What can you say about UC Berkeley? As with many of these elite, and not so elite, colleges and universities, antisemites appear to get their way. So, should we even be surprised that, in late February, a pro-Hamas mob of about 200 students was able to prevent a speech that was to be given by Israeli lawyer and military member Ran Bar-Yoshafat at the UC Berkeley campus? These "protesters" (I'm being polite as I do not curse in the blog) were heard shouting "intifada" and "free Palestine." One Jewish student said a protester got in his face and yelled "Jew Jew Jew," before spitting on him.
"Bears for Palestine" is a UC Berkeley group, Bears being the mascot of the school. Here is what they thought of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7: "Israel, as a settler colonial state, renders Palestinian existence inherently an act of resistance. We invariably reject Israel's framing as a 'victim.'" This statement was issued on October 7 following the attack. The Bears for Palestine believe in a return to a "unified Palestine," where likely no Israel exists.
As to Ran Bar-Yoshafat being shut down before he was able to utter a single word, the Bears for Palestine asserted that he "has committed crimes against humanity, is a genocide denier, and we will not allow this event to go on." Wow! The mob declared that the event would not go on, and lo and behold the event did not go on. In fact, the speaker and the Jewish students present had to be led out of the auditorium for their own safety. Wait...what? Jewish students are no longer safe on an American college campus? Exactly!
While the Berkeley chancellor condemned the mob for violating school rules, and while she said she wanted to keep the students safe and allow the speech to proceed, "it was not possible to do both given the size of the crowd and the threat of violence." That is acknowledging more than just a "heckler's veto." That is acknowledging the inability of the school to protect Jewish students while engaging in school activities.
I like to ask questions. Here's one. Why wasn't there enough security? Here are more. Anticipating the likelihood of the protests, what arrangements were made to allow access to the auditorium through a single door that could be guarded? Do we know who any of these protesters are? Will they be expelled from school given that their actions went against the stated purpose of higher education - a free and open discussion and debate.
Not coincidentally, the New York Times had an Op-Ed in their 3/8/24 print edition with this title: "Civil Discourse on Campus Is Put to the Test." The author, Pamela Paul, says the conference was sponsored by the Stanford Law School and the Stanford Graduate School of Education. The issue was "restoring inclusive civil discourse on campus," asking "in today's heated political environment is that even possible?"
One of the topics for discussion: "diversity hiring statements," by which they mean "the requirement all job applicants demonstrate their commitment to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion goals." There it is. This is Stanford after all, just across the Bay from Berkeley. I understand that students may need to discuss this on their college applications. Nice to know that the professoriate must address this nonsense.
At least one attendee at this conference saw through it: "What they want are non-straights, non-whites and non-men. But they don't say it that way. There's a lack of forthrightness..." Interestingly, in 2018 Berkeley "considered candidates' D.E.I. statements first, before looking at the rest of their applications. Anyone whose D.E.I. statement didn't pass the first round was eliminated from the next pool."
Berkeley received some criticism apparently, for not even considering someone's credentials. You know - their merits. But one attendee defended Berkeley, saying "...I would say that D.E.I. statements are credentials." And he said this: "This was just another and no less valid approach to narrowing the pool." That is a perfect example of how even highly educated people can be completely asinine.
A belief in, and actions taken toward promoting, D.E.I. now constitute valid qualifications for a job as a professor, equal to actual merit? I would bet that the proponent of that idea does not even realize that he is promoting a political litmus test for the hiring of professors. Maybe they'll ask this question of possible hires: "if you are Jewish, please affirm your commitment to a Palestinian state and further affirm that you are not a Zionist." There's a political litmus test that no doubt many in our universities would deem to be appropriate.
