

Liberal cesspool UC-Berkeley is making headlines for a less-than-inclusive reason. Why? Well, some campus groups have allegedly adopted bylaws which would prohibit pro-Israel speakers at events.
Oy vey.
“The groups adopting these Jewish-free bylaws include: Berkeley Law Muslim Student Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Womxn of Color Collective, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Queer Caucus, Community Defense Project, Women of Berkeley Law, and Law Students of African Descent,” Not the Bee reported.
I find it funny that the groups listed above are often ones that scream the loudest for inclusivity. BUT APPARENTLY you only get a seat at the table if your beliefs check the right boxes.
The story initially dropped in an op-ed by Kenneth Marcus for Jewish Journal.
“If it wasn’t so frightening, one might be able to recognize the irony in the sight of campus progressives trying so hard to signal progressive virtue that they fall victim to a deeper moral shame,” Kenneth wrote.
YUP.
But then things really started to get juicy when Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley School of Law, and Jesse Choper, distinguished professor of law, responded with their own op-ed.
Distinguished = Giant Stick Up Butt.
.
.
.
Jk, it means tenured…MOVING ON!
In a nutshell, the Dean and Professor Fancy think the whole situation is being waaayyy overblown.
“Mr. Marcus points out and identifies some student groups that adopted a statement drafted by Law Students for Justice In Palestine condemning Israel. But what he does not mention is that only a handful of student groups out of over 100 at Berkeley Law did this,” they write.
OHHHHH. It’s only a handful of whack jobs who want to silence free speech, so it’s fine. Nothing to see here.
Chemerinsky and Choper go on to say they wrote a letter to group leaders condemning the decision, so it’s all Gucci.
Marcus wasn’t having it, and he has since responded.
“Chemerinsky misses the point when he insists that all clubs admit Jewish students as members. No one denies this. Nevertheless, an unmistakable signal is sent to those same students when they are told that they would be barred from appearing as invited speakers. This sends a clear signal: Jews are not welcome, unless they deny their support for Israel which, for many, is an integral element of Jewish identity.”
So, are there ‘Jewish-free’ zones at Berkeley? Kinda-sorta. Essentially you can join these nine lovely groups if you’re pro-Israel—BUT YOU BETTER SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP. No talky.
I would find all of this very entertaining if it wasn’t so blatantly hypocritical. Can you imagine if things were reversed and a white campus group tried to ban a minority group from being able to speak about their cause? If that was the situation, I’m thinking Chemerinsky and Choper would think a single campus group was one too many.
2 Comments
Good job. The problem with regulating who these student groups must allow as speakers is that it would apply to every student group. If the school can require an antisemitic, pro-Palestinian, student group to allow those with opposing views as speakers, they could also require Christian groups to allow NAMBLA members as speakers.
When these radical, racist and/or antisemitic groups have their little rallies the best the authorities can do is just allow them to occur, so everyone who wants to waste their time can see the weakness in the group’s arguments. If you disagree with a student group’s point of view and they will not allow you to talk, form your own student group and invite them to debate, or don’t. The only ones who seem to be afraid of other people’s point of view are those who have losing arguments and they know it, which is why these social media platforms are all the time banning conservates.
I for one am hopeful if they start the same thing here, they did in Europe in the 30-40’s that it would not be so easy for them this time. Molon Labe
Hi KurtUSA!
Thanks for commenting–all very good points! I think what find most humorous about it all is the groups who are trying to ban these speakers are often the ones who scream for inclusivity and freedom of expression the most. Oh, the irony.