By: Joel Siegal, of Siegal Richardson LLC and member of LDB’s Legal Advisory Board. On April 5, 2018, The New York Times printed the obituary of Professor Mel Gordon, a University of California Berkeley theater professor. A copy of his obituary can be found here. As described in the obituary, in some ways, Professor Gordon was a typical Berkeley “progressive” theater professor, intrigued by his craft, intellectual, with an insatiable curiosity about his subjects. This passion was evident to those around him. One longtime colleague described Professor Gordon as: A provocative, risqué storyteller who clashed with colleagues about how to teach acting. But he was “a wonderful, maverick researcher and a source of admiration and amazement by people who consulted him.” However, the obituary does not mention Professor Gordon’s significance in helping to protect the rights of students on campus who have brought Title VI claims against the University. Professor Gordon was not an advocate for Israel nor for Jewish students, but was rather an advocate for safe campuses free from bullying or hostility. When myself and Neal Sher brought a Title VI action against the University of California in Berkeley, few people believed that a prestigious school like Berkeley would allow for a hostile environment against Jewish students. We litigated the issue of whether the Students for Justice in Palestine’s one week, “performance art piece” called “apartheid week” was a legitimate exercise in Free Speech or instead a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. We argued that it was more akin to the Passion Play of the middle ages, where anti-Semites would perform a play in the center of town, where Jews were portrayed as blood thirsty barbicans who had defied Christ, and Jewish townspeople were in harm’s way for weeks following the performance. This was the evidence of what occurred on the Berkeley campus in the days and weeks following apartheid week. I urge every reader of this blog to read the declaration that Professor Gordon prepared in the Felber case. This declaration discusses the duplicitous nature of members of SJP in Professor Gordon’s experience. Paragraph 8, of Professor Gordon’s declaration is particularly insightful: “As the undergraduate advisor in my department, I frequently solicit personal information from students about their overall welfare and academic progress. On a half dozen occasions, I have heard complaints about some of the intifada demonstrations (apartheid week)…As a professor of theater, I am familiar with agitprop theater demonstrations. In my view, and the view of the students I spoke with, these apartheid week demonstrations with students brandishing realistic looking weapons are menacing and intimidating….” Professor Gordon’s declaration was submitted to the Federal Court, and demonstrated that the apartheid week demonstrations by SJP went beyond the pale of protected Free Speech. Litigation in federal court is a means of protecting students.