Download PDF Washington, D.C. – The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) today lauded public statements by University of California President Janet Napolitano and University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Chancellor Gene Block on the importance of civil discourse. Both statements, issued on Friday, were highly critical of efforts by the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine to tarnish students who have traveled to the State of Israel. The Brandeis Center is a national civil rights organization that combats anti-Semitism on college and university campuses. It has chapters on several law school campuses including UCLA, which launched the Brandeis Center’s inaugural law student chapter during the Fall semester of this academic year. “It is absolutely reprehensible that UCLA undergraduate students have been targeted for abusive ethics attacks merely because they have traveled to Israel with reputable Jewish organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League,” said LDB President Kenneth L. Marcus. “This was a thoroughly transparent effort by advocates for the oft-discredited Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement to marginalize Jewish and Zionist voices and to exploit old stereotypes about Jewish power, conspiracy and control. We are pleased that the University of California’s leadership has exposed these efforts for what they are. At the same time, we hope that further work will be done to educate UCLA students about the insidious nature of such hate and bias incidents. It is also important to understand the environment in which so many student leaders failed to understand the anti-Israel smears for what they are.” The Brandeis Center especially praised President Napolitano’s statement that “the actions of these students at UCLA” go so far as to violate “the principles of civility, respect, and inclusion.” Chancellor Block set the record straight in his important public statement. As Dr. Block explained, student government leaders with various political viewpoints have recently participated in free trips to the Middle East organized by Jewish groups such as the Anti-Defamation League. This is a standard practice throughout the country. Before the most recent UCLA student elections, some student groups that are hostile to Israel urged candidates to pledge that they would not participate in such Israel trips. This request has been widely criticized by national Jewish organizations and writers. Block emphasized that the pledge was “not sanctioned, proposed or required by our current student government or the university administration.” Some candidates signed, while others did not. The winners in the election including both signatories and non-signatories. Chancellor Block argued that the pledge was an expression of the freedom of speech. At the same time, he recognized that the request was highly problematic: “I am troubled that the pledge sought to delegitimize educational trips offered by some organizations but not others,” he wrote, adding “I am troubled that the pledge can reasonably be seen as trying to eliminate selected viewpoints from the discussion.” Significantly, Chancellor Block also used the opportunity to observe that the pledge also has a pernicious effect on civil dialogue: “Political speech that stigmatizes or casts aspersions on individuals or particular groups does not promote healthy debate but debases it by trying to intimidate individuals and groups. It does not strengthen the bonds of mutual respect and engagement that sustain a diverse community able to manage differences; it weakens them.” ### Statement by UC President Janet Napolitano “I share Chancellor Block’s concerns about students at UCLA who target any student seeking to participate in student government who has a relationship with, or wants to travel to, Israel on trips sponsored by certain groups. At the University of California, freedom of speech is a highly valued principle. Yet, other principles are also highly valued, including the principles of civility, respect, and inclusion, and should also govern our campuses. The actions of these students at UCLA violate these principles. “I encourage members of the university community, at both UCLA and at the other nine campuses at this great education institution, to come together, in open dialogue, to discuss the great issues of our day, learn from each other, and work to move our society forward. Harmful, hurtful speech by some hurts us all. We must work to ‘heed the better angels of our nature,’ as Abraham Lincoln said. That is what the University of California really stands for.” Statement by UCLA Chancellor Gene Block Over the past week, many of our students, as well as friends off campus, have communicated their concerns over a pledge that candidates for our student government were asked to sign prior to last week’s elections. Heated exchanges have occurred over the issue and have unfortunately left some feeling disrespected or targeted because of their views or affiliations. Certain news reports and other communications through social media have also mischaracterized aspects of the situation, fueling an unhealthy discourse that is harmful to our campus climate. Robust debate is vital to democratic learning, but it can never exclude common sense, civility and tolerance for those who disagree. First, let me set the record straight on the facts, as we understand them: Students active in student government, who have varying views on Israel–Palestine issues, have participated in the recent past in free trips to the Middle East organized by Jewish groups. Prior to the recent student elections, some student groups asked candidates to sign a pledge promising not to go on such trips. The pledge was not sanctioned, proposed or required by our current student government or the university administration. No one was barred from running for office, participating in the election or serving on the council as a result of not signing the pledge. Some students signed, others did not. Both signatories and non-signatories won offices. The decision to circulate this pledge and the choice to sign it or not fall squarely within the realm of free speech, and free speech is sacrosanct to any university campus. Second, just because speech is constitutionally protected doesn’t mean that it is wise, fair or productive. I am troubled that the pledge sought to delegitimize educational trips offered by some organizations but not others. I am troubled that the pledge can reasonably be seen as trying to eliminate selected viewpoints from the discussion. I condemn any remarks on social media or elsewhere that are disrespectful or hurtful. Political speech that stigmatizes or casts aspersions on individuals or particular groups does not promote healthy debate but debases it by trying to intimidate individuals and groups. It does not strengthen the bonds of mutual respect and engagement that sustain a diverse community able to manage differences; it weakens them. If we shut out perspectives, if we silence voices, if we allow innuendo to substitute for reasoned exchange of ideas, if we listen only to those who already share our assumptions, truth gets lost, our intellectual climate is impoverished and our community is diminished. Passionate debate is to be expected in a civil society, especially in a heated election season, but I am personally concerned any time people feel disrespected, intimidated or unfairly singled out because of their beliefs. Important issues will generate passions, even discomfort — that cannot be avoided. But if the political debate on campus gets more shrill and less nuanced, if hostility replaces empathy, if we see each other as enemies rather than as colleagues trying to figure out how to do the right thing in difficult circumstances, we will all be the lesser for it. It is possible to express strong opinions without belittling others. Today I am calling on our Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs to explore how to better foster political dialogue that is respectful, productive and focused on understanding rather than division. UCLA faculty, students and staff deserve an open environment that encourages vigorous debate without disparagement.