West Coast LDB law students have been influential in fighting against anti-Semitism and standing up against injustice this past month. (Source: www.ucla.edu) At the University of California Los Angeles this past Wednesday, LDB law students sent a letter in support of Graduate Student Association (GSA) President Milan Chatterjee, who had been the subject of a wrongful impeachment campaign. This impeachment campaign stemmed from his decision, and that of his GSA Cabinet, to remain neutral on the Boycotts, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) Against Israel Movement. Since November, op-eds and articles were published against Mr. Chatterjee in the UCLA Student Newspaper, The Daily Bruin; at the prompting of UCLA students, websites such as Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss wrote articles against Mr. Chatterjee; he was attacked on social media, attacked verbally, campus petitions were circulated against him, and false statements were made against him at GSA meetings. After months of this inflammatory rhetoric, Mr. Chatterjee’s accusers asked the GSA to impeach Mr. Chatterjee, and presented a thirty-two page document containing eight bogus charges of overwhelmingly repetitive personal statements offered as “evidence” of these charges. LDB law student leaders at UCLA wrote a letter in support of Mr. Chatterjee, including that “ousting a student government official from office for his good faith pursuit of his responsibilities discourages student participation and sends a chilling message to the student body.” (The full text of the letter can be found below.) At the meeting on Wednesday evening, the counsel voted to censure President Chatterjee, though thankfully not impeach him. A bit further north, LDB law students are also standing up for what is right. At the end of March, in response to numerous anti-Semitic incidents throughout the University of California system’s ten campuses in recent years, the UC Board of Regents was deciding on whether to adopt an important new Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, along with a “contextual statement,” that included the important statement that – “Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” The LDB law student chapter at University of California – Berkeley wrote a statement to the Regents, saying that, “[w]e, as UC Berkeley law students and leaders of the Berkeley law student chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, call on the UC Regents to adopt not only the Statement of Principles, but also the important accompanying ‘contextual statement,’ to help address and prevent anti-Semitism on all UC campuses.” (The full statement can be found below.) The UC Regents ultimately adopted both the Statement of Principles, along with the contextual statement. We are proud of our UCLA and UC Berkeley law students, and all of our law students across the country, who are standing up for their beliefs and fighting against anti-Semitism and injustice. ————- April 13, 2016 VIA E-MAIL (to the UCLA Graduate Students Association Forum) RE: Letter in Support of GSA President Milan Chatterjee Dear GSA Forum: We write on behalf of the UCLA Law Student Chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), an advocacy organization that seeks to advance the civil and human rights of the Jewish people and promote justice for all. Today, we write in support of GSA President Milan Chatterjee, and in opposition to accusations from those who seek his impeachment. His detractors would have you believe that Mr. Chatterjee is an opponent of the BDS movement, who used his place of authority to pursue a personal agenda. An extensive publicity campaign was designed to suggest exactly that. Op-eds and articles have been published against Mr. Chatterjee in the Daily Bruin; at the prompting of UCLA students, websites such as Electronic Intifada and Mondoweiss have written articles against Mr. Chatterjee; he has been attacked on social media, attacked verbally, campus petitions have been circulated against him, and false statements have been made against him at GSA meetings. Today, after months of inflammatory rhetoric, his accusers ask the GSA to impeach Mr. Chatterjee. They present eight separate charges. Thirty-two pages of overwhelmingly repetitive personal statements are offered as “evidence” of these charges. There is very little actual evidence in the 32-page document, although there is an abundance of advocacy and overwhelming suggestion of malevolence. From our review of the submissions, his accusers do not dispute that members of the GSA Council had resolved amongst themselves that the GSA should not endorse either side of the divestment debate on campus. Nor, as far as we have seen, do they dispute the fact that other members of the GSA council raised with Mr. Chatterjee their concerns about funding the Diversity Event, if the event was co-organized by a pro-BDS group, or the Diversity Caucus publicly endorsed BDS at the event. (Email from Chatterjee, dated Oct. 18, 2016.) It is also apparent from the record that the GSA council’s resolution was viewpoint neutral, and that Mr. Chatterjee clearly explained that the resolution applied to both sides of the BDS debate. There is also no dispute that Mr. Chatterjee clearly expressed this before the Diversity Town Hall took place. And, despite insinuations in all types of media, there are no serious allegations that Mr. Chatterjee applied a different standard to pro-BDS student groups as compared to anti-BDS groups. We find suggestions that the accusers believed that the policy was not viewpoint-neutral to be unpersuasive, and potentially duplicitous. If, at any time, the accusers believed that the GSA council and/or Mr. Chatterjee sought to suppress one side of the debate and not the other, we believe that they would have (and should have) spoken up immediately. They did not. But they did allow just enough ambiguity in the written record to raise a controversy after the event was held, and just enough to provide for eye-catching headlines, including “GSA president must be held accountable for improper conduct.” For all of the proffered evidence of wrongdoing, the accusers entirely fail to show that Mr. Chatterjee ever harbored any intent to restrict GSA funds based on viewpoint. Nor do his accusers offer any evidence to show that Mr. Chatterjee’s decisions were based on his personal views or self-interest. Nor could they. All the evidence shows is that the officers resolved that the GSA should not sponsor either side of the BDS debate, and that Mr. Chatterjee made a good faith effort to apply that resolution here. To the extent that the accusations involve intentional misconduct, they simply and clearly fail. Further, ousting a student government official from office for his good faith pursuit of his responsibilities discourages student participation and sends a chilling message to the student body. Student government officials should be protected for the same public policy rationale that federal and state government officials are shielded (qualified immunity) – that, 1) it is unjust to subject an officer to liability who is required, by law, to exercise his good faith discretion; and 2) the danger from the threat of such liability would deter him from executing his duties with the decisiveness and judgment required for the public good. When you review the charges this afternoon, we urge you, as student leaders and representatives of UCLA’s graduate student community, to stand against these baseless attacks against President Chaterjee. We are available to further discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached by e-mail at greer2016@lawnet.ucla.edu or safaradi2017@lawnet.ucla.edu. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter. Sincerely, UCLA School of Law Student Chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law By: /s/ Joshua Greer Joshua ‘Shuki’ Greer President UCLA School of Law LDB Chapter Natanel Safaradi Vice President UCLA School of Law LDB Chapter CC: Mr. Milan Chatterjee, UCLA GSA President pres@gsa.asucla.ucla.edu Maria Blandizzi, Dean of Students mblandizzi@saonet.ucla.edu Robert Williams, ASUCLA Executive Director bwilliams@asucla.ucla.edu Jerry Kang, Vice Chancellor of Equity, Diversity & Inclusion kang@law.ucla.edu; jkang@equity.ucla.edu Gene Block, Chancellor, University of California at Los Angeles chancellor@conet.ucla.edu; chancellor@ucla.edu Janina Montero, Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs jmontero@saonet.ucla.edu Amy Blum, General Counsel ablum@conet.ucla.edu Chiao-Wen Lan, GSA Vice President of Internal Affairs vpi@gsa.asucla.ucla.edu Jennie Gross, Senior Staff Attorney The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law jenniegross@brandeiscenter.com Aviva Vogelstein, Staff Attorney The Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law avogelst@brandeiscenter.com —————– UC Berkeley LDB Statement: Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California In response to numerous anti-Semitic incidents throughout the University of California system’s ten campuses, the Regents of the University of California (UC) have recently released an important draft Statement of Principles Against Intolerance. Additionally, they have drafted an accompanying, “Contextual Statement,” which states – “Anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” If this contextual statement is formally adopted in their upcoming March 23-24 meetings, it could be a major advance in the battle against anti-Semitism on campuses. While the proposed statement does not define anti-Semitism and thus does not necessarily help UC administrators identify anti-Semitism when they come across it, the statement nonetheless “call[s] on University leaders actively to challenge anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination” when these emerge within the University community. As noted by Kenneth L. Marcus, the President & General Counsel of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law and one of the two national experts on anti-Semitism with whom the Regents consulted during the process, the statement would have been stronger if it had adopted “a strong uniform definition of anti-Semitism. But they are doing something that may turn out to be equally important. They are recognizing, at long last, that extreme anti-Zionism is a form of hate.” We, as UC Berkeley law students and leaders of the Berkeley law student chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center, call on the UC Regents to adopt not only the Statement of Principles, but also the important accompanying “contextual statement,” to help address and prevent anti-Semitism on all UC campuses. Signed, Talia Schwartz, co-President, UC Berkeley Law Student Chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law Zachary Cardin, co-President, UC Berkeley Law Student Chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law