Religious freedom on campus

Susan Estrich

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

So wrote Judge Mark C. Scarsi when he issued a temporary restraining order this week against three Jewish students who sued UCLA after they were denied access to parts of the campus last spring.

“UCLA does not dispute this,” Scarsi continued. “Instead, UCLA claims that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was orchestrated by third-party protesters. But under constitutional principles, UCLA may deny some students access to religious services if it knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who orchestrated the exclusion.”

UCLA is simply wrong. It had a responsibility to protect all students and allow them access to campus. Instead, UCLA erected bike rack barriers around the camp and reportedly hired security guards who allowed protesters to enter the camp but not Zionists. “Are you a Zionist?” protesters shouted at those trying to pass, according to news reports at the time. Protesters approached students trying to pass, leaving them no choice but to turn around.

Just as astonishing as the events at UCLA is that a debate over whether the protests were anti-Semitic has raged, and continued into the trial. According to newspaper reports, pro-Palestinian student and faculty activists at UCLA, including a group from the Faculty of Justice in Palestine that filed an amicus curiae brief in the injunction, claimed that the protesters were anti-Zionist but not anti-Jewish, and that many of the protesters were Jewish.

Jews can be anti-Semitic, too. The Jewish plaintiffs in this case, the judge said, “claim that support for the Jewish state of Israel is their sincere religious belief.” The fact that there were some Jews among the protesters does not make their actions any less anti-Semitic or abhorrent.

Did the students really have to file a lawsuit to convince UCLA to protect all of its Jewish students? Judging by UCLA's response, that appears to be the case. The university complained through Mary Osako, vice chancellor for strategic communications, that “the district court's ruling would unduly limit our ability to respond to events on the ground and meet the needs of the Bruin community. We are closely reviewing the judge's ruling and considering all of our options for the future.”

“Cripple their ability to respond”? What does that mean? You can't put up bike racks to keep Jews away? You can't just protect the protesting fanatics while allowing them to attack Jews who support the existence of the State of Israel?

UCLA was not the only university to lose sight of its responsibility and ignore verbal and physical harassment. But it was one of the worst occupations. The result was that UCLA lost control of its campus when violent protesters moved onto campus to break up the camp themselves. Hate breeds more violence. What did they expect?

The university's lawyers also argued that significant changes had occurred since the camp last April that mitigated students' concerns. The changes included closing newer camps on the same days they were set up, creating a new office of campus safety, appointing a new police chief, and strictly enforcing UCLA rules, including those prohibiting overnight camping. The court was not convinced that these made an injunction unnecessary. Given the history, that's understandable.

A new academic year begins. There will be new challenges. The lesson from UCLA is clear. A university's responsibility is to protect all of its students. Period. No student should ever be denied access to any part of campus because of their belief in a Jewish state.

© 2024, Creator