On Friday, May 25, student leaders of UCLA School of Law’s chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB) and attorneys at LDB authored a letter sent to UCLA Chancellor Block urging action in response to a recent event disruption on UCLA’s campus. The letter highlights how the recent disruption of a Students Supporting Israel (SSI) event not only violated UCLA Student Code of Conduct policies, but also potentially violated the California Penal Code as well as federal law. LDB’s UCLA student leaders and LDB attorneys urged the UCLA administration to “take meaningful and effective action” in order to prevent the development of a hostile campus environment, which has the potential to not only impact Jewish and Israeli students, but all underrepresented minority groups as well. The incident which precipitated this letter took place on May 17, when members of the UCLA chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a registered student group, along with other students and individuals unaffiliated with the university, protested an SSI event entitled “Indigenous Peoples Unite.” As described by SSI, the event “provided a platform to three different indigenous communities to share the stories of their people…The indigenous groups represented were the Jewish, Kurdish, and Armenian communities.” However, about 41 minutes into the event, dozens of protestors loudly entered the room carrying Palestinian flags, clapping, and chanting obscenities and calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, with chants such as “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” While the protestors were forced to leave the room in which the event was being held, they continued their disruption immediately outside. Out of fear and intimidation, the attendees of the event quickly vacated the room after the event concluded under the protection of several police officers. This event prompted several administrators at UCLA to publish a statement which acknowledged how “panelists and audience [members] felt silenced and intimidated,” and reiterated the university’s commitment to promoting a “respectful dialogue” on campus. In an attempt to achieve this goal, the authors claim they will “strive to communicate what freedom of expression does and does not mean” and review “internal processes to better manage any future disruptions that occur.” In addition, they will “refer all evidence of wrongdoing to local prosecutors” and work with them to investigate outside community members and discipline UCLA students. However, as the LDB letter points out, the circumstances and severity of the event disruption imply “the urgent need for [the] administration to take meaningful and effective action” beyond merely investigating the situation. In recent years, the University of California has demonstrated its commitment to ensuring their students’ free speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In their unanimously adopted Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, the University of California Board of Regents indicated, “The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” While this commitment to defending their students’ free speech protections is laudable, it seems UCLA has fallen short of maintaining this lofty ideal. The protestors, who denied the right of the speakers to speak and the audience members to listen, infringed upon certain First Amendment-protected speech activities. And as the previous statements demonstrate, these protections lie at the heart of the university’s mission. Accordingly, the disruptors “endangered the entire academic community, which relies upon the free exchange of ideas.” In addition to this encroachment on protected speech principles, the letter details how the protestors also potentially violated various provisions of the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and the California Penal Code. The letter explains how the actions of the protestors are in clear violation of the UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct, which prohibits both the “obstruction or disruption of University activities,” and “disorderly” behavior. Additionally, the protestors’ actions potentially violated several provisions of the California Penal Code through their “maliciously and willfully disturb[ance of] another person by loud and unreasonable noise.” These actions suggest that their intent was not to communicate with the attendees or engage them in any sort of meaningful dialogue, but rather to disturb the panelists and attendees. Finally, UCLA’s failure to respond promptly and effectively to this discriminatory protest may result in a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin” in programs that receive federal funds. Under the leadership of Kenneth L. Marcus, LDB’s President and General Counsel, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights announced in 2004 that Title VI applies to groups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics. Continued university inaction invites both moral and legal liability. LDB UCLA student leaders and LDB attorneys offered several recommendations for the UCLA administration. These actions, which include condemning the disruptor’s actions, revising university policies, and providing education and training to students, staff, and UCLA police would not only signal the university’s commitment to combatting pervasive anti-Semitism, but also potentially defuse an increasingly harsh campus climate. As the UCLA administrators stated in their letter, facing confrontational circumstances, the panelists and attendees of the event demonstrated profound “courage and integrity; the disruptors regrettably did not.” The nature and severity of the disruption demands swift and responsive action by the university. Holding universities accountable for campus anti-Semitism remains one of the primary avenues in which this pernicious form of discrimination can be combatted. The text of the letter sent to Chancellor Gene D. Block can be found below: May 25, 2018 VIA E-MAIL (chancellor@ucla.edu) Chancellor Gene D. Block University of California – Los Angeles Office of the Chancellor 2147 Murphy Hall Los Angeles, CA 90095 RE: Disruption of Students Supporting Israel Event at UCLA Dear Chancellor Block, As student leaders of UCLA School of Law’s chapter of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law (LDB), and attorneys at LDB – a national non-profit legal advocacy organization dedicated to combating anti-Semitism in higher education – we write out of concern about the aggressive disruption of the May 17th Students Supporting Israel (SSI) event, “Indigenous Peoples Unite.” We understand that UCLA is investigating the situation, and we commend you for that. However, we wish to remind you of the serious nature of the violations that occurred and the urgent need for your administration to take meaningful and effective action The facts have been reported to us as follows: On May 17th, SSI hosted the “Indigenous Peoples Unite” event. Described by SSI, the event “provided a platform to three different indigenous communities to share the stories of their people, by providing an overview of their history, struggles, and aspirations. The indigenous groups represented were the Jewish, Kurdish, and Armenian communities, three groups who are often ignored when speaking about indigenous history.” About 41 minutes into the event, while the Armenian student speaker was presenting, a disruptor barged into the room, ripped the Armenian flag off of the wall, announced “Yo guys this is my F***ing flag,” and aggressively threw the Armenian student’s name placard off the table. Immediately thereafter, about 25-30 disruptors loudly entered the room singing, chanting, clapping, playing music, with megaphones, whistles, Palestinian flags, and signs. They ripped the Israeli flag off of the wall, and when a student struggled to get it back and put it back up, they ripped it down again. The disruptors’ loud chants included: “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” – calls for the destruction of the state of Israel, as well as “F*** White Supremacy.” Several of the disruptors were dancing and chanting in the front of the room, blocking the panelists. When a student organizer attempted to speak into the microphone, disruptors loudly blew whistles so that she could not be heard. Though UCLA police were present – at the advance request of SSI, due to threats of an organized and coordinated disruption – it took nearly seven minutes for the police officers to remove the disruptors. As the police officers were removing them, there were chants of “UCLA police stand on the side of racism,” of “terrorism,” and of the “terrorist state of Israel.” Though removed from the room itself, the disruptors remained immediately outside, chanting loudly and making it very difficult to focus or hear anything being said at the event. When the panelists concluded, only one student asked a question. The attendees then vacated the room quickly out of fear and intimidation. It reportedly took over a dozen police officers, including some who were in riot gear, to both remove the disruptors and assist the event attendees with exiting the room safely. We are staunchly committed to free speech for all students, including the right to reasonably protest. However, denying the right of a speaker to speak and of listeners to listen violate the free speech principles of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution. Those involved in this disruption – which reportedly included members of the student groups Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), SWANA-LA, other students, as well as individuals unaffiliated with the university – restricted the speech of the Armenian, Kurdish, and Jewish panelists, and restricted the audience members’ right to listen. In so doing, these disruptors endangered the entire academic community, which relies upon the free exchange of ideas. The University of California has time and again reaffirmed its commitment to free speech. Responding to similar events in 2012, former UC President Mark Yudof stated: University campuses are proper venues for collisions of ideas and viewpoints. Conflicting viewpoints not only are inevitable but also healthy in this context. What is not acceptable are acts meant to disrupt the speech of others. . . . Attempting to shout down speakers is not protected speech. It is an action meant to deny others their right to free speech. (See “Open letter to UC community from President Yudof” (March 8, 2012).) In the UC Regents’ Statement of Principles Against Intolerance, the Regents importantly included that: “Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them. Current UC President Janet Napolitano, in an October op-ed for USA Today titled, We need to restore trust in free speech. We’re opening a new center [National Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement] to help, wrote: “we need to listen and talk to each other, with respect for each other’s humanity and the right to disagree.” We are pleased that freedom of speech is so deeply important to the University of California, and for this reason, this disruption must be properly addressed. In addition to violating the First Amendment, the disruptors potentially violated various provisions of the UCLA Student Code of Conduct and the California Penal Code. Violations of UCLA Student Code of Conduct The disruptors appear to have violated various provisions of UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct, including but not limited to: § 102.13 – obstruction or disruption, § 102.14 – disorderly behavior, § 102.15 – disturbing the peace, § 102.16 – failure to comply, and § 102.25 – violations of law. UCLA’s Student Code of Conduct § 102.13 prohibits the “Obstruction or disruption of . . . University activities.” The disruptors’ actions clearly violated this in numerous ways. By approaching the panel’s table while the Armenian representative was presenting, heckling the speaker, tearing down the flags on display, ripping the speaker’s name placard off the table, blowing whistles, holding up signs, chanting, and dancing, and not allowing the event to continue as planned, they clearly and intentionally obstructed and disrupted SSI’s event. The aforementioned antics likely also qualify as “disorderly” as defined by § 102.14. Further, members of SJP and the other student disruptors appear to have violated § 102.16 when they reportedly ignored police instruction through much of the ordeal. As will be described below, the disruptors also likely violated several provisions of the California Penal Code and henceforth also violated § 102.15 by “disturbing the peace,” and § 102.25, by committing violations of the law. California Penal Code The students and outside disruptors potentially violated various provisions of the California Penal Code, including but not limited to: § 403 – disturbance of an assembly or meeting, § 415 – disturbing the peace, and § 182 – criminal conspiracy to do the aforementioned. Under § 403, “Every person who, without authority of law, willfully disturbs or breaks up any assembly or meeting that is not unlawful in its character . . . is guilty of a misdemeanor.” To establish a violation of § 403, “it must be shown that defendant substantially impaired the conduct of the meeting by intentionally committing acts in violation of implicit customs or usages or of explicit rules for governance of the meeting, of which he knew, or as a reasonable man should have known; and in applying such standards, a major consideration is the nature of the meeting involved.” Cal. Penal Code § 403 (Deering). By storming into the panel event, the disruptors undeniably intentionally violated implicit customs of panel events, in which the audience listens to the speakers and asks questions at appropriate times. This custom is common knowledge and certainly would be understood by a “reasonable person,” especially the college student protestors, since these types of events occur often on campuses. Further, the protestors chanting and blowing whistles after storming the relatively small classroom undoubtedly substantially impaired the functioning of the meeting by having the objective impact of the speakers not being able to be heard. This is evidenced by the Armenian speaker attempting to continue presenting after the protesters’ antics had begun, but being unable to do so because he could not be heard by the audience, and by one of the student organizers attempting to calm down the disruptors by speaking into the microphone, but being silenced by loud whistle blowing and dancing. Lastly the protestors were reportedly warned and requested by SSI at UCLA board members, to cease their disruptive conduct and instead join the meeting as participants in the dialogue that the panel was intended to facilitate, and eventually a version of this warning and request was repeated by the campus police officers present. The protesters failed to heed the warnings. Thus, it appears that all the required elements of a § 403 violation are met. The disruptors also potentially violated § 415, disturbing the peace, for “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] another person by loud and unreasonable noise. . . .” In referring to “loud noise,” § 415 encompasses communications made in a loud manner where the communication is not intended as a communication but is merely a guise to disturb persons. In re Brown, 9 Cal. 3d 612 (1973). In this incident, the protesters use of speakers to play music, their chanting, and their blowing of whistles demonstrates their noise was not intended as communication but rather mainly to disturb the panelists and attendees. The protesters could also potentially be prosecuted for § 182 criminal conspiracy to commit a §§ 403 or 415 violation. “The gist of conspiracy to commit a crime” is the unlawful agreement to commit any crime accompanied by an overt act in furtherance of such agreement. It is not necessary that two persons meet together and enter into an explicit or formal agreement to commit the crime, or that the conspiracy be expressed in words. Cal. Penal Code § 182 (Deering). “If there be concert of action, all parties working together understandingly with single design for accomplishment of common purpose,” it is sufficient to constitute a conspiracy. Marino v. United States, 91 F.2d 691 (9th Cir. 1937). Demonstrated by their coordinated entrance into the panel event and disruptive activities, the disruptors engaged in a litany of overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to disturb the assembly and disturb the peace. Additionally, evidence of an explicit agreement may exist as exemplified by a UCLA SJP member calling for others to protest and shut down the SSI panel in an “Arts & Activism Alliance” group message. Thus, a § 182 criminal conspiracy to commit a §§ 403 or 415 violation could likely be proven. Federal Law Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of “race, color, or national origin” in programs that receive federal funds. In 2004, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced in guidance that Title VI applies to groups that face discrimination on the basis of shared ethnic or ancestral characteristics (see Kenneth L. Marcus, Dear Colleague Letter (Sep. 13, 2004), available at https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/religious-rights2004.html). In 2010, OCR clarified that unlawful harassment need not include intent to harm, be directed at a specific target, or involve repeated incidents (see Russlynn Ali, Dear Colleague Letter (Oct. 26, 2010), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague- 201010.html). In 2017, OCR reminded us that, “Title VI protects all students, including Jewish students, from discrimination based on race, color, and national origin (including language and actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics). Schools must take immediate and appropriate action to respond to complaints of discrimination, including harassment or bullying based on race, color, or national origin” (see OCR, Combating Discrimination Against Jewish Students, U.S Dept. of Educ. (2017), https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/jewish-factsheet-201701.pdf). In 2016, the University of California Board of Regents’ stated in their unanimously approved “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance,” that “Anti-Semitism, anti-semitic forms of anti-Zionism and other forms of discrimination have no place at the University of California.” Likewise, the anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism on display here have no place at UCLA. Their chants of “We want ’48, we don’t want two states,” and “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” call for the destruction of the state of Israel. The disruptors here sought to intimidate and silence Armenian, Kurdish, Jewish, Israeli and pro-Israel students, and if left unaddressed, could create a hostile environment for students of Armenian, Kurdish, Jewish and/or Israeli backgrounds on campus, in violation of Title VI. Recommendations The students and outside community organizers involved in the event disruption violated the First Amendment and engaged in conduct that potentially violates UCLA policy and the California Penal Code. Inaction by your administration could lead to potential violations of federal civil rights law. Effort to marginalize and stigmatize Jewish and pro-Israel students implicates not only issues of potential legal liability but also moral obligations as well. We urge your administration to take appropriate responsive actions, including implementing the UC Regents’ Statement of Principles, condemning the disruptors’ actions, revising university policies, providing education and training to students, staff, and UCLA police, including the following: Implement the UC Board of Regents’ unanimously approved “Statement of Principles Against Intolerance.” In addition to the Regents’ statement acknowledging that anti-Semitism can manifest as anti-Zionism, the Regents important inclusion of a discussion on free speech should be implemented into UCLA policy as well: “Freedom of expression and freedom of inquiry are paramount in a public research university and form the bedrock on which our mission of discovery is founded. The University will vigorously defend the principles of the First Amendment and academic freedom against any efforts to subvert or abridge them.” Publicly condemn the disruptive and unacceptable behavior of students, student groups, and outside organizers. In 2015, UCLA Vice Chancellor Janina Montero issued a strong public statement following an ugly anti-Semitic incident on campus, stating in part that the “hurtful and offensive comments displayed ignorance of the history and racial diversity of the Jewish people, insensitivity and a disappointing lack of empathy. Bigotry against the Jewish people or other groups is abhorrent and does not represent the values of UCLA or the beliefs of our community.” The same type of statement should be issued here. For more guidance on the type of statement to issue, see attached LDB Best Practices for Combating Campus Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism. Revise your policies to take steps to prevent such disruptions in the future. Brooklyn College, for example, adopted a policy intended to prevent similar disruptions, emphasizing, it is “important to clearly articulate the lines of authority and responsibility” for a campus event. (http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/off_dosa/140219_SC_EPIHandbook-Spring2014.pdf, at 24). Among other changes, the policy requires that each major event begin with a faculty member reading The College Diverse Viewpoint Statement, which states: “All participants at any event on campus must be respectful of our diverse community and the viewpoints that are expressed. Disruptive behavior of any sort will not be tolerated.” (p. 53) Fully investigate the students and student groups involved with the disruption, and discipline accordingly, consistent with UCLA policy and applicable constitutional considerations. Fully investigate the outside community organizers who joined the students in the protest, and determine if these individuals or groups should be banned from campus for violations of policy and the California Penal Code, consistent with UCLA policy and applicable constitutional considerations. Provide proper training for UCLA police for how to handle such a disruption in the future. Require mandatory training and education and training for all students and student groups on anti-Semitism and how it can and often does manifest as anti-Zionism. For more guidance on this issue, see attached LDB Fact Sheet on the Elements of Anti-Semitic Discourse. We are available to discuss our recommendations with you, and can be reached at the contact information listed below. Thank you in advance for your serious consideration of this matter.