Los Angeles and UCLA chapters July 14, 2016 Senator Ricardo Lara Chair, Senate Appropriations Committee 3939 Atlantic Avenue, #107 Long Beach, CA 90807 Senator Lara, Though the text of AB 2844 – currently or in any of its previous versions – does not explicitly address frequently heard allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on University of California campuses, its author, Assembly Member Richard Bloom, and various other proponents have cited what they describe as a wave of attacks on Jewish students as a major rationale for the bill. In his testimony on AB 2844 at four legislative hearings and on the Assembly floor, Mr. Bloom has described a number of specific incidents he said occurred at UCLA, which is in the district he represents. But most of the anecdotes cited by Mr. Bloom, it turns out, are flagrantly false. We will delve into the allegations and the actual facts below. But first, it is worth looking at the big picture. Mr. Bloom himself may not be aware that he has falsely described the situation at UCLA. His descriptions echo language promoted by the Israeli government, the Israel Action Network and other major Israel-aligned lobby groups that aim to characterize factual criticism of Israel as inherently anti-Semitic. In particular, these forces are exercised by the growing use of boycott and divestment campaigns, well-known tools adopted by human rights advocates throughout American history – from British “taxation without representation” to slavery, segregation, South African apartheid, denial of farm worker labor rights and the fossil fuel industry. On eight out of nine UC campuses (and many others), student governments have passed resolutions calling on the university to divest from certain large corporations shown to support and profit from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and other violations of international law. Other campaigns have sought to halt campus sales of Israeli goods associated with similar violations. These efforts are part of a global response to a 2005 call by some 170 Palestinian civil society groups for boycott, divestment and sanctions (often referred to as “BDS”), seeking such measures until Israel halts its violations of Palestinian human rights.1 As part of his advocacy for AB 2844, Mr. Bloom has grossly mischaracterized what he calls the “BDS movement” as seeking to eliminate Israel. Some of his witnesses and the phalanx of groups dedicated to fight “BDS” explicitly accuse proponents of wanting to harm Jews. But these boycott and divestment campaigns are carefully directed against the policies of a country, Israel, and not against Jews here in California or anywhere else, including Israel itself. During his presentations of AB 2844, Mr. Bloom has alleged that campus campaigns for boycott and divestment “take aim primarily and deliberately at young Jewish students and other supporters of Israel,” and he has cited 1

https://bdsmovement.net/what-is-bds and Stop 2844 memo No.5 (June 19, 2016), http://tinyurl.com/zsmchtl

Jewish Voice for Peace, Los Angeles 10153½ Riverside Drive #288, Toluca Lake CA 91602 [email protected] 213 400-9201

2 several specific incidents. It is important to correct the record about these incidents, as the facts make clear that none of them had anything to do with anti-Semitism. Mr. Bloom has repeatedly argued that UCLA student Lauren Rogers was attacked and sued for conflict of interest due to her "accepting a trip to Israel paid for by a Jewish organization." In fact, Rogers was brought before the Judicial Board of the UCLA Undergraduate Student Association (USA) for violating her oath of office as outlined in its council’s bylaws. USA Bylaws, Article 1, Section D (Conflict of Interest) states: “No Association member, elected or appointed, shall directly or indirectly receive improper benefits, as defined below, as a result of his or her position. Officers or appointed members shall avoid even the perception of such a conflict of interest. No Association member, elected or appointed, may have an unauthorized financial interest or obligation which might cause divided loyalty or even the appearance of divided loyalty. In the event of a conflict of interest, the member shall fully disclose to the Council all material terms of such activity, and the member shall refrain from any vote in which such issue is involved.” Rogers received a monetary benefit in the form of a free trip to Israel from the American Jewish Committee (AJC), specifically because of her position in student government. The AJC trip listed holding a student leadership position among the criteria for eligibility. AJC described the Project Interchange trip she accepted as part of a comprehensive campaign against BDS (including divestment). Thus, by taking the free trip and voting on the issue of divestment, Rogers had conflicting interests between the UCLA student body she was elected to represent and the group that provided her with monetary benefits. USAC Bylaws indicate that in such situations, the member should both disclose the material terms of the activity and refrain from any vote in which such issue is involved. Having failed to take these steps, students rightly felt that Rogers violated the USAC Bylaws and her oath of office as outlined by the USA Constitution.2 Avi Oved was not “attacked by students” in his efforts to gain confirmation as a student member of the Board of Regents "simply because of his efforts to support Israel’s right to exist,” as Mr. Bloom has repeatedly asserted. In fact, Avi Oved’s fitness to serve as Student Regent representing all UCLA students was challenged by members of the student body because evidence came to light that he had participated in a troubling system of soliciting outside funding for student elections from parties interested in affecting the outcomes of issues he would be called to vote on. Among the things that came to light was an email Oved sent a few weeks before the 2013 UCLA Undergraduate Student Association election in which he was running, thanking Adam Milstein for a generous donation to his campus political party’s slate of candidates and pledging to make sure that “UCLA would maintain its allegiance to Israel and the Jewish community.” In the email, Oved said Bruins United was excited to further strengthen its unwavering support for Israel and fight against those who were anti-Israel and against those supporting the active boycott, divestment and sanctions movement. He later claimed that he thanked Milstein for making a donation to Hillel at UCLA, but that is certainly not what he wrote in the email he sent to his benefactor.3 This evidence came to light after earlier revelations that Milstein's foundation funded various student leaders’ trips to Israel with partisan political organizations that oppose measures to promote Palestinian human rights. Among other actions that were taken at the time, the UC Student Association voted to hold up Oved’s nomination, in order to fully examine the troubling actions that caused students to question quite reasonably whether Oved would be able to fairly represent ALL students without favor. The Islamophobic nature of Milstein’s political views is of public record. It naturally troubled many students that in an interview with the Daily Bruin, after a UCSA public hearing in which dozens of students voiced concern about Milstein’s political views, Oved said, “I (did) not do anything wrong. I am proud that there are those who want to 2

Although the Undergraduate Student Government Judicial Board ruled Rogers did not violate oath, it did find the petitioners complaint to be a legitimate question and one that merited thorough deliberation. http://tinyurl.com/z73vyqt 3 The email from Oved to Milstein thanking him: http://tinyurl.com/zasjtzp

3 support our causes. I don’t regret getting that support.” Likewise, Graduate Students Association President Milan Chatterjee was not "having to defend himself from being removed from office because he and his cabinet took a position of being neutral on the BDS issue,” as Bloom has stated. The real issue was that as GSA president, Chatterjee had issued a restriction on access to student government funding that discriminated against pro-Palestinian viewpoints, and by extension the students who hold those views. The American Civil Liberties Union, the Center for Constitutional Rights and others have noted that the policy Chatterjee set constitutes “blatant, unconstitutional discrimination.”4 In fact, the Discrimination Prevention Office of the UCLA Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion investigation found that in his role as 2015-2016 GSA president, Chatterjee violated university policies that require viewpoint neutrality in the allocation of student fees, that his actions had a negative effect on campus climate and that the viewpoint based nature of the stipulation he made violated several sections of University of California Policies Applying to Campus Activities, Organizations and Students (PACAOS). Bloom’s characterization of the Chatterjee incident is directly at odds with the university’s own characterization of those events,5 suggesting that Mr. Bloom either has not bothered to learn the real story or is deliberately applying a political lens to his interpretation of these issues, rather than one focused on the facts. Each of these cases represents an example of students holding their elected officials to account through the democratic process of the university and its student government. Members of student government can and should be held to high standards of behavior when in office, and those standards must apply to students of all political views, without exception. Miscasting this basic democratic accountability as anti-Semitism is spurious and actually harms efforts to confront anti-Semitism on campuses and elsewhere. When virtually every university organizing effort to demand changes in Israeli policies and U.S. support for them is considered an attack on Jews, it becomes much more difficult to confront real instances of anti-Semitism, which do appear from time to time, along with much more frequent and severe bigotry against members of non-white ethnic groups and religions, like Islam, who are the object of widespread hatred these days. If Mr. Bloom and his Israel-aligned backers had effective means of countering the demand for Palestinian freedom and human rights in a free and open debate, they would. Their choice instead to mischaracterize campus events and the nature and goals of BDS, makes it clear that instead of debating, they have opted to censor, limit and punish those who seek freedom, justice and equality for all. Finally, not only is the false picture of campus anti-Semitism being used to boost the prospects of AB 2844, but the groups behind the bill will no doubt use it if enacted, as they have other actions by the Legislature (mostly nonbinding resolutions), to seek reductions or elimination of funding for campus groups that advocate for Palestinian rights. If advocating for boycott of Israel is inherently anti-Semitic, as Bloom and the bill’s backers have repeatedly said, then under the bill’s current version,6 the anti-BDS watchdogs will surely report student organizations to the state Attorney General with a demand for investigation and possible prosecution. Or long before that happens, a not very courageous UC chancellor will cave to these forces and clamp down on pro-Palestinian activities preemptively – until it would be challenged in court as unconstitutional chilling of protected speech. This and other repressive goals are the whole point of AB 2844. That Mr. Bloom is repeating false narratives about UCLA campus politics to boost its chances of passage only underlines the danger it presents. Estee Chandler Chair, Jewish Voice for Peace, Los Angeles

Eitan Peled President, Jewish Voice for Peace, UCLA

4

November 18, 2015, letter to UCLA Chancellor Block: http://bit.ly/29SUt9M

5

UCLA Discrimination Prevention Office redacted investigation findings: http://bit.ly/29EFTkI

6

Stop AB 2844 Legal Memo June 22, 2016: http://tinyurl.com/zpfhwrd