Image 01 Image 03

UC Berkeley Sued For “Unchecked Spread of Anti-Semitism”

UC Berkeley Sued For “Unchecked Spread of Anti-Semitism”

Check out “JAFE Member # 10”

The University of California, Berkeley, has been sued in federal court by two Jewish civil rights groups over the “longstanding, unchecked spread of anti-Semitism” at the school.

In their lawsuit filed on November 28, the Brandeis Center and Jewish Americans for Fairness in Education (JAFE) allege anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment against UC Berkeley in violation not only of its own policy, but of federal civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind to be filed against a university in the wake of the nationwide surge in campus anti-Semitism following Hamas’s massacre of Israelis on October 7, which we wrote about here recently.

At UC Berkeley, anti-Semitism masked as anti-Zionism has been festering for years. After the Hamas attacks, it “erupted.”

The Brandeis Center reports “numerous incidents of intimidation, harassment and physical violence against Jewish students”:

  • For example, during one of the numerous rallies held at UC Berkeley celebrating Hamas, a Jewish undergraduate draped in an Israeli flag was set upon by two protesters who struck him in the head with a metal water bottle. Jewish students and faculty are receiving hate mail calling for their gassing and murder.  Many Jewish students report feeling afraid to go to class.
  • Pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted a prayer gathering by Jewish students. Pro-Palestinian rallies blocked the main entrance to campus.   And a UC Berkeley faculty member went on an anti-Israel rant for 18 minutes, with roughly 1,000 freshman as his captive audience.
  • Students participating in the pro-Hamas rallies have spouted hatred and threats against Jews, harassed Jewish students, demanded the dismantling of Israel, honored Hamas “martyrs” who were killed while butchering Jewish civilians, and chanted phrases such as “intifada, intifada,” condoning violence against Jews, and “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” calls for the elimination of Israel and the eradication of the 7 million Jews that live there.

Attacks on Jews escalated because the school allowed anti-Israel policies that are in fact anti-Semitic, according to the lawsuit: These policies, enacted and enforced by organizations at UC Berkeley School of Law, “discriminate against and exclude Jewish students, faculty, and scholars.”

To name a few, from the complaint:

  • To be a member of Women of Berkeley Law, the Queer Caucus at Berkeley, or the
    Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Jewish students must accede to
    the groups’ support of the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement, which
    seeks to dismantle the modern State of Israel;
  • In order to volunteer to provide pro bono legal services through a number of
    Berkeley Law Legal Services organizations, Jewish students must undergo a
    “Palestine 101” training program that emphasizes the illegitimacy of the State of
  • And to speak to any of these student organizations, invited speakers must first
    repudiate Zionism under a bylaw that prohibits speakers who hold Zionist views
    (the “Exclusionary Bylaw”). In fact, the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law, and
    Justice, goes one step further, prohibiting Zionists not only from speaking to its
    members but from publishing in its pages.

We wrote about how the UC Berkeley Law groups’ ban on Zionists makes for “Jew-Free Zones” here.

Kenneth L. Marcus, chairman of the plaintiff Brandeis Center says that “Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned” under this policy, “as would 90% of his Jewish students.”

But “while UC Berkeley leaders have repeatedly acknowledged the Zionist ban is blatant anti-Semitism,” the Brandeis Center said in its statement, “they have done nothing to address it.  This has allowed anti-Jewish bigotry to normalize and escalate.”

The plaintiffs recognize that criticism of Israel or its policies—“matters on which robust debate is encouraged”—is not necessarily anti-Semitism. But the Exclusionary Bylaw’s “wholesale ban on ‘Zionists’ is unrelated to the viewpoint a speaker might express as the guest of a student organization.”

Requiring speakers to disavow the Jewish homeland, an “integral part” of their Jewish identity, the complaint says, is nothing less than “a ban on Jewish persons.”

One of those Jewish persons is none other than Professor Bill Jacobson, a.k.a. JAFE Member #10, from paragraph 32 of the complaint:

JAFE Member # 10 is a Clinical Professor of Law at an Ivy League Law School. This Member’s areas of expertise include securities law and the politicization of criminal law. He has lectured at colleges and law schools on race relations, criminal trials, and the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement and its history. He would welcome the opportunity to speak about these topics to the Law School’s Community Defense Project, the Defenders at Berkeley, Law Students of African Descent, and the Abolitionist Collective. But he is unable to do so because they have adopted the Exclusionary Bylaw.

(He said I could out him.)

The lawsuit seeks to put a stop to these policies that have “allowed anti-Semitism to take root and grow” at UC Berkeley. By tolerating them, the school violates its own commitments to civil rights and equal treatment under the law.

And they confront Jews with “an unthinkable and unlawful ultimatum: Disavow an integral component of your Jewish identity—Zionism—or be denied the same rights and opportunities enjoyed by other members of the campus community.”



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Erwin Chemerinsky is the ultimate useful idiot.

The good news is this lawsuit takes calls outside of academia which means Jews have a fighting chance.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | November 29, 2023 at 9:59 pm

I don’t like these suits against “anti-semitism” (jew-hate). People are allowed to hate anyone they want and are allowed to express their hate. That is freedom.

Criminal acts need to be prosecuted and those who inhibit the pursuit of such criminals need to be held to account – criminally. But anyone’s jew-hate is neither here nor there. It is the crime that the person/organization commits that is the issue, not why they committed it.

    There are public laws both state and federal concerning what environment a University or School or Business is permitted to have. You are allowed to hate people, you are not permitted to run a University that hates people.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Danny. | November 29, 2023 at 10:07 pm

      “Hate” is not illegal. There are specific crimes – which have nothing to do with the ephemeral “hate” – that are the issue. Actual criminal acts.

      You cannot make “hate” illegal.

        No, there aren’t specific crimes. This is about the university creating a hostile environment for Jews, an environment in which antisemitism is tolerated and encouraged. It’s the university’s duty to prevent expression of such hatred under its auspices, just as it’s an employer’s duty to ensure that the workplace environment is not hostile to the employees.

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2023 at 12:04 am

          No crime. Just safe spaces?

          So … you’re a “safe space” person, huh?

          It’s the university’s duty to prevent expression of such hatred under its auspices,

          Say what??

          You’re kidding, right?

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2023 at 5:44 am

          No, I’m not kidding, that’s the law. What happens outside its auspices is not its problem. It’s a very fine line to tread, because as a government entity it’s also bound by the first amendment, so it has to allow free expression of hostile viewpoints. So it has to handle things very carefully. If it were trying and failed one could sympathize, but as the embedded complaint lays out, it’s not even trying. And that’s why there’s a lawsuit.

        Hitting someone on the head with a metal water battle *is* illegal. Pay attention.

        Hostile environment-Illegal

        Discrimination based on ethnicity-Illegal

        Religious discrimination-Illegal

        Requiring political oaths of loyalty in order to receive education-Illegal (was decided when the Communist Party was an asset for Russia and the Supreme Court determined you can’t require denouncing it in return for opportunity)

        Education discrimination-Illegal

        I could go on with what is in fact described in detail and proven in the article above. Stop we are anarchists. It has nothing to do with current American society, law, or American history (if you think it being illegal to run a school that makes fighting Judaism a primary goal today is onerous wait till you see the public square regulations of the 18th century. By the way public education was set up by the government to promote patriotism. There is no such thing as a point in American history where the government left the public square unregulated, nor should there be.

      Hodge in reply to Danny. | November 30, 2023 at 9:31 am

      Thanks to Donald Trump,

      “…[in 2019] President Donald Trump issued an executive order reiterating that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act protects Jews—just as every other race, color, national origin, and ethnicity—from discrimination at taxpayer-funded universities.

      The administration also recognized that anti-Zionism is a contemporary manifestation of anti-Semitism. Although hate speech is protected under the Constitution, the anti-Semitism infesting many college campuses goes far beyond the exercise of First Amendment freedom. ”

      “Many universities fail to prevent or respond properly to non-constitutionally protected anti-Semitic activity. Some universities have even furthered the cause of the anti-Semitic Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which boycotts Israeli investments or businesses. “

        Danny in reply to Hodge. | November 30, 2023 at 6:26 pm

        I agree that was a great executive order. The cultural anarchism we adopted in the 21st century has to die. It was not part of the 20th or 19th century Republican Party or any portion of American history prior, and has served this country horribly by making it’s culture solely the domain of the left.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | November 29, 2023 at 10:02 pm

Of course, those freedoms only apply to US citizens. Foreigners who are here as our guests have no such rights and can be deported for being jackasses. We don’t need more jackasses here. We’ve got enough of a domestic supply. Jackass foreigners can go back home and practice that where they belong.

    I would agree but a chartered University is a business which like any other has to be in compliance with state and federal laws. Hostile environments are a big no according to those.

    If I as an individual decide to be an anti-Semite that is covered by 1st amendment. If I as a dean decide to host an environment unfavorable to Jews aimed at crushing Jewish identity, while encouraging anti-Semitism that is without doubt violating a wide variety of reasonable legislation that exists at a federal level and that all 50 states have state laws about.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Danny. | November 29, 2023 at 10:08 pm

      Many of those state and federal laws are just plain un-Constitutional. But people, and our courts, are too cowardly to admit it.

        Prof. Jacobson here at LI has routinely cited those laws in his legal challenges to discriminatory programs in other circumstances.

        Whatever your sentiment about what should have been these laws exist. If the issue is racial discrimination in favor of the preferred groups of the left or offering segregated classes/dorms etc or promoting an actively anti-Semitic culture why shouldn’t the right use laws the way they are written to achieve a positive end?

          ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to Danny. | November 29, 2023 at 11:13 pm

          It’s a race to the bottom – and the bottom is where the left is trying to push us. There is never any reason to lend any credence to insane leftist “rules”. Leftists want chaos and destruction and all of their policies are directed toward that end. To use leftist policies – even against the left – is only to further the left’s ultimate aims while getting little to nothing in return.

        Again laws that make the hostile environment, intimidation and discrimination illegal are exactly the same laws that Prof. Jacobson and Chris Ruffo are using in their campaigns, they have been on the books for decades on both federal and 50 state levels, have without exceptions survived all challenges, and are routinely invoked when the left feels they are violated.

        Unilateral disarmament is not virtuous it is stupidity.

    Of course, those freedoms only apply to US citizens. Foreigners who are here as our guests have no such rights and can be deported for being jackasses.

    That is high-grade bullshit. There is no dispute about the law on this; every single person who is within US jurisdiction is protected by the US constitution and has the freedom to express whatever views he likes, and to advocate whatever he likes, even if it is hostile to the USA itself. And it is unconstitutional for a government entity to take any action against him for doing so, even actions that it could take for other reasons. Such as deportation. The moment it is done because he exercised his constitutional rights, it becomes unconstitutional.

      Danny in reply to Milhouse. | November 30, 2023 at 6:28 pm

      I think what was meant was the case of ones doing crimes like physically preventing Jews from attending school which without doubt leaves the domain of speech far behind. Obviously I can’t speak for someone else it was just the impression I got.

        Milhouse in reply to Danny. | December 1, 2023 at 3:27 am

        No, PrimordialOrderedPair was very clear on this, as he has been on previous occasions: He’s convinced that the US constitution protects only US citizens, and aliens have no rights that the government need concern itself with.

Lovely groups, I bet ones money would be well spent being represented by one of the queer womex Muslims

Pathetic…they want to turn the page

How quaint

And they have been living normal lives for the last three years despite a teacher being beheaded .

The most they would get is 2 1/2 years.

They ain’t getting nothing

Intimidation is illegal but antisemitism isn’t. Confuse them and you’re against free speech.

While this piece focuses on the anti-Semitic elements, might there be a Christophobic element too, possibly unintentional? Depending on the definition of Zionism, the majority of Zionists will in fact be Christian not Jewish, but they can’t address the specified groups because a bylaw requires them to deny their faith first. Zionism dates back to at least 16th century Christianity, though it took a while to develop, whereas Jewish Zionism originated in the 19th century as I understand it.

    Well the first non-Jewish Zionist was Cyrus the Great. Here is a reminder about what Zionism is (and why without a time machine being against it is anti-Semitic)

    There is without doubt a Christian Hatred involved in this to, but the primary target is clearly Jews. It is a matter for Christians of stop them at the Jews or you are next with being the next group explicitly targeted.

Last I checked, threats, intimidation, discrimination, assault and battery are crimes. Fostering a hostile environment on the basis of race, creed, color, sex and now sexual orientation is illegal for ay organization taking federal money. Go for it. These schools run on Federal loans.

Educating the ignorant is theoretically part of the University experience. These kids need to learn some history. Palestinian supporters tend to be fountains of fantastical lies that are easily refuted. Once Americans start to get the hair-raising details, they stop supporting “palestinians.”

Hamas & the Attack on Israel | Douglas Murray The Nov 7 attack

“Can you tell me what Islam we are talking about?”

That question is asked by an Israeli Arab man whose wife was killed by Hamas

UN speech Son of Hamas founder Mosab Yousef

    Danny in reply to Valerie. | November 30, 2023 at 9:56 am

    Exactly my point. The idea that we should pretend we don’t have the law on our side because 200 years ago those laws didn’t exist yet is crazy.

Cornelius Vanderbilt | November 30, 2023 at 8:11 am

“You have wronged me. I could sue you, but it would take too long. Instead, I’ll ruin you.”

— Cornelius Vanderbilt , about 150 years or so ago

Queer Caucus?? Seriously??

Do they not realize they would be lynched on the street by Hamas??

They are delusional, living vicariously through tik tok memes with real life experience.

The Laird of Hilltucky | November 30, 2023 at 10:02 am

Defund UC Berkeley!