Federal District Court Holds UCLA Accountable for Campus Antisemitism

The October 7, 2023 Palestinian terrorist incursion from Gaza into Israel took the lives of well over 1000 (mostly civilian) citizens and captured scores of hostages, some of whom have since died, and many of whom are still held hostage today. The Israeli response to once and for all eliminate the Palestinian governing entity known as Hamas has been methodical and overwhelming and continues to this day. Predictably, the worldwide response to Israel’s military action right from its outset has been one of outrage and condemnation. These biased and at times overtly antisemitic reactions have emanated from individual nation states, the United Nations, international media, and perhaps most notably and visibly from college campuses.

One of many universities where this type of behavior and rhetoric has been so prominent is UCLA. And the notoriety that has been associated with many of the actions, or lack thereof witnessed at this Westwood institution have come not only from students and faculty, but also from outside agitators and most significantly from the UCLA administration itself.

Early this Spring, UCLA allowed these pro-Palestinian protestors and agitators to commandeer a section of the University campus where an encampment and barricades were established as the focal point for their demonstrations. Most shockingly, these barricades came with checkpoints where Jewish students were not allowed to pass unless they disavowed support for Israel. When these students refused to comply, they were barred from entering campus buildings where their classes were being held and were even denied access to the university library. The campus agitators brazenly proclaimed that they had created “Jew Exclusion Zones” on the UCLA campus.

After allowing the encampment and barricades to remain for a week, UCLA administration under a great deal of scrutiny, called on university security personnel and off-campus police to forcibly dismantle the encampments, only to see them return a week later.

Subsequent to the blockades, three Jewish UCLA students brought suit against the University in Federal District Court, arguments were held, and a ruling was issued this past Tuesday. In that ruling Judge Mark Scarci issued an injunction against UCLA which prohibits the school from offering programs, classes or other activities when they know that the pathway to those campus offerings are being blocked for Jewish students. This would seem like the proverbial no-brainer that would not require court intervention, but UCLA officials did not see it that way, and perhaps more significantly refuse to accept the premise of Judge Scarci’s ruling.

In his decision, Scarci wrote:

“Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.”

As attorneys for UCLA argued that they had no responsibility to act because the blockades were not organized or sanctioned by the administration itself, Scarsi added:

“Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”

The constitutional basis for the court’s ruling citied the free expression clause of the First Amendment. While those supporting the encampments and blockades, such as Students for Justice in Palestine and Faculty For Justice in Palestine have claimed that targeting those that support Zionism and Israel is political speech worthy itself of constitutional protections, Judge Scarci saw through that charade by definitively linking Zionism and support for the state of Israel as core beliefs of so many in the Jewish faith. 

“the assertion that no one was excluded from the encampment based on identity does not address the plaintiffs’ assertions that support for Israel is an important part of their Jewish faith”

There are many who believe that this ruling will have reverberations across the country and implications for other campuses where Jews have been targeted for discrimination with essentially the tacit approval through their inaction of university administrations. 

Mark Rienzi, the president and CEO of the Becket Fund, the organization that is representing the three Jewish students who brought the suit stated:

“I do think it’s a big deal. It’s the first such injunction in the country. I think it is a really important signal to send to all the public colleges and universities in the country that, if you allow this kind of exclusion and discrimination against your Jewish students, you’re violating the Constitution.”

And while Rienzi points to public university administrations that can now be held responsible for allowing organized antisemitism to proceed on their campuses, there are certainly implications for private institutions which accept tens of millions of dollars each year in public funding. Other universities, both public and private are facing similar lawsuits. 

Earlier this month District Court Judge Richard Stearns ruled that a similar lawsuit brought against the Ivy League’s Harvard University can move forward as:

“The facts as pled show that Harvard failed its Jewish students.”

The response from the UCLA administration to Judge Scarci’s ruling is both  perplexing and troubling. 

UCLA officials called the ruling “improper.”

Mary Osako is UCLA’s Vice Chancellor for strategic communications. She stated:

“U.C.L.A. is committed to fostering a campus culture where everyone feels welcome and free from intimidation, discrimination and harassment. The district court’s ruling is improper and would hamstring our ability to respond to events on the ground and to meet the needs of the Bruin community. We’re closely reviewing the Judge’s ruling and considering all our options moving forward.” 

As it turns out, instead of acknowledging that the University’s response to blatant antisemitism on their campus was, and continues to be woefully inadequate, UCLA has doubled down with an appeal of Judge Scarci’s ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

There are many who (reasonably) aver that had the targets of the bigotry and discrimination seen on the UCLA campus been any other accepted as marginalized group other than Jews, the reaction from university officials would have been significantly different.