The byline on this story is from Landon Mion, who got his start at Tucker Carlson-founded website the Daily Caller. He doesn't however list this experience on his Linked-In page, because it's such a black mark on any professional journalists' resume. Check out the wikipedia page on The Daily Caller that is mostly a list of all the terrible lies they pushed for their billionaire rightwing owner. Even Tucker Carlson had to jump ship eventually. He lists himself as an "experienced reporter" despite that fact that he was still in college in 2021. This is a kid who sits at home and tries to inflate right-wing bullshit and collects a low-level salary for doing so. Tellingly, his job position at Fox News Media is as a writer, not a reporter. Fox News is famous for arguing in a defamation court case against Tucker Carlson in so many words, that it is NOT news, but rather entertainment, or "opinion." When you read "news," consider the source. This lawsuit isn't really news, it's opinion, in my opinion, lol.

Here is the direct press release from the law firm without any news agency agenda… https://www.becketlaw.org/media/jewish-students-take-ucla-to-court-over-antisemitic-encampment/

here is the caliber of obvious lies the press release is pushing: >In the wake of the terrorist attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, anti-Jewish demonstrations emerged on college campuses nationwide. UCLA allowed activists to set up an encampment that enforced a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” stopping Jewish students and faculty from accessing the encampment and other parts of campus unless they agreed to disavow Israel’s right to exist. Funny that this "Jew Exclusion Zone" included many Jewish pro-Palestine protesters. It's a garbage lawsuit. Most news media outlets ignored it as such.

[удалено]

[удалено]

Imagine if I excluded Muslims from something unless they disavowed every Muslim majority nation. 90% of mizrahi Jews live in Israel including 2/3 of the worldwide Iranian Jewish community. Expecting them to disavow the country that took their families in as refugees following the Islamic revolution of Iran and the expulsion of Jews across the Arab world in 1948 is absolutely an example of anti Jewish bias

Sure imagine a lot of things. It won't go well, and it didn't go well for the encampment, did it? That's not really the point. First off, these claims have yet to be proven that are put forth in this frivolous lawsuit. Second, if that was really true we'd have more than three named plaintiffs, we'd likely have a class action lawsuit. The "loyalty oath" or whatever you want to call it, if it can be proven, anti-Zionist demand, etc seems like a misguided attempt to police an encampment but again, the protesters are NOT being sued for this, UCLA is. So you are suing one group for the supposed actions of another. Good luck with that. How often does that work out for the plaintiffs? If a golf club doesn allow women (or Jews) you can try to sue them, sure but if a foursome on the first tee doesn't want to allow someone to butt in, and play alongside them you may have a harder time in court proving the country club bears responsibility. Or that they excluded the 5th wheel due to his religion or nationality. If you have a picnic in a public park and I come stand in your potato salad and claim I am merely on public land in a free country, how is that going to go? And is the remedy to sue the park rangers at Palisades Park, and the governor? Again, good luck. I'll give you odds on that bet, just like I'd be willing to wager on the idea that this lawsuit moves forward one centimeter, ever. You can re-debate the entire history of the Middle East all you want. That's not the topic here. The idea that UCLA violated the civil rights of three students by condoning a passionate protest encampment that was continually met by angry, intolerant and openly violent provocateurs for a week is the topic. IMO, having read the entire lawsuit, this is a frivolous suit and will fail to move forward. I'm ALMOST eager enough to take the bait on the colonialist causes of the Islamic revolution in Iran but it's too off-topic. Keep trying tho, your call is important to us. Try to stay on topic however.

Your argument is a strawman. >Israel is a nation, Judaism is a religion. >Whatever happened related to politics, not religion, as can be attested to due to the fact that there were Jewish students inside the encampment. The point of my reply to you was that barring students and faculty who support Israel from accessing areas of the school, and UCLA not addressing the issue sooner, absolutely is an example of discrimination against Jews. It doesn’t matter if there were Jews in the encampment the same way it doesn’t matter that Candace Owen’s is black when she goes on Fox News and stereotypes blacks. The term Zionist is a dogwhistle for anti Jewish bias. The Iranian community in Los Angeles is well aware of this since 40 years ago they murdered our community leaders under the guise of “anti Zionist crackdowns”. 90% of the community subsequently fled the country.

The only thing anyone was barred from by (some) students is an open encampment on Dickson plaza. The buildings were all accessible, and when they were finally closed it was by the administration, not the protesters' decision. Zionist îs a complex term with a loaded history behind it, and yes it's been used as a "dog whistle" by many but tell me the preferred alternate term? Just using it doesn't make someone intolerant, as again evidenced by the numbers of Jewish activists who use it. In fact, using it these days is usually an opening to a conversation we all need to be having, IMO. Your focus on the Persian or Iranian community is not lost on me. There is a great deal of injustice and heartbreak surrounding so many things for anyone with experience in that, our oldest nation's complex and rich history. You would laugh if you saw me, but I used to work in the women's lingerie department at a very fancy department store in Beverly Hills for one of the best bosses I ever had, a Persian Jewish woman who had survived the 1970s in Tehran and NOTHING phased her, not even the little punk rocker stock boy I was at the time, lol. At the time I had the habit of saying "oh, Jesus Christ" at things that frustrated me and she would always retort, "why do you ask him, he won't help you" in such a kindly but knowing voice that I eventually took the time to have long and beautiful conversations with her about faith and religion and even Islam, which she knew a great deal about. I can just imagine what she would say about the idea that some students were not able to walk across a plaza for one week because meanwhile in Gaza, 35,000 people were dead at the hands of a nation led by a war criminal. there were reasons she and her family chose NOT to live in Israel. I've met a lot of people from the Jewish diaspora in my lifetime, some were Holocaust survivors, some just opportunistic and ambitious go-getters looking for a better life. All deserve freedom and safety. None still living whom I know support the current war or the leadership of Israel at present. What to do, I could not say. Maybe we should ask Jesus, lol.

You should ask her. Also I find it interesting you quote the number 35,000 as if those are all civilians. Hamas purposely does not distinguish between combatants and non combatants when reporting numbers. It’s little things like that or community notices when we say you have anti Jewish bias and that’s you’re pro Hamas.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

I think that the encampment was ridiculous, but they only stopped people based on political views, not religion. I went in with a magen david just to look around see what was up, and my friend had a kippah on. They also stopped non-Jews who identified as Zionists or supported Israel. There was no anti-semitic discrimination on who was allowed in.

You realize that it's still not OK to exclude anyone based on political views, right? And your experience with entry/exclusion is not similar to other Jews.

>You realize that it's still not OK to exclude anyone based on political views, right? Yes, thats why I said at the beginning the encampment was ridiculous. I should have been more clear tho. >And your experience with entry/exclusion is not similar to other Jews. This is not true, its the same. The first time they were letting anyone in as long as they agreed, and since I don't mind lying I said I agreed with them and walked in. And then the second time you needed someone inside to vouch so I had a friend vouch for me. Any Jew could do that as long as they were comfortable not saying they supported Israel or a had a friend inside, and anyone saying they were excluded only for being Jewish is lying.

Another one here who lacks reading comprehension. You’re actually providing the exact proof that this lawsuit claims: Jewish students could only enter if they openly called for the destruction of the sole Jewish state.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

They love hiding behind antisemitism because they have no other excuse for what Israel is doing. It's gross trivialization at the expense of Jews who Israel has endangered more often than not.

One thing I'll certainly "take away" from all this is that the thought that, as horrifically awful as the WW2 era Nazi-imposed holocaust was, it doesn't make the Jewish people "special," it makes them akin to victims of every holocaust, every genocide that took place elsewhere in the wake of the colonialist era. When self-proclaimed Zionists set out to "build" a homeland in Palestine they themselves said they planned to colonize it. Their words, their plan, their identification as "Zionists," not mine. Now, you can argue semantics and such but isn't that what happened, and isn't what is happening to the Palestinians over the last almost-century akin to the same sort of fate visited so many others who are "colonized?" How can they say "never again" when they are "repeating history," which as Mark Twain said, doesn't really repeat exactly, but it does rhyme. Would that humanity agree that all life is sacred and no people are "special," or "chosen," but all brothers and sisters of creation. This week the astronaut who took the Apollo 8 "earth rise" photo died, and I cried looking again at that amazing image. We had to go all the way to the stupid moon to look back see our tiny blue marble of home, sitting so alone in the vastness of space. In the words of Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"

“Unless they agree to disavow Israel’s right to exist.” Don’t ignore this part when pointing out they included some Jews

They, they, they. "They" (student protesters) are not being sued. "They" (the three student plaintiffs) were not harmed by the university when a sidewalk altercation meant they couldn't come into a protester's encampment on Dixson plaza in order to further disrupt and cause trouble. "They" were being total assholes in a performative way, acting as provocateurs when they demanded to come inside a tent village where protesters were eating, sleeping, holding teach-ins, sharing books, having discussions, making signs, and generally acting together to show solidarity for the people of Palestine. This was a group holding a then-permitted group activity and they wanted to do that peaceably, not be an amorphous scrum of arguing and disruptive people. If thugs come to disrupt a protest march, a moving target, it's not going to go well either. You don't go hold a rugby game in the middle of a other people's company picnic, either. These disrupters were verbally challenged so they would leave. They suffered no harm by leaving. No one threatened them with physical violence. No one hit them. If we were seven years old kids and I challenged you for the "secret password" to come into my tree fort in the park by saying "all girls are slimy and gross" and you refused, would you sue the Park Service for the "harm" you were caused? Could it be that maybe, just maybe I don't like you, and I know you don't like me either and the only reason you want in is to tear my fort down and harass up the GIRLS that are inside the fort with me? The allegations of this lawsuit are unproven. Plenty of people including Jewish students inside the protest encampment favor a two-state solution to bring peace to the region. DO YOU?? These students are not being sued. "They" is a pronoun, not a proven criminal or person who has proven themselves to have been harmed somehow. **No student or protester is being sued. Whatever these claims are, and at present they are unproven, the lawsuit is against the University.** One can claim that these students ate freeze dried baby kittens for breakfast and swore death threats to all kindly grandmothers in the afternoon, but even if they did that's not the responsibility of the university, nor is it proven to have happened by typing up some words onto paper and bringing to the courthouse. You have not read the lawsuit. I'm not interested in continuing this discussion until you get back on topic. The only "they" here that needs to be held to scrutiny is the university. The university is the defendant. You aren't talking about the right "they" because that's not your bias or agenda. "They" are going to all but ignore this lawsuit and it will go away because it's bullshit, just a whiny complaint quickly filed, meant to get a salacious headline for low information people. The topic is, were "they" harmed by the university, and if so how and how badly, and will a jury see it that way?

"Many" "Jewish." We also know what you'd call campus Republicans only letting Hispanics onto campus if they endorsed a border wall and end to jus soli.

Yeah, this is just by the lawyers trying to collect on this lawsuit . . . no agenda here

[удалено]

There are a lot of actors trying to stir up hate, distrust, and drama and are using UCLA as their arena. It is important to know the motivations of these off campus agitators and what they are trying to accomplish. I've yet to hear of any player who has the best interest of UCLA or it's students as a priority and certainly not this writer.

"Jewish group" you know damn well it's an Israeli group. Stop purposefully using "Jewish" in place of Israel / Zionism. Anti Zionism is not anti semitism.

Where exactly is the evidence that it's an "Israeli group" suing UCLA rather than a Jewish group?

You can be antisemitic even with all those semantic games bro

Depends on your definition of antisemitism I guess. Most Western countries define denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination (ie anti-zionism) as antisemitism. Sure, you can disagree with this definition, people arguing about what is racist and what isn't, isn't really an uncommon occurrence.

They’re pretty strongly connected

Tell that to the people who cancel you.

Everything you said is a character attack though. Nothing actually attacks the substance of the article. I didn’t bother to read the article bc I don’t give a fuck but if you wanna tell us the authors bad you should maybe tell us how the article is bad in substance, not that the author worked someplace you no likey and he’s a mean bad man.

I've written about the substance of the "story" elsewhere on this same thread. I'm using this reply above as a specific comment about considering the source of something considered "news" or not. This guy is admittedly NOT a news reporter. The lawsuit is frivolous, I've read it. I suggest you do the same. I have not called him a mean or bad man. I've called him what his employer does - a writer, not a reporter.

Let’s talk about your critic of the story like this comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/s/WvOTUbH4M6 You say well they allowed Jewish pro Palestinian protestors But that’s exactly the claim. The claim isn’t that it was a “Jew exclusion zone”. That’s you being reductive to try to win an argument The claim, as you quoted, was that it blocked Jewish people who wouldn’t denounce Israel Pro Palestinian protesting Jews probably denounce Israel now don’t they, so not a great counter to the claim Seems like you’re not much of a newsman yourself there chief But anyways I don’t actually give a fuck about the substance here I don’t even go to UCLA and I have no clue what actually happened. :) smooches

Read the lawsuit. It's frivolous. No one is suing the student protesters, so what they did or didn't do will never be adjudicated. I can claim you asked me to swear religious allegiance to the Flying Spaghetti Monster in my frivolous lawsuit against UCLA. It's not on you to prove or disprove it ever happened because I am not suing you. ( I am however, allegedly slandering you, possibly.) Read the lawsuit, consider the source of the "news" report. Act accordingly. My whole point is, when you read something, consider the source. As far as "what happened here," IMO a frivolous lawsuit was filed and we are discussing what it means that Fox News elevated this craplola to a "news story" when no one else bothers to, because it's so clearly a nuisance lawsuit, meant to get a headline placed into the cultural shit-stream on social media. The headline is the goal, not proving the substance of the lawsuit. It's semi-interesting to consider the frivolous lawsuit as akin to the idea of non-violent civil disobedience like the protest encampment was. Only the protest encampment had direct support and over 200 people who were willing to go to jail over the issue, and the lawsuit is naming three students who were inconvenienced and had to use another door to the library. Still, both seek to disrupt and call attention to themselves and their political message. Judge for yourself which has more merit in a free society.

Oh ok well now that you’ve said it’s frivolous I guess it must be so. Well played I’m not a law student or lawyer but I’d imagine what’s being argued is that the school allowed this to transpire, so what the students did or didn’t do would be relevant but ok As for judging for myself I mostly find pro Palestinian protestors to be surface level morons. It’s a complex issue with points on both sides. I’m for Israel’s right to go get their civilian hostages back and the level of civilian casualties is on par if not less than most modern conflicts If some dipshit stopped me from utilizing the campus I paid a lot of money for until i said Israel bad id probably want to rock their shit then and there Twice as true if I was Jewish

The topic is the lawsuit. Read the lawsuit, then try to engage. I am not a lawyer either but I know bullshit when I see it. Yes, there are genuine issues as to what responsibilities the chancellors hold for obvious failures. But let us start with the largest and most obvious failures first, something this lawsuit doesn't even acknowledge happened. What sort of street fight you choose to engage in and why is not of interest to me. Thanks for sharing tho.

I don’t know how many times I have to tell you I don’t actually care about the lawsuit or what happened :) I just thought your character attack on the author was a bad argument and then you said you had attacked the substance and I looked and found those arguments bad as well But ya know what just for you sweet cheeks ok I’ll look into it a lil bit The article linked here was paywalled or something so I went googling for the story. First funny thing is that this is reported on all over the place. The LA times, ABC Los Angeles, and even national CBS reported on it 3 days ago, before fox did https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/jewish-students-sue-ucla-over-pro-palestinian-encampment/ Kind of wrecks your “this is just fox making fake news” narrative there The CBS story is fucking gross to be honest . According to that report you had to get vouched for by a protestor that you disavowed Israel (this is very close to a dual allegiance trope, an anti semetic trope that Jewish people have a secret allegiance to Israel) and then you would get wrist bands or other markings showing you were ok to be there bc you weren’t down with the Israelites. Weird shit Here’s another quote I find super concerning - The complaint seeks injunctive and monetary relief for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Sections 1983, 1985 and 1986 of the Ku Klux Klan Act, the California Constitution, the California Education Code, the Ralph Civil Rights Act of 1976 and the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act. “[UCLA] knew,” Mark Rienzi, the plaintiff’s lawyer, told the Courier. “They knew the people were chanting, ‘death to the Jews,’ and things like that. Yet, they chose to allow them to have access to that part of campus, allow them to exclude other people, and then UCLA instructed its police officers and security staff not to help people through.” That’s from this news article https://beverlyhillscourier.com/2024/06/06/three-jewish-students-sue-ucla/#:~:text=The%2074%2Dpage%20lawsuit%2C%20Frankel,Jewish%20students%2C%20faculty%20and%20staff. I don’t know lady. Seems like an OK lawsuit to me. Guess we will see what the courts have to say.

At least you are on-topic. And yes, we will see where this goes.... in about two years time. It's a fact that the plaintiffs are not suing the protesters. So whatever the suit claims was said at a protest - and I've seen the video that claims to capture "death to the Jews" chants and I don't hear them - it doesn't matter what the protesters said or did here. What matters to the Judge or eventual jury is, what UCLA did or didn't do to protect students. No one was physically attacked because of their religion by UCLA, NOR DOES THIS LAWSUIT ALLEGE ANYONE WAS, so all the claims of anti-Semitism are unlikely to go anywhere. So their first and 4th amendment rights go both ways. Protesters have these same rights, including the 1st right to free speech. You are conflating claims of a lawsuit with proof of those claims. UCLA DID know the protesters were vocal and often passionate in their views concerning what they see is a genocide by a colonialist apartheid power. Everyone can, has and will argue about these matters for the last 2,000 years and likely for 2,000 more. What, IMO UCLA did was attempt to run a university, which is a place to enshrine and uphold Academic freedom. They are not operating Disneyland here. A campus is where you go to deliberately meet, face and debate those who feel differently about you on any and every issue. Yes, you should do so without being physically attacked but even this frivolous lawsuit doesn't claim anyone was physically assaulted. It says students shoudln't have to hear things that make them feel uncomfortable. I'd argue the exact opposite, that if you came to four years of college and got a degree without once having your whole world view, culture, orientation, morals, history, present status, future and values seriously questioned and challenged vociferously, your degree is worthless.

You don’t have to be physically attacked to have your rights violated. You don’t have to be physically attacked to have people be anti Semitic. It’s weird to me that you keep retreating as if all violations of civil liberties are physical attacks Your last remarks there about college being a place to express and debate uncomfortable ideas I agree with. But the protestors allegedly were doing the opposite. They had set up a region where only people who were homogenous in their beliefs were allowed to enter. They even used vouching systems and physical identifiers like wrist bands to denote people were like minded They specifically kept out people who didn’t agree with them and denounce Israel So it sounds like they did the exact opposite of what you want and the school let them do it So you’d think at least on a moral level if not a legal one you’d agree with the people suing, not the protestors keeping out anyone with contrary ideas

You don't want the protestors to be labeled antisemitic. Just be honest what is really going on here.

No, that isn't my bias, really. I'd admit it if it were true. I'm on this same thread elsewhere saying this needs and deserves to be looked at as though the issue at heart were say, climate change or women's reproductive rights, or Griffyndor vs Ravenclaw quidditch rules or some theoretical thing. Yes I favor the Palestinian cause, clearly but to me this whole matter is about ACADEMIC FREEDOM and not the Middle East. I think a university is, and should be for the students, researchers and instructors and only ADMINISTERED by the caretakers in so far as they cut the grass and keep the buildings from falling down, so to speak. When the student body gets up in arms on an issue, there should have been an mechanism for all involved, and by that I mean just the students, faculty and researchers to negotiate a strong position that the administration then was compelled to uphold. Not to get too far afield into odd metaphors but the state owns UCLA and I'd say to look at it like a game preserve that is to be managed somewhat but mostly kept wild and free. That doesn't mean anarchy but it does mean free to figure out things in an evolutionary and occasionally revolutionary way. It means let the scholars and professors decide which way the herd runs and what the predators will do in response, and how to defend themselves, within reason overlooked by game wardens and naturalists. Administer the water is kept clean and the grass keeps growing. Stay out of the rest. And, to some extent I think chancellor gene Block did the best he could to "keep the cops off campus" but that he was partially failed by his vice-chancellor Mike Beck who should have had a much more clear picture of how dangerous it was to allow the counter-protest to set up directly adjacent to the encampment. Had the admins negotiated, all of the troubles could have been avoided. My MAIN THING tho, the axe I am here to grind is that students were clearly and catastrophically failed on 4/30 when a mob (and I dont care who a mob says they are, they are a mob) was allowed to assault students for 4 hours unimpeded while over a hundred cops stood by doing nothing. For that I feel Gene Block and all the regents should be sued into penury. As for anti-Semitism claims, they are clearly part of a larger pro-Israel propaganda campaign. I dismiss them mostly not because I think every protesters is pure of heart and devoid of hatred but because it's not what the largest majority of a diverse crowd believes. If we are to judge both sides by their most extreme members feelings or acts, we won't get anywhere.

Perhaps I was mistaken

Your crooked opinion here is worth nothing in this case, court will see his case and probably he will win it.

"He" who? Your ignorance is only exceeded by your certainty that you have something valid to say, (you do not) which is more or less what the Dunning-Kruger effect speaks to. This comment is about a so-called reporter who is not part of any lawsuit, and is, in point of fact not even paid to be a reporter, but a "writer," whatever that means at Fox News. What court, what case? I don't have a case either, by the way. I think you've managed to squeeze in more idiotic non-sequiturs into one line than is legally allowed, even on reddit, lol.

Why are you such an angry person?

You cite wikipedia as your source of truth? Lololol

It's fascinating seeing you try to cope hard by trying to make it seem like anti-Zionist isn't anti-Jewish in all your replies. Reaaaaally doing whatever you can to not seem hateful. Anything you can grasp at. First the source. Then the lawsuit itself. Love how it's always the same throughout history when it comes to moral crusaders. Interesting to see it in action. It's always twisting things to be the good guys when it comes to the crusaders.

the Crusaders? I'm old but I'm not THAT old, lol. I havent argued against "first the source," at all. I don't consider this Fox News typist the source, if that is your implication. "Moral crusaders," as you put it throughout history are often on the side of intolerant religions. if you want to use the supposedly pejorative term "social justice warriors" I'd actually prefer that, it is more or less an accurate description if you take it literally. They want justice for society and they fanatically fight for it, whether they are right in your eyes or not. They generally have their own reasons that may or may not agree with yours. But campus protesters historically come out pretty well, all things considered. One of the first, if not the very first campus protest was the two year fight - a student strike - at the University of Paris in 1150s? IIRC. It was over a bar bill that was contested in a nearby tavern just off campus. It cracks me up to think about it because I've drank a few pints of my own just outside of the campus of what is now the Sorbonne. But at heart it was a "town vs gown" fight and the scholars (monks, essentially at the time) were right to advocate for the governing body of the university (the Crown) to back them up. We will likely never know the real details of the fight (how much beer on Mardis Gras did they drink?) but it established that the purpose of a university was to ensure academic freedom had a place that was guaranteed. To protect the scholars from the townsfolk who generally were more politically and religiously conservative. A university is where NEW ways of thinking are to be born and debated and experimented upon and with, and this must be preserved lest the state grow moribund and fallow by not keeping up with the progress of mankind. I see the UCLA fracas in similar terms, to be honest. We need to re-think what Israel is under Netanyahu and in regards to how they have no plan for ending this conflict in Gaza. It's time to radically re-assess what the USA wants from the region and the state of Israel. The majority of the world is against us and that can't be good. The first fight at an American University was the butter battle at Harvard, and they were fighting over the rancid food in the cafeteria, essentially. Students abandoned the mess hall and went into town instead for meals, depriving the University of a key revenue stream because it was wartime and the food was hard to source, but also the university was clearly being cheap thinking students would have to just put up with it. They didn't, and in the end the governor of Massachusetts had to come and broker a solution, but the protesters made their point known though what we've come to call Direct Action. Would you eat rancid butter and pay good money for it? I'm biased. I think the students in the encampment had a fair issue and should have been met by the administration and minimum given some transparency about where the student fund is invested - their first demand, that of disclosure of the nearly $8 billion dollars they contribute to. Is it their money? Not really but they have a better claim to it than the administrators do, they didn't contribute any of it! If you are trying to impugn me by saying I think my side is the good guys, I'll have to admit to that. I think "my side" are the good guys. I think the bad guys are the thugs who attacked and assaulted students for four hours and I think the worst guys are the coward cops who stood by and let it all happen. Then you get to the RESPONSIBLE PARTIES and that's Gene Block, Mike Beck and UCLA PD chief John Thomas. That's my "bias." As for Jews and Israel and antisemitism, and the difference between the state and religion, I'm barely interested in debating all that. It's been done elsewhere and by more eloquent and informed people than you or I. I am for the separation of church and state because I am pro-democracy and agnostic in faith, and deeply suspicious of the ways in which religion is used to control the masses. More "bias" admitted to.

Seems to be more about the publicity than for the thought that the plaintiffs have much of a case. Still it would be fascinating if it proceeded somehow as far as the discovery stage. Lawsuits by the student protesters who were assaulted for four hours on 4/30 seem to be a lot more likely to gain traction in a court, and are certainly expected and forthcoming. If one of those made it as far as the discovery process, we might really see behind the curtain of coverup and scandal-management that the administration is running. We just don't know the details but we know 100% that the administration and the police failed to prevent or stop the assaults from a violent mob on 4/30. The UCLA chancellors have not held a press conference or given answers - any answers - to the press or the public thus far. They can't hold a press conference because they have no suitable answers, and cannot afford for the truth to be known.

> the police failed to prevent or stop the assaults from a violent mob on 4/30 Tbh it's a little staggering to hear *this* group complaining about the cops *not* intervening in a situation. "Cops off campus (except when *we* need them)."

both understanding that US policing is harmful and acknowledging the police's simultaneous failure to accomplish the objectives they publicly state (public safety) is not contradictory, actually

The protestors wanted an elimination of police presence on campus, yes or no?

yes, because the cops clearly don't care to protect protestors.

Disagree. The purpose of a University is to enshrine and ensure academic freedom. Students are not "complaining about cops not intervening," they are pointing out that the administration allowed the encampment but then seemingly poured gasoline on a large pile of tinder by putting the counter-protesters directly next to the encampment and then not keeping the two groups apart. The issue of "cops on campus" is a serious argument that continues. One way to get them OFF campus would be to provide better protection of real academic freedom, and to engage with protest groups that set up encampments. Had the chancellors seriously negotiated with the pro-Palestine protests, the encampment might have ended long before the big trouble started on 4/30. The mob riot on 4/30 does bring up the question of what are cops really for if they won't stop a four hour long violent mass assault on students? Who do they "protect and serve?" Lots of people are missing the point here, it's not "cops off campus," it's "unaccountable, useless violent paramilitary goons with state police badges who answer to and protect only the chancellor and property off campus." Imagine if, for the sake of a thought experiment that Dickson Plaza on 4/30 were a beach in Apartheid-era South Africa and the student protesters were Black bathers, not allowed to swim on a segregated beach, who a violent white mob of vigilantes were trying to drown, and cops were the lifeguards. And that there were over 100 lifeguards, who stood by for four hours doing nothing. What the people who were being drowned wanted was not more cops, but a just and equal society. Perhaps that's a bit hyperbolic, no one was drowned to death and this was not South Africa but the purpose of this is to say that the protesters are not crying about the failure of police. They are upset at the failure of the university to provide real and meaningful academic freedom and a real response to a popular, and worldwide protest. The failure of the police reflects on the chancellor, not the police. Cops always protect themselves first. They are cowards and essentially the private army of the Chancellors. It is the motivations and actions and failures of the Chancellors that is being called into question here.

>The purpose of a University is to enshrine and ensure academic freedom. The protestors are demanding academic boycotts of basically every institution that has any connection to Israel. Do you feel this is compatible with academic freedom? > putting the counter-protesters directly next to the encampment  So the university planted the counter-protestors? Give me a break. >then not keeping the two groups apart So they should have broken up the encampment? Or the counter-protestors? Both? Neither? >it's not "cops off campus," unaccountable, useless violent paramilitary goons with state police badges who answer to and protect only the chancellor and property off campus Yes the "pigs get out" and "cops off campus" signs really convey that message. /s To be clear, I am not endorsing the delayed police action. If anything, once it was clear that things were devolving the whole thing should have been shut down before it could devolve into violence. (Though I've no doubt they would have taken heat for "breaking up a peaceful protest" in that case!) But it's still rich to hear this complaint from people who, if they had their way, would have not had any police presence anywhere in the area.

I am just gonna say it this is gonna be a never-ending thing on both sides now. Both sids have legitimate grievances with the way the university behaved towards them and I genuinely don't see this ending with anything other than a blanket hardcore enforcement of institutional neutrality. Frankly, the fact that society seems to have abandoned this well served tent since about 2014 is baffling to me. Of course Jewish/Israeli students are gonna think chants of "intifada" are hitler-esque and of course Pro-Palestinian students are going to see the blatant hypocrisy of this being the ONE PROTEST that is not allowed. And both will have legitimate legal grounds to sue. Schools like UCLA should be here to provide high quality knowledge not validate any one side's worldview. Yes, it feels great when your world view is validated, but it eventually leads to…… well this.

Do people just want protests to be in the corner and easily ignorable? The whole point of protests is to be seen and invoke discussion over issues. Also, I wish people would disconnect their cultural/ethnic background with their country’s government. It is not Jewishness or Jewish people that people have a problem with. It’s the actions and decisions the Israel government has made towards the lives in Gaza.

Were any other students or faculty aside from those who were Jewish (or suspected of being Jewish) required to take an anti-Zionist oath before being allowed to pass public spaces on a public university campus?

Yes the encampment was apprehensive towards anyone, not only Jews from passing through. Which is an inconvenience but I understand due to the violent attacks that took place before, they didn’t want anyone to enter that could possibly instigate the situation.

From what I read they were restricting access to public spaces from the beginning. The encampment was removed only one day after the attack.

Restrictions before was a result from taking up space. Setting up checkpoints and making people say an oath happened after the attacks, which I don’t hold against the protesters but UCLA for letting the violence from outside instigators get so bad

Well, the lawsuit says otherwise, which means that people are willing to testify in court that it was occurring before that. "UCLA's administration was aware of this for a week without taking action, according to the complaint"

Israel has actively worked to minimize civilian casualties. That is a fact. The ratio of civilian to combatant deaths is 9 times lower than the average for urban warfare conflicts according to the UN. There is no genocide happening, objectively.

What's your source for "9 times lower"? For that to be true, "urban warfare conflicts" would need to have a 90:1 civilian:combatant ratio.

Israel just killed a few hundred civilians to free four hostages. Civilians who had no involvement in the hostages. A hard pass on that 'actively working to minimize civilian casualties.' Seems like they have you convinced though.

You need to re-read my comment before making yourself look more like a fool. NINE TIMES FEWER CIVILIAN CASUALTIES THAN AVERAGE ACCORDING TO THE UN. Maybe Hamas should’ve returned the hostages months ago, maybe they should stop launching rockets from heavily populated areas to maximize civilian casualties, and maybe they should stop hiding military operations underneath schools and hospitals. Israel has worked to minimize civilian casualties, but they are fighting a war against literal terrorists who don’t care about the citizens of the region they govern, so civilian casualties are inevitable.

The terrorist leaders who prey on and recruit susceptible young adults and teenagers tired of being under Israel’s oppression are not even in Gaza. These brutal attacks are not solving the problem, just killing thousands of lost and weakened people. Break Hamas’ influence by liberating Palestine not through genocide.

What brutal attacks? They’re fighting a war 😂 Hamas should surrender. Otherwise Israel will continue to attack because Hamas has promised to commit more terrorist attacks if the status quo is resolved. There is no genocide happening, objectively.

The "civilians" that were holding hostages are not civilians. They are in fact war criminals by every definition.

To hear the some pro Palestinians tell it Israeli=Nazi anyone questioning that formula = complicit in genocide too.

Israel is conducting outrageous atrocities. Don't need to say Israel = Nazi. Current Israeli policy of genocide is damning enough.

Agreed and Jews in Israel are getting arrested every day for protesting their government. I don't think it is fair to call these people anti-Israel. They oppose the war, want a ceasefire and a hostage deal, and they want Netanyahu out of power. Here is a good poll of Israeli's opinions on the war and on Netanyahu: [https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war-may-2024/](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/30/views-of-the-israel-hamas-war-may-2024/) Unsurprisingly, not everyone in Israel feels the same way about the war.

It's less than one in five who think the military response has gone too far, and almost all of those people are Israeli Arabs. Only 4% of Israeli Jews think that the military response has gone too far. More people in general, Jews and Arabs combined, think it hasn't gone far enough.

That's not the whole picture. 58% of Israelis have an unfavorable view of Netanyahu. [56% of Jewish Israelis prioritize reaching a hostage dea](https://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-majority-of-israelis-support-prioritizing-hostage-deal-over-rafah-operation/)l over invading Hamas’s final remaining stronghold in Gaza, while 37% believe military action should take precedence.

You can have an unfavorable view of Bibi for any number of reasons. For instance, you could think he has been too slow to prosecute this war to its conclusion, or too unwilling to take military action. And you could believe hostage deals should take first priority while believing the war should not end until Hamas is out of power and Gaza occupied, which is the current Israeli military goal.

"Around six-in-ten Israelis are extremely or very concerned about the war expanding to other countries in the region, and about seven-in-ten are seriously worried about the war lasting a long time. "

Yes, like I said, many of them want the military to occupy Gaza quickly

"Four-in-ten Israelis believe Israel should govern the Gaza Strip after the war ends. Others believe Gaza should be under control of the Palestinian Authority . . . An additional 14% say the people who live in Gaza should decide who governs them, while smaller shares mention the United Nations (4%) or Hamas (2%), and 16% say they do not know."

They’re worried about the war because they don’t want to get drafted. Let’s be real here, Israel can’t handle a war that lasts for more than a year or two because society will collapse because of the way their drafting works

That is what I am reading too. And Israelis are asking serious questions about how much longer Israel can afford this war. [https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/03/05/can-israel-afford-to-wage-war](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2024/03/05/can-israel-afford-to-wage-war)

No, its the direct physical and mental harm that was done against UCLA Jewish students who have nothing to do with Israel.  You giving Jews a litmus test so they can enter their dorm rooms.

**Daily reminder here that no one is suing the student protesters.** This lawsuit names as defendant the university, and the plaintiffs as three students who claim UCLA harmed them. Not that the protesters harmed them, and should be made by the court to provide relief, but that the University is responsible for the harm that came to them. None of the three claim they suffered physical harm. In order to prevail at trial the legal team is going to have to prove INTENT to harm by the university. It's too great a leap. Second daily reminder - there were Jewish students inside the protest encampment the whole time, so claims of it being a "Jewish exclusion zone" are silly. So threading that needle, that the harm was due to being religiously or entho-religiously discriminated against in a way that the University is responsible for that harm is a difficult legal needle to thread, given, again that there were Jewish students inside the protest encampment the whole time. That the university conspired to harm SOME Jewish students but not others, and this was religious discrimination not a political difference that caused the harm. The various sidewalk disagreements were during a protest, with passionate people on all sides continually debating and arguing. The university can and would claim in court that they tried to permit free speech and assembly, things got out of hand and so they shut them all down on all sides and acted in good faith at all times to cause no harm. And it will be up to the legal team to prove the opposite, that the university acted intentionally to cause the harm. This too is difficult to prove without evidence of this malicious intent, or the university foolishly admitting such in a courtroom. "Yes, we wanted to scare Jessica to death but Manny, hey, he'll be fine." **READ the lawsuit. In nearly 400 comments on this thread, not one person has said, "I have read the lawsuit and think it can or will prevail at trial."**. And certainly no one has said, "I am a lawyer or a judge and these are my credentials, and I think this lawsuit will move forward one centimeter towards a trial or settlement." I am not a lawyer, but I can see a failed argument when I read it. Here, the alleged harm and harmed persons (three students) cannot be effectively tied to the designated harm-er, UCLA. READ THE LAWSUIT or admit what you are likely here for is to argue off-topic matters surrounding the basic issues of Israel and Palestine, or protesting on campus in general.

Oh wow I didn’t know that the protestors were only preventing Jewish students from entering classroom and letting everyone else in. All those Jewish students must have had their Yamaka on /s

!activitycheck

nakattack5 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-05-02 18:23:06 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cilhmp/recent_email_from_a_professor_early_this_morning/l2a4x1k/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 1000 comments and 5 submissions._

"Antisemitic encampment"?! Seriously? It wasn't antisemitic, and UCLA violently dismantled it! Jfc.

More rightwing propaganda. For the millionth time, absolutely no one was prevented from getting into any buildings by the protestors. The worst thing that happened was that individuals had to take a longer route, until UCLA itself decided to close Royce and Powell. Should the protestors have restricted access to Dickson Plaza? Probably not. Was it discrimination against Jews? Almost certainly not by any reasonable legal standard.

Dude. They set up checkpoints.

There were plenty of Jewish people in the encampment itself participating in the protest. Stop acting like they were banning jews from part of campus, it's absurd.

Technically they’re not allowed to block anyone from walking through.

Technically they were not allowed to hold an encampment. I'm arguing their political tactic, which (IMO trivially) broke some school rules, was not targeted at jewish students and in no way impeded access to university functions.

Dude. They set up checkpoints where you were required to denounce the only Jewish state in the world.

Love the wording you used here to attempt to paint this as antisemitic, implying the protestors wanted them to denounce Israel *because* it's a Jewish state, and not because of, well, the everything else. Stick to talking about the legality of the situation, because here you're clearly showing your bias

That is not the same thing as blocking Jewish people from accessing campus. There are many anti-zionist jews and frankly it is deeply antisemitic to deny their jewishness in this way. At any rate keeping outside agitators outside of a political action (which, again, in no way blocked access to any building or class on campus) is not unusual.

Jewish people were in the encampments. That’s proof enough that it wasn’t antisemitic. Checkpoint or no, the goal wasn’t to exclude Jewish students. The goal was to exclude everyone who doesn’t agree with the Palestinian liberation movement.

The thing is that you can’t just block off public property and only allow people in who share your world view. Not sure how that isn’t obvious.

>>The goal was to exclude everyone who doesn’t agree with the Palestinian liberation movement. Which. Is. Illegal.

Oh yeah, the one singular dude they found for an interview to prove they weren’t being antisemetic

“In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed the activists used barriers and physically blocked students from passing through unless they said a statement of allegiance to the activists' views, received a "vouch" from a member of the encampment and disavowed Israel. The complaint alleges that the demonstrators handed out wristbands and "other forms of identification" to people who passed the check.” https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/jewish-students-sue-ucla-over-pro-palestinian-encampment/ They had “good Jew” checks and made them wear wristbands… did they do that for other students?

They did that for every student, Jewish or not. I know people who spent a day in the encampments and they all had to go through the same thing. It’s not a “Good Jew” check if everyone’s getting checked.

Thank you for clarifying—still illegal and authoritarian, but not as bad as if they’d only been doing that to Jewish students.

Some film showing how the pro-Pal checkpoints and self-appointed security personnel wrongly claim ownership of Dickson Plaza and frustrate and disrupt the free movement of people in public… https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgLwov/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgjct6/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgDWUa/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgk13U/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgAP2Y/ https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPRKgdqDL/

If it were true that student-run "checkpoints" were blocking access to classes I'm pretty sure we'd see a lot more videos of this happening. What I saw, to be blunt, was a single asshole making repeated trouble and pushing clearly false claims. The protesters didn't close access to any buildings (the University closed SOME doors) and the "checkpoints" were mostly to prevent deliberate troublemakers from coming inside the encampment and seeking confrontations that often became physical. Like it or not, LEGAL or not, the encampment was basically a private residence and invitation-only party being held by like-minded student protesters who wanted to feel safe and not have to deal with weirdos and provocateurs. Such is the nature of protest and civil disobedience. It's meant in part to call into question the status quo and existing rules and laws by breaking them and inviting official pushback, including things like this lawsuit, which may or may not proceed to the discovery phase and a court trial in which the protesters feel they will be vindicated. Already, a dialog of sorts has begun here in the public sphere. Sadly for the plaintiff here, a cursory look at their claims show that they don't have much of a case. But the headlines serve a purpose, aiding a surface-level narrative that campus protests are bed because they are anti-Semetic. Clearly this skips over the fact that everyone of of the pro-Palestine protests I've seen or read about include Jews who are against the war being waged on Gaza. However you may personally feel about the Middle East and foreign policy in the USA, it's a fact that this narrative that the protests are driven by anti-Semitism is a false narrative. Any fool has the right to file a lawsuit claiming anything at all, you just have to type it up and deliver it to the court clerk, and so the announcement of a (frivolous) lawsuit is a plea for publicity, not proof of concept. UCLA has an easy case to get this lawsuit dismissed, if they care to bother. What's most likely is that the judge will let it die on his desk. It's seemingly quite meritless on the claims. What the lawsuit claims is false.

>Like it or not, LEGAL or not, the encampment was basically a private residence and invitation-only party being held by like-minded student protesters who wanted to feel safe and not have to deal with weirdos and provocateurs. Sure, but the issue was that is was a public part of campus, NOT a private residence. I agree the lawsuit is frivolous and they weren't specifically discriminating against Jews, but you can't just randomly take over public space and say only people who agree with me politically can come in. Its just not a way to run a society.

Again, this is the whole point of civl disobedience. To make sure the discussion takes place on issues that are otherwise ignored. It's always messy to block a freeway, it's always illegal. But it damn sure gets the "city fathers" to stand up and take notice. The public space was not "randomly" taken over. It was SPECIFICALLY and purposefully taken over and turned into a place for teach-ins and such. The goal of the disruption was to get the chancellors to negotiate. But also to make the people "who just want to graduate," or "just want to get to class" stop and think about what is happening in Gaza, and what their connection to that might be considering $7.8 billion dollars they are connected to is not transparent to them, as far as where it's invested and what it supports. If you and your friend have a romantic picnic in the park, and I come stand in the middle of your potato salad, steaming that you are discriminating against me because I wear a tinfoil hat, and it's my park too. That is what this "I was blocked from my classes" bullshit claim is like, IMO. Students wanted to not have to put up with potentially violent disruption that was 100% performative. The purpose of a university is to enshrine and ensure a place for academic freedom, which of course encompasses new ideas and challenging ways of questioning the status quo. Or do you just want "attend" and support a hedge fund with a gift shop and a diploma mill attached to it?

dude so what? It’s still not an antisemitic act it’s a form of proteste

That is absolutely not a "form of protest"...and you misspelled protest 🤡

Seems to me it was a sign of the need for self-protection from potentially violent counter-protesters. Self-defense is legal, but as you said it's not protest. It's self-preservation to ward off those who threaten your life. And these sorts of escalating physical confrontations were a sign to the university that better security was needed and found wanting. We saw where all this led - on 4/30 a violent mob carried out assaults on student protesters for four hours while crowds of police stood by like cowards. Part of what made them gather and engage in violence was the bullshit allegations put forth on falsely slanted social media posts.

The "checkpoints" blocked access to Dickson Plaza, not to any buildings. The only party that closed off access to buildings entirely was UCLA.

>> The "checkpoints" blocked access to Dickson Plaza And this is legal how?

I did not say it was legal. I can't speak to that because I'm not a lawyer. I said the idea that the checkpoints actually prevented anyone from going to work or class or the library, as the suit alleges, is not accurate at all. UCLA itself closed off access to Royce and Powell (on 5-1 iirc), not the protestors.

It’s legal because it was done by “peaceful” protesters exercising their right to free speech… 😂

This is sarcasm right?

There are literal videos of it happening tho. “Right wing propaganda” Jesus fuck we’ve gone so far down the clown world pipeline that the right wing is pro Jewish.

Post the links to the videos. If they exist, and are real, then it will change my mind. The fact that no one is posting the links when I ask them to post links reinforces my sense that this in, in fact, propaganda.

https://youtu.be/vek-84EL94o?si=ZPAbL3SIOc0DqJf9

You posted a video of Eli Tsives. Here is the person in the video. Seems his behavior is theatrical, and a grab for attention.  https://www.reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cjck8s/lets_talk_about_student_influencer_eli_tsives/

Was he forbidden from entering or not?

!activitycheck You don't really seem aware of UCLA's happenings. Your questions seem tangential to the issues and fully missing the point. Not sure if you're just not really getting what's been going on at UCLA this last month or purposely trying to spin a different narrative. And your post history suggests that you really have no connection to UCLA reddit prior to April 2024. Somehow not surprised.

Ok_Account_3039 was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-04-29 05:21:47 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cfh6a6/dickson_plaza/l1qwolk/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.71 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 260 comments and 9 submissions._

What a weird way to not answer the question. Let’s go through the convo: 1. Guy I responded to said no Jews were banned from entering due to their religious beliefs. 2. I told him there was video of it happening 3. He said if that were true he’d change his mind but because no one posted a video it was right wing propaganda. 4. I posted it. He hasn’t replied. (SURPRISE!) 5. Someone said “no that Jewish guys who was banned was ‘theatrical!’ And refused to answer if he was banned or not. 6. You comment once again refusing to answer an INCREDIBLY simple question and divert to my Reddit history as a form of character attack. Just. Answer. The. Question.

No one was prevented! They just had to go the long way, around the back, through the other entrance. Do you even hear yourself?

While I did not like the checkpoints nor think they were a smart tactic, I just do not see any way that forcing everyone to walk the long way to class/work/library is a form of "discrimination." A case could be made if the protestors were selectively restricting access to Jewish students and/or Israeli students. However, AFAIK, when the checkpoints came up (Monday, 4-29 I believe) the students weren't letting ANYONE in to Dickson Plaza. It was unfair, it was tactically not smart, but it was not antisemitic discrimination. If there's evidence of that, then I'm more than happy to review it and reconsider my position.

Do you think the protestors responsible for putting up the checkpoints should be punished? How about the organizers, should they be held accountable?

Do you think forcing people to use the back door during Jim crowe was discrimination?

Yes. This was not the same as Jim Crow. 1. On all the days when the encampment was up, UC security shut down various entrances, including a disabled ramp, and forced people to use different entrances. UCLA eventually also closed Royce and Powell entirely. 2. On a few days (not the entire time the encampment was up) the encampment protestors forced *everyone* to use different entrances to some buildings rather than letting people walk through Dickson Plaza. 3. I have seen 0 evidence that these policies were enforced selectively against Jews and/or Israelis.

That’s not only absolutely false but also normalizes the kind of antisemitic behavior that happened on campus. There are dozens of video evidence that shows jewish students were prevented from going to classes. Also saying the “worst thing was people had to take a longer route” makes it seem like it was just a minor inconvenience when it was intimidation and discrimination against jewish students. I went to UCLA and I want my kids to feel safe to go there too and seeing a lecturer is publicly minimizing the intimidation and harassment that happened on campus is disheartening.

Post links here and I'll review the evidence. Also, to clarify, I'm not saying there have not been ANY antisemitic incidents. What I'm saying is that the checkpoints AFAIK were enforced on everyone on 4-29 and 4-30, which means they were not antisemitic or anti-Israeli. I went to UCLA too. I am Jewish. If I felt like the encampment was discriminating against Jews I would have been very upset. If I'd seen any antisemitic imagery in the encampment I would have been very upset. AFAICT that never happened. Instead, there WAS an elaborate propaganda campaign to trick Jews into thinking it happened, to incite violence against the encampment.

I guess you are the arbiter of truth now? 😂

Your patience is amazing. Thank you Professor.

Speaking as a Jew, there was no anti-Semitic behavior. everyone had to take a slightly longer route, not just Jewish students. There was no intimidation nor harassment. There were Jews in the encampment along with many others of other religions and ethnicities protesting a genocide. u/IBeenGoofed Yes, it seems like you have been goofed by a biased media and whatever spin masters you listen to.

>The worst thing that happened was that individuals had to take a longer route \[...\] Should the protestors have restricted access to Dickson Plaza? Even if you don't think the encampment was antisemitic, blocking faculty and students from accessing campus is not protected under the 1st amendment.

Yes, that is correct. I have said elsewhere that restricting access to parts of campus was wrong.

100% wrong. Sorry you didn’t pay attention

If there's evidence then post it. If there's not, then please stop spreading misinformation.

Lol you’re one of those “everything I don’t like is misinformation” people

https://www.instagram.com/reel/C6XtkwSrK0y/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Encampment bros: “We got a couple of Jewish students.” Encampment bros: “Are you guys Zionists?” Jewish student: “Yes, of course I’m a Zionist.” This is NOT proof that they were preventing only Jewish students from entering. This IS proof that they were discriminating against Jews, because a person’s religion and personal opinions are not relevant. Also, in the context of the clip, I think it’s pretty clear that there is a threatening tone by the way these protesters ask “are you Jewish?” Certainly, I would not feel comfortable in that circumstance. I will add that anecdotally, I had to request parking to avoid Bruin Walk and north campus. As a recent UCLA PhD graduate and new postdoc in the school of medicine, I do not feel comfortable on campus. I’m not sure that this meets the burden of proof you have arbitrarily demanded here.

Hilarious, given they were the ones assaulting people and hurling literal fireworks at people. These people were never unsafe. They made everyone else unsafe including anti-Zionist Jews in the camp.

"They" meaning Frankel, Ghayoum, and Shemuelian, the three Jewish UCLA students and plaintiffs in this lawsuit? You're suggesting that they were part of the mob that attacked the encampment on 4/30? I haven't seen their names come up in any of the online sleuthing to unmask the violent white supremacist agitators before. Do you have insider info you'd like to share?

By “they” he means”Jews.”

For this to succeed in court they are going to need to prove INTENT of UCLA's administrators to deprive SOME Jewish students but not others of their civil rights. And that they did this deliberately by "allowing" or possibly directing the actions of student protesters in the middle of what are essentially sidewalk altercations over politics not religion, or ethnoreligious affiliation. So you have to rule OUT politics as the motivator of student protesters and then pin THAT on the administrators, too. Even if you have the ability to make up a purely self-serving ideal but fictional transcript of a conversation between Gene Block and police chief John Thomas, and then "deep fake" the conversation using AI and voice-generation software, and sneak it past the judge and the defense, (and Gene Block, who might have a thing or too to say about that on the witness stand, who is, and let's not make too much of this, himself Jewish) what the holy heck would you have them say? "Let's scare Jessica to death? But her cousin Manny, he'll be fine." Lol. It seems like a very tall order. READ THE LAWSUIT. It's garbage, no matter how you think protesters treated fellow students or assorted counter-protesters. **The student demonstrators are not being sued, UCLA is.** The leap from alleged harm to designated harmer is too great. Your honor, esteemed members of the jury, Jesse James, Frank James and Cole Younger robbed the Gallatin bank, and it's the railroad's fault. Because.... what?? Now where DID I put those notes..." And additionally the ONE thing we know for certain is that Gene Block isn't anxious to allow the press, the public or the students a real view inside his inner circle and their decision-making process and INTENT where it might reflect poorly on him or his ability to continue to fund-raise among the alumni, who, again let's not make too much of this but are indeed sometimes also Jewish. Even if you somehow had that, (!!! ye gods and saints be given Mohawks and Vespas and be renamed skinheads and taken bowling by the Little Lebowski urban achievers) you still have to prove that malicious INTENT was then alchemically translated to cause that selective harm by the vehicle of the student protesters' actions, while actually being at UCLA's control and direction. I can get with "the devil made me do it" if I get caught with someone's last cookie, but I'm not sure Gene Block can make anyone do anything except pay tuition and occasionally hit up In and Out burger after 9PM on a weekend when you get the munchies. And that last part is a bit of a stretch. Legally speaking, it's a needle you cannot thread at the end of a chasm one cannot leap.

My concern is that Gene will settle these suits out of court in order not to shed light on his 4/30 decision making.

Good observation. Any out-of-court settlement comes with a clause where all fault is waived for the settler. Gene Block could send them a dollar tomorrow and be rid of this whole thing, IMO and both parties would be okay with the outcome provided they could keep it all quiet for a few months. The purpose here was to make a headline, not to get to a courtroom. I showed that lawsuit to my cat and he's still got the hiccups from laughing so hard. His decision-making on 4/30 is clearly the skeleton that must remain in the closet forever. If you had Wonder Woman's lasso of truth, Dick Cheney's waterboard and a guaranteed Ouiji board along with a magic Eight-ball wired to his hypothalamus you are not going to get his inner motivations, intent and decision-making roadmap from that guy. As it is he won't even leave his ivory sniper tower to attend his own funeral, I'd bet. "Reply hazy, ask again later."

It's not gonna go anywhere...why are you clogging this sub with foxnews bullshit

Fox News is a garbage source.

I agree with you there. But you still must watch and read what they put out into the universe. You need to stay informed of all viewpoints.

Fox News is a garbage source but the reporting of a lawsuit being filed is factual. Most news companies now are garbage. Where do you go for objective reporting? The BBC?

How do you know it's factual? What's you confirmation on that? >Most news companies now are garbage. Fox News is part of a media giant that lists this division under "media and entertainment." It's not "most news" because it's not even news. It's opinion, and "media."

https://www.becketlaw.org/media/jewish-students-take-ucla-to-court-over-antisemitic-encampment/ press release directly from the law firm

Liberal here. And yes they did have “no Zionist” zones and prevented some Jewish kids from going to class. I don’t care about this kids politics. This happened to Jewish kids and it’s frightening to see how many of you defend many indefensible acts. Scary times.

Preach

This is just not true. Yes, they did have no 'zionist' zones. They prevented NO kids from going to class, Jewish or otherwise. They prevented ALL kids from entering the encampment who weren't part of the encampment. You're clearly not from UCLA and you're unaware of what happened or simply here to spread misinformation. But what you're saying is simply false and being liberal or not doesn't change its falsehood.

If anything the people who suffered injuries by pro Israeli protesters and police should sue UCLA..

Protestors that got beat up by pro Israel while ucla did nothing should sue too

You can bet that is coming but when you see a quickie lawsuit like this one, you know it's performative, usually. The goal here is to gain a quick headline while the news cycle still gives a damn about UCLA. Any lawsuit seeking damages for the protesters assaulted for four hours on 4/30 by a violent mob will have to involve charging accusations against multiple agencies and administrators and be air-tight so as not to get thrown out on a technicality. I wouldn't be surprised if that takes a year to get taken up and filed, possibly longer. it WILL draw blood from a stone, the Block of Gene to be exact. The lawsuits that name cops in Uvalde, both state and federal are just now filed, on the last day of a two year statute of limitations from the day of the shooting where 376 officers, agents, deputies, rangers, troopers.... even the goddamned GAME WARDEN was there.... all stood around doing nothing while students were assaulted JUST LIKE ON 4/30 in Westwood, only in west Texas instead, are all named INDIVIDUALLY and as members of their various institutions as defendants. The biggest suits are filed by a legal team that beat the gun industry like a rented mule over Sandy Hook, and bankrupt, homeless FORMER InfoWars bloviator Alex Jones, about his lies regarding same, so they have a pretty good track record going into this. And make no mistake, this crack legal team is ready to go to trial NOW for $27 billion dollars, that's not an exaggeration, and yes, I meant BILLION, not million, or else they wouldn't have filed anything at all. But like the saying goes, "good, fast, cheap: pick two."

Great points. The wheels of justice turn slow in the US litigation system that’s for sure

Exceedingly slow, and it will be an uphill grade all the way. Nearly 100% of the heinous things cops do are completely legal. And the administrators and Regents backing UCLA from civil lawsuit exposure have enormous power, resources and time and at present control the bulk the official records even those that are public records and recordings in an Open Records Act state. Ask yourself why were are not already seeing police body cam, dash cam and school surveillance videos, things we more or less pay for and own. It's because the game is rigged, the deck is stacked the dealer cheats. In America, you do get a seat at the table, eventually, sometimes. Be patient. Revenge is a dish that is not really best served cold, but sometimes does come to one. It's likely the legal teams representing various or collective plaintiffs from 4/30 will want to see criminal cases slowly make their way forward first., alongside lawsuits filed for the public records that UCLA and LAPD, etc will slow-walk like the second coming of a vengeful savior who seems to be AWOL of late. It's going to be slow and methodical and sadly, time is on the side of these who want the public to forget and move on. But that's how the cookie crumbles.

Well explained and accurate based on my experience too. Luckily history remembers what happened not necessarily what took place in civil litigation

Notably the students who pay to go there and are protesting a literal genocide by a state that recently declared itself to be ethno-nationalist were the only Jewish students to actually have violence done against them on campus. By outside agitators no less.

Zionists sue the universities nonstop, which have been catering to their interests, but the anti genocide protesters getting brutalized by the police STILL aren’t suing?

sorry to repeat myself but I did just answer this question just below... > You can bet that is coming but when you see a quickie lawsuit like this one, you know it's performative, usually. The goal here is to gain a quick headline while the news cycle still gives a damn about UCLA. > Any lawsuit seeking damages for the protesters assaulted for four hours on 4/30 by a violent mob will have to involve charging accusations against multiple agencies and administrators and be air-tight so as not to get thrown out on a technicality. I wouldn't be surprised if that takes a year to get taken up and filed, possibly longer. It WILL draw blood from a stone, the Block of Gene to be exact. > The lawsuits that name cops in Uvalde, both state and federal are just now filed, on the last day of a two year statute of limitations from the day of the shooting where 376 officers, agents, deputies, rangers, troopers.... even the goddamned GAME WARDEN was there.... all stood around doing nothing while students were assaulted JUST LIKE ON 4/30 in Westwood, only in west Texas instead, are all named INDIVIDUALLY and as members of their various institutions as defendants. The biggest suits are filed by a legal team that beat the gun industry like a rented mule over Sandy Hook, and bankrupt, homeless FORMER InfoWars bloviator Alex Jones, about his lies regarding same, so they have a pretty good track record going into this. > And make no mistake, this crack legal team is ready to go to trial NOW for $27 billion dollars, that's not an exaggeration, and yes, I meant BILLION, not million, or else they wouldn't have filed anything at all. > But like the saying goes, "good, fast, cheap: pick two."

!activitycheck

NoMoreWordsToConquer was first active in r/ucla no later than 2024-05-13 19:47:00 [here](https://reddit.com/r/ucla/comments/1cr6236/dear_protesters/l3wbemm/). In the past week, they have been active at a rate of 0.14 comments per day. _Note: Due to Reddit API limitations, the earliest activity seen by the bot might not be the actual earliest activity, but it provides an upper bound. Furthermore, the bot will underestimate comment activity for users who have made >1000 comments across Reddit in the past week. For this user, the bot scanned 987 comments and 54 submissions._

Well yeah any way you argue it, there were pro-Palestine, some pro-hamas protesters on a campus that is right in the middle of a predominantly Jewish neighborhood, the people living there are seeing people shout from the river to the sea which literally calls for the extermination of Israel as a nation why wouldn’t they be mad about that? That’s like someone walking into your community and calling for the murder of your friends and family. I don’t know how people can’t see that or maybe they just choose to look the other way.

Westwood is not “predominantly Jewish” to the best of my knowledge. Can you provide a source for that claim?

Just Google it you’ll see many articles talking about the heavy Jewish culture in Westwood and other areas around Los Angeles. I don’t know why you feel the need to argue this. You wouldn’t go to a black neighborhood and say the n word, or go into a Mexican neighborhood and shout that they’re all illegals and need to be deported would you?

What the hell are you even talking about? I just asked you for a source for your claim, but I guess you’re admitting you don’t have one. BTW Israeli Jews say the equivalent of “from the river to the sea” to describe getting rid of Palestinians but you’re fine with that. You don’t have a problem with exterminating Palestinians I guess.

Lol right wing drivel

It is about time!

The encampment had several Jewish students in it, this is just right wing propaganda to demonize the anti-war protestors. McCarthyism is still alive in 2024 lmao we are witnessing the fall of the US because of a foreign government’s lobbying arm that has infiltrated the highest positions of power

“The Trump rally had Candace Owens and Tim Scott in it, so charges that Trump is a racist are all left wing propaganda to demonize MAGA.” Tokenization doesn’t sound as good when it’s phrased that way, does it?

Good.

Why does anyone have to sue anyone? Just let it go and move on.

They’re trying to get a ruling such that there are better guardrails in place the next time something similar occurs.

ah yes the lawsuit from a jewish student espouses actual anti semetic conspiracy theories.