In the aftermath of the October 7 attacks, riots and demonstrations erupted around the world. Nearly all of them were pro-Palestinian. In fact, if any were pro-Israel, they were lost in the media coverage. The epicenter for many of these protests was, unsurprisingly, university campuses where organizers built tent cities, invaded campus buildings, and caused mass disruption under antisemitic banners, draped in Palestinian flags, and wrapped in Keffiyeh cloth. There are still graffiti-laden posters listing the names of hostages that have never been released by the Hamas fighters who drug them into Gaza after their terroristic raid into Southern Israel.
From October 2023 into the Spring of 2024, more than 3100 campus protestors were arrested around the nation. And the presidents of some of America’s most prestigious universities were forced to resign or relieved of their duties due to their handling of these events and allowing their campuses to descend into violent chaos that brought classes and campus events to a grinding halt.
There were few places where the campus situation was more tense than at the University of California, Los Angeles where hundreds of organized protestors took control of a portion of the Royce Quad, a primary gathering area on the campus adjacent to several classroom buildings and the library. In April they had set up an encampment with barricades and other fortifications. In a perverse inversion of the Nazi policy of requiring Jews to wear Stars of David, the protestors required anyone traversing through the Quad to wear a wristband that served as proof that they had denounced Israel. The university tolerated–even abetted this–for an entire week. In the early morning hours of May 2 the UCLA police and other law enforcement finally cleared the Quad, but over the course of the next several weeks smaller versions popped up here and there.
The UCLA case is notable not merely because of just how egregiously these protestors were allowed to act, but because Jewish students took legal action against the university in defense of their rights. On June 5, 2024 a group of students filed suit in federal court and on August 13, Judge Mark Scarsi issued an injunction against UCLA exclaiming in the opening of his order:
In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, 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. (emphasis in original)
Most surprisingly, UCLA did not attempt to refute this. Jewish students had in fact been denied access to UCLA campus facilities because of their faith. The university simply feels as if it bears no obligation to guarantee access because the “Jew Exclusion Zone,” as the judge’s order describes it, was “engineered” by third parties.
The Jewish students successfully argued that their first amendment free exercise rights had been violated because they were excluded from “ordinarily available programs, activities, and campus areas” on the basis of their religious convictions, namely a religious obligation to support the existence of a Jewish state. UCLA announced in the days following the court’s ruling that it would not appeal the order as the case makes its way through the court system, but has continued to downplay the events of the Spring saying as late as October 1 that its toleration, if not facilitation, of the Jew Exclusion Zone was a de-escalation strategy. And in a classic example of understatement, university administrators regret that “some Jewish students on campus felt targeted, harassed and unsafe.” In the same statement the university claims to “have been honest about where [it] fell short” and “how [it] can do better moving forward.”
While it is certainly a relief that the district court issued an injunction against the university in favor of Jewish students, it is important to note a few things about this situation. First, by its nature this type of order is temporary. It is, in fact, known as a “preliminary injunction” that courts may issue from time to time before a case is fully litigated. Granted, it is very unlikely that even the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a notoriously lawless court, will allow the UCLA campus to descend into greater disarray, the fact remains that the legal fight is not over. Second, even with a victory in hand from any court, an uncooperative or feckless university administration can still passively allow or actively create a hostile campus environment even if they are technically in minimal compliance with the four corners of a court order. In short, while success in court is important, no court order will stop chants of “death to Jews,” “death to Israel,” or “this is the final solution” coming from protestors. In fact, under the right circumstances another provision of the First Amendment may guarantee their right to do so. More importantly, however, no court order will be able to rehabilitate the poisoned soul in which these truly dangerous ideas have taken root.
One thing that doesn’t help to find a solution to this problem is one more diatribe about the state of America’s college campuses. Yes, they are mostly illiberal echo chambers dominated by progressive faculty and lumbering, expensive bureaucracy. They are indoctrination factories, even if one can find the occasional faculty member willing to hold his or her nose long enough to be the faculty sponsor of a pro-life club or the College Republicans to stave off lawsuits alleging viewpoint discrimination. But these latest protests have revealed a wide-spread contagion that should be worrisome to all of us. Embedded on these campuses are ideas so antithetical to western ideals that they pose an existential threat to our civilization. Antisemitism is not merely racial bigotry, which is itself an intolerable and antithetical to the most fundamental commitments of our society. Antisemitism is a canary in a coal mine–it is historically a precursor to totalitarianism and tyranny.
UCLA and other universities seem to have no sense of moral clarity on this issue. They seem very confused as to who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are. Frankly, there is no place in the Jewish community or any other for the celebration of the deaths of innocent Palestinians as a result of Israel’s military response to October 7. I suspect that if there have been public demonstrations celebrating this, the world would have seen them. And I have no doubt that there are people of good will inclined to protest for peace or on behalf of the innocent in harm’s way. But, a person of good will would immediately abandon a protest marked by shouts of “death to Jews.” Advocacy on behalf of the innocent seems quite incongruous with wishing death on anyone. So, even if there were those of good will joining the protests at its earliest stages, surely they had abandoned it well before the Jew Exclusion Zone was established. University administrators admitted in court filings and public statements to having appeased the remaining demonstrators. As history documents clearly, appeasement does not work out well for Jews or for civilization.
Further, UCLA’s most recent statement, linked above, glibly dismisses the legitimate concerns of Jews. “Some Jewish students…felt targeted, harassed and unsafe.” I guess we can’t know what those who didn’t join the lawsuit felt, but chants of “death to Jews” are, in fact, targeted at all Jews and not just those who broadcast their unease via a lawsuit. And threats of death are objective reasons to feel unsafe. The meaning of “unsafe” has been so diluted by claims of “emotional violence” that it is impossible to determine if UCLA is giving credence to these students’ legitimate safety concerns or if they are in the same category as a challenge to a student’s Marxist presuppositions.
For now, it is good that the courts recognize that the law is firmly on the side of those facing religious discrimination on America’s university campuses. But we cannot forget that this is a temporary, and ultimately limited, solution to a deeper and more ominous problem. Virulent antisemitism on university campuses is a contagion that will eventually infect other quarters of society as students graduate and enter their careers having never witnessed courageous opposition to antisemitism by anyone but their Jewish peers. If, in fact, we are to maintain a free, open, plural society, we cannot fail this test.
Trey Dimsdale, JD, is the executive director of the Center for Religion, Culture & Democracy.
