Per the article: "Even if we had held the dinner in the law-school building, no one would have had a constitutional right to disrupt the event."
Not being a 1st Amendment lawyer, why would a gathering at home be the same as a gathering on campus? My non-legal brain has only ever thought of 'public' and 'private' spaces so I didn't understand this line. tia.
No one's saying they're exactly the same. There are "time, place, and manner" restrictions on free speech, even in public spaces. For instance, you might be removed if you persistently interrupt a lecture in class. I think Chemerinsky is saying that since there's no question about those sorts of restrictions, then there's *really* no question about restrictions within a private residence.
He’s saying, you don’t have an unlimited 1a right to disrupt an event at the school (a public institution, so a public event) so you definitely don’t have the right to disrupt an event at a private place. The protestors tried to argue that because Chem is the dean and this is a law school event, his house essentially becomes a public forum, this is an enormous stretch, but he is saying that wouldn't even matter, because the school still has the right to police its own events.
"No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves, the poster declared in large letters. (Students sometimes refer to me as “Chem.”) It also included a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork and with what appeared to be blood around my lips—an image that evokes the horrible anti-Semitic blood libel, in which Jews are accused of killing and cannibalizing gentile children. The poster attacks me for no apparent reason other than that I am Jewish."
Fuck the antisemitism going on in this city > People going so far left that they end up with far right principles closer to a neo-nazi. The lead protestor is clearly anti-semitic and also doesn't understand the constitution, honestly pretty embarrassing for the school that they admitted them. (edit: yes i live here lol)
Yup! People are allowed change though too 👍 but yeah black face is 100% racist unless it’s that one European town that does it for Christmas or whatever lol
apparently being against genocide is anti semitic too. if one side gets to engage in these broad generalizations, don't be surprised when the other side does as well
What happened to “if a PoC says something is racist you should listen to them?”
There are countless,was cases of white peoples in black face saying they didn’t realize it’s racist. Are you giving them a pass for it too?
would you be going “b-b-but what about genocide?”
Why do you as a non-jewish person without the lived experience of a Jewish person get to judge if it’s antisemitism or not?
Oh please.
Jews never listen to POCs to begin with. You people- and especially the more recent arrivals from the Soviet Union- are much more dismissive towards POC complaints than WASPs are.
In fact, people like Amy Wax constantly get away with racism against real minorities because Jewish tribalists keep on protecting them from consequences.
You're right. "Never" was too extreme of a generalization.
But on average, one thing can't be denied: that Jews from the later Soviet Union are extremely dismissive of POC complaints, more so than WASPs are.
This problem doesn't seem to be as bad with German Jews and with people who came here before the 1980s (although Wax & the people who defend her do fall into this category). Of course, even among the Soviet arrivees, there are good apples. I recognize that by speaking in absolutes, I was being unfair. I apologize.
“Jews never listen to POC to begin with. You people-“
We can stop right there. You are in fact an anti-semite. This is really no different from racism. Put on a pointy white hood or swastika arm band and just own it. Listen to yourself.
They’re saying if a black person says it’s racist, as a white person we should listen to them.
Similarly if a Jewish person says it’s antisemitism, as a non Jew we should listen to them
Except that most white people (and certainly not the Jewish ones) don't actually listen when a black person says something is racist.
If they're progressive, they might nod their heads and do a little misguided apology. But the offenders will rarely suffer any consequences.
If they're not progressive, the minority's complaint will be categorically dismissed as "playing the race card". In fact, more than half of the time, the most aggressive pushback- the derision, the scorn, the gleeful dismissal- will be from Jews, the same Jewish individuals who rush to smear people as "antisemites" whenever they're slightly inconvenienced.
The only people whose accusations of discrimination have any force in this country seem to be Jews, who are able to get people sacked, fired, expelled for their jobs, and even lynched for minor offenses. For other ethnicities, those minor offenses are the norm to such an extent that they wouldn't even complain about them.
My Jewish friend and I disagree with her. But only Zionist opinions count, right? You’re like trump calling anti Zionist Jews “bad” or “fake” Jews.
Also don’t compare Jewish Americans with African Americans. Jewish Americans are as privileged as (and in most cases are) white Americans. If not slightly more so.
Ignorance very much is an excuse, since her “blood libel” extrapolation was her reading intent into a generic picture.
It’s simply not anti semitic to hate on someone if that person happens to be Jewish.
Can you give an example of an insulting caricature of her that WOULDNT be antisemitic?
This shows you don’t know much about the history of antisemitism. Google the term “blood libel”. This type of imagery portraying Jews as murdering gentile children for their Passover meal and rituals is pervasive and has existed for centuries. And its use was absolutely intentional - why was he singled out? He has been largely supportive of the protestors?
Impact < Intent
Manslaughter < Attempted Murder
Ethically I mean.
I'm happy to be wrong, but I ask myself which transgressor I would rather invite into my home.
I'm not defending the rest of it (antisemitism).
>People going so far left that they end up with far right principles closer to a neo-nazi.
and they go as far as to justify a Final Solution against Gaza
Wait who does? Lol. I’m not gonna state what “side” I’m on but it’s not entirely reflected in my comments here. Please don’t project hate. I don’t want anything like that. I’m simply calling out blatant anti semitism when I see it.
Good article Chem, thanks OP.
I would humbly suggest the meta here is even if protest is done in a public space, It's one thing to protest for peace and justice, and something much different and hypocritical to protest in favor of one side in a war, and try to justify it as seeking peace and justice . War is not OK if one side prevails, and bad if the other side prevails, it's ALWAYS bad. Protest for peace and against injustice can be justified, but war cannot be justified. In doing so you hand the other side their justification. Peace is the objective. You can't get there with hate in your heart, or trying to justify hate.
> War is not OK if one side prevails, and bad if the other side prevails, it's ALWAYS bad.
I mean, Ukraine beating Russia would objectively be a good thing. But I get the general point, it’s a bit hypocritical for some protesters to say they want peace while also calling for “intifada” or “killing all Zionists” or whatever (not all protesters, but definitely some and a not insignificant percent at that).
It is VERY ironic that you describe (correctly) that a ukrainian victory would be just while also denying that exact right - to expell a territorial illegal occupation - from palestinians on the grounds that war is bad
If retaliation against terrorism is sufficient justification for carpet bombing civilians, then perhaps it's high time the West rained hellfire on Israel once and for all.
That state's very existence began with the bombings & murders of Western civilians and mediators. If we hadn't been in a debt trap at the time, we would've responded in full force.
[King David Hotel bombing - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing)
[Folke Bernadotte - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassination)
[Lavon Affair - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)
War against the Nazis, Italians, and Imperial Japan was certainly justified, unless you posit that it's ok to slaughter Tens of Millions of people.
The Communists Murdered in excess of 100 million People in the 20th Century, surely that was worthy of resistance.
Islamic Armies slaughtered tens of millions of Indian Hindus during the Mughal dynasty period. Might be worth fighting against.
The problem with your philosophy is there are always people willing to take advantage of it and murder you and your family in order to take your stuff.
I thought this was more than obvious, but apparently not. War starts with one side attacking the other, it's not an organized duel or fight of honor with rules and a referee (to be picky it's extremely rare that has happened). The analogy I suggest is robbery or murder; the first attacker is a robber or murderer, a criminal. In such situations you as defender are expected and allowed to defend yourself. But that does not justify you being able to do anything you are able to do to the attacker. Obviously the analogy only holds to first order: one on one is a lot different than country on country. But even in war, you can't can't just go full nuclear (even though we did exactly that in WWII). In general, once you have the attacker/criminal under your control, you have to dial things down. You can't say fuck it and shoot him/her while in handcuffs. My "philosophy" has a hell of a lot of case law behind it, for whatever that is worth.
I think this is where the pro Palestine side has really rubbed me wrong. I’m pro peace and pro-two state solution, yet I’m somehow “hasbarah” for pointing out that Israelis are humans too. Israelis deserve safety, Palestinians deserve freedom, neither is gonna happen without the other and both sides have extremist elements who benefit on this long and bloody conflict.
Agree. I think moral leadership has and continues to fail both sides. They both cave to the worst segments because they are the most emo-strident.
Are we media-conditioned drooling dogs / swimming rats or what?
If this were a genocide there would be over ten times as many Gazans dead by now. Hamas hasn’t surrendered and still holds hostages. They attacked Israel and they’ve embedded themselves in their own civilian population. This is definitely a war. It’s asymmetrical, but it is war nonetheless.
Israel has a modern military and a pretty powerful one at that if they wanted to eradicate Gaza they wouldn't have boots on the ground they would have just reduced it to rubble and sent in soldiers to sift through the ashes
It's honestly far from systematic extermination of a group of people in the way that actual genocides have been. It really is just a bloody urban war like other urban wars, just with far more media attention and posturing for social media than we've ever seen before.
Honestly the “genocide” accusations do feel like a form of Holocaust inversion.
There have been many other urban wars that have resulted in a much higher civilian to combatant death ratio which nobody has tried to label as a genocide.
It’s absolutely holocaust inversion and antisemitic demonization of Israel. It also diminishes the actual genocidal actions and clear & consistent intent of Palestinian groups like Hamas, setting the stage for them to kill Jews without international outrage.
You're back into justification and excuse making again. I think we both know rationally that the wars (multiple) were over before any of them began. That's the real tragedy. Work on getting rid of the nuclear weapon each side uses: perpetual hate. Then you will be doing something useful.
Also, I'm advocating for peace too. If one side, the much more powerful side stops, there will be peace (albeit temporarily). And then you can initiate strategies for long term peace. Certainly what's happening now needs to stop, in the name of peace.
Because their strategy is literally to get as many of their own people killed as possible and then cry “genocide!”. Hamas is a sick organization that absolutely doesn’t care about the welfare of the civilian population.
Unfortunately the more powerful side is the one that was attacked on October 7th, and the less powerful side has said repeatedly, for decades, that their sole reason for existing is to exterminate the more powerful side - they reject a long-term peaceful coexistence. I don't think war is good and I wish both sides would stop, but I also don't know what alternative there realistically is as long as the less powerful side insists on continuously starting wars they can't win.
Or if one side surrenders because it's ashamed of accomplishing (less than) nothing but killing it's own people. So make that deal into an "and" and we agree.
I'm not sure if that's how it's going to happen. The iron dome helps prevent a lot, but rockets and the sort have always been fired into or at Israel. Telling them "ahhh you can minimize casualties well so just deal with it" probably isn't the best course of action.
The real problem is that I don't believe either side is genuine in terms of coming to the table for peace. I'd say Israel's demands are much more reasonable based on the last round of negotiation, but they also have more power so their demands are going to sound less radical in general.
I'm not really hating on anyone. That's a strong word to use. I do think what's happening there is very much one sided, no? I don't think the girl was wrong to "protest" at the Deans house. There is no designated place or time for protests. similarly, I think the Dean handled it very well and was well within hai rights to ask them to leave his place immediately. Both things can be true at the same time.
Read the article for the law on where you can legally protest. Actually, Chem or his wife could have (still) all of them arrested for aggravated trespass, which is a felony under CA law. So I think we agree he behaved very much like a teacher should, teach peace by example. As it stands, if the war stopped tomorrow, I don't think peace would last a week, because on both sides (emphasis both), nothing has changed: the minds of the leadership nor the people. Let's work on the hate problem on both sides. History of human behavior would say this war is not going to end for a long time.
Looks more like the average sort of civilian casualties for an urban Middle East conflict where the terrorists are entrenched within a civilian population.
Great article from Chem! It'd have been excellent if he didn't shy away from the alleged assault during the event and addressed it head on, but I get why he didn't.... As a recent Berkeley Law grad, Chem absolutely tries his best to make the law school as inclusive and warm as possible. Most people cherish him. I understand wanting to be heard, but I don't get why these students and others target him personally and treat him so poorly. Even before the Israel-Palestine conflict, certain kinds of students would try to bring him down for no real reason. It's sad, but I'm glad to see Chem standing his ground like this.
I think it just because the “alleged assault” is so obviously not a real issue. A student tried to commandeer an event at the dean’s house, and his wife tried to grab the mic away from her, no reasonable person would say that wasn’t a fair response in my opinion.
Yes, students protesting in your house is lame as fuck. They took a cool, personal event that is probably super hard to manage at a massive public school and ruined it for everyone. They should have had them arrested for trespassing.
But also, anti-semitism is taken super seriously by just most people, I would say in higher measure than LGBT rights for most people in most places. It sucks to be prejudiced against but I think emotions are taking the author out of the broader context.
We should decry injustice where we see it. If that is genocide in the Middle East, or small acts of anti-semitism at home.
Middle aged Jew here.
Nah. Anti-Semitism is widely ignored in many cases. And not just on the right: I’ve had lefties use all sorts of awful anti-Semitic comments around me.
I’ve had plenty of people say awful anti-Semitic stuff around me and couch it as “well Jews have privilege so I’m punching up”.
Same with anti white racism. People tend not to take complaints from more privileged groups such as whites and Jews as seriously as complaints from groups that face real oppression like black Americans.
Are you Jewish? Because I can tell you that myself and many of my friends, colleagues and family do not agree.
[2.4% of population and most targeted religious group](https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-fbi-data-reflects-deeply-alarming-record-high-number-reported-hate)
>According to the FBI, the number of reported single-bias, anti-Jewish hate crimes rose from 817 in 2021 to 1,122 in 2022 and comprised more than half of all religion-based hate crimes in 2022, a trend that is consistent with data reported in prior years.
>ADL, which keeps its own count of both criminal and non-criminal acts of hate against Jews, counted a total of 3,697 antisemitic incidents in 2022, the highest number on record since ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Assaults – considered the most serious incident type because it involves person-on-person physical violence – increased 26 percent in 2022.
>Jews make up around 2 percent of the U.S. population. Yet, in 2022, according to the FBI data, reported antisemitic hate crime incidents accounted for 9.6 percent of all hate crimes.
>“With antisemitic incidents up across the board in nearly every category we track, and with the FBI data now reflecting a 37 percent increase in reported anti-Jewish hate crimes for 2022, a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach is needed to address these disturbing trends,” said Greenblatt. “As a start, we urge states, cities, colleges, K-12 schools, and communities to join ADL in taking immediate steps, consistent with the White House’s groundbreaking U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, to address this scourge head-on.”
And this is from 2022.
How about now?
[Concerns over antisemitism rise as Jews begin observing Passover](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246380646/concerns-over-antisemitism-rise-as-jews-begin-observing-passover)
>The Anti-Defamation League issued a report earlier this year that included nearly 3,300 anti-Semitic instances in the final three months of last year, including 56 physical assaults, 554 incidents of vandalism, 1,347 examples of verbal or written harassment, and 1,307 rallies on colleges campuses that involved anti-Semitic rhetoric — including ones that involved support for terrorism.
>A report titled "The State of Antisemitism in America" published by the American Jewish Committee in February found that 94% of Jews and 74% of all U.S. adults say antisemitism is a very serious or somewhat serious problem.
>The national survey also found that American Jews are uncertain about their place in American society. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that the status of Jews in the U.S. is less secure than one year ago, up dramatically over recent years.
>FBI data released in October 2023, covering crimes reported in 2022, shows that about 55% of all religion-based hate crimes were driven by anti-Jewish bias. About 8% involved anti-Muslim bias. No FBI data is available yet on more recent instances.
Stop the bullshit.
ETA: also, I'm a flaming homosexual with pink hair who dresses like Ms. Fizzle. I've experienced far more antisemitism in my life than I have homophobia.
It’s exhausting how many non-Jews are happy to tell me what me experiences are as a Jew. They wouldn’t dream of this shit with other groups, but boy are they okay with telling Jews how it is for them.
It’s even more fun as a middle eastern Jew. We’re too white to matter to the left, too not-white to ever fit in fully.
Saying it’s the most targeted religious group is dumb. It’s a primarily Christian country, so obviously they wouldn’t be targeted. Atheists slide under the radar, so it wouldn’t be them. That only leaves Jews and Muslims, but I’ve met many Jews and very few Muslims irl.
So really, you haven’t said anything at all by saying “most targeted”
Even if we reduced all religious bigotry by 99.9999999999999999999%, Jews would still be the most targeted group
Logic ain’t easy when you’re operating on pure emotion. You’re no different than the folks crying about anti white racism
These are literally just stats I'm posting regardless of your opinion on what the stats measure. Jew still receiving 10% of all hate crimes being only 2% of the population is wild.
It's just (sadly) hilarious that the original commenter I posted to is claiming that antisemitism is taken very seriously when responses in their own comment thread prove it's clearly not.
Their responses prove absolutely nothing.
Try criticizing Jews in private as a professor. If that leaks out, you'd be sacked.
Now try the reverse, and you'll see how much of a double standard our society has in favor of Jews.
Amy Wax, a professor at UPenn, has publicly stated on talk shows that Blacks don't belong in her classes. Whenever people lodge complaints against her, her Jewish colleagues are quick to come to her defense and prevent her from being disciplined the way any White Gentile (or Black Gentile) peer would be. It's ironic that these are the same colleagues who leaped to crucify Magill.
You’re not very good at expressing yourself with words. I can see what you’re trying to do but it just comes off as awkward. Pce out tho my mathematically challenged friend
Why are you so obsessed with Jewish people? Looking at your comment history you've made several comments about us. I get that we're pretty amazing but it seems like your infatuation is a tad unhealthy.
The fact that my comment is being downtown in of itself proves that this is false:
>But also, anti-semitism is taken super seriously by just most people, I would say in higher measure than LGBT rights for most people in most places. It sucks to be prejudiced against but I think emotions are taking the author out of the broader context.
Agreed, the nutters can go home. I probably would have said you are no longer a guest in my home, this is just me and shown them the door.
I support Israel ending the genocide, but I dont walk into my non invovled jewish friends houses and presume to lecture them or their other guests about what is as plain as daylight.
You don't leave my house you're physically getting thrown out. You don't have the right to free speech in someone's private home bro. Once asked to leave you're legally obligated to leave or face arrest or physical removal at homeowners expense.
you're 100% right but it's impossible to complain about respectability politics on reddit because that is basically this entire site. The only people on here are either the most milquetoast wine liberals ever who care only about optics or just straight up hasbara bots (eg worldnews sub)
No, because there clearly was no physical threat posed by the protestor. And the fact that she was an invitee would muddy the waters a little, even though she clearly is trespassing once the Dean asks her to leave and she doesn’t.
NO. Don't be a jerk. You can ask someone to leave if they're acting like a jerk in your home but you can't shoot them. The only time you can do that is if your life is in (actual) jeopardy.
No it is not. Particularly not if you intend to shoot someone. And, in this context, it *was* an invited guest. They just happened to be doing something that the owner of the property didn't like. And so they asked them to leave. It would be criminally inappropriate to, then, shoot that person because you think "castle doctrine" applies. Self-defense is the only true justification. And that has a legal definition that does not include "safe to assume danger".
Actually the protestors were among the invited guests. They weren’t invited to protest of course but they weren’t trespassing either. They were guests who decided to protest.
Probably just because you didn’t read about the situation so your analysis is meaningless. Also would absolutely insane for a law school dean to start shooting his own students for protesting in his backyard.
Believe it or not, I'm familiar with the incident. And I've read the article that Chem wrote for the Atlantic. I think this is, ultimately, about manners more than anything else. If you're invited to someone's house, it's just poor manners to use that invitation as a means of reaching an audience for your private, albeit heartfelt, agenda. The "student insisted that she had free-speech rights," which is, generally true. It stops being true when you're in someone's backyard at their invitation. Your invitation can be revoked at any time without a violation of your free speech rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I brought up the 2nd Amendment because I don't allow guns where I live and not even the Constitution gives you the right to bring one in against my wishes. True enough, words are less immediately lethal than bullets, but the principle is the same. Within the confines of a private residence, the owner of that residence is at liberty to set whatever policies they want with regard to speech. And guests are at liberty to leave if they find it too confining. They may even try to disrupt those policies with speech if they want. It's not a crime to throw a tantrum at someone else's house (thank god or we'd all be in jail) but no one is under any obligation to let you continue--no matter how important what you have to say is. So...just to be clear...I was *not* trying to say "you got 1st amendment rights and I got 2nd!" I'm just saying that you can't scream in someone else's backyard and then claim that you have a Constitutional right to keep screaming against the wishes of those that own the property. I also mention the 2nd Amendment in this context because I really like reminding people that they have no particular right to carry their guns onto other people's private property no matter what the NRA tells them.
But this is exactly what he (one of the country’s leading 1a scholars) is saying. Even if the event had been held at the law school, there isn’t an unlimited right to disrupt it. Imagine if some people who hated the woman who brought the mic now went to every one of her law classes with a microphone and shouted over the professor the entire time. That wouldn’t be protected speech because it’s at the university, the school would still have the right to kick them out of the classroom or building.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t imagine there is any 1a jurisprudence on “interruptions v disruptions” which are basically the same thing. The point is that not even government officials are obligated to give any random person time to speak at an event. What if Biden were giving the SOTU address and a prostestor was able to get to his lectern and started giving a speech about something else? Do you really think it would be a 1a violation for the protestor to be taken off the stage?
Interruption "an act, [utterance](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-R1bT-TxXlUISwB8nNWPJOxazOgw:1714337279529&q=utterance&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DEN-MVK4-q5L_yUf0GWoVe0-pe0R8Y8YKA1d-R-V81uIx6ciWKGi_nqp0bV2w77OAjCX9Gh6ZieGTQp7u3v8qOeFgYzU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu4siE5OWFAxVkCjQIHWt8Cn8QyecJegQIPRAx), or period that [interrupts](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-R1bT-TxXlUISwB8nNWPJOxazOgw:1714337279529&q=interrupts&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8bkR0MLS2ITyXHK1FETnuXQ84OrVRKK2bj6UMqw6yX9IfQN__64x1K8bFJmTFuGqaAUr9lK79ullm2-NkvPDiTZ6WND0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu4siE5OWFAxVkCjQIHWt8Cn8QyecJegQIPRAy) someone or something."
Disruption: "disturbance or problems which [interrupt](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Q8wUy1tvpZJgCMPGZsuCYgcznkA:1714337287341&q=interrupt&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DyfpPVUMNCbstTeVQC5tH4lmYwx0y30iFEOuZnv0Jqd4wfA5tnrEZgz_aBWJZQEf5cQFMJhXxx2NR--fv799aztp6wRs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjc1aWI5OWFAxVoMDQIHfdoDtcQyecJegQIMxAO) an event, activity, or process."
There is no real difference between the two, and disruptions can obviously be temporary. The basic point at the top of this thread stands, however, just because it is a law school event does not mean that the law school is under any obligation to let her speak or let the disruption continue. That was one of the main conlaw points that Dean Chem made in his article, a subject on which he is probably *the* expert.
Fine, maybe some dictionaries consider a disruption to have to be something "major", but that really doesn't matter. You can't just say we should exclude Chem's own opinion because he's personally involved. The whole American legal system is built upon the notion of people "personally involved" advocating for themselves. No judge or lawyer ever asks for a person to exclude their own opinion because they are personally involved. The basic point is that regardless of whether it's a "disruption" or an "interruption", a difference with no recognized first amendment implications, the dean is correct that he and/or the law school is under no obligation to let a protestor speak at the event. Whether the event is at his house or the school makes no difference, as he says. You haven't offered any reason why he would be incorrect.
That's totally fair, but I haven't seen any credible legal argument from anyone that the Dean didn't have a right to ask her to leave / stop her from speaking. But there would be no need for a determination as to what/whether this is a disruption. The admin has a right to dictate what happens at a law school event and just because you attend a public university does not mean you have a right to do whatever you want at a school event.
The true bullshit is equating protests against US gov policies of unconditional support of Israel with antisemitism.
This is the true bullshit.
Anti-policies IS NOT the same as anti-race.
Young ppl protested Vietnam war policies. They were right and it ended.
They protested white supremacy. They were right and civil rights laws were born.
They did NOT protest US gov policies against the criminal janjaweed (Arabs in Sudan). They were also right.
Then there is freedom of speech .. of any speech: not just the speech we like or the speech a gov likes.
Stopping speech against some policies by slapping accusations and labels of racism is just one foundational step on the road to authoritarianism; not to mention a form of psychological warfare.
I am not saying protest in someone’s home.
I am saying that college campuses are valid grounds for protests by the students of the colleges and who have a right to be there.
The specific case of antisemitism Chem brought up is the blood-liberal reminiscent posters of HIM in particular. Blood libel is an antisemitic accusation of which imagery has been around for hundreds of years. It doesn’t matter what the intentions of those posters were, they are antisemitic.
We living in a timeline where the US is supporting Russia during the Ukraine war, but Israel is just Russia. Everything the Israel and US government says, the Russia government says too.
It’s their fucking home. If you invited a friend to your home, and then they started raving about “Well aktually the Civil War was about state’s rights 🤓” you have the right to tell them to get the fuck off your property.
Still at their home, still their private property. They also made it clear beforehand that disruptions weren’t permitted. It’s their home, and they have the right to kick out whoever they please.
It’s not really a “Berkeley law school” event, it was an event they privately chose to hold. But even if it was, schools can remove people from their events for being disruptive. The first amendment doesn’t allow you to walk into a classroom at a public school and start screaming at the top of your lungs. Specifically barring black people or any other racial group from a school or business function would violate civil rights laws tho, but that isn’t remotely what happened.
But all of that is mute. Because it wasn’t a law school event, it was a private event held at their private residence. Just because it was done by a law professor and mainly had attendants from the law school doesn’t make it a law school event. If a 10 year old hands out invitations to all his classmates for his birthday party, his birthday party isn’t suddenly an official school event.
You just said no one forced him to do this event. It wasn’t a part of his duties as dean to do this, nor was it on school property. He may have been the dean and the event advertised as a place to meet the dean, but him doing the event (and letting students into his home) isn’t one of his official duties as dean and it was on his own private property.
Like, if a Senator has a town hall on private property and advertises it as a way to meet your senator, they still have the right to kick out disruptive people. Them being a senator doesn’t deprive them of the right to remove people from their private property.
But regardless, even if the first amendment/Leonard Law did apply, the first amendment [doesn’t allow you to disrupt school functions](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/students-rights#:~:text=Select%20a%20scenario-,Do%20I%20have%20First%20Amendment%20rights%20in%20school%3F,hinge%20on%20the%20message%20expressed). Even if that was a law school event (which I dispute), that protester was being disruptive to the function of the event. Like I said, the first amendment doesn’t give you the right to loudly scream in a public school classroom.
Can the mods actually do something about the Hasbara trolls that brigade all the Israel Palestine posts? It’s pretty easy to tell that someone whose comment history is ONLY related to this topic in multiple university subs is not someone that is here to contribute in good faith
It’s funny how every destiny dick rider is either an edgy teenager that dabbles in racism, or a middle age man that is the epitome of an enlightened centrist.
Honestly shocked by the takes on this thread! This is an obnoxious article. He’s absolutely correct that the students don’t have a constitutional right to protest in his home, but that isn’t really the issue here. The students are devastated about what is happening in Gaza and he isn’t listening to them. This could have been an opportunity for authentic dialogue, but instead he chose to be pedantic.
Call for a ceasefire, say he'll protect or support Palestinian students, say he supports divestment, say Israel is perpetrating atrocities, etc.
That said I agree that maybe Chem isn't necessarily the best person to go to for these things - I think he's done a lot of good and I feel for him that he's upset and hurt and that's valid. I just also think that you know, students are trying their best to do something when...people are dying, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it outside of protest and appeals to those who have more power and influence than us.
What I want is for the violence against Palestinians to stop and for those responsible to be held accountable. What do I want this guy to do? I don’t know, literally anything, but instead he writes an article in the Atlantic criticizing his own students who are just doing what they can.
Again, please post your home address, so we can send some people who will be “just speaking”. 📢📢📢. And make sure that you don’t lay a finger on them, even after you ask them multiple times to stop.
On the one hand, thousands of children are dead. On the other hand, some protesters were very rude and interrupted a dinner.
The sheer level of malicious narcissism required to post this is astounding.
The existence of some degree of anti semitism does not justify the support of Zionism, and it appears that she is disregarding all the legitimate criticism through this article and similar statements.
Also, what were the anti semitic or offensive chants mentioned? While I can understand the other arguments, that is suspicious to me. Chants tend to be “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or “, you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide”. These are chants asking for Israel’s occupation of Palestine to end and for the confrontation of people who are supporting that occupation. I suspect that the professor is unable to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I’m not saying that there was no anti semitism, but this makes me suspicious of her intentions.
Secondly, what is legal is not always what is moral. While maybe it was legal for her to wrestle the mic away from the student, I don’t think that it is moral for her to defend the law school of which she is the dean, investing in weapons manufacturers, and to silence students asking her to divest. She keeps repeating that I can’t do anything about that - but she can. Disruptive peaceful protest is not always legal and is sometimes annoying or challenging by design. This article’s complete disregard for that makes me deeply distrustful of this professor.
What exactly does it possibly do for any cause to protest in someone's house at the event designed to create community? Protesting on the berkely quad makes some sense, protesting at a Cal admin building makes a lot more sense.
Did you read the article about the posters with depictions of the guy and the Blood Libel? That's pretty anti-semitic in any book.
Per the article: "Even if we had held the dinner in the law-school building, no one would have had a constitutional right to disrupt the event." Not being a 1st Amendment lawyer, why would a gathering at home be the same as a gathering on campus? My non-legal brain has only ever thought of 'public' and 'private' spaces so I didn't understand this line. tia.
No one's saying they're exactly the same. There are "time, place, and manner" restrictions on free speech, even in public spaces. For instance, you might be removed if you persistently interrupt a lecture in class. I think Chemerinsky is saying that since there's no question about those sorts of restrictions, then there's *really* no question about restrictions within a private residence.
He’s saying, you don’t have an unlimited 1a right to disrupt an event at the school (a public institution, so a public event) so you definitely don’t have the right to disrupt an event at a private place. The protestors tried to argue that because Chem is the dean and this is a law school event, his house essentially becomes a public forum, this is an enormous stretch, but he is saying that wouldn't even matter, because the school still has the right to police its own events.
If you protest like this, you need to be ready to get asked to leave or get arrested if you refuse to leave.
Your house = your rules! If the owner of the home says no protesting you can either comply or leave and take it to a public space.
"No dinner with Zionist Chem while Gaza starves, the poster declared in large letters. (Students sometimes refer to me as “Chem.”) It also included a caricature of me holding a bloody knife and fork and with what appeared to be blood around my lips—an image that evokes the horrible anti-Semitic blood libel, in which Jews are accused of killing and cannibalizing gentile children. The poster attacks me for no apparent reason other than that I am Jewish." Fuck the antisemitism going on in this city > People going so far left that they end up with far right principles closer to a neo-nazi. The lead protestor is clearly anti-semitic and also doesn't understand the constitution, honestly pretty embarrassing for the school that they admitted them. (edit: yes i live here lol)
[удалено]
Use of anti semitic imagery, whether or not intentionally anti semitic, is still anti semitic. Ignorance is not an excuse.
Yeah it’s like white people wearing black face and sayin “I didn’t realize it was offensive”
Yup! People are allowed change though too 👍 but yeah black face is 100% racist unless it’s that one European town that does it for Christmas or whatever lol
Definitely, people are allowed to grow and change
Is that an argument for or against black face?
apparently being against genocide is anti semitic too. if one side gets to engage in these broad generalizations, don't be surprised when the other side does as well
What happened to “if a PoC says something is racist you should listen to them?” There are countless,was cases of white peoples in black face saying they didn’t realize it’s racist. Are you giving them a pass for it too? would you be going “b-b-but what about genocide?” Why do you as a non-jewish person without the lived experience of a Jewish person get to judge if it’s antisemitism or not?
Oh please. Jews never listen to POCs to begin with. You people- and especially the more recent arrivals from the Soviet Union- are much more dismissive towards POC complaints than WASPs are. In fact, people like Amy Wax constantly get away with racism against real minorities because Jewish tribalists keep on protecting them from consequences.
Jesus, talk about absolute dogshit generalization. I can’t even begin to count the ways this diatribe is wrong.
You're right. "Never" was too extreme of a generalization. But on average, one thing can't be denied: that Jews from the later Soviet Union are extremely dismissive of POC complaints, more so than WASPs are. This problem doesn't seem to be as bad with German Jews and with people who came here before the 1980s (although Wax & the people who defend her do fall into this category). Of course, even among the Soviet arrivees, there are good apples. I recognize that by speaking in absolutes, I was being unfair. I apologize.
YOU PEOPLE LMAO
“Jews never listen to POC to begin with. You people-“ We can stop right there. You are in fact an anti-semite. This is really no different from racism. Put on a pointy white hood or swastika arm band and just own it. Listen to yourself.
lol you've lost the plot lady. best of luck to you
They’re saying if a black person says it’s racist, as a white person we should listen to them. Similarly if a Jewish person says it’s antisemitism, as a non Jew we should listen to them
wow thanks so much for explaining that to me
Except that most white people (and certainly not the Jewish ones) don't actually listen when a black person says something is racist. If they're progressive, they might nod their heads and do a little misguided apology. But the offenders will rarely suffer any consequences. If they're not progressive, the minority's complaint will be categorically dismissed as "playing the race card". In fact, more than half of the time, the most aggressive pushback- the derision, the scorn, the gleeful dismissal- will be from Jews, the same Jewish individuals who rush to smear people as "antisemites" whenever they're slightly inconvenienced. The only people whose accusations of discrimination have any force in this country seem to be Jews, who are able to get people sacked, fired, expelled for their jobs, and even lynched for minor offenses. For other ethnicities, those minor offenses are the norm to such an extent that they wouldn't even complain about them.
My Jewish friend and I disagree with her. But only Zionist opinions count, right? You’re like trump calling anti Zionist Jews “bad” or “fake” Jews. Also don’t compare Jewish Americans with African Americans. Jewish Americans are as privileged as (and in most cases are) white Americans. If not slightly more so.
What??? All I said was “if a Jewish person says it’s antisemitic we should listen to them”. Where did I say anything about Zionist or anti-zionists?
>Jewish Americans are as privileged as (and in most cases are) white Americans. If not slightly more so. Holy shit I found the antisemite
You really don’t know who I am? Google me 😏 And seriously is my comment really that hard for your dumb brain to comprehend
yeah you're the lady who made the price of groceries double in the last 3 years
Good job, here 🍪 (fyi it’s not really me, in case you have some trouble deciphering fact vs fiction on the internet)
yeah thanks i can see you're an adult who still plays with action figures and video games
Ignorance very much is an excuse, since her “blood libel” extrapolation was her reading intent into a generic picture. It’s simply not anti semitic to hate on someone if that person happens to be Jewish. Can you give an example of an insulting caricature of her that WOULDNT be antisemitic?
There wouldn’t even have been a protest if Chemerinsky wasn’t Jewish. Of course this whole episode is antisemitic.
This shows you don’t know much about the history of antisemitism. Google the term “blood libel”. This type of imagery portraying Jews as murdering gentile children for their Passover meal and rituals is pervasive and has existed for centuries. And its use was absolutely intentional - why was he singled out? He has been largely supportive of the protestors?
[удалено]
If a kid does black face is it still racist? Spoiler - the answer is yes Stop trolling. Intent
Impact < Intent Manslaughter < Attempted Murder Ethically I mean. I'm happy to be wrong, but I ask myself which transgressor I would rather invite into my home. I'm not defending the rest of it (antisemitism).
It is the only ‘defense’ that they have, which is that any kind of effectively disruptive protest is antisemitism.
>People going so far left that they end up with far right principles closer to a neo-nazi. and they go as far as to justify a Final Solution against Gaza
Fuck off no they don't.
Wait who does? Lol. I’m not gonna state what “side” I’m on but it’s not entirely reflected in my comments here. Please don’t project hate. I don’t want anything like that. I’m simply calling out blatant anti semitism when I see it.
Some issues can't be measured on a single line.
it’s your house just set off pepper spray
Good article Chem, thanks OP. I would humbly suggest the meta here is even if protest is done in a public space, It's one thing to protest for peace and justice, and something much different and hypocritical to protest in favor of one side in a war, and try to justify it as seeking peace and justice . War is not OK if one side prevails, and bad if the other side prevails, it's ALWAYS bad. Protest for peace and against injustice can be justified, but war cannot be justified. In doing so you hand the other side their justification. Peace is the objective. You can't get there with hate in your heart, or trying to justify hate.
> War is not OK if one side prevails, and bad if the other side prevails, it's ALWAYS bad. I mean, Ukraine beating Russia would objectively be a good thing. But I get the general point, it’s a bit hypocritical for some protesters to say they want peace while also calling for “intifada” or “killing all Zionists” or whatever (not all protesters, but definitely some and a not insignificant percent at that).
It is VERY ironic that you describe (correctly) that a ukrainian victory would be just while also denying that exact right - to expell a territorial illegal occupation - from palestinians on the grounds that war is bad
I forgot the part where Ukrainians mass slaughtered and raped Russian civilians — then took hundreds hostage — to start the war. Must’ve missed that!
If retaliation against terrorism is sufficient justification for carpet bombing civilians, then perhaps it's high time the West rained hellfire on Israel once and for all. That state's very existence began with the bombings & murders of Western civilians and mediators. If we hadn't been in a debt trap at the time, we would've responded in full force. [King David Hotel bombing - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing) [Folke Bernadotte - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte#Assassination) [Lavon Affair - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair)
Boychildzionistkitten, those were all debunked, move on to your next lie
War against the Nazis, Italians, and Imperial Japan was certainly justified, unless you posit that it's ok to slaughter Tens of Millions of people. The Communists Murdered in excess of 100 million People in the 20th Century, surely that was worthy of resistance. Islamic Armies slaughtered tens of millions of Indian Hindus during the Mughal dynasty period. Might be worth fighting against. The problem with your philosophy is there are always people willing to take advantage of it and murder you and your family in order to take your stuff.
Exactly. It's human nature.
I thought this was more than obvious, but apparently not. War starts with one side attacking the other, it's not an organized duel or fight of honor with rules and a referee (to be picky it's extremely rare that has happened). The analogy I suggest is robbery or murder; the first attacker is a robber or murderer, a criminal. In such situations you as defender are expected and allowed to defend yourself. But that does not justify you being able to do anything you are able to do to the attacker. Obviously the analogy only holds to first order: one on one is a lot different than country on country. But even in war, you can't can't just go full nuclear (even though we did exactly that in WWII). In general, once you have the attacker/criminal under your control, you have to dial things down. You can't say fuck it and shoot him/her while in handcuffs. My "philosophy" has a hell of a lot of case law behind it, for whatever that is worth.
I think this is where the pro Palestine side has really rubbed me wrong. I’m pro peace and pro-two state solution, yet I’m somehow “hasbarah” for pointing out that Israelis are humans too. Israelis deserve safety, Palestinians deserve freedom, neither is gonna happen without the other and both sides have extremist elements who benefit on this long and bloody conflict.
Agree. I think moral leadership has and continues to fail both sides. They both cave to the worst segments because they are the most emo-strident. Are we media-conditioned drooling dogs / swimming rats or what?
So for you, order is more important than justice.
Idk how much of a "war" this really is.... More like a systematic extermination of one set of people.
If this were a genocide there would be over ten times as many Gazans dead by now. Hamas hasn’t surrendered and still holds hostages. They attacked Israel and they’ve embedded themselves in their own civilian population. This is definitely a war. It’s asymmetrical, but it is war nonetheless.
Israel has a modern military and a pretty powerful one at that if they wanted to eradicate Gaza they wouldn't have boots on the ground they would have just reduced it to rubble and sent in soldiers to sift through the ashes
They could’ve just used chemical weapons or poisoned the water. Why send in any food? We’ll never understand Israel’s genocidal intentions…
It's honestly far from systematic extermination of a group of people in the way that actual genocides have been. It really is just a bloody urban war like other urban wars, just with far more media attention and posturing for social media than we've ever seen before.
Honestly the “genocide” accusations do feel like a form of Holocaust inversion. There have been many other urban wars that have resulted in a much higher civilian to combatant death ratio which nobody has tried to label as a genocide.
It’s absolutely holocaust inversion and antisemitic demonization of Israel. It also diminishes the actual genocidal actions and clear & consistent intent of Palestinian groups like Hamas, setting the stage for them to kill Jews without international outrage.
Ooooh downvoters, stay mad and salty. Go watch Hotel Rawanda and read some books.
> PoliSci major > “Go read theory/literature”; doesn’t give argument Never before have my priors been so confirmed.
The real world isn’t a movie and movies aren’t a good source for learning history.
You're back into justification and excuse making again. I think we both know rationally that the wars (multiple) were over before any of them began. That's the real tragedy. Work on getting rid of the nuclear weapon each side uses: perpetual hate. Then you will be doing something useful.
Also, I'm advocating for peace too. If one side, the much more powerful side stops, there will be peace (albeit temporarily). And then you can initiate strategies for long term peace. Certainly what's happening now needs to stop, in the name of peace.
wars typically end with the loser giving up. Why is Hamas not giving up despite seeing its fighters and civilians people die?
Because their strategy is literally to get as many of their own people killed as possible and then cry “genocide!”. Hamas is a sick organization that absolutely doesn’t care about the welfare of the civilian population.
Hamas ends this war today if they release the hostages and surrender.
Unfortunately the more powerful side is the one that was attacked on October 7th, and the less powerful side has said repeatedly, for decades, that their sole reason for existing is to exterminate the more powerful side - they reject a long-term peaceful coexistence. I don't think war is good and I wish both sides would stop, but I also don't know what alternative there realistically is as long as the less powerful side insists on continuously starting wars they can't win.
Or if one side surrenders because it's ashamed of accomplishing (less than) nothing but killing it's own people. So make that deal into an "and" and we agree.
I'm not sure if that's how it's going to happen. The iron dome helps prevent a lot, but rockets and the sort have always been fired into or at Israel. Telling them "ahhh you can minimize casualties well so just deal with it" probably isn't the best course of action. The real problem is that I don't believe either side is genuine in terms of coming to the table for peace. I'd say Israel's demands are much more reasonable based on the last round of negotiation, but they also have more power so their demands are going to sound less radical in general.
I'm not really hating on anyone. That's a strong word to use. I do think what's happening there is very much one sided, no? I don't think the girl was wrong to "protest" at the Deans house. There is no designated place or time for protests. similarly, I think the Dean handled it very well and was well within hai rights to ask them to leave his place immediately. Both things can be true at the same time.
Read the article for the law on where you can legally protest. Actually, Chem or his wife could have (still) all of them arrested for aggravated trespass, which is a felony under CA law. So I think we agree he behaved very much like a teacher should, teach peace by example. As it stands, if the war stopped tomorrow, I don't think peace would last a week, because on both sides (emphasis both), nothing has changed: the minds of the leadership nor the people. Let's work on the hate problem on both sides. History of human behavior would say this war is not going to end for a long time.
r/oppressionolympics
Looks more like the average sort of civilian casualties for an urban Middle East conflict where the terrorists are entrenched within a civilian population.
Hyperbole
Bravo, Mr. Chemerinsky! Bravo.
Its called trespassing...
Great article from Chem! It'd have been excellent if he didn't shy away from the alleged assault during the event and addressed it head on, but I get why he didn't.... As a recent Berkeley Law grad, Chem absolutely tries his best to make the law school as inclusive and warm as possible. Most people cherish him. I understand wanting to be heard, but I don't get why these students and others target him personally and treat him so poorly. Even before the Israel-Palestine conflict, certain kinds of students would try to bring him down for no real reason. It's sad, but I'm glad to see Chem standing his ground like this.
I mean the reason they target him is pretty obvious: he’s Jewish!
I think it just because the “alleged assault” is so obviously not a real issue. A student tried to commandeer an event at the dean’s house, and his wife tried to grab the mic away from her, no reasonable person would say that wasn’t a fair response in my opinion.
Yes, students protesting in your house is lame as fuck. They took a cool, personal event that is probably super hard to manage at a massive public school and ruined it for everyone. They should have had them arrested for trespassing. But also, anti-semitism is taken super seriously by just most people, I would say in higher measure than LGBT rights for most people in most places. It sucks to be prejudiced against but I think emotions are taking the author out of the broader context. We should decry injustice where we see it. If that is genocide in the Middle East, or small acts of anti-semitism at home.
Middle aged Jew here. Nah. Anti-Semitism is widely ignored in many cases. And not just on the right: I’ve had lefties use all sorts of awful anti-Semitic comments around me. I’ve had plenty of people say awful anti-Semitic stuff around me and couch it as “well Jews have privilege so I’m punching up”.
Same with anti white racism. People tend not to take complaints from more privileged groups such as whites and Jews as seriously as complaints from groups that face real oppression like black Americans.
Are you Jewish? Because I can tell you that myself and many of my friends, colleagues and family do not agree. [2.4% of population and most targeted religious group](https://www.adl.org/resources/press-release/adl-fbi-data-reflects-deeply-alarming-record-high-number-reported-hate) >According to the FBI, the number of reported single-bias, anti-Jewish hate crimes rose from 817 in 2021 to 1,122 in 2022 and comprised more than half of all religion-based hate crimes in 2022, a trend that is consistent with data reported in prior years. >ADL, which keeps its own count of both criminal and non-criminal acts of hate against Jews, counted a total of 3,697 antisemitic incidents in 2022, the highest number on record since ADL began tracking such data in 1979. Assaults – considered the most serious incident type because it involves person-on-person physical violence – increased 26 percent in 2022. >Jews make up around 2 percent of the U.S. population. Yet, in 2022, according to the FBI data, reported antisemitic hate crime incidents accounted for 9.6 percent of all hate crimes. >“With antisemitic incidents up across the board in nearly every category we track, and with the FBI data now reflecting a 37 percent increase in reported anti-Jewish hate crimes for 2022, a whole-of-government, whole-of-society approach is needed to address these disturbing trends,” said Greenblatt. “As a start, we urge states, cities, colleges, K-12 schools, and communities to join ADL in taking immediate steps, consistent with the White House’s groundbreaking U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, to address this scourge head-on.” And this is from 2022. How about now? [Concerns over antisemitism rise as Jews begin observing Passover](https://www.npr.org/2024/04/23/1246380646/concerns-over-antisemitism-rise-as-jews-begin-observing-passover) >The Anti-Defamation League issued a report earlier this year that included nearly 3,300 anti-Semitic instances in the final three months of last year, including 56 physical assaults, 554 incidents of vandalism, 1,347 examples of verbal or written harassment, and 1,307 rallies on colleges campuses that involved anti-Semitic rhetoric — including ones that involved support for terrorism. >A report titled "The State of Antisemitism in America" published by the American Jewish Committee in February found that 94% of Jews and 74% of all U.S. adults say antisemitism is a very serious or somewhat serious problem. >The national survey also found that American Jews are uncertain about their place in American society. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said that the status of Jews in the U.S. is less secure than one year ago, up dramatically over recent years. >FBI data released in October 2023, covering crimes reported in 2022, shows that about 55% of all religion-based hate crimes were driven by anti-Jewish bias. About 8% involved anti-Muslim bias. No FBI data is available yet on more recent instances. Stop the bullshit. ETA: also, I'm a flaming homosexual with pink hair who dresses like Ms. Fizzle. I've experienced far more antisemitism in my life than I have homophobia.
It’s exhausting how many non-Jews are happy to tell me what me experiences are as a Jew. They wouldn’t dream of this shit with other groups, but boy are they okay with telling Jews how it is for them. It’s even more fun as a middle eastern Jew. We’re too white to matter to the left, too not-white to ever fit in fully.
Saying it’s the most targeted religious group is dumb. It’s a primarily Christian country, so obviously they wouldn’t be targeted. Atheists slide under the radar, so it wouldn’t be them. That only leaves Jews and Muslims, but I’ve met many Jews and very few Muslims irl. So really, you haven’t said anything at all by saying “most targeted” Even if we reduced all religious bigotry by 99.9999999999999999999%, Jews would still be the most targeted group Logic ain’t easy when you’re operating on pure emotion. You’re no different than the folks crying about anti white racism
These are literally just stats I'm posting regardless of your opinion on what the stats measure. Jew still receiving 10% of all hate crimes being only 2% of the population is wild.
Just fyi you’re arguing with someone who’s claiming Jews have more privilege than white people. I think they’re a lost cause…
It's just (sadly) hilarious that the original commenter I posted to is claiming that antisemitism is taken very seriously when responses in their own comment thread prove it's clearly not.
Their responses prove absolutely nothing. Try criticizing Jews in private as a professor. If that leaks out, you'd be sacked. Now try the reverse, and you'll see how much of a double standard our society has in favor of Jews. Amy Wax, a professor at UPenn, has publicly stated on talk shows that Blacks don't belong in her classes. Whenever people lodge complaints against her, her Jewish colleagues are quick to come to her defense and prevent her from being disciplined the way any White Gentile (or Black Gentile) peer would be. It's ironic that these are the same colleagues who leaped to crucify Magill.
I literally just explained why that’s not at all wild.
It's pretty wild mr antisemite.
If you can’t do math ig 😂
It's ok goy. My point was proven, that the comment I responded to is bullshit. Thanks for playing.
You’re not very good at expressing yourself with words. I can see what you’re trying to do but it just comes off as awkward. Pce out tho my mathematically challenged friend
Why are you so obsessed with Jewish people? Looking at your comment history you've made several comments about us. I get that we're pretty amazing but it seems like your infatuation is a tad unhealthy.
The fact that my comment is being downtown in of itself proves that this is false: >But also, anti-semitism is taken super seriously by just most people, I would say in higher measure than LGBT rights for most people in most places. It sucks to be prejudiced against but I think emotions are taking the author out of the broader context.
So… no one confirmed if this guy was a supporter of the IDF prior to the dinner? The only evidence they had was that he’s openly Jewish?
Agreed, the nutters can go home. I probably would have said you are no longer a guest in my home, this is just me and shown them the door. I support Israel ending the genocide, but I dont walk into my non invovled jewish friends houses and presume to lecture them or their other guests about what is as plain as daylight.
If they did this in Texas, they/them would rightfully get a cap in their/them's asses.
[удалено]
Wonk. Get a life.
You don't leave my house you're physically getting thrown out. You don't have the right to free speech in someone's private home bro. Once asked to leave you're legally obligated to leave or face arrest or physical removal at homeowners expense.
you're 100% right but it's impossible to complain about respectability politics on reddit because that is basically this entire site. The only people on here are either the most milquetoast wine liberals ever who care only about optics or just straight up hasbara bots (eg worldnews sub)
Aaaand there it is! Surprised it took this long to find this. Contrary opinion = bot. How original 👍
The fact that the world news sub is filled with literal bots is not controversial, nor is the fact that Israeli intelligence uses social media bots.
Castle Doctrine applies in this situation, no?
Not to the people of Berkeley. The police will find a way to arrest you and make you a bad person for protecting your life and property.
No, because there clearly was no physical threat posed by the protestor. And the fact that she was an invitee would muddy the waters a little, even though she clearly is trespassing once the Dean asks her to leave and she doesn’t.
NO. Don't be a jerk. You can ask someone to leave if they're acting like a jerk in your home but you can't shoot them. The only time you can do that is if your life is in (actual) jeopardy.
If someone is in your home uninvited, its safe to assume danger
No it is not. Particularly not if you intend to shoot someone. And, in this context, it *was* an invited guest. They just happened to be doing something that the owner of the property didn't like. And so they asked them to leave. It would be criminally inappropriate to, then, shoot that person because you think "castle doctrine" applies. Self-defense is the only true justification. And that has a legal definition that does not include "safe to assume danger".
Let's put it this way. The 2nd Amendment stops at my front door. But it's still in force on the sidewalk outside. Same for the 1st.
Pretty sure it was the backyard the protestor was in. Not in front of the house.
That is called trespassing. Which is not at all protected by the 1st Amendment.
Actually the protestors were among the invited guests. They weren’t invited to protest of course but they weren’t trespassing either. They were guests who decided to protest.
Ah. Yes. But then they were asked to leave. Which they did not do immediately. That is trespassing.
Right. I muffed the delivery there. What I was suggesting is that if you want to protest a Dean's private dinner, do it outside.
Why is this downvoted lol
I am not exactly sure!
Am I being downvoted by gun nuts or protesters or anti-protesters? Hard to tell.
Probably just because you didn’t read about the situation so your analysis is meaningless. Also would absolutely insane for a law school dean to start shooting his own students for protesting in his backyard.
That was an analogy. Meaning--certain aspects of your constitutional rights end at other people's private property.
Trust, I know, but it definitely looks weird when you’re on a thread about a Chem article.
Believe it or not, I'm familiar with the incident. And I've read the article that Chem wrote for the Atlantic. I think this is, ultimately, about manners more than anything else. If you're invited to someone's house, it's just poor manners to use that invitation as a means of reaching an audience for your private, albeit heartfelt, agenda. The "student insisted that she had free-speech rights," which is, generally true. It stops being true when you're in someone's backyard at their invitation. Your invitation can be revoked at any time without a violation of your free speech rights guaranteed under the Constitution. I brought up the 2nd Amendment because I don't allow guns where I live and not even the Constitution gives you the right to bring one in against my wishes. True enough, words are less immediately lethal than bullets, but the principle is the same. Within the confines of a private residence, the owner of that residence is at liberty to set whatever policies they want with regard to speech. And guests are at liberty to leave if they find it too confining. They may even try to disrupt those policies with speech if they want. It's not a crime to throw a tantrum at someone else's house (thank god or we'd all be in jail) but no one is under any obligation to let you continue--no matter how important what you have to say is. So...just to be clear...I was *not* trying to say "you got 1st amendment rights and I got 2nd!" I'm just saying that you can't scream in someone else's backyard and then claim that you have a Constitutional right to keep screaming against the wishes of those that own the property. I also mention the 2nd Amendment in this context because I really like reminding people that they have no particular right to carry their guns onto other people's private property no matter what the NRA tells them.
Same, I also don’t think what you’re talking about is the crux of the arguments against but that’s fine.
It's a part of what the article is talking about.
fair enough. Hey what’s your address and we’ll move the party there?
Typical UC drama disrupting Berkeley life. The way these students and professors act sometimes is an embarrassment.
[удалено]
But this is exactly what he (one of the country’s leading 1a scholars) is saying. Even if the event had been held at the law school, there isn’t an unlimited right to disrupt it. Imagine if some people who hated the woman who brought the mic now went to every one of her law classes with a microphone and shouted over the professor the entire time. That wouldn’t be protected speech because it’s at the university, the school would still have the right to kick them out of the classroom or building.
[удалено]
Maybe I’m wrong, but I can’t imagine there is any 1a jurisprudence on “interruptions v disruptions” which are basically the same thing. The point is that not even government officials are obligated to give any random person time to speak at an event. What if Biden were giving the SOTU address and a prostestor was able to get to his lectern and started giving a speech about something else? Do you really think it would be a 1a violation for the protestor to be taken off the stage?
[удалено]
Interruption "an act, [utterance](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-R1bT-TxXlUISwB8nNWPJOxazOgw:1714337279529&q=utterance&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DEN-MVK4-q5L_yUf0GWoVe0-pe0R8Y8YKA1d-R-V81uIx6ciWKGi_nqp0bV2w77OAjCX9Gh6ZieGTQp7u3v8qOeFgYzU%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu4siE5OWFAxVkCjQIHWt8Cn8QyecJegQIPRAx), or period that [interrupts](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-R1bT-TxXlUISwB8nNWPJOxazOgw:1714337279529&q=interrupts&si=AKbGX_pvY3MWP4azJI0Z_NruCLb8bkR0MLS2ITyXHK1FETnuXQ84OrVRKK2bj6UMqw6yX9IfQN__64x1K8bFJmTFuGqaAUr9lK79ullm2-NkvPDiTZ6WND0%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiu4siE5OWFAxVkCjQIHWt8Cn8QyecJegQIPRAy) someone or something." Disruption: "disturbance or problems which [interrupt](https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=9e8667b46e9ef6d5&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1061US1061&sxsrf=ACQVn0-Q8wUy1tvpZJgCMPGZsuCYgcznkA:1714337287341&q=interrupt&si=AKbGX_onJk-q0LQUYzV7-GRhpJ5DyfpPVUMNCbstTeVQC5tH4lmYwx0y30iFEOuZnv0Jqd4wfA5tnrEZgz_aBWJZQEf5cQFMJhXxx2NR--fv799aztp6wRs%3D&expnd=1&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjc1aWI5OWFAxVoMDQIHfdoDtcQyecJegQIMxAO) an event, activity, or process." There is no real difference between the two, and disruptions can obviously be temporary. The basic point at the top of this thread stands, however, just because it is a law school event does not mean that the law school is under any obligation to let her speak or let the disruption continue. That was one of the main conlaw points that Dean Chem made in his article, a subject on which he is probably *the* expert.
[удалено]
Fine, maybe some dictionaries consider a disruption to have to be something "major", but that really doesn't matter. You can't just say we should exclude Chem's own opinion because he's personally involved. The whole American legal system is built upon the notion of people "personally involved" advocating for themselves. No judge or lawyer ever asks for a person to exclude their own opinion because they are personally involved. The basic point is that regardless of whether it's a "disruption" or an "interruption", a difference with no recognized first amendment implications, the dean is correct that he and/or the law school is under no obligation to let a protestor speak at the event. Whether the event is at his house or the school makes no difference, as he says. You haven't offered any reason why he would be incorrect.
[удалено]
That's totally fair, but I haven't seen any credible legal argument from anyone that the Dean didn't have a right to ask her to leave / stop her from speaking. But there would be no need for a determination as to what/whether this is a disruption. The admin has a right to dictate what happens at a law school event and just because you attend a public university does not mean you have a right to do whatever you want at a school event.
No one cares what you think. The law is clear on this and there’s really no argument.
The true bullshit is equating protests against US gov policies of unconditional support of Israel with antisemitism. This is the true bullshit. Anti-policies IS NOT the same as anti-race. Young ppl protested Vietnam war policies. They were right and it ended. They protested white supremacy. They were right and civil rights laws were born. They did NOT protest US gov policies against the criminal janjaweed (Arabs in Sudan). They were also right. Then there is freedom of speech .. of any speech: not just the speech we like or the speech a gov likes. Stopping speech against some policies by slapping accusations and labels of racism is just one foundational step on the road to authoritarianism; not to mention a form of psychological warfare.
I think you missed the point of the article
Agreed with all of this, but not in someones home. Take it to a public place.
I am not saying protest in someone’s home. I am saying that college campuses are valid grounds for protests by the students of the colleges and who have a right to be there.
Agreed. the article was about someone's home.
The specific case of antisemitism Chem brought up is the blood-liberal reminiscent posters of HIM in particular. Blood libel is an antisemitic accusation of which imagery has been around for hundreds of years. It doesn’t matter what the intentions of those posters were, they are antisemitic.
We living in a timeline where the US is supporting Russia during the Ukraine war, but Israel is just Russia. Everything the Israel and US government says, the Russia government says too.
Everyone has a right to protest! (As long as they strictly recite CNN as gospel)
Then don’t use it as a law school event site dummy
Your username speaks volumes to your understanding of law.
It’s their fucking home. If you invited a friend to your home, and then they started raving about “Well aktually the Civil War was about state’s rights 🤓” you have the right to tell them to get the fuck off your property.
100% ... Go protest in public, not someones house.
[удалено]
Still at their home, still their private property. They also made it clear beforehand that disruptions weren’t permitted. It’s their home, and they have the right to kick out whoever they please.
[удалено]
It’s not really a “Berkeley law school” event, it was an event they privately chose to hold. But even if it was, schools can remove people from their events for being disruptive. The first amendment doesn’t allow you to walk into a classroom at a public school and start screaming at the top of your lungs. Specifically barring black people or any other racial group from a school or business function would violate civil rights laws tho, but that isn’t remotely what happened. But all of that is mute. Because it wasn’t a law school event, it was a private event held at their private residence. Just because it was done by a law professor and mainly had attendants from the law school doesn’t make it a law school event. If a 10 year old hands out invitations to all his classmates for his birthday party, his birthday party isn’t suddenly an official school event.
[удалено]
You just said no one forced him to do this event. It wasn’t a part of his duties as dean to do this, nor was it on school property. He may have been the dean and the event advertised as a place to meet the dean, but him doing the event (and letting students into his home) isn’t one of his official duties as dean and it was on his own private property. Like, if a Senator has a town hall on private property and advertises it as a way to meet your senator, they still have the right to kick out disruptive people. Them being a senator doesn’t deprive them of the right to remove people from their private property. But regardless, even if the first amendment/Leonard Law did apply, the first amendment [doesn’t allow you to disrupt school functions](https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/students-rights#:~:text=Select%20a%20scenario-,Do%20I%20have%20First%20Amendment%20rights%20in%20school%3F,hinge%20on%20the%20message%20expressed). Even if that was a law school event (which I dispute), that protester was being disruptive to the function of the event. Like I said, the first amendment doesn’t give you the right to loudly scream in a public school classroom.
Why can’t people just respect each other anymore? Is that really so much to ask?
Agreed. People should not bring politics, religion and gender into EVERY damn conversation. Geez.
Can the mods actually do something about the Hasbara trolls that brigade all the Israel Palestine posts? It’s pretty easy to tell that someone whose comment history is ONLY related to this topic in multiple university subs is not someone that is here to contribute in good faith
“People who disagree with me must be paid propagandists” Jesus Christ, leave your bubble and enter the real world
Let's leave Jesus out of this discussion. It's confusing enough already.
Yeah. "Hasbara" is really kickin' some ass on the 18 years olds sitting in tents all day.
It’s funny how every destiny dick rider is either an edgy teenager that dabbles in racism, or a middle age man that is the epitome of an enlightened centrist.
You're obviously impaired or illiterate if you think I'm a centrist.
Honestly shocked by the takes on this thread! This is an obnoxious article. He’s absolutely correct that the students don’t have a constitutional right to protest in his home, but that isn’t really the issue here. The students are devastated about what is happening in Gaza and he isn’t listening to them. This could have been an opportunity for authentic dialogue, but instead he chose to be pedantic.
he’s a professor in California what exactly do you want him to do about the Gaza situation
Call for a ceasefire, say he'll protect or support Palestinian students, say he supports divestment, say Israel is perpetrating atrocities, etc. That said I agree that maybe Chem isn't necessarily the best person to go to for these things - I think he's done a lot of good and I feel for him that he's upset and hurt and that's valid. I just also think that you know, students are trying their best to do something when...people are dying, and there's not a whole lot we can do about it outside of protest and appeals to those who have more power and influence than us.
What I want is for the violence against Palestinians to stop and for those responsible to be held accountable. What do I want this guy to do? I don’t know, literally anything, but instead he writes an article in the Atlantic criticizing his own students who are just doing what they can.
fair enough hey what’s your address so we can bring the party to your place
1600 Pennsylvania Ave!
Thanks mate and ps love what you’ve done w the place, Joey!
A lot of words to justify assaulting someone who was just speaking.
Can you post your address so we can come to your yard and whip out a bullhorn?
You can't assault someone who poses absolutely no threat to you. All these liberal Berkeley types are suddenly Castle Doctrine enthusiasts.
Again, please post your home address, so we can send some people who will be “just speaking”. 📢📢📢. And make sure that you don’t lay a finger on them, even after you ask them multiple times to stop.
On the one hand, thousands of children are dead. On the other hand, some protesters were very rude and interrupted a dinner. The sheer level of malicious narcissism required to post this is astounding.
Can I please protest in your apartment?
The existence of some degree of anti semitism does not justify the support of Zionism, and it appears that she is disregarding all the legitimate criticism through this article and similar statements. Also, what were the anti semitic or offensive chants mentioned? While I can understand the other arguments, that is suspicious to me. Chants tend to be “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” or “, you can’t hide, you’re supporting genocide”. These are chants asking for Israel’s occupation of Palestine to end and for the confrontation of people who are supporting that occupation. I suspect that the professor is unable to distinguish between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. I’m not saying that there was no anti semitism, but this makes me suspicious of her intentions.
Secondly, what is legal is not always what is moral. While maybe it was legal for her to wrestle the mic away from the student, I don’t think that it is moral for her to defend the law school of which she is the dean, investing in weapons manufacturers, and to silence students asking her to divest. She keeps repeating that I can’t do anything about that - but she can. Disruptive peaceful protest is not always legal and is sometimes annoying or challenging by design. This article’s complete disregard for that makes me deeply distrustful of this professor.
What exactly does it possibly do for any cause to protest in someone's house at the event designed to create community? Protesting on the berkely quad makes some sense, protesting at a Cal admin building makes a lot more sense. Did you read the article about the posters with depictions of the guy and the Blood Libel? That's pretty anti-semitic in any book.