University of California Regents Approve Anti-Semitism Statement

On Thursday, the University of California Board of Regents adopted a statement called “Principles Against Intolerance” that condemns anti-Semitism, making the UC “the first public university system to reaffirm its opposition to anti-Semitic behavior amid heightened college activism on behalf of Palestinian rights,” reported NBC in the Bay Area. Notably omitted from the final statement was a blanket condemnation of anti-Zionism, removed after faculty and various student groups rejected the conflation of anti-Zionism with religious bigotry, insisting that Zionism, as a political doctrine, remain open to criticism. An accompanying report now condemns “anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism.”

“The original document,” reported JTA, “submitted in January, had declared both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism to be unacceptable.” But even with the adjustment of the statement’s language—from condemning anti-Zionism to just anti-Semitic forms of anti-Zionism—not everyone is happy. Tallie Ben Daniel, the Academic Advisory Council Coordinator for Jewish Voice for Peace, issued a statement on behalf of the organization, writing: “The Regents new policy offers no clarity on how to determine when criticism of Israel or anti-Zionism crosses a line into anti-Ssemitism, and was predicated on the erroneous assumption that support for Palestinian rights is inherently anti-Semitic.” According to Ben Daniel, those in support of the recently approved Statement of Principles are “primarily interested in giving UC administrators a tool that can be used to police student activism for Palestinian rights on campuses.”

Still, the adoption of this Statement of Principles is seen as a crucial victory for many Jewish students and their allies, facing ever more hostile campuses both in California and around the world. Additionally, it must be noted that, in the words of Charles Robinson, the UC system’s general counsel, the statement is more “aspirational rather than prohibitory.” This means that it doesn’t outright ban or prohibit particular actions. Instead, as Robinson explained, the statement serves as a reminder to administrators of their “duty to combat bias and to impose discipline in cases that violate existing anti-discrimination policies.”