Nov 24, 2022
UC Berkeley student groups’ refusal to invite Zionist speakers draws civil rights complaint
This news has been received from: latimes.com
All trademarks, copyrights, videos, photos and logos are owned by respective news sources. News stories, videos and live streams are from trusted sources.
A federal civil rights complaint accuses UC Berkeley of an “act of discrimination against the Jewish community” by allowing law school student groups to adopt bylaws refusing to invite speakers who support Zionism.
The complaint filed last week by attorneys Gabriel Groisman and Arsen Ostrovsky equates anti-Zionism, which challenges the state of Israel’s right to exist in the region of Palestine, with antisemitism.
Supporters of Palestinian rights say their opposition is targeted not at the Jewish people but at the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians.
Law Students for Justice in Palestine, a Berkeley graduate student group that describes itself as a “home for education, discussion, and activism promoting the rights of the Palestinian people,” in August adopted a bylaw in its constitution stating that it “will not invite speakers that have expressed and continued to hold views or host/sponsor/promote events in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”
CaliforniaColumn One: At USC, 2 determined women spoke out. Ugly attacks over racism, anti-Semitism, Zionism took over
The two USC students didn’t know each other — one a student government leader who is Jewish, the other a Black undergraduate who wanted to impeach her. But they collided over racism, anti-Semitism and Zionism in a brouhaha that has roiled the school, sparked social media attacks and prompted new debate over age-old questions about the line between free speech and hate speech.
The bylaw was also adopted by a number of other student groups, setting off a flurry of criticism, including condemnations from UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky and UC Board of Regents Chair Richard Leib.
“Let me be clear: In our university community we should not be excluding students in any manner because they believe in the right of Israel to exist,” Leib said at a board meeting in San Francisco last week. “This exclusion is absolutely inconsistent with the central mission of the University of California.”
In an opinion piece for The Times, Chemerinsky said he believed “the bylaw was inconsistent with our values as a law school” but added that student groups’ 1st Amendment right to choose speakers based on their viewpoints was a “relatively straightforward” legal and constitutional matter.
“For most Jews, including me, the existence of Israel and Zionism are an important part of our Jewish identity, and the bylaw was felt as antisemitism,” he wrote.
“Of course, student groups can decide what speakers to include based on their views,” he wrote. “Obviously, a college Republicans’ group could decide only to invite conservative speakers. To require student groups to invite speakers of views they loathe would violate the 1st Amendment as a form of compelled speech.”
“I wish student groups would not adopt such policies, but a public university cannot prohibit them,” he wrote.
CaliforniaUCLA, UC Irvine law schools join boycott of U.S. News & World Report rankings
UCLA and UC Irvine Law Schools have joined the growing boycott of U.S. News & World Report’s college rankings, criticizing the publication’s methodology.
The University of California Board of Regents has addressed the issue in the past. In 2016, it condemned antisemitism and “antisemitic forms” of anti-Zionism.
Both Lieb and Chemerinsky noted that since the bylaws were adopted this year, students of color and Jewish and Muslim students have been harassed.
Chemerinsky wrote that “outside agitators” seized on the media attention around the bylaws to target students.
In one instance, he wrote, a “right-wing group” outfitted a truck with a billboard that said, “If you want a Jewish Free Berkeley, raise your right hand,” next to a picture of Adolf Hitler.
Another truck drove by displaying the names of members of student groups that had adopted the bylaw under a banner that read “Berkeley Law’s Antisemitic Class of 2023,” Chemerinsky wrote, calling the targeting of students “despicable.”
In the complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Education, Groisman and Ostrovsky said the bylaw violates Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin at programs that receive federal assistance.
Chemerinsky declined to comment on the specifics of the complaint but said that “those who claim that the bylaw is religious discrimination miss the point that it is written in terms of viewpoint, not religion.”
News Source: latimes.com
Tags: education for subscribers the university of california the university of california student groups’ civil rights complaint federal civil rights the complaint filed the complaint filed inconsistent student groups board of regents state of israel boycott of u palestinian based on their student group anti semitism st amendment berkeley law semitism palestine over racism uc berkeley
Lyft and Uber are letting Christian drivers missionize riders against their will: complaint
On Saturday, OnlySky Media reported that rideshare companies Uber and Lyft are facing complaints that they are allowing Christian drivers to proselytize to unwilling passengers without consequences.
"Both ride-sharing companies have strict rules prohibiting religious discrimination. Drivers cannot refuse a customer, for example, who is very clearly not a member of their faith. But there’s no rule blocking drivers from proselytizing and attempting to win new converts, and Christians know it," reported Hemant Mehta. "A recent Associated Press article focused on Lyft drivers who see their work as 'mobile Christian ministries.'" One pastor who drives for Lyft, Kenneth Drayton, said, "The car is such an ideal place to do this because it's personal. I can share my faith and it's so important because that's what I live for."
"There’s a belief among many evangelicals that there shouldn’t be any boundaries when it comes to sharing the faith," noted the report. "But there’s a substantive difference between using personal social media, podcasts, or TV shows to do it — where recipients can always block the noise or change the channel — and doing it as part of a ride-share company where passengers may not be able to leave the car and the preacher is literally the person in the driver’s seat."
According to the report, the Freedom From Religion Foundation is sending legal complaints to both Lyft and Uber calling on them to change their policies and ban this practice.
"No one should have to pay to be missionized against their will… Non-religious and minority religious riders do not feel included or welcomed when they are confronted with proselytizing while stuck in a moving vehicle with a driver preaching at them," FFRF's letter read. They warned that this practice could even be a "traffic hazard" as the driver could be distracted by their effort to proselytize to the passenger.
The rideshare companies have come under controversy in recent years. Several states and cities have fought with them over their misclassification of drivers as "contractors" to exempt them from several applicable labor laws. In 2020, their algorithm was also exposed as charging riders more for trips to majority nonwhite neighborhoods than comparable majority white ones.From Your Site Articles