My new essay is up at The Chronicle of Higher Education on the latest anti-Jewish move by Law Students for Justice in Palestine at Berkeley Law. It is paywalled, but with free registration.
Here is the gist:
October 12, 2022
A Free-Speech Scandal at Berkeley Law
Nine student groups want to ban supporters of Israel from speaking. That’s wrong.
The bylaw was part of a package of policies promoted by Law Students for Justice in Palestine, in conjunction with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. It goes far beyond other academic boycotts, which claim to be aimed only at Israeli organizations, because it bars individual speakers on the basis of their beliefs, no matter how unrelated to the subject matter at hand. The American Studies Association, for example, has explained that its BDS resolution does not apply to “individual scholars, students, or cultural workers” who will still “be able to participate in the ASA conference or give public lectures at campuses,” so long as they are not expressly representing the Israeli government or universities.
The sweeping prohibition — enacted by the Muslim Student Association, Queer Caucus at Berkeley, Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent, and others — violates the basic values of free speech and open inquiry, which lie at the heart of law practice and legal education. Thus, a group of Berkeley Law faculty recently issued a public statement condemning “the discriminatory bylaw” for “refusing to accept speakers who have Zionist views or beliefs.”
Law Students for Justice in Palestine defended the prohibition. The group argues that “free speech and the exchange of ideas cannot be romanticized when the byproduct of such rhetoric causes harm to marginalized communities,” evidently meaning that the background beliefs of a pro-Israel speaker, even if unexpressed, will cause unspecified “harm to Palestinians.”
I agree with Chemerinsky and Volokh that the nine student organizations have the right to exclude speakers on the basis of perceived political support for Israel, but that is not the end of the discussion. First Amendment principles protect the groups and their leaders from discipline by the university, but that does not mean they are free from other consequences. At a minimum, university faculty of all persuasions should refuse to speak at events sponsored by the nine organizations, so long as their restrictive bylaw remains in effect.
The Berkeley students who have promoted or embraced the “no Zionist speakers” rule have demonstrated utter disregard for the core values essential in a judicial clerk. Their inability to tolerate the mere presence of a speaker who holds uncomfortable beliefs should be disqualifying for a clerkship.
Thoughtful judges might well refuse to hire the student leaders who foisted such a discriminatory policy on one of the nation’s premier law schools. Although the banned speakers would cause no actual “harm to marginalized communities,” intolerant clerks could indeed work great damage in judicial chambers.
You can read the full essay at The Chronicle of Higher Education (paywalled but with free registration).
Comments