Yes, There Are Jewish-Free Zones at Berkeley University

A few days ago, my mother texted me an op-ed written in The Jewish Journal by Kenneth Marcus who argued that Jewish-Free Zones had been established at Berkeley University. Marcus, who founded the Brandeis Center in Washington, D.C. and served on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights during the Trump Administration, argued:

Nine different law student groups at the University of California at Berkeley’s School of Law, my own alma mater, have begun this new academic year by amending bylaws to ensure that they will never invite any speakers that support Israel or Zionism. And these are not groups that represent only a small percentage of the student population. They include Women of Berkeley Law, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Middle Eastern and North African Law Students Association, Law Students of African Descent and the Queer Caucus. Berkeley Law’s Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a progressive Zionist, has observed that he himself would be banned under this standard, as would 90% of his Jewish students.

It is now a century since Jewish-free zones first spread to the San Francisco Bay Area (“No Dogs. No Jews”). Nevertheless, this move seems frightening and unexpected, like a bang on the door in the night.

However, Chemerinsky disputed Marcus' article and The Jewish Journal gave him an opportunity to write a rebuttal in which he said in part:

Mr. Marcus points out and identifies some student groups that adopted a statement drafted by Law Students for Justice In Palestine condemning Israel.  But what he does not mention is that only a handful of student groups out of over 100 at Berkeley Law did this.  He also does not mention that in a letter to the leaders of student groups I expressed exactly his message:  excluding speakers on the basis of their viewpoint is inconsistent with our commitment to free speech and condemning the existence of Israel is a form of anti-Semitism. 

To which, The Jewish Journal added a rejoinder from Marcus:

Chemerinsky defends Berkeley Law, my alma mater, on the ground that other Berkeley law student groups have not amended their bylaws to exclude Zionist speakers. This in and of itself is a highly concerning argument. Would it be okay for only 5% or 10% of the campus to be segregated? What percentage of the Berkeley campus should be open to all? Shouldn’t it be 100%? And what is the right number of doors that should be closed to students of any race or ethnicity: isn’t it zero?

Chemerinsky misses the point when he insists that all clubs admit Jewish students as members. No one denies this. Nevertheless, an unmistakable signal is sent to those same students when they are told that they would be barred from appearing as invited speakers. This sends a clear signal: Jews are not welcome, unless they deny their support for Israel which, for many, is an integral element of Jewish identity. 

Despite this point raised by Marcus, Chemerinsky has seen fit to reiterate the point that only a few student organizations have adopted this ban in an op-ed of his own which appeared in The Daily Beast:

To state it plainly: There is no “Jewish-Free Zone” at Berkeley Law or on the UC-Berkeley campus. The Law School’s rules are clear that no speaker can be excluded for being Jewish or for holding particular views. I know of no instance where this has been violated.

Chemerinsky further adds:

A handful of student organizations—fewer than 10 out of over 100—initially adopted the by-law. But the rest rejected it or ignored it. Some that quickly accepted it are now reconsidering that. Most importantly, no group has violated the Law School’s policy and excluded a speaker on account of being Jewish or holding particular views about Israel. Such conduct, of course, would be subject to sanctions. 

Well, 10 organizations is actually two handfuls. As such I must side with Marcus in this exchange. If a student organization at Berkeley or any other university in this country had adopted a by-law which would not welcome speakers who supported critical race theory (which would effectively exclude African-American speakers) that organization would be compelled to publicly apologize and then either be suspended or have its charter revoked and be banished from campus. The fact that Berkeley University would tolerate a student organization, never mind 10 of them, to write anti-Semitic provisions within their bylaws demonstrates that some prejudices are more acceptable than others.

The fact that some of the organizations with these anti-Semitic bylaws are "considering" revoking them does not bring comfort nor inspire confidence. These provisions should never have been allowed in the first place. Period. 

Chemerinsky claims that no speaker has been excluded from campus on account of being Jewish or being pro-Israel. Well, why doesn't Chemerinsky put this to the test and invite Marcus to Berkeley to speak? Or perhaps even engage in a one on one debate with him?

I'll tell you why Chemerinsky isn't going to invite Marcus to Berkeley. Because those student organizations which have adopted these anti-Semitic bylaws would find a way to prevent this from taking place. In which case, Chemerinsky would have to do even more damage control than he's had to do over the past several days. In his article, Chemerinsky made a point of saying that until Marcus had brought it to light the "issue quickly faded". Inviting Marcus to campus would ensure the issue of campus anti-Semitism remains front and center. This is exactly what Chemerinsky does not want.

But whether it is with Marcus or some other Jewish speaker who does not condemn Israel or perhaps one of the 10 student organizations somehow excluding Jews this issue will not quickly fade. In the meantime, so long as these 10 student organizations are permitted to keep these anti-Semitic bylaws then the only conclusion we can draw is that Jewish-free zones do exist at Berkeley University.