that the Judiciary will not tolerate the hypocrisy of a student government that claims to be a voice for students, while simultaneously discriminating against and silencing their constituents.

The divestment resolution was consequently held void.

Unfortunately, the judgment did not stop there.  The student judiciary went on to impose the following obligations on the representative who sponsored the divestment motion:

Representative [name redacted] is mandated to send a letter to the 23^rd session of Student Council, explaining why her motion to waive the rules was wrong, why the nondiscrimination clause of the ASM constitution is essential, why Passover is important to the Jewish community, and apologizing to all Jewish council members for excluding them from the initial vote on the [divestment resolution].

Representative [name redacted] is mandated to read her apology letter before Student Council at the first meeting of the 24^th session during the 2017 fall semester. If the apology does not fulfill the requirements stated above, or if it is not read to the body, the Judiciary will be required to take further action, up to and including suspension of Representative [name redacted], until the requirements of this order are met.

The requirement to read out an apology is more akin to public shaming than to a judicial remedy.  The likelihood of sincerity in this situation is minimal, and the potential to create addition tension is enormous.  The goal of student government should be to increase understanding, not to punish or embarrass students who make overzealous mistakes.  The lesson about non-discrimination can all too easily be overwhelmed by resentment over imposed humiliation.

Nonetheless, it is encouraging that the Wisconsin-Madison student judiciary has recognized that BDS tactics can, and in this case have, crossed the line into religious discrimination.

Comments

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

So, student loan debt is nearing crisis levels. Our National Monuments are about to be sold to Peabody Coal. The Department of Education wants to feed "lead paint" to grammar school children. Millions with pre-existing health conditions won't be able to get insurance (Death Panels live!!!) Guns (weapons) can now be sold to the mentally disabled with adult guardians/SSi Payeees. Let's attack Israel? Who are these people that sponsor these resolutions that seem irrelevant and far fetched? Educate me. What is going on here?

[Dana Lubet]

Anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment is obviously alive and well on the UW campus (as well as many other campuses). Although Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and is, arguably, the most tolerant and inclusive nation both academically and socially, these students find it trendy and fashionable to further the cause of foreign-funded, hate groups bent on the destruction of Israel. It becomes ever increasingly difficult to parse out the truth in the days of the Trump regime where bigotry is exalted and resisters may make strange alliances. Now is the time to critically analyze who are our partisans and who would degrade our freedoms. Don't allow the bullies and tyrants of the world to cloud your thinking.

Dr. D.B. Lubet

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

@Dana Lubet

I am perfectly willing to say that a large proportion of those complaining about Israel are anti-semites and bigots. But it is extremely foolish to dismiss the entire BDS movement as driven by bigotry and and anti-semitismument - indeed only someone who is a bit of a bigot themselves can make this argument.

Despite your argument that Israel "the most tolerant and inclusive nation both academically and socially [in the middle east]" it is not a tolerant or inclusive country by the standards of Western Europe or the United States. There are some very disturbing trends in Israel, and some very disturbing politicians, many of whom form part of the current governing coalition.

I have regularly expressed the view that the BDS movement serves a useful purpose, in that it does suggest to Israel and its supporters that there may well be a price to be paid for listening to the darker groups in its polity, that there are real limits to its freedom of action. Denouncing BDS as driven entirely by anti-semitism and bigotry is a dangerous gambit. It would be better if Israel's vocal supporters conveyed words of warning to Israel, that it's policies are "stoking the BDS fire" and that there are limits to what it friends can do to "damp that fire down." It would be better to acknowledge that there are sincere opponents of Israeli policy, many fundamentally friendly towards Israel and its continued existence, but that their patience and tolerance has its limits - and Netanyahu is testing those limits severely.

[anon]

brackets quite obviously didn't read the post, or, if he did, it is hard to understand how someone could miss the point so completely and utterly. Using these examples to simply sound off about "Israel" and "Neyanyahu" is as misplaced as claiming that objection to "Zionists" isn't in the main synonymous with being against the "Jewish," as the post above demonstrates.

[[M][a][c][K]]

anon suffer from a literacy problem - I was responding to Dana Lubet's post. But hey distortion and idiocy is a valid approach to debate for anon....

[[M][a][c][K]]

I'll amend my comment - distortion, selective quotation are an invalid strategy and leave those who use it open to being validly accused of dishonesty.

[anon]

" But it is extremely foolish to dismiss the entire BDS movement as driven by bigotry and and anti-semitismument - indeed only someone who is a bit of a bigot themselves can make this argument."

But, it is possible to conclude that the supporters of the BDS movement and anti-Israel firebrands, in general, tend to equate "Zionism" (with all the baggage) with "Jewish" .. See, e.g. the post above, the conclusion that, "Holding the April 12th meeting on Passover did not automatically violate the ASM Constitution. Introducing legislation that members of the Jewish community had expressed interest in, when it was known that these members would not be able to attend due to religious observance, does violate the Constitution."

Let's understand that the proponents appeared to conclude that Jews would be sympathetic to "Zionism" (because, of course, "Zionists" are nearly invariably "Jews"). We've seen this again and again.

We don't expect to find "Zionists" in the most racist and violent countries of the EU, for example. There, we expect to find endless and vicious ethnic, religious and territorial conflicts of a different kind, with nearly universal agreement on only one thing: anti-Semitism. In a very sad way of course, it is always the zealots from these countries, along with the paragons of virtue in Africa and other countries, who are so eager to condemn little Israel. Of course, they are not Jew haters. They only want to help!

Brackets states that he has "regularly expressed the view that the BDS movement serves a useful purpose, ..." This is like saying that David Duke serves a useful purpose.

Israel isn't evil, and doesn't require the "patience and tolerance" of those clearly disposed to so characterize it. The last thing that little country needs is another hate group in our community that thinly disguises its contempt for Jews. the BDS movement capitalizes on the anti Semitism that is rife in academia.

If brackets wants to support that, so be it. This idiot thinks that is an odious stance.

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

Goodness, is anon an antisemite, because reading anon's latests missive one could be excused for suggesting that anon has vaguely anti-Semitic views, or is certainly willing to echo anti-Semitic tropes. Anon, do you find rouself having to fight a Strangelovian arm?

Actually, there are plenty of "Christian-Zionists" that anon doubtless agrees with. That their ideology is perversely anti-Semitic barely troubles those who agree with them [anon's views are silent here.]

So what we are faced with is anon trying to equate any objection with Israeli policy with anti-semitism - and thus to equate anyone who says that the BDS movement has legitimate criticisms of Israel with: "like saying that David Duke serves a useful purpose." One wonder what species of bigot is anon? Happy to call me a Nazi? I could (and there are certainly posts useful for the purpose) compare anon to Baruch Goldstein? That is a pretty fair comparison, who knows, anon probably glorifies Goldstein - and for that matter Yigal Amir. Yes anon - I have compared you and suggested that you glorify Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir - is that true? We'll ignore your denials (he would, wouldn't he...)

Israeli is not a different country - if it wants to be treated as a western Democracy, it must act as a western Democracy. BDS serves a purpose - it presents a price, a reasons for why Israel needs to stay within the liberal democracy camp - a warning of the price of straying out of that camp. Anon serves his won purpose, a warning of who Israel risks getting into bed with, the fleas and political cooties it risks.

[anon]

Ahhh. We come so quickly to the vermin reference? Perfect.

Actually, wading thru the hysterical ranting (the usual, meh), we see the truth here:

"Israeli [sic] is not a different country - if it wants to be treated as a western Democracy, it must act as a western Democracy."

Ok, fine. Treat Israel like any other Western Democracy. In the UN, and elsewhere.

Let's start here: let's hear the argument that Israel has been treated like every other "Western Democracy" in the UN.

Stop ranting and let's hear an actual argument on the merits.

[[M][a][c][K]]

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes It" - I'm soiled enough.....

[anon]

Great argument, brackets.

Your every attempt at making a point or responding to a challenge (you seem particularly unable to tolerate disagreement or respond on the merits of an issue) devolves to a personal, below the belt and foul mouthed personal attack. The projection is stunning.

Truly quite boring. Must agree: nothing worth continuing.

[[M][a][c][K]]

Anon - 'personal, below the belt and foul mouthed' - wow project much, self awareness is really not your thing. I'm going to take a shower ... you've left me feeling soiled.

[anon]

I say: BDS serves a useful purpose = David Duke serves a useful purpose.

the response (with light edits): You've called me Nazi!!! You are an antisemite! You are like Baruch Goldstein! You probably glorify Goldstein - and for that matter Yigal Amir! Yes, oh yes, anon - I have compared you and suggested that you glorify Baruch Goldstein and Yigal Amir! You are pig. YOu are infested with the fleas and political cooties! YOu have left me soiled!

I say brackets is projecting his ample store of anger. He goes from zero to ranting and fomenting on a dime. Apparently, can't handle a discussion that doesn't cater to his superior intellect (ugh). Can't let anyone else have the last word, either.

Just watch this space.

Won't be that "Treated like all other Western Democracies in the UN" brief, though. Just more schoolyard bs.

[twbb]

"with light edits"

Light, right.

I think MacK hits a good middle note. Israel is in the paradoxical situation of being more harshly judged than other western democracies yet given more of a pass than other western democracies in another. For example, anyone who says Israel's treatment of the occupied territories would be accepted in any other modern democracy is either an idiot or a liar.

[Deep State Special Legal Counsel]

It comes down to this: What if Canada sent suicide bombers and launched Scud rockets into the United States on a daily basis and killed scores of innocents because Canada didn't think the US had a right to exist? The US would have obliterated Canada ten times over.... Israel has acted with remarkable restraint and dignity in the faces of terror.

[[M][a][c][K]]

"Ample store of anger"

Wow, a festival of projection .... the spittle is practically visible in that post.

[[M][a][c][K]]

Anon - if you are offended, consider the frequency with which you have suggested that anyone who cricises Israeli policy in any way is (a) a bigot, (b) an anti-Semite, (c) a Holocaust denier, (d) a terrorist apologist and supporter.

Then read your last post and consider the expression, can deal it but can't take it. Frankly, you are an ugly extremist, a hypocrite and profoundly dishonest. Do you support Yigal Amir and Baruch Goldstein - who knows, but your posts would suggest some sympathy, and anyway, if you don't like it, hate yourself a little, or a lot.

Off and fume, rant and scream some more - it's all you are good for.

[anon]

The posts by brackets above demonstrate quite clearly the problem with "Middle East peace." I would invite any objective person to read what I actually said, and the responses to it (e.g., brackets states: "you have suggested that anyone who cricises [sic] Israeli policy in any way is (a) a bigot, (b) an anti-Semite, (c) a Holocaust denier, (d) a terrorist apologist and supporter"). Is this true or false?

Consider this: Those who oppose Israel actually hear what brackets heard in what I stated above. This is stunning.

I have nothing more to say about the tirades above other than to note that the main post demonstrated an instance of persons targeting Jews in supposed opposition to the policies of the state of Israel. The discussion in the comments turned, as a result of an observation that it is "trendy" in academia to associate with groups opposed to Israel, to the "Israel deserves the BDS" claim by brackets.

Note the vehemence with which any push back against this anti Israel position is met. Is this merely principled opposition to the "treatment of the occupied territories" and outrage that anyone could question the efficacy of the BDS movement? Brackets hears this question as an accusation. Wow, does he ever. Ok, but, the UN example rings true. There is something different about little Israel, is there not?

Does this inquiry amount to all the name calling that brackets musters in his hyperbolic tirades? No, of course not. But, critics of Israel do seem to assume certain things about the conditions in which it attempts to survive that don't seem realistic or accurate or fair to that country.

I can and will allow others to have the last word. The comments above are truly a demonstration of something that I think is worth hearing, but, I've heard enough.

[[M][a][c][K]]

By the way, how is anyone to judge which anon you are "anon", except by your personal tropes, which as I pointed out are the arguments I identified, calling anyone who criticizes Israeli policy an anti-Semite, bigot, Holocaust denier and terrorist apologist.

Think, your creepy and nasty attack as "anon" have backfired - because you are asking people to defend an "anon" which is frankly profoundly stupid. And by the way, I stand by my characterization of you - now tell the laughing multitude which "anon" was not you....

[anon]

All the same in this thread, my friend.